tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 17, 2013 9:00pm-11:01pm EST
away some of that paper verification process we've had in the past. i think it's very exciting and i think it will be a great benefit to our enrollment processes. i think going forward in the spring when we start doing the new magi renewals, i think we'll have additional -- >> let's just clarify for the audience what magi renewal means. >> magi is modified adjusted gross income, and that is the new methodology of policy for determining eligibility under the aca that aligns the insurance affordability programs through the insurance, medicaid and chip. so in the spring, we're not doing renewals under the new rules yet, but in the spring we'll begin to do that and using the new application. we were talking about ex parte. the aca has said that first you
must do ex parte. if you cannot do ex parte, you can send out a partially filled out renewal form, et cetera. those are wonderful policy changes, however, since this data is a brand new application, it's brand new data points, we're looking at tax filing status and all kinds of data we never used before in eligibility, we don't have that in our current data files. therefore, we must ask the family for that new data. and, therefore, we can't do ex parte for this first year for those folks. so it's another challenge for work processes and the workers. but once we get through that, i think it's going to be wonderful. >> great. well, we would now like to open this up to questions from those of you in the audience, those of you watching us on line as well as people who might be sending in a question from twitter.
we have them roaming around the room with microphones. please identify yourself first by name or affiliation. if you have a direction for one of our panelists versus another, please do so as well. let's start over here. >> i'm from the urban institute. there have been a number of examples of things that can be done for maximizing enrollment. i want to ask about the politics of this. there are people in certain states, and they're represented here, who are not in favor of expanding medicaid. as we know, in the past, making things difficult to enroll has been a way of keeping down the enrollment, and that was actually a policy goal of some people. i want to ask about the political change that's involved he
here. how can states like your two states or louisiana or south carolina or oklahoma, i heard a bunch of states mentioned. how is maximizing enrollment become a politically accepted goal in those states? the other thing i wanted to ask about is, is there any concern about enrolling people that are actually not eligible, and what the politics of that would be if you ended up with people getting enrolled that shouldn't be enrolled, and how does that concern play out in terms of trying to maximize expansion? >> let's break those questions into two. stan, why don't you talk about moving from a mentality of minimizing enrollment to maximizing enrollment, whether that's politically possible in many states. and alice, you take on the question of whether you enroll people who aren't actually eligible. >> the politics is tough. but it's more complicated than one might at first think.
you have states where the highest selected official in the land is adamantly against the affordable care act, and publicly so, and yet you have public servants at every lefvel of the agency who make sure they have law implemented the way it's supposed to be implemented. south carolina, for example, the government is adamantly against implementation, yet they have been one of the most innovative states in the country in taking children and getting them enrolled in the coverage. just remarkable things. oklahoma is also a state whose leadership has not been wildly enthusiastic actually pioneered a functional, realtime, on-line enrollment system well before the aca was first implemented. you have a lot of folks, like the two people you see in front of you, who are smart, creative, dedicated who are doing amazing work in the middle levels of the state agency regardless of what's happening on the top.
the flip side is you have blue states that have saved money by making it hard for people to sign up. i remember cory davis, the governor of california, when he came into office he said, you know what? we shouldn't be reassigning people every six months. all kinds of eligible people don't fill out the paperwork and they fall through because they're not eligible. and his budget proposal was, you know, we need to go back to those 14 months. the politics is complicated. we'll just unfolds. but at the federal level, there's now been a sea change. as gretel, and see if you have data on hand to define
eligibility. if you. and even if we know you're eligible, go through an op is to kel case. that's where we say you have the highest lefvels of government, and you have the folks further down that are doing great things for consumers. >> i want to expand but also add to what stan said. i think on the question about maximizing rome, i want to make sure we distinguish between expanding and maximizing enrollment. i think south carolina's governor has done a great job in terms of expanding, right? we are going to ensure that, 93% of the fpl for parents who are eligibility as we can to make it happen. i think that theme of good
government and promoting efficiency is what has helped many of our states sell this. >> to their leadership. >> and i see nods and i know that's not the case. good government is something everyone can get behind, and it should be something that should be a model for all states. in terms of the minimizing errors, we heard from some of our states. but what they did was they tested the. and they would roll out on a perish basis sort of, here's our small change. let's see what happens. what they found by this bit-by-bit implementation and then statewide implementation was very low.
. they had very stroj performance, despite the thakt. they didn't have to volunteer every single line. the other thing that's important is electronic verification and the new opportunity glg to happen in the aca. it's going to change. and i think that capacity is going to how long. they're looking at states' productivity, they're looking at states' in terms of who is as both, enrolling someone who is ineligible and not enrolling
someone who is negligible. >> we have a question here in the back. let's take that and we'll keep moving around the room. >> hi, i'm rebecca out of cq. i wanted to ask gretel and rebecca if you could quantify for me how many applications you're getting from the fmm are people who are either not eligible or people who are actually envold but -- evolved. >> at this point they have not rounded out the federal facility marketplace, which is what we use in alabama. at least the account managers, i thought toasted until they reach
a maximum. so i don't have those numbers y yet. >> rebecca? >> we're in a similar situation. we're expecting to, i think, receive the case transfers any day. we're in testing, too, i think, so we're in the final stages of that. but there are over 15,000 that we're expecting. i would expect that some of them will be folks who have already enrolled because of the process that the general marketplaces have set up where they're doing -- it's called a mec check, but it's the minimal central check to see if anyone is enrolled, they've got coverage. they're doing that on the back end of enrollment versus the
beginning of enrollment. there are we're asking them to send some of the transfers or posts that are almost enrolled? >> by the cases that they handled for two months, two-thirds were small state-based licenses. understandably, a lot of media is run on the. in the states that have an integrated process. the other one working to go for, and i think we can shift some of the focus toward the state-based mark marketplaces where we're going
to see the best case scenario of aca involved. >> so for somebody who is already enrolled in medicaid and applies to reenroll, what happens? that system. >> correct. it would be caught when they do a process file clear and they look to see if the person is already enrolled. i just want to point out, it's not only folks who are applying for themselves and are already enrolled. this process will happen in states like virginia where the parents are applying for exchange coverage for themselves, and they have to have their children, eligible children enrolled in medicaid or chip if they're eligible for those programs. so we believe there is going to be some of that going as well where the children are already
potentially enrolled in our programs but we have to, you know, pre-verify that with the feds before the parents can get their exchange program. >> we have a question over here. >> i'm clark ross with the american association on health and disability, and we're a new robert wood johnson funded grant project. we're a resource for the cns navigators on disability. so i would ask your experience with working. i didn't know if there was a lot of experience with this project, or a little experience, where you haven't gotten to that
first. >> the group of individuals that are disabled, they would be in the group of that. we will be sending the state the people to be eligible for chip and then the person on the application have indicated they are disabled and would like a full disability determination, as well as some other people that may have gotten an indication from the fsn that they're not he will vibl for to see if they are eligible. in alabama we work very closely with our disability advocates, the department of mental health and we meet regularly with that shoo r, or the people on
disability is not difficult. >> when we were talking about the things we're doing, one of the things we do for people with disabilities, a lot of times their circumstances don't change over time, so we do the auto mated renewal back for that. we usely eligibilities quite a lot. >> when we were looking at the renewal policy and refreshing it out again, the feedback we got from workers was that that population is the one they're able to use in the ex parte project no longer that the the.
but i have colleagues that could probably better answer your question than i could. but we have made sure that we have in our paper application, which is a version of cmr's paper application, we have a supplement so somebody can fill out the additional questions needed to determine ablong tif term care, and they could throw up the additional questions and determinations so they could. it's just like an indicator so the worker knows they have to follow up with that person to do
the whole transformation. >> let's take a question from the front. we'll get a microphone over to you. >> thank you. howard glekman of the urban institute. you mostly talked about using government entities to enroll people. i'm interested in non-governmental entities? for example, tax preparers. have you all thought of using them as a way to get people enrolled in exchanges? >> stan, why don't you start. >> yeah, i think tax are an enormously promising source of application assistance for lots of reasons. a few years ago we did some research to estimate among the uninsured the percentage who filed federal income tax returns, and we were surprised to find that 86% of the uninsured, including 75% of those with incomes below poverty, filed federal income tax returns. now, not all are legally required to do so.
many do so to gain child tax credit or other refunds, but the tax preparers office is where a heck of a lot of the uninsured are going, and more than two-thirds of eitc claim man-to-mans, low-income taxpayers, file with the aid of tax preparers, application assistants, and these are folks who are in the business of filling out paperwork for consumers, and they have in hand at the tax filing moment most of the information they are going to need to complete the application, and not only that, when you think about the motivation to enroll, something we haven't talked about today is the sort of unpleasant topic of penalties, somebody who's uninsured is going to be penalized, and the way the penalty is enforced is losing your tax refund, so when you're seeing the tax preparer is learning what the subsidies might be and in terms of thinking about, oh, my god, if i don't get insurance, i'm going to have to pay this penalty, so
i think there's enormous possibility. that said, there's also challenges. you get most of the information you need from the tax return, but you need more. you need to find out what the income is right now in the case of medicaid, what the income is going to be during the course of the rest of the calendar year, so you need to make sure people actually enroll into health coverage, so we don't know all tax preparers necessarily have the full skill set to enroll people in health coverage, but i think it's a enormously promising opportunity, particularly this year, because the open enrollment process into the exchange runs through the end of march, and we know that more than 80% of low-income tax preparers file a return by the end of march. as we're rethinking maybe after this first year we could rethink about changing the open enrollment and plan year periods so this incredible network of tens of thousands of tax preparers can be engaged year after year in helping people enroll into coverage. >> notwithstanding the enormous potential, stan, it is the case
now there is no authority for tax preparers to enroll people in medicaid. >> not so, not so. the irs has come out and said if you want to use the tax data that you get from your clients and apply it for purposes of enrollment into health coverage, here's the process that you go through. >> so they can do it on a voluntary basis. >> the second largest commercial for-profit tax preparer is very deeply engaged in this, jackson-hewitt, but there's a lot of work that needs to happen before these folks get all the information they need. >> i have a couple thoughts. i think stan did a great job outlining why tax preparers should be part of the mix, and i think we've heard a lot about their concerns about whether or not they are set up well to do that. i think there are a lot of other entities that are very involved that we need to make sure to flag. one is community health centers. i think the questioner talked about the government and the government is funding community health centers, but they are fek
nickically nongovernmental agencies. they are the first point of service for a lot of this work and some of our states have done amazing work through partnering to sort of have them be not just the point of entry, but the assisters in the application process. there's also potential, a lot of these programs that are serving, you know, low-income populations who are likely to be eligible through other programs like snap, like wic, free and reduced school lunch programs. we spent our entire program enrollment trying to figure out how to use that data in a realtime way to connect and have schools connect into the process of enrolling, so i think there's a lot of potential there and i think the next decade we're going to see a lot of innovation in that realm. >> all right. we have time for one more question. yes, right over here, if we could. >> hi, chad berman, health
management associates. in your push to maximize enrollment, i was wondering if you've seen adverse effects on access to care or access through coverage, so benefits, networks, cost share? >> well, what do we see so far, and again, these are two states that have not expanded the medicaid program, so now we're talking about signing up people who are already eligible. >> so far in the state of alabama, we have not seen any adverse effects, however, we do know that we have a long way to go in creating access for all the people and not just access, but we want them to have good care, and so that is one of the things that we are working on right now in alabama. we're rolling out regional care organizations, because you're right, it doesn't do any good to enroll them unless they are able to find a primary care physician, unless they are able to have a continuum of care, so that's one of the things that we are working on right now in
alabama. >> i would say very similar comments. we haven't seen access issues related to our enrollment work under this grant or other strategies, but virginia has recently expanded statewide manage care for the majority of our population. we're also one of the states that's doing the partnership with cms for the duals project, medicaid and medicare and that will be rolling out in 2014, and so we really use our managed care partners to leverage their networks. not all of them, but a good majority of them have commercial side of business, and, you know, they are able to do networking
analysis and really fulfill that network requirement that sometimes even on the fee for service side it's harder for us, because we don't have all those tools and opportunities. >> stan, it certainly is the case that a number of states that are expanding their medicaid programs are looking at new ways of organizing the care provided to people in medicaid. we have the example of oregon with coordinated care organizations. say a bit more about those states and how far along they are in this process. >> right. so, state medicaid programs have been historically an underappreciated hub of care innovation. and we're seeing that tradition continue, and when we think about the many newly eligible people who are going to enroll in medicaid in the states that expand eligibility, it's a challenge to make sure you have enough providers on the ground, but it's also a cliche and have an opportunity, but the only way
i think we're going to be able to meet the increased demands for care is to reorganize care and not to have a bunch of solo physicians each heroically doing what they have to do, but instead have physicians serve as captains of clinical care teams who engage nurses, who engage social workers, who engage community educators and that model both means we can leverage our physician resources to serve more people, improve quality of care, and slow cost growth. that's the direction we need to move. but just as we've been talking about enrollment, you certainly don't snap your fingers and create a new health care delivery system overnight. there are going to be plenty of challenges. the good news is, we're not going to be enrolling people as quickly as many thought we were, so the access to care challenges won't be as great as many people thought, but we're going to have time, and we're going to need to use that time, both to get
eligible people enrolled and to make sure they get the care they need after they've actually received their card, insurance card, and have access to care. >> alice, you've mentioned the community qualified health centers and we're seeing a big expansion of those centers. most are adopting the patient-centered medical home approach. that's going to be another important avenue, correct? >> right. that is 100% true, and i was actually going to mention, we've been doing a lot of work with state medicaid offices trying to develop them and strengthen them through work with the aca and even before the aca. to the extent people are interested in understanding what pioneering approaches states are taking, i would certainly encourage them to check out www.nashp.org. i think we've done a lot of research, and there is a lot of good information out there about how states are piloting this approach, where they use the medicaid program as the financing structure to support,
as stan was saying, a more coordinated approach, and sometimes the chc is at the hub of that and sometimes it's more of a provider network approach, but there's a lot of good opportunities to learn. >> so we're going to give the last word now to both gretel and rebecca. let me give you both a chance to talk to your two states, you get a chance to talk to 48 others and the district of columbia. what would you say to states who have not yet embarked on the process trying to maximize enrollment and maybe doing that in the future, what is the biggest takeaway you have for them, what's the number one idea they should keep in mind as they contemplate taking on this additional challenge, gretel? >> i would say a couple of things. first, good partnerships with agencies, with other states that have done it before that, you know, this is called maximizing enrollment lessons from states. you always learn the most lessons from failing, so most of us that have done it, we failed
a number of times and you can just learn from our mistakes and go forth, and also that it is worth the effort to get folks enrolled, to get them enrolled quickly, and to get them enrolled without a lot of effort, and they are very pleased with the process, and i just also want to say, again, that patience is something that we all need, because it does take time. and that people will appreciate it very much. >> and rebecca? >> and i would say what i've learned is that even though we have maximizing enrollment grantee states that just about every state is doing something or another working on this issue. we're not, you know, special in that. we just got to work together and really concentrate on this effort. but as gretel said, you can
really learn a lot from other states, and, in fact, that's the reason i got distracted, because i got thinking about what gretel was saying about the former foster care children and what we could do in our state, so that really makes the difference, is sharing those lessons and being able to have that dialogue between the states and what they've tested and tried. >> i do want to say that every state is different. what works for one state is not always the same that works for another state. it's not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. it's something that's very different for each state, and states have to realize that and do what you do best. >> well, gretel, as you said, there are a lot of lessons to be learned from failure, in some instances, take note, healthcare.gov, but we also have lots of opportunities to learn from successes, and we've heard in the case of the eight states enrolled in maximizing enrollment, that there are plenty of those lessons to be had and to be applied going
forward, so i want to thank the two of you, as well as you, stan, and you, alice, for walking us through all this on a very interesting and important discussion. i also want to say thanks to the robert wood johnson foundation and nash p. and urban for making this briefing possible and encourage you who want more information about these programs to consult the websites of those organizations. thanks to all of you. thanks again to those of you for joining us today, and have a great holiday. [ applause ]
spending money in a time when we have very little money to spare and had the defense department and people in the other nondefense discretionary departments screaming about the cup board is bear, nothing to cut. the fact is that that just isn't true, and so the congress is going to probably pass this bill. the house already has and senate probably will today, but it shows you that the congress doesn't have its eye on the ball, and that we're not spending money in an inappropriate way. we still provided money to study romance novels. we provided money todd state departments to buy people with votes to like their facebook page. we even helped nasa fund studies of us, congress. my contention is had congress been focused on doing this job
of setting priorities and oversighting and cutting wasteful spending, we could have avoided both a government shut down and the budget deal that we're now considering which actually grows the government and raises the burden on the american taxpayer. my favorite point in program in this is the facts that the air force bought $6 billion worth of airplanes, and as soon as they were delivered, shipped them to the desert. this 1 the same agency that's going to leave $7 billion worth of equipment in afghanistan. wasted, valuable equipment because it's too hard to utilize some of the areas in the world. this report speaks volumes about why the american people have lost confidence in government, why congress is rating is to 6%.
>> we can get started. hello. we are delighted to welcome you to this round table with fcc federal trade commissioner julie brill. this separate of the digital policy series made possible by a generous grant. i'm instructed to ask you to please turn off your cell phones, and if you have not figure thed out from the gentleman in the corner, this is on the record, and, in fact, we're on c-span. i am a senior fellow here at the counsel, karen kornbluh, and many have corresponded with and organized this round table series, and we're grateful to her. this meeting is happening at an incredibly timely moment that leading tech companies meet with the president at the white house today. there's a hearing in the senate tomorrow on data brokers, in the
trade negotiations with europe, u.s. is expected to table something on e-commerce, cyber framework graph recently released, and, of course, the new published on november 27th, recommendations on the state's harbor, and we know it's a fantastic conversation. just going to kick it off with brief comments. i recently sterved as ambassador to the oecd in paris, and while there, we convened a group of business leaders, government, technologists, ngos, christina was there, and came up with the first set of global internet policy principles. these principles and privacy guidelines affirm two ideas that i think are sometimes missing from the debate and that are very important for us to remember that are not in conflict, and, in fact, both essential. those are that the free flow of
information and jade was there in paris too. i didn't include her. that the free flow of information is essential to an open internet. sometimes the debate forgets they are both essential, and so we're so lucky to have her here to talk specifically in the area of privacy where she's become a leading voice. julie, just to give you you're familiar with it, but i'll take you through the story. julie was born in the commissioner of the federal trade commission in 2010, focusing there on issues most affecting states, consumers, including, of course, privacy, advertising sub stanuation, fraud, and competition, especially in high technology and health care.
before she came to the fcc, commissioner was the senior deputy attorney general and chief of consumer protection antitrust for the north carolina department of justice. before that, she was an stand attorney general for consumer protection of antitrust for the state of vermont for over 20 years from 1998 to 2009. commissioner brill served as vice chair of the consumer protections committee of the antitrust of the american bar association. i'm just, like, halfway through. [laughter] she was an associate to paul weiss in new york, clerked for vermont federal district court judge, billings, jr., graduated magna cum lat di from houston, and she has a commitment to law school, and she's been a lecture at columbia university school of law, received national awards for work protecting consumers, and she's testified before congress,
published numerous articles, served on many expert panels with issues of pharmaceuticals, privacy, data security breachment, and tobacco. what i'm most grateful to commissioner brill for is she's looking at the cutting edge issues, figuring out what the right policies are to balance equities and planning to speak about it in a way that speaks to the academics, advocates, and average consumers. i believe that comes from the fact she does not spend all the time in washington. she's based in vermont. she's getting around the country and world and that gives her the perspective that is lucky to have her at the commission. >> well, thank you, karen. i'm really pleased to be here, and i wish i had your resumé to read because yours is impressive too, and almost as long.
>> if not longer. >> even though we are both really young. we're going to set the stage and open it up. you are experts. don't think of you as an audience. it's a round table, and, julie, you returned from ten days in europe, speaking about privacy issues. can you tell us about the mood there, and, of course, we're aware of the surveillance revolution, the line between commercial privacy and government privacy is completely blurred, and there's been a change in the mood. >> yes. it's been interesting. a number of people who are here were there with me, also in europe, and so we'll be able to comment on this when we get to the question and answer period. you know, we should start off by saying the u.s. and the e.u. and europe have a long history of cooperation. i mean, you know that better
than anybody from your perch at the oecd. we have to remember that and keep it in mind as we think about and try to work through some of the whraitest areas of a troubled -- of some of the latest areas that are causing tension in a relationship that's basically very, very sound. the nsa revelations created tension, no question about that. you know, it's gotten -- as much press as it got here in the united states, i think it's gotten much more in europe. i find, though, i mean, as the overarching perspective, especially seeing the change from september through now is the willingness to cooperate and find a way to resolve the problems that exist. in other words, i think in the last six months, i've been to europe, three or four times, and
prior to the revelation and in september, when they were still very, very fresh, and then just -- i just got back from a long trip, and, you know, i think that between september and now, there's been a recognition that we need to try to work through the problems. you know, there have been extensive government groups and private groups focused deeply on trying to address the issues just here in the united states, you know, how should we be balancing national security and individual citizens' privacy rights? there's been a number of working groups underway. some of the results are starting to get discussed. there will be much more of that in the coming months, and there's been working groups between the e.u. and the united states, so that some, you know, folks in the working group that are european policymakers and
whatnot have been able to interface with our policy leaders to try to talk through these issues as well. i think all of that has led to -- while perhaps not a complete agreement on the way in which we do things, but understanding why things have been done, and maybe the areas that we need to address going forward. you know, i -- one of the things you asked about, and maybe we should talk through is this issue of should commercial privacy and government surveil larns be treated together or separately? that's one of the things that i spend quite a bit time talking about in europe. should we focus on that? >> sure. go ahead. >> so, you know, i have told the european counterparts and audiences and whatnot, and, frankly, i've done the same thing here in the united states, that the government surveillance
issues are important. it's a conversation long overdue, very glad that it's happening here in the united states and europe and with respect to the transatlantic discussion. the discussion of commercial use of data, i think, is a very important conversation. it needs to happen here in the united states. it is a separate conversation and should be happening separately from the national security issues. i say this for a number of reasons. i think that, you know, if you look at the 1995 e.u. data protections directive, you know, it has national security exceptions. if you look at the ways data flows between the united states and e.u. whether it's binding corporate rules, safe harbor, or other mechanisms, there are exceptions. we have to address issues
clearly, but talk about commercial privacy and all that needs to be done in the commercial privacy sphere. separately. >> talk about commercial privacy apple tell us your thoughts that the e.. i privacy regulation, privacy rates outline in the new regulation, and also the adequacy. >> sure. the e.u. regulations actually, i think, mirrors a number of the things we talked about whether at the fcc, the federal trade commission, which is the nation's leading privacy regulator in the u.s., and or whether it's looking at things that are happening in the states with respect to privacy. when you look at the policies pushed forward in the e.u. regulation, you see things like a desire to get parental consent
for information about children. you knee references and provisions dealing with data breach notifications. you see privacy by design, which is a concept that we have tried to urge on industries here in the united states. you see a focus on enhancing control over the data, increasing transparency, improving data, strengthening data security and encourageing accountability. these are all concepts whether embedded in law in the united states or are being discussed at the federal trade commission and elsewhere in terms of developing best practices for industry here in the united states. these are all con cements that, frankly, i think we embrace. i embrace, and i know many of any counterparts also embrace. we have a law in the united
states dealing with children's privacy requiring presential consent for the election and use of information for kids under 13. we have data breach notification laws at the state level, not the federal level. it's nice to have a data breach notification law and data security law at the federal level, but we have some provisions dealing with the issue at the state level. in our privacy reports, the federal trade commission, issued a big privacy report last year. we talked about the other con cementings, privacy by design. this is the need to build privacy into products and services, and not to push everything on consumers, overwhelming them with choices we have to make about privacy when, frankly, consumers are not going online or using smart phones or engaging with connected devices in order to think about privacy. they want to do something with all those technological tools so they need to build more privacy into products and services, i
think, is deeply important. having said that, there's areas we need improvement in the united states. i don't think -- i think we have a ways to go. especially around transparency issues so i spent a lot of time talking about the need for entities engaged in big data analytics, profiling of consumers, especially when it's focused on consumers at the individual level rather than trying to deal with the identified information and whatnot. when we're talking about profiles created with consumers whether it's marketing purposes or eligibility decisions or other decisions, we have a lot more transparency in that area. when it comes to the internet of things whether it's connected devices, cars, medical devices, fitness bands, or anything else that is a device that is connecting to the internet,
again, i think we need more transparency and need to think about the tools we can make available to consumers 10 that they understand what is going to happen with that information. who will be collecting it, and what they will do with it. i think online tracking woo do not track, developing some tools for consumers. it's very important so that consumers can control to how they are tracked online. they are dealing with deeply and developed tools, browsers developed tools, and some trade groups have developed tools, and some standard organizations work on developing tools of tracking o online. i want more progress made there. finally, you know, when it comes to legislation here in the united states, all i talk about thus far is not in the
legislation sphere, but in terms of developing best practices, providing better tools to consumers so they understand how data is collected and for what purposes, itself. we could use more laws in the united states, based on privacy regulation, i think would help. it would help level the playing field, clarify what they ought to do and not worry about, and would make clear to consumers, you know, what their rights and are and what can happen with the data. i think particularized law around data brokers and data profiling would be helpful, and i already mentioned based security. again, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, i mean, i do think there are clear similarityies between what europe is pushing in its proposed regular, you know, some folks in irani propose, and i
think that here in the united states we share many ideas and values and have been pushing them forward, but in the united states, there's room for improvement, and i spent a lot of time talking about that. >> quickly, jew le. >> yeah, sure. >> one of the things that we often found ourselves telling europeans when i was over the oecd while they think europeans care about privacy more than we do, what we say is, look, you have rules in the books, but we have a lot more enforcement. i to ask you about that because you're at the enforcement agency, and, also, just where you see the safe harbor going, and, you know, look, what -- are -- i read that you think your optimistic about it, but that this report just came out with recommendations and i would love to have you talk about that. >> it's true. we have good privacy enforcement in the united states with respect to the laws we do have on the books, and i have spent a
lot of time trying to educate not only folks here in the united states, and, for instance, the act community that, you know, they need to ensure they understand the laws that apply. for instance, if they are engagedded in activities that touch on credit reporting or a list or a list -- tool for hr department to ice to screen employees, the law applies. i spent time trying to educate entities in the united states about the breadth of the privacy laws, and similarly, i spent time talking to our european counter parts about the breadth of the privacy laws. we don't have regulation, but in sensitive areas whether it's health information -- although, we cay talk a bit about that because there are some gaps there, that whether it's health flchtion, financial information, children's information, and credit reporting information, we do have good laws.
we are joined on the beat, and we do great enforcement. i heard my europine counterparts say that think wish they would combine regulation with the ftc enforcement prowess, and i know for businesses, that might be more frightening than -- >> i think we can say there was a general in the room. >> i thought it was a chuckle. >> okay. but, you know, we have had trouble with how well we do privacy because one of the tools used in in addition to the specialize the laws i talkinged about is the federal trade commission act, and they prohibit unfair and deseptemberrive practices, not focusing in particular on privacy or focus on financial fraud or ads of sub stanuation, but, n., applies in all the areas. it was written at the high of
the dpreption. it's designed to be broad, and we use it in just that way, and so in the prief sit context, we use our practices law, not only to focus on some of the biggest consumer companies, some represented in the room, google, facebook, myspace, twitter, all under 20-year orderlies under the belief they violated the federal trade commission act and engaugedded in unfair acts and practices, but we also focused on much smaller players that are not household names, but are playing key roles throughout the fo6m whether it's mobile or internet or, frankly, now, even, we had a case on the internet of things so we foes cues on
software developers, hard war ware developers, app developers, an latic firms, ad networks, you name it. we have looked at practices when they have been brought to our attention or learned about them, and i felt they were violating either the principles, we go after them. how do you deal with safe harbor then. we understand in the u.s. about how our privacy rules work in practice. how can we safeguard safe harbor so important to the flow of data that's one of the areas in which i have seen change, i think, in the just the last three months. as a result of the nsa and snowden revelation, there started to be a growing conversation in europe that safe
harbor was the problem. that the reason why european citizens data was examined because of government for national security purposes because of this tool. it's one of many mechanisms in existence that allows for the transfer of data on a company's basis. between europe and the united states. without getting too involved, there's a business perspective, clearly incredibly important tool and allows for a huge amount of trade and important relationships that consumers benefit from and that businesses benefit from. and, yet, if you became a target in the conversation, and i started to say in september, and
i said just last week, it was an easy target, but it was not the right target. we have to focus on government surveillance issues, and whether it's happening of the imean who signed up for safe harbor or it's happening with corporate rules or adequate determination or any other mechanisms for cross border transfers, you know, that's where the conversation should have around the prompt scope of government surveillance. imh i noticed, and, frankly, the commission issued a report on a first step in safe harbor, and i think this conversation that i've been engaged in as well as others. i'm not the only one by any means, but it seems to have gain residence, and if you read the europipe commission's lathest report on building trust and
between the u.s. and e.u., they talk about the importance of safe harbor and maintaining it because of the important ties and level of business that's transacted between the e.u. rein the u.s.. now, having said all of 245, you know, safe harbor has been in cannabis ens. a lot changed since. you know, just, you know, it's -- you know, i could ramble off folks and ser tick cats how it's changed. number of smart phones, collection of the 0*68 achings, and just the intern of of things, these did not exist or existed and searched mined. now, you know, i think what we need to do is take a look at safe harbor and say, are there ways to improve it? the e.u. commission proposed,
may 13, proposed recommendations for improving it. some of which i think are on the side to take a serious look at. i said there are ways that i think we can issue without -- without doing too much work. these are not a heavy lift, but gets rid of irritants in terms of how it operates. freps, creating better lengths between the department of commerces' website so it's clear, you know, who is in safe harbor and who is out and what alternative disputes they are using. alternative dispute mechanism is required for every company that signed up for safe harbor ofsome kind or another. the vast bulk of companies use this like a trustee or bbb or something like that which is
free so that if a european citizen has a complaint, they can go to the data protection authority, kind of like, you know, country's specific regulator, or go to one of the companies and have the complaint heard for free. 20% of the companies that have sign up are using a mechanism to charge the consumer money. as a long time consumer advocate, i have to say i don't think that's the right direction. ic we have to work hard to get those 34*67 mechanism fees down. we need transparency on the websites and links, and, again, things that can be commenced easily so people understand what companies are in safe harbor, which are out. what privacy policies are and
things like that, and, finally, i think we ought to be looking at the other cross border data flow and frame works we talked about globally, and a pex, the age pesk cross border framework developed and being pushed forward has a really interesting concept build in around accountability inform so that before a company ever reached someone lib me, a regulator who violated the law, they have put in place mechanisms for self-assessment for checks so that there's an entity, a private entity to make sure they are complieches. this can be helpful to companies, and we have to be thinking about whether or not there's room within safe harbor frame work for appropriate
accountability mechanisms that are self-regulating mechanism before you get to the cop on the beat. those are the ways in which i think safe harbor is improved, and the e.u. has what i talked about. they have in some fashion or another mentioned, talk about a number of other proposed changes, some of which i think are tough, some of which i think are, again, need to be focus the on, a discussion within the national security community. some, again, are seize sigh lists for the unite, and you ought to take a serious look at them. >> just a great tour through europe, and really detailed and i think there's a lot around the table to chew on, provocative even. we'll have a great discussion. i want to open it up to
questions. please identify yourself when called on. that would be terrific, and if you want, you can turn your name tags op its side, and i will note it on my call on you as the gentleman had done in the back. >> >> [inaudible] allen rall. and the question that i would have for you in light of this discussion is do you think the u.s. should be making a case in light of the laws described and enforcement referred to for adequacy and that safe harbor for the united states is, yes, it works, been in place for a long time, serves purposes, imu some countries deemed adequate
are pandora, and my guess is there's not so much enforcement there. maybe they have rules, but much less enforcement. i know that the e.u. tends to have privacy of the fundmental right, but as you side, it's important in the united states as well in that when they, the fundament right of the e.u., they don't take intoing the, apparently, of the fact that privacy is one of the 5 # # rights blopszed along with other rights like the right to run a business, right to property, right to have freedom of expression. ect.. the systems are not that different. to treat us so differently, maybe more politically than objective. >> some rae interesting pibts. let me start out wf first question because you rised a bunch of questions there.
>> do i think weaver add cat in the european payment norng, given the o'end crip deemed adequate, i do think we are, especially because of the strong enfor me to say, howeverrings i understand why from a near piewp speck spot, and they are having trouble getting arms aarp it, and i think it's because the continental view, at least, i'll leave aside the common law, you know, great britain and ireland, common law countries, but the view is very much a sort of let's rook -- look at the legislation, see the black and white law on the books and let's see what it says it provides for. , and while here, we have z strong laws. look in places for them. it's hard. i remember going to move nick
for a meeting with a bunch of businesses and regulators in germany, and at that time, this was just a couple years ago, maybe a year and a half ago, two years ago, and they said stuff that all privacy enforcement was done through self-registrationlation, and i said, well, gee, no, really, that's so not try. i'll explain what we do in the united states, by it's not a sentence. it's a paragraph. or two photographs, a more detailed qfertion, but personally, doic we're adequate? yes, but around, it's not my job; right? what makes sense for us right now in the united states is that we have to recognize that we are not adequate and try to focus on interoperatability to focus on how the mechanism works, rules
work, and how other interordinary personable mechanisms work that the e.u. said, okay, even if you're not adequate, we'll alaw the state of transfers flu these mechanisms we have support for trade and consumer benefits on both sides of the atlantic, so interesting provocative question, but that's any perspective on it. [inaudible conversations] >> we've done a lot of work of the economic impacts, and
especially -- income this has a huge impact on the interpret, how it works, and, really, how it is in the past. the problem that we really see here is that for disclosures, voluntary disclosures, traditional security threats, there's a lot of companies can do, making the assistance more secure, put in place terms of service, have domestic laws, but what we can't do is have really any response to concerns that if you give our data to a foreign company, that's the government mandating that you disclose it. there's no -- that's why the nationalism is a problem right now, especially from the perspective of the sector. the question is, you know, aside from we recommended having a
geneva convention on data. having really addressed the issue because it seems like that is the sticking point that no one addresses, only on the other. >> it's very important issue. i mean, i think, you know, as i said in my opening dialogue we have, the issues around government access to information whether it's information that a private company holds or information elsewhere within government or at the state level or local level, all of this is -- there's huge, in my view, robust discussion underway in the united states about the appropriate level of surveillance and how it's taking place. it's great the conversation is going on. i have perm views about it. i'm sure everybody does, but my job as a federal trade commissioner is to focus on commercial use of information,
and there, in that fear of commercial use of information, again, i think i would disagree with you that there's nothing companies can do to better protect information. i understand where you're coming from, which is, you know, when someone taps into data, whether it's government entity or whatnot, there's -- they can't stop it in the current frame work. they are involved in the conversation, and the first is how is government doing that? having said that, and i -- i know you want to jump in, there's a lot companies can do, and they stated minimization, and deidentifying data as much as possible. there's tons of recommendations
about what to do to enhance privacy, and what's so special about this moment is government use of data is separate, separate conversations, it's a moment in time when it's foes cuesed with what is data, and it's a time to step up to the plate saying, look, we did et it. we'll do as much as we can to enhance private data security. in fact, i think you're seeing that from tech companies, in particular in the united states, who are dialoguing today with the president and have written a great deal about their desire to be able to disclose more about what is happening in the government surveillance side. how data is flowing to data
brokers, big data analytic firms, and others who are creating profiles about consumers for special use. i think that's a conversation that we also need to have. it's complex; right? i think it is an important moment, and i view the conversation as separate, but i understand what you're saying about the interconnection between them. >> [inaudible] >> looking in the exoming months, look how we could keep that shift in tone going because what we want to see is bridging the view of the list of things to be done to safe harbor, look
at them, and others are much more difficult. >> great question. i think we in the united states have to take that list of 13 # items seriously. i think we are taking is very seriously. i'm sure there's an intergovernmental group focusing on developing a formal response to it. you know, i had conversations with my counterparts in the e.u. and folks at the commission level about my personal thoughts about them like those including those who are relatively appropriate, not easily listed, but that these things should be done.
there will be a difficult road for good reason and i describe what the reasons are, but i think it's important that we move, we meaning our government, moves relatively quickly because i do -- i'm pleased to hear you recognize the same shift and you've seen it. i'd like to see the current -- the conversation going in the current direction in which it's now heading. that's important. i think one of the ways to do that is to make clear that we recognize issues they raised, and we think they are serious issues, and we want to work with them. i'm hopeful that we will soon have a position and sit down with them and talk through each of the points.
you know, they mentioned to me various time frames the final report will be sometime in march or april, but i think that we should be looking at january. it's a couple weeks away to begin the conversation in a robust way. there's events taking place in europe that identified for me, which will raise the political focus on this issue even more. in order to build the trust that the europeans are asking us to build, i think we need to do our part in that bridge building. >> i want to learn about the american enforcement of privacy. i want to say that i completely agree with you from my limited
experience. in europe, not much there. every time i give a lecture in front of an audience, if anybody will been asked permission to use their information for secondary use, and i have not seen yet one hands going up. i need to know about the american side. i think most americans would go -- be fairly concerned if they kept by americans, but if kept by a private company in arkansas and the company has 35 contracts with fbi, irs and such, i don't see how anybody' stopping them, and it's really cosmetic. there's one check and one click away. microsoft is building in new york city the dome which collects information from all the activities, all the meter readers and such into one base.
hard to imagine a greater violation of privacy. teach me more. >> well, as i said, i think a lot more work has to be done with respect to profiles and data brokers. a, with references one particular company this arkansas, and you referenced another large tech company. with respect to the profiling of consumers, the commercial entities, they create profiles that are used for marketing purposes, for eligibility decisions not covered by law, and some havecepstive information including health conditions like -- and very detailed information about health conditions.
sexual orientation, ethnicity, and other, what i think most of us in the room and most of us in this society believe is highly sense titch -- sensitive information. i would very much like to see with respect to data brokers creating profiles on summers, much greater transparency tools created. i have an initiative called reclaim your name, and i'd like to see american consumers being able to reclaim their name by use of some of these greater transparency control tools. for instance, you referenced the arkansas company. call it axium. they took the first step in providing transparency tools to consumers. there's a portal and provide some information about data nay have on consumers for marketing.
there are other large data brokers that i believe could easily provide tools, and it's not just important to let consumers know what data you have about them, but also to the extebt t used for markets purposes, i think the data -- the consumers should have the ability to suppress it. i don't want to be mark thed based on the fact i have diabetes or that i'm of whatever ethnicity or whatever. they should be able to correct information if they want to, and then, finally, to the extent this was is used in important decisions, like, are you who you say you are? can we do business with you? eligibility decisions that are not governed by current law, i think consumers need to have rights to see the information and correct it if it's wrong; otherwise, decisions are made
about them that are based on inaccurate information. we do a good job in protecting privacy, and i do that in the opening remarks. it's hard to talk about it quickly, but, again, i think there is room for improvement, particularly in that area that you identified. >> dan? >> thank you, [inaudible] i wanted to pick up on something about safe harbor, a slightly different direction. you made the point that, you know, the way things changed in the last 15 years, and with respect to safe harbor, but that's true with the internet ect.; right? 15 years ago was one to one, you know, it was not transactional, but structured data. now, today, the internet's one of many, lots of unstructured data, and it's certainly transactional, and, you know,
40-50 different players. the way we think about the internet and privacy in particular and information practices from the oecd guidelines, and those, obviously, were from a different era. i'm interested in your thoughts about how we adapt guideline and transform the technology like big data, and you talked about transparency, context of data brokers, but what would you like to see in terms of transparency and accountability as we begin to think about how we adapt those guidelines. >> really great question. deep. there's ways in which we can adapt prince.
s for modern technology. i think a great starting point for that conversation is the report that the federal trade commission did in 2012 where i think the fair information practices are still good because they are general, and the trick is not so much do they apply to new technology, but how we apply them to new technology, and so we talk about implementing three or four techniques, if you will, or getting businesses and industry to focus on three or four ways in which they help shape new technologies so that consumers do have notice and choice and accountability and transparency, accuracy, and all the other fair information privacy principles, so we talked
especially on smart phones when you think about the limited real estate available there for quick messages to consumers. we're about to collect your geolocation. we want to down load your list, is that okay? if not, consumers say no, it does not happen. that's the consumer can still use the app or whatever, but that information is not accessed. icons, pgs, you know, simplify notice and choice. transparency is the third issue, and i touched on that smghts i think there's more that we can do to inform the data and what control is over it. the fourth is an important one, the issue of deidentification, and how, as much as possible, we can really focus on using information in a form that's deidentified as robustly as possible, and we have a
three-part process. first, identify to the technological perspective, and the company engaged in using the information promises to not reidentify the information because now there's been so many studies showing how easy it is to take this information and reidentify it with consumers. there's a promise to not reidentify, and if the data's transferred to anyone else, the company that holds the data makes them not reidentify it. those are principles that i think help deal with current change seen in technology and focus on how to implement important principles in the new
technology age. it's just complex. i recognize that. >> it's complicated, but you make it come alive. we have a lot more questions. >> thank you. >> paula stern. interesting comments with the comments heard earlier -- not supposed to say that, are we? where i heard it, but i was also at another setting this morning, and -- i'm interested in the negotiations, between the united states and europe and recognize that the word is that because of the snowden revelations, this is making the negotiations an even
more difficult job >> wait of minute, the trade negotiations? >> yes, the negotiations between the u.s. and europe which is trade and negotiation part of it. you suggest there is room for agreement, at least on in your positive reactions to recent european regulatory announcuations. i am very conscious that there's the whole u.s. interagency process and independent agency and that don't know how much you have to coordinate with the trade representatives. many people feel that these trade negotiations that are going on between europe is
already more about regulatory harmization than anything else. my question is to what extent do you have to relate or do relate for -- in the atmosphere in which these negotiations have now had three meetings and president put instances on this. the issues i was talking about in terms 6 of safe harbor and how to improve it and how it can be improved is separate and apart from the trade negotiations. we are an independent agency as you pointed out. we -- we are not officially, the federal trade commission is not involved; however, the usdr and
other those involved with it, the u.s. trade -- and others say it was about technical issues, particularly when it comes to issues around privacy enforcement and trying to explain how it was done in the united states, again, it's not a sentence, it's a paragraph. so we're not at aim at the table in the discussions, and my job is to focus on protecting consumers and preblging and with respect to data flows, and wove to have appropriate law enforcement and engaged in appropriate law enforcement and develop around the issues, and, you know, i've been a cop on the beat whether it's the state level or federal level for a long time.
adam sigell of cfo was a project director. one of the thing it calls for is putting people an affirmation and our future trade agreements. >> that is exactly why i felt it was important for us to break down the silos and really see whether, in fact, this is happening. >> but there are a few people here from the general government from other parts of the size the ftc. do they want to comment in any way on anything? okay. >> thank you, commissioner. the application developers. i have come to the conclusion that corporations are really poised. but they are only slightly better than government, particularly foreign governments
. positions to the consumers. my personal opinion. we are entering an era where consumers can benefit on a gray scale from mass customization and mass personalization. i worry that rules set in place, might do things like limit data collection limit what goods and services they can obtain at low cost or no cost. and i'm wondering if you could share your thoughts about what we can do to ensure that mass customization, mass personalization, individualized goods and services become an opportunity and that we don't foreclose those by setting rules as we think about putting in place the very thoughtful limitations. >> well, some of what i talked about i do think would focus on
collection issues. so -- and thank you. that is also a very tough for comment and question as always. you know, this issue about corruption has come up a great deal in the do not track discussions. and whether not there are permissible purposes for which information can be collected as well as used. and my view is that in terms of attracting consumers online, given the incredible bread of information that is now available, the explosion of data about each and everyone of us as we walk around with our smart phones in use our apps and are engaged in online activity and the activity of getting linked together to create very rich profiles, it strikes me that
while you are presenting a framework that arguably says, well, if there is no correction we don't have any benefits for consumers, i am trying to say to my think we need to be toppled about the way in which information is either collected or created. and health information is a great example. right? we have some very strong loss around how health information can be used, corrective i've collected and used, but it is focused on traditional medical providers or people who work -- its deasy work with them, doctors to hospitals, insurance companies, and other entities that are really in the health care system. but consumers are going on line now and investigating, you know, what does it mean it my skin is itsy? does it mean i have a condition?
my kid has been up for five nights and i don't know if that is of flu or a cold. tell me something about diabetes and early onset or heart conditions are whenever. people are doing so much on line that gets identified with them personally. and so should that information be collected? could it -- should be collected that consumers may have a health condition simply because they inquire about an issue? inquiry may just be curiosity. it may be a school project. but just in today's "wall street journal," for instance, we saw a reference to companies that are gathering that affirmation and using it to find out if consumers might be interested in participating in clinical trials now, clinical trials are an incredibly important function in this united states, incredible benefit for consumers, for health care, for doctors, for providers to offer farmers of the companies to understand what
works and what does not work on an evidence based basis. but consumers are kind of shocked when they are called up and ask, you know, would you like to participate in an diabetes' trial. you know, they either don't have the condition or if they have it they don't understand why someone is calling up and asking about this when they have no connection with an entity. so i think these are some deep and important issues that we need to think about how this information is collected or, frankly, even created. some of the entities that are hanging on to this information are presuming that consumers have certain health conditions based upon their restaurants that they go to, the way that they shop, the clothes they wear, things like that which, apparently, you know, in maybe 80 percent of cases, 85 percent of cases, 90 percent of cases are what not may indicate that consumer has a certain condition, but it is not always
going to be true, and even if it is true, should entity's be able to make these conditions -- these predictions about our health conditions, coat collect that information and hold onto it and an identifiable weight? i think that these are some questions that we really need to drill down into. i don't think we are yet at your -- we have not yet tester problem, which is, gosh, if we stop the elections of the spread benefits would go away. i think we need to look at the type of collection that is going on and the creation of predictions about consumers for the purposes of profiling that is going on and figure out whether we think this is appropriate and i. >> do we just have one question? >> a question. i think uncovered. >> we will come back to that. you wanted to ask your question. and then we started out talking about your being optimistic and about conversations. and one of the things we like to
do that this roundtable is breakdown silos, trying to break down silas' the chin people to think about the internet, the economy, foreign policy. i said trade policy i think after we -- to your question committee we should get back to what is it that the people from the trade world you're not always in his privacy in internet world can take back? is cumbersome system take back being able to say this is where the u.s. is strong and then if you want to make it more poignant. go ahead. >> commissioner, thank you. as you know, i had an opportunity to observe you and all of your skills sets last week. i want to, again, and for the benefit of all gathered here thank you for your and effectively i think communicating the distinctions between, you know, the
commercial and national security elements if we let me just say to my think you did it under very trying circumstances. so thank you. the question -- >> identify yourself. >> i'm sorry. for my own experience in the u.s. government and then observing media, my sense is that that the member state level there is a deep awareness of the distinction between commercial and national-security, and i am curious whether you think that that is the case compared to, shall we say, the views of other public authorities in europe about the distinction. and before you answer, of course, i would be remiss to say thank you and the commission for your hard work on patents and abusive conduct and i am very pleased to see that the comments so far have been overwhelmingly in support of your new initiative. >> i'm sorry, could you do me a favor, the distinction that you wanted me -- >> last week, as you open today,
talked about the distinction between the commercial in national security dimensions of the information, the unique -- the different traditions, the different legal regimes here in the u.s. as well as in europe. and whether my sense from prior experience, that is a distinction better appreciated the member state level and, shall we say, other public arenas. and whether you sense from your discussions and the general level weather that observation is true not at the member state level. >> so, you know, it does appear to be true that national security issues are dealt with at the member state level largely speaking. and in that conversation to come by the way, i should have started out by saying thank you for your kind remarks about me. it is nice. but, you know, when i speak to
my colleagues that the commission, that is the european commission or even the data protection authority to all so why not necessarily focus on national-security, you know, they recognize that. recognize, you know, with their competency is and isn't. but, you know, i think then make a fair point. think we should keep in mind which is, you know, there are some provisions within the safe harbor -- the european commission determination as a farmer would be a mechanism that would be allowed to transfer data. they talked about there was a national security exception, but it has to be proportionate and it has to be appropriate. and so there are some tools that they have that the commission level rather than a member state level to look at this issue. and what i remind them of, if you know, so we all need to
recognize that. i think it is an important point. but i would tell them that camino in order to really understand the national security issue a stake in need to have a conversation about it with them. and so i think one of the things that has happened, especially of the last performance, never this is the folks of the european commission level and folks with them that tpa community in europe, the data protection of the arctic community, the article 29. they have had a dialogue. here in the united states with some of the people who are focused on security issues. and i think that that has -- it has not alleviated all of the concerns, but is to help them understand the breadth of the issues in the butt of the problem. but i don't want to the lead is
part of the conversation i think it is important that we are having this conversation about the opprobrious go. whether not what is happening is appropriate and whether or not there are changes that can be made to maintain national security and enhance privacy of consumers. and citizens. that is a conversation that the nominees to happen here, but also in the transatlantic context. >> i do need to suggest. we will make you tell them to trade policy are been involved in negotiations they have not been part of it all. i thought for those of us in the room and are familiar with what is going on and as others in the room to understand how the usc you conversations have turned much more productive on privacy and it might make sense to share that information, almost sort of that a talking point level to so
that you all could be of little bit better armed. >> i can be identified. [laughter] >> you have real identified yourself. >> tibet to the issue of silos. it's important. for your recognition, separating at least conceptualism, security issues from the commercial issues. but american companies and others around the world have very different approaches. well they may both the consumers of data, it does not necessarily have the same approach is to privacy and all the rest. but while the commissioner clearly has taken in this to
push that agenda there are multiple others in this in europe, as an sure you know. the basic rules of competition, the notion of data as a national commission resource. all of these things, pushing that, and it is difficult to operate on just a privacy silo. and so i do think it is important, and i'm heartened to hear that there is a renewed interest in looking at this level. it is important that all of these agendas the aggregated, the security. so we can have that greater conversation because otherwise this is just going to be a nice little opportunity for selective sections. as individuals, the companies have started to take advantage or look at the revelations as
the business opporunity. that was a long winded question. >> was there? [laughter] >> we are actually out of time. i know we combine your answer to that with any final remarks. and then on to say something about the future. one of the things that i found most interesting in the european commission report on safe harbor was the recognition of the value of data. in the economic value of data. but it was coupled with, as i read the latest report, it was coupled with the recognition that that value is enhanced by cross border fence. i have heard the same things are talking about, you know, the need to create the sons and things like that, but i did not read that as the latest generation. and so what i am trying to communicate to all of you who
are or -- either are directly involved or are following very closely is there appears to be an open window now to have a help the conversation about these cross border. and let's not lose this moment. let's understand the moment for what it is the evidence recognize that there is a need to address concerns, national-security is happening separately, but on the commercial side and in particular -- i have already talked a lot about what i would like to see down with commercial data it really that aside for the moment. i very much believe in that big that it needs to happen in the united states. but just on safe harbor let's recognize the moment that we have and some take seriously their requests that we look at 13 or so changes in response to them appropriately.
it is a moment that can be lost for all the political and policy reasons and others the you have identified. so let's not lose it. that's when i would say. >> obviously that is a fabulous conversation. i appreciate everybody you came from especially those who have asked questions. i hope you don't mind. >> oh, no. >> you have done an amazing job, but we want to keep having exactly this kind of conversation. i think some of the people are having -- seeing pieces of this. you know, not only here, but in the context of the internet governance in the context of happening in asia. it is really important that we are all so that we can work productively. and i think julie, you have spoken at different times to us about where we need to be better but also with the u.s. including the enforcement's actions of the
ftc, incredibly strong and that we have a lot to be proud of. think is important for gasol to realize that as of and that we do have this transparent dialogue going on in the u.s. you are all part of that. thank you very much, and we will continue have these conversations. i hope he will take part in them. thank you so much for sharing so many very, very interesting thoughts. >> it's great. thank you. >> three veteran members of congress announced that they will not run again next year. republican representative frank wolf of virginia says he is going to focus on human rights and religious freedom issues. he is representing northern virginia and the shenandoah valley since he was first elected in 1980. representative jim matheson, a democrat from utah says he will run for an eighth term in a facebook post he said, it has been a tremendous privilege to serve, but his time in the house will not be the sum total of this service.
he represents utah's fourth district which include some of the suburbs of salt lake city. and tom laden, a republican representing to mourn and selfless parts of the state cannot beating after 20 years. >> in a few moments a senate intelligence committee confirmation hearing for senior officials of the cia and state department. and in a little less than a few hours the status on state health insurance exchanges. and then we will create a discussion about data protection and internet privacy. on our next washington journal, an update on the u.s. district court ruling on the constitutionality of the nsa surveillance program. will talk with james andrew lewis of the international studies. and then the discussion on productivity in the 113th congress. thomas mann of the brookings institution, the american
enterprise institute. since it is even worse than it looks. you can see the washington channel each morning at seven eastern on c-span. >> i'm standing in front of the 1905, the world's first practical airplane. the third and final experimental airplane that the wright brothers built. today it survives as the second oldest of their plans today. this airplane which was considered the world's first practical airplane was constructed and loan in less than six years' time between the time that they built their kite and the success of this particular plan. this is also a plan that was billed less than two years after their first flight at kitty hawk , north carolina on december december 17th 1903. what is interesting to think about is that the rights flyer
and kitty hawk flew four times, just four times on one very historic day, four very important flights and very much for the proof of concept of power. but the airplane behind me, the 1905 right fired three was capable of repeated takeoffs and landings, repeated flight, not just for a few seconds at a time, but a upwards of 40 minutes by timber of 1905. this airplane flight in circles, figure eights, it did bank and turn in five very much like a modern airplane flies. this is very much a modern airplane capable of being controlled 33 independent tax is a flight, pitch, roll, and young . >> more from wright brothers aviation center next weekend as book tv and american history tv look at the history in literary life of dayton ohio. saturday at noon on c-span2 and
sunday at 5:00 p.m. >> the senate intelligence committee held a confirmation hearing tuesday for senior officials at the cia and state department. this is a little less than two hours. [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. we meet today to consider to ofo president obama's nominees inde. the intelligence community.iden mrs. caroline diane crass, nominated to be its general counsel of the cia. ambassador daniel bennett smith, nominated the assistant secretary of stasete fordanieln nomilligence and research, as we would say to myanmar.
welcome to you both. to the family of friends with you today.r. i also understand that senatorh, bennett will be introducing this and should arrive shortly from another hearing. when he does command i will givs him the opportunity to make his remarks and then we will go baci to whenever we are doing.em we have received dances are preo hearing questions this to me found on the committee's website for anyone interested.hose on tly afford to hearing both of your opening statements.te this committee has the jurisdiction over all nominees d requiring senate confirmationpei within the intelligence community. we tried to move that process as quickly as we can. the number of these positions is fairly small, and so i appreciate my colleaguess cooperation to keep the processa running. it is my hope that we will bella
able to vote on these two oces nominees as one of the first w orders of business when wete return in january. both ms. crass and ambassador smith have long and in distinguished careers, but neither has worked for anr intelligence agency or in a primarily intelligence position in the past.r this is not a disqualification, and both of you have beenin the involved in intelligence mattera over the course of your careersv but we will ask you both to tter discuss how you intend to lead and supervise intelligence organizations as relative outsiders.upervi caroline crass currently serves as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel ortl zero elsie. sisthas also served at the national security council, and previously in legal positions a. the department of treasury and state.
the committee has received several letters in support of tr her confirmation from seniorha officials and colleagues frompo both sides of the aisle, and i n ask unanimous consent that thosr letters be made part of the record.ous if confirmed as general counsel. ms. grass would be their chief legal officer of the cia responsible for providing legale advice for agency operations anr insuring that cia activities are conducted in compliance withnd applicable law.ctitie given the sensitivity and secrecy of most of the cia'spli work, it is of paramount a importance that general counsel be a strong wire, but also a leader, a manager, and someonela who exercises good, sound judgment. ambassador daniel bennett smith has served in a variety of positions at the state bapartment, most recently as ambassador to greece, but alsoae
as executive secretary of theor apartment, principal deputybut secretary for consular affairs,e and an overseas post a in thise stumble, ottawa, and stockholm. quite a variation.ron, ta is a career officer in the senior foreign service with the rank of career minister. that position to which ambassador smith has beeninis nominated, the assistant whic secretary for intelligence research, i and our is unique ir the intelligence community.nd sa the i and our bureau is one of the three all source analytice agencies within the community. along with the cia and defensesr intelligence committee.ty, but its primary customers are the senior leaders of the statet department. the assistant secretary for i c and our has 1 foot in each campt but as a leader of an icy agency and as a briefer to theh
secretary. he is also the conduit betweenas the intelligence community and the state department and is a e intesible for ensuring that our intelligence activities todm and the conduct of our foreign policy are coordinated and compatible. i am particularly pleased toatea know and mind that i said no, not float, that both nominees to attended mile modern of stanforn university. as an undergraduate in this class and four master's and. ph.d. in ms is smith's case, is, note that this is not the only way to be confirmed to the toesa community, but it might be the t best way.onfi i would also like to remindcnity members, please do not discussao classified topics were to askmbs questions that require apl classified answer. a mr. vice chairman, would you like to make your opening statement? .. mr. vice chairman, would you
like to make your opening statement, and then i think senator bennett is here, and we will go to senator bennett. >> thank you, madam chair, and i didn't go to stanford, but i hope i can read all of my statement here. well, thanks, madam chair, and i join you in congratulating ms. krass and ambassador smith on being nominated by the president for these respected positions, and i also want to express our thanks to their predecessors, steven preston and philip goldburg, for their service. last week the committee approved this report on the september 12 benghazi terrorist attacks. this report includes findings and recommendations that are relevant to both the cia and the state department and including the bureau of intelligence and research. there are many lessons to be learned from benghazi, and i encourage both of you to read this report carefully once it is released, as i know you will. ambassador of the bureau of intelligence and researchas