tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN April 4, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
other options because they're artificially raising the price. >> i guess i would say you want to try to set reasonable hotel taxes. i'm not a fan of paying for the atlanta falcons stadium, but you want to make sure they comply across the board. and obviously, it is more difficult, you know, air bnb with their platform, i don't think it is difficult, but if you have something that is more like craigslist, i can understand you're simply posting there. all they're doing is saying you get to post here, you pay us a fee, that's your end of your dealings with us, it's hard to hold them liable, and the city's kind of left, okay, how do we collect the taxes, which, of course, is going to be difficult on a case-by-case basis. >> thank you. >> rosemary sheehan, president of consumers for auto reliability and safety. we spend a lot of time trying to keep the auto industry from killing its customers. i want to throw this out there in connection with the ride sharing economy. there are already now an uneven
playing field when it comes to safety and safety recalls. last we're we succeeded in getting legislation passed in the republican congress to prohibit rental car companies from renting out cars that are under safety recall. so if you have a rental car company with a fleet over 35 vehicles, it is starting in june going to be a federal crime to rent out a car with an open safety recall. but taxicabs, limousines are regulated at the local level. i don't think they even check when they do the annual inspections to see whether the safety recall work has been done. we have been looking into this, and we've been asking reporters to ask, and we've asked uber and lyft, you know, what do you do about safety recalls? and from what i can tell, from an article in the american prospect, they require the owners of the car itself to certify. they could check the vin against the database at the national
highway traffic safety administration and say to the owner, you've got an open recall, we don't want customers riding in a car with an air bag that could explode and, you know, slice their carotid artery or blind them, or we don't want our customers in cars where, you know, the wheels are going to fall off, they catch on fire, the seat belts don't work, et cetera. they don't assert that. they don't take, you know, that one step and say, this is a car that the manufacturer said it's so unsafe it needs to be repaired to be safe to operate. so that's something where i think, you know -- >> great. thank you. >> could you comment on that? >> this again gets back to saying the reputational story won't deal with this because these are going to be one-time events. you don't want your air bag to explode in your face and do all sorts of damage to you and then you give them a bad rating. uber may do exactly that. they may do what we want them to do. but i want that to be on record.
here's what we do, here's -- so with taxes, they have to go to annual inspections, not perfect but at least in principle they're making sure they're safe vehicles, and i guess it varies city by city whether they would look for recalls. you'd like them to do that. again, i would like the see, okay, uber is doing this, they certify they're doing it, they could be spot checked or whatever. you'd like to have that be symmetric with taxes. >> i also think it's important to keep in mind that the reputational mechanism does not exist in a vacuum. there's torts. there's civil law. there's criminal law that all exists, already applies to everyone. so it could be very easily argued that a driver using an uber or lyft platform to pick somebody um has a duty to the rider to not drive them around negligently. they knew or should have known that their car was subject to an open recall because it was unsafe. they had a duty not to drive people around in an unsafe car.
they did it anyway. if something occurs, they should and ought to be held liable for what they do. >> how about uber's allowing them to do that, though? >> i mean, there is a certain question here as to who do you put the onus on, the individuals or the platform itself? so there could be really easy ways to overcome that. if it's as simple as checking a vin number, when they check the vin number they say we don't want your car. that could be very easy. i don't know what they're doing. but it's certainly important to keep in mind that all of these things that sharing economy is not unregulated because they're not sharing economy specific regulations. they're clearly regulated by all the torts, civil and other criminal penalties that would come along with being a bad actor. >> but those don't kick in until after you're injured? a mom lost two daughters in a recalled rental car. we don't want that to happen. right? we're trying to be proactive and preventive. i think we need some regs saying -- >> certainly.
and i would say that tort and criminal law have a deterrent effect as well. it's not just people saying i have a duty and i will be held responsible and i will adjust accordingly. >> given time, i'll let brooks respond quickly then rapid-fire, three questions in a row, and let the panel respond before we close. go ahead, brooks. >> sure i would respond, and i think echoing some of dean's statements, this one of those situations where from a regulatory stand point there should be equality in how this is regulated. this is a safety issue and it makes a lot of sense to do that. >> thank you. so please go ahead with your question and then we'll go right back here and answer them as a bundle. >> it was more of an observation and probably good you're not giving me much time. richard holbrook, consumer federation of california, where we are grappling with what we call the sharecropping economy. i think we have to put this in a context, all the wealth is going to the top one-tenth of 1%. people are doing coping
mechanisms to try to figure out how to survive in an economy where the social contract between corporations, workers, consumers, and the community is falling apart, and that's what a whole lot of the shift here to what folks who have -- you know, you think off smartphone and that the rules of gravity don't apply. the amnesia, the failure to recognize the lessons our grandparents had to learn a century ago when they established regulation for safety, for labor, you know, for the common good has to be relearned, just like it was relearned after gramley led to the collapse of our banking system and we're seeing it all over again. the arrogance, the wealth. i mean, companies like uber, $50 billion valuation. folks who is made a fortune without ever having to learn the rules the harold way, even conservative corporations have learned about how to treat people. but let's call it what it is, sharecropping, coping mechanisms
for people that can't survive in this economy. [ applause ]. >> my question is for dr. baker. i appreciate you airing a lot of the concerns about this. to me, the sharing economy doesn't apparently mean sharing the profit with the workers, for example, and a number of other issues. my question is, it's very hard when you raise these issues because you immediately get painted as a luddite, sort of this dishonest dichotomy that these companies are either for technology or for fairness, and somehow we can't have both. i wonder if you have any strategies for coping with that. >> thank you. >> hi. i'm julie nephew with aarp foundation litigation. i have to say this is so in my personal -- i don't speak for aarp -- but i have a real problem, mr. baker weather the idea of us allowing companies like uber or air bnb to discrimination and just pay someone off so it's okay,
because the government is not the people that they harm when they're discriminating. if you have a fair housing right to rent a hotel room, you have a fair housing right to also rent air bnb. and people should not be telling them no. if you have a right to get a cab, even though you have a disability, you should expect that that uber driver is not going to drive away when you're halfway out of the car and injure you because they figured out that you have a disability and they don't want to give you a ride. that kind of behavior -- it's not just about whether or not there's a wheelchair-accessible car. it's about whether the top uber believes that it is not responsible for complying with the federal laws and with even the state laws. and so those are some real problems i have. with mr. cooper, this idea that there is some kind of tort mechanism that's going to help people, uber drivers don't have any -- you know, they may have
minimal insurance that doesn't cover anything, so you can get a liability award maybe, but you can never get compensated under that program. >> thank you. how about some closing remarks from each of us in terms of the short-sightedness, how short-sighted are we being, the discrimination tax, is it enough, or should we look at playing the game differently, new rules and not just allowing the shared economy to get by with such a tax? brooks and christopher and dean? >> sure. i that. >> you know, as we've seep the sharing economy grow in recent years we certainly see the good and the bad. i think it's incumbent on all of us to work to make the sharing economy work better for all of us, to make it a situation where it's creating good jobs rather than piecemeal jobs. i think it's one of those things where we want to welcome that innovation but make sure there is a level playing field. here, and let's grasp it and make sure that there's a strong regulatory environment that protects safety and really promotes innovation for our
country. thank you. >> so i think it's important to always keep in mind that the nature of technology is that it will always outpace regulation. it's just an inherent issue in regulation. it's always responsive. you know, if you try to foresee every outcome and stop every possible outcome, oftentimes you will end up with a world where nothing good ever comes -- or the greatest things never come about. so i think it's important to keep in mind that you want to correct on the margins. is the sharing economy perfect? no. there are a lot of things that can be improved upon. will they be improved upon by continued competition from new and better products, or will they be improved upon by regulation? probably some mix of the both. and it's important to keep in mind what regulation can achieve, what it cannot achieve, what competition can achieve, what it cannot achieve, and keep
those both in mind to create an environment that is both open, fair, and flexibility, that consumers are protected and empowered, that competitors are able to freely compete on the merits, and that the world continues to get better as new people can get better products and services in more efficient and more affordable ways. thank you. >> a lot of good points raised to these questions. first off, you know, i agree that it's really unfortunate insofar as people feel like they have to rent out a room in their home or take extra hours driving an uber because they don't get enough pay in their job or don't have a job or a full-time job or would like one. that's our basic struggle. in terms of the question about, you know, technology being made to be luddites, i'm used to be called a luddite, really that's name-calling, that's part of politics, and a lost people are very good at it. butting look, i had a lost fun with amazon. for years amazon was saying they couldn't collect sales taxes because it was too difficult. and my response was always,
well, then maybe you should go out of business and someone who's better at doing an excel spreadsheet should be running your business. look, it's not too difficult. of course, it's not too difficult. you have someone's zip code, you can collect the sales tax. the same sorts of things come up with uber, a minimum wage. we know how to do that. it's not that complicated. if the boys at uber can't figure it out, they'll be replaced with someone who is better at technology. they're the luddites then. it's just name-calling. it's silliness. and again, we're not going to have perfectly symmetric regulation, but so what, we can do a lot better. last point, look, i'm not happy about the idea that you'll have discrimination. i just don't know a way around that. so i'm renting out a room through air bnb and i'm racist, you know, that's really bad, but i don't know how we can prevent that. how are we going to find out someone rents out a room five times and, you know, they decide they don't want an african-american in their house. that is really bad. but i don't know how we'll find that out.
i'm just thinking, purely practical matter, how are we going to find that out. i don't know any way to do that. we can tell air bnb, okay, how many african-americans have tried to get a room, how frequently do they get one, how frequently are they turned down and if they're turned down more frequently than whites, guess what, you'll pay a fine for that and we'll give that to the hotel where we know if you come into this hotel and you're african-american, odds are you can get a room just like a white person. i'm not saying it's okay. i just don't know a way around it. with uber, i mean, on handicap-accessible cabs, most cities require that some percent -- they aren't all handicapped accessible so, you know, if you're in a wheelchair, you have to say, i'm in a wheelchair, send over handicap-accessible vehicle, and, you know, that's what you get. uber, they have no requirement like that so if they're not -- they can keep a record, again, it's not hard. how many of your uber cars are handicap accessible so if someone calls that needs a wheelchair, and if they don't do it, they'll pay a fine, or you could require them. them you pay people.
there are other ways to do it. i'm just say, you know, it's a real concern. every car's not going to be handicap accessible. that's understandable. you make sure that people with handicaps have their needs met through uber as through the traditional system, and if not, then, you know, they're going to have to pay some serious fine for that. >> thank you. we are over time. please join me in sharing appreciation for our panel. [ applause ] . they did a great job surfacing the benefits risk and provoking discussion. thank you so very much for joining us. it looks like there's now a break. thank you.
more from the consumer federation of america's recent conference in washington, d.c. next, consumer activists, government officials and technology leaders discuss advancements in advertising and marketing and challenges for consumers and regulators. good morning, thank you to cfa for saving the best panel for last. sigh want to introduce people who need no introduction, our members of our panel. to my far left, serena is the assistant director of the division of advertising practices at federal trade commission. when i was at ftc, i spent four
years trying to get serena to take a management position. she said no, and as soon as i left she said yes. so, i don't really know how i feel about that. talent does rise to the top. to her right is joe thorough, a professor -- i didn't realize this -- associate dean of graduate studies at university of pennsylvania. joe has been studying consumer behavior and consumer preference with respect to privacy since the stone age and he knows more about it than anyone else. to his right, jeff chester, predejous, prodigious follower and critic -- >> you meant litigious. >> prodigious. i'm litigious. and jeff finished 78-page magnum opus on digital advertising through isps.
to his right is rob sherman. rob is deputy chief privacy officer at facebook and trust me, rob and his colleagues know more about you than the nsa. and last, yeah, yeah, nsa may know more, depending on who you you are. and last, but not least, general council of dna, moderate wing, not the jihadist wing of the digital advertising. so this is our panel. and to get things moving, we're go doing this in light thin rounds. we have five real experts in order to give them an opportunity to talk about wide-range issues i have my timex, keep them under sharp time restrictions. first question -- >> david. video. >> pardon?
the video. almost forgot the video. first we'll watch the video, which the panelists cannot see. can we go to the video, please? >> step back, reconfigure. >> great idea. exclusive access to big data. isn't that right, mike? >> um, well, truth is, we have data but not big data. >> i told the clients we had big data. >> well, when i said i had access to big data, i mean i know of big data. i just -- um -- i don't know them personally. ♪ i know your struggling i feel your pain profits selling beer to babies ♪ ♪ dip to teens you barely know what your customer needs ♪
♪ oh, yeah ♪ i got a feeling a deal's about to aggregate. what kind of data you use, whether lum nates with everybody choosing ♪ ♪ for their cars, clothes, telephonic devices yeah, that would be priceless ♪ ♪ let moo ask you, is your data tiny or large who is buying what? what you -- >> does data really know or is it confused ♪ ♪ because my boy big data knows what kind of soap you use ♪ ♪ that's right english lavender ♪ ♪ let me hear you say big data's got the knowledge you know ♪ ♪ big data, big data's in the server room saving the day ♪ ♪ i got velocity, variety, too ♪ if you ask me real nice i'll get freaky with you
or the ways i complete ♪ ♪ let me drop bombs on your data scientists you got a lot to learn we got a guy called dearn. ♪ ♪ trust in the math we roaming d echo social grab ♪ ♪ supreme, analytic strong always aggregate ♪ ♪ until our data's long got so many data bites jik makes a grown man cry ♪ ♪ show us your brand brief whether cd or mobile yo, yo, yo big data ♪ ♪ millennial household ceo bd's not only in the [ bleep ] he knows everything about the [ bleep ] house ♪ ♪ he knows what they used in japan he knows the shirt reference if you're a mexican man ♪ ♪ a little rub down there
can make a gangster cry ♪ ♪ big data, how you know so much what can i say. i pay attention so you don't have to. peace out. i got more stuff to learn. ♪ ♪ let me hear you say big data, big data, data, big data, big data. >> let me hear you say ♪ ♪ big data, data, big data data♪ [ laughter ] all right. how do you follow that act? i don't know. other than to assure you that the consumer federation of america did not produce that video. let's get our panelists to answer. you have a grand total of two minutes. how marketing has changes in the last several years especially online. i want to start out with jeff on this. >> i found that video.
i mean, the industry writes my material. viacom is not the big player in all of this, really. the big players are google and facebook and the isps and ad agencies but everybody plays. what's happened with advertising and marketing it's 24/7 commercial surveillance. a combination of the most powerful marketers and brands and advertising companies and technology companies and data brokers that are now able to track you and analyze you wherever you go, whoever you are, they just said it, they know you. and they're able to use that power, the mobile phone made all of this possible, able to use that power to influence you in ways that are largely invisible to actually manipulate you, to persuade you. we'll get into that later. a commercial surveillance system. you have a tremendous growth of commercialization, everywhere i it's one of the most powerful
forces shaping our global society making decision about you. your african-american, you're poor, you live here, how can we target you, market you, even for political campaigns. there's no private sanctuary left. there's very little space in our lives where we can be each other and communicate with each other and develop our own ideas without the very powerful influential forces primarily serving the interests of the most affluent and powerful institutions and corporations in global society because this is a global problem, constantly working, tracking surveying, influencing our lives. i hope to talk about it much, much more. but i want to say that we, and the consumer movement, must fight back at the local level, because this disease in a way, this surveillance system is now in your neighborhoods, in your communities and we have to fight at national level. thank you. >> kept it to two minutes.
rob, next. >> sure. hard to follow that. so, you know, it's interesting, some of us were talking before the panel, i realized we've come a long way from sort of the old world of advertising, which is sort of the world of pop-ups and canadian drugs and these things. one of the things that's changed we have a about thor ability to give people a personalized ad experience and an experience that compliments other things they're doing online and off-lines and creates value for them. so, if we're doing this well, people seeing ads, it's for ads that makes things betterer, things this he might want to buy. our ability to do that, rather than seeing spammy things, drug ads, is increased and something we should value. obviously, jeff would agree with me on this, that the fact that we have the able to show people better ads and we have the able to give people things that maybe they're interested in creates an obligation for all of us.
i think we have to work together to make sure people are comfortable with that, understand what's going on and they're in control of it rather than other people being in control. a lot of what i hope we'll talk about and why discussions like this are important, working towards making people's experience better and making marketing work for people, we need to make sure that we're doing a good job of being transparent about what's going on, we're doing a good job of putting people in control so they can choose the messages that they want to receive and there's real value there. that's something that requires a lot of discussion with the folks in this room and with consumers and hopefully we'll get into it in the panel. >> serena, tell us what your view is. >> thanks. in addition to what has already been said, what we're seeing is ads that really doesn't look like traditional ads between the dvr and cord cutters, people aren't watching tv like they used to or consumer print media, even online, there's ad blocking software. we're seeing marketers trying to
get their products in front of consumers in different ways, whether through mobile, native ads, through influence marketing, social media, on line reviews, things like that. in addition, as jeff and rob mentioned, we are seeing more programmatic advertising which allows precision in terms of targeting and ad buying and so there's risks and benefits to that as well. there could be benefits to that and as rob said, it gives you a better experience or could prevent inappropriate targeting but also the privacy issues that jeff has raised. >> xena. >> sure, sure. in just to add on, as you've been talking during the previous panel, certainly the impact of the sharing economy has had a huge impact on both marketers, as well as fund-raisers. so many of 0 you might be with nonprofit organizations and i think trying to corral some newer techniques for those purposes can be a positive here.
certainly marketing used to be a mass marketing offer to personally identifiable information. it's flipped a little bit. now we're talking about targeted cure rated marketing to deidentified beyond the cookie, beyond the pia data, and those offers can be verytargeted, very specific and very relevant. >> joe, you get the last word. >> that's the problem. let me talk about the in control business. we found most americans don't feel in control. in a survey we did last summer, we found that most, 58% of americans, feel resigned to -- i see this anecdotally every day. i have no control about it. i just have to do it, there's no way not to get on google, you just do it. i think it's really important to -- let me say a few things about this. i was at a conference a few months ago, media post advertising conference and one of the executives got up and said, we have to see this as
like a frog in boiling water. we have to get people to see, no not reality what's going on until the actual things happen. and another person right after him talked about prediction, this is serious, you can find this on the web, by the year 2024, he said 50% of americans will have chips in their bodies that when they walk down the aisle they will be able to give off biometric sensors to the store whether they want to pay a particular price for a product. i don't really believe this is going to happen, but the point is that, the hyper competitive environment is causing retailers and advertisers in general to think like this, whether or not these sorts of things will happen. we have to realize that, when talking about potential for prejudicial discrimination, deception, and also issues around editorial integrity that we can talk about.
advertising is not just about giving people ideas about products. it's also about supporting our media system. and what does it mean when the whole super structure of media support begins to change and we don't even know exactly what's going on. >> so i ended with you because i'm going to start with you for our next question. this is directed principally at jeff and joe. this time you actually have 3 1/2, 4 minutes to have slightly more in-depth question. but you -- jeff especiallying but joe, you've been somewhat critical of this market data-driven marketing. so, what are your chief concerns, and how should they be addressed? joe, why don't you start, then jeff can follow. >> one of the biggest problems is, from my standpoint, people in the government as well as in many public sectors will say, it's just advertising, what's the big deal? and they often say, the default is, discrimination around health
and employment. i would prefer to step back a bit and say, yes, of course those are important issues, sexual discrimination as well, gender discrimination, but i think we have to realize that this covers are a much broader territory, we're talking here about -- everything, every aspect of advertising, every aspect of our lives is discriminatory. we discriminate, we make distinctions. but when those distinctions end up affecting how people get priced differently, walking down the aisle and you will, because of beacons now, we have potential, it's beginning to happen, to see different prices based upon the store's knowledge of your history of purchasing. whether you get particular ads opposed to other ads, whether you get it this will happen down the line, it's beginning to happen in sort of ways -- different headlines based upon your psycho graphics. it's the same article but different head leans if you click on positive stories versus negative stories these are issues that are subtle but we
have to think about because if we fall back on, gee, it's about employment discrimination or health discrimination, we're leaving out a huge part of our society. the last thing i'll say about this is that we have to also think about the notion of opt in. for a lot of people, the solution is opt in. a lot of times -- and i believe that opt in is going to be become the default in several years -- the problem is that people don't know what they're opting in for. and so you have to think about what do we mean and what kind of choices do we really give people when they opt in. >> jeff? >> we have to look -- i'm hoping many already do this and hoping you will continue do it, do more of it, look under the hood of the digital apparatus that underlies almost all of our institutions now. and there's two issues to kind of boil it down. one consumer protection issues and institutions, how does it affect our democratic culture, democratic institutions? let's talk about the ubiquitous
data collection. it's more than surveillance. if you look at what the companies are saying, you know, i mean, facebook said this several years agoen what do we do with the business model? we cure rate your identity. increasingly what you have in the data complex that has been created, so think about this. this is now been totally restructured. continuous interrelationships between the growing number of data companies that have all kind of information about you, they've been able to obliterate between online and off-line data, that's merged they can track a single person regardless of the die vice, they know what you do. they're talking did -- terms they use, identity management, connected recognition, the able to reach you almost 24/7 because, in fact, we do -- and they google's hired anthropoltss, we don't see the
distinctions between mobile phone and ourselves. we see the mobile phone as part of ourselves. if you go and -- go to think with google or the research that facebook's done, you'll see studies very in done. they are actively working to use all of this information to influence us in many ways that are invisible. and they're taking advantage in terms of consumers and they've created several theorys about it, path to purchase. because of the mobile phone, they're able to know what you're looking for. you know, where are you at any time? are you in the car? google calls this micromoments taking advantage of your information so when you're going to one store you get the coupon for the other store, et cetera, so it has fast implications for what we pay, for discrimination, et cetera. now, i just want to -- so all of this information is made actionable instantly. when you look at technology, they're able to decide what kind of credit card offer, high rate,
low rate, am i going to make about you, and do that in 20 milliseconds and auction this off to the highest advertising bidder or partner. we're auctioned off like cattle through the process. there's a whole dehumanization process here. they're also using the latest techniques to influence us in deep and profound ways. the investment in neuromarketing, the investment in taking all of this data about us, and testing it in front of mris, eegs and facebook's doing it, google's doing it, they're all doing it. the business model is this. not only do they want to have all of this information about you and make decisions about you, you get the good rate, you get the bad rate, you get the diabetes medication, we're going to try to get you in or operation, we know what you're doing because of apple watch and internet of things. they are designing it to bypass our conscious minds.
they call it immersion, influence us in profound ways. look at neuromarking you will see -- nielsen bought the largest neuromarking company three years ago, it's a huge business. these are things we have to be concerned about digital marketing in advertising. it's unfair. it's manipulation. ultimately, it's going to undermine our society unless we have some safeguards. >> okay. i'm going to give both rob and xenia two minutes each to explain to jeff why you think he's wrong. >> my therapist hasn't done it yet. why should they? >> then we'll move on. >> sure. >> you want to start? >> sure. no, no, absolutely. ooh i think with the new data-driven marketing economy, it is very important to stay on top of some of these concerns, some of these issues for consumers and to really be transparent about what might be happening and give them all of the information so that they can make choices properly and also effectuate those choices.
we are definitely not in terms of an industry, interested in doing anything that would harm the consumer but actually we really want to provide the transparency and choice and certainly we want to take a closer look at this neuromarking model and make sure that we are following best practices and good principles around that, because we do value that consumer and customer relationship throughout the lifetime and hopefully we can build on consumer trust by being transparent and open and not doing such things that jeff has mentioned. >> so, do you want to talk to us for one minute about the recent dma report on the value of data, and then we'll go to rob. >> oh, sure. absolutely. thank you so much for the opportunity. and i'm happy to share this. i want to highlight a couple of things from the report. we issued a report just recently and it was commissioned by the data driven marketing institute. it was put together by professor john dayton, who is the professor of business administration at harvard, and
professor peter johnson, who's a recent adjunct professor at columbia. so, some of the findings, some of the key findings, is how much data driven marketing, of course, responsible data driven marketing is growing as a catalyst for the u.s. economy. so, certainly back in 2013, the last number was 150 billion. in 2012, pardon me. now, we're seeing it's actually 202 billion in revenue to the u.s. economy. the u.s. data driven marketing economies a jobs catalyst for every state in the u.s. for example, in california, the jobs grew from 89,000 to 128,000. michigan's grew from 17,000 to 25,000. and new york grew from 51,000 to 78,000. and a lot of that is the growth in the sharing, mobility economy that we're seeing. and the impact of consumers being much more comfortable with using their mobile devices to
make their lives better and to experience marketing in a better way. so certainly we also want to highlight that this produces high value jobs, marketing tech certainly, and that the data-driven marketing economy leads globally. it has a huge positive impact in this innovative field. certainly we want to impact positive growth and do not want to go into the areas where we could you know get into that creepy factor. that would not be responsible for best practices. >> so, rob, it's your turn. >> yes. i mean i think it's really interesting. one of the things that's important to understand about, at least how facebook's business and how we see our business, we have an obligation, people trust us with their data, we have an obligation to do right by them and to be responsible in the way that we do that. it's not just because it's ethically important but also, at the end of the day, it good for our business. if people don't trust us, don't feel like they're being
respected when they use our service, they're not going to use it anymore, they're going to use it less. result is that, even if we're showing a particular ad at a particular moment, over time, things are, people -- we have to assume people are smart, right? we have to assume that people understand what's going on and people have the ability to make choices and so our incentive, over the long term, is really to be trustworthy and give people a good and positive experience. so, part of that is making sure that when people are on facebook, whether it's in their news feed or in the ads that they see or other things that we're showing them things that are valuable to them and they would prefer to see. and also i think, joe, you made an important point about control and making sure that people feel in control and they understand what's go on. so one of the things that we've done recently is we've rolled out a new why am i seeing this ad feature on facebook. about you see any ad on facebook, you can click, ask why am i seeing this ad. instead of generic disclosure,
here are the various way we share ads, we're telling people this ad was shown for this reason, and you have the ability to know about it and you have the ability to take action right then and there. i think when we look at those kinds of things, you know, those are the efforts that are really making people feel more empowered and are more empowered. hopefully we'll see more efforts like that. i think you know some of the stuff you're talking about, every, i think people understand when they're being treated in an extractive way, i think it's incumbent on all of us in the industry to do a good job of not doing that. and to make sure that people are respected and have have a positive experience. >> can i ask a question? i don't have to. >> i'll come back to you in a minute. let's go serena involved in this. serena, you have a choice of weighing in on this or answering another question, which is about native advertising. >> i'll probably do the native advertising. >> pick up "the new york times" or "the washington post,"
embedded on the first page are things that look like stories, that look like articles, and in fact, designed to trick you into thinking this is just another article. why don't you explain to everybody what native advertising is but what, you know, what does the ftc think we ought to do about this. >> right. well, as you sort of described, it's content that looks like a news feature or a product reviews, entertainment kind of articles or other editorial content but in fact it's not editorial content created by the publication. it's somehow paid for or compensated by an advertiser. our position on native ads is pretty much longstanding position ftc has held, which is if it's an advertising or promotional message, that should be identifiable as such to an consumer. a consumer should know whether seeing an ad or independent
editorial article. an ad misleads a consumer into thinking this is an independent opinion, it could affect the weight or the credibility how they interact with an ad. in fact, they might not want to interact with the ad, they might be looking for editorial content. it might trick a consumer into thinking it's an advertisement. >> [ inaudible ]. >> well, i mean, yeah. >> it's a rhetorical question. >> as i described, it's clear that, you know, consumers have ways now of getting around typical advertising. so, yes, it's a nontraditional way of getting the advertisers' message out. and what we're trying to avoid is a situation where consumers don't know that it's an ad. >> can i ask you a technical question about this? many people install ad blocker technology on their computers. what happens to native content? does it get filtered out? >> i actually don't know.
>> native ads, the reason they're doing native ads -- and the ftc should have come down hard on the industry but the ftc has a difficult time with some of these -- some of these issues is that they have found that it's a way of bypassing the cookie blocking. native advertising -- look, it's purposely deceptive. definition of native advertising is product placement, digital product placement, right? it's playing a greater role. it does illustrate what joe's talking about. now the advertisers can bypass media. they can go to the "new york times," they can go to "the washington post" and say, you got to run in essence what is it, an infotorial, right? it's a way of bypassing the cookie blocking, raises a lot of concerns. can i ask rob a question? >> not yet. not yet. i want serena to finish and rob and xenia to take one second. serena goes first. >> i wanted to finish.
native advertising is basically it's an extension of what we've seen in the past for decades and ftc weighed in on it, like articles that could have been in a magazine that look like an article but they're an ad and make it seem like i'm reading a book review or something like that. so, it's -- it's a different media -- i mean in a different format, in a different new media, but it's the same issue, issue is whether it's deceptive to consumers because it's not clearly disclosed or otherwise made clear to a consumer it's an ad. >> it's data drivein. >> we know where jeff stands on this. before rob and xenia have a chance to respond, do you have -- >> i mentioned that editorial. >> could you -- >> i mentioned editorial integrity last time. this is an area that we don't talk enough about. it's the native advertising part of the problem. it's part of a larger problem of what is going on in our media industries today a short thing.
ten years ago the newspaper industry revenues were about $44 billion a year. you know what it is now? $20 billion a year. this been a $20 billion loss in the newspaper industry. it's similar over the last decade in the magazine industry. that's not to say journalism's going away but we have to realize it's morphing into something very different. native advertising, the old separation between church and state, as it was called, is affecting that whole kind of thing. and companies like google and facebook have to realize they are publishers, not just conduits and they have a respond to help with the integrity of editorializing. >> so, rob, you're going first? >> yep, sure. >> you get a chance to respond. >> so, i think as most people know, there are two main ways that facebook shows ads. one is in our products and services, so as you're browsing your facebook news feed you might see ads and the other is the service that allows us to
show ads in other web sides and apps and that second one is where serena's concern about native advertising really comes in. i think, you know, one of the things that we've tried to do, as we've built audience network in other part of our ad service is to understand what people's concerns are and see how we can build our products and services in a way that addresses the big concerns about online advertising. so, among the most common things that we hear are certainly relevance, we talked about that already, people don't want too see spammy ads for things they don't care about, but also disruption. we can all relate, right? you're browsing the web and something pops up like a big ad that blocks whatever you're trying to do or it's a banner that takes up the first half of the screen, people don't like this. this is a big complaint. so native advertising, in a lot of ways, relates to that and addresses those concerns because it helps people have less disruptive experience, see things that hopefully more interested in seeing that relate to the content of the site that they're browsing and that allow them to get to whatever they're
trying to do in addition to that. i very much agree with what serena said, it important that people know what's advertising and what's not advertising. so one of the things that we've tried to do, as part of our audience network, what we give to developers we give them ad units, prefab ad units that have disclosu disclosures, so all they have to do is plug them in. we have software they can build their on or use software we provide to give people choices about the ads that we're seeing. somebody's building their own custom experience we have guidelines that say here's what we expect of you. one of the things that we expect of you is to make sure that you're disclosing clearly differentiating the ad content from nonad content, using words like sponsor to promote it, to make sure people understand what's an ad and what's not. there is value to having less disruptive advertising. we include advertising in services and make them free for people, it's very valuable. it should be valuable.
but it also needs to be straightforward to people and i think that's a lot of the work that we've wried to do. i agree with joe, your comment, we all have a responsibility and we have a role to play here. i think we've tried to be clear with the companies that we work with about what we expect. >> so xania's up next. >> want to chime in and echo, absolutely we support serena, also the ftc's work in a related set of issues dealing with endorsements and testimonials. so if you're talking about the old issue of mom bloggers, coming up with grand new discovery and you figure out gosh, this is somebody paid to do this. so we have to be very careful. it's like old wine in new bottles, as newer tech is developing we want to make sure the existing rules and regulations apply and the marketers are aware of them and know how to apply them. >> yeah, that really -- the native advertising does really morph into the influence of marketing and endorsements and the issues we've -- the guidance we've issued on endorsers and
disclosures and how to make appropriately. >> jeff, i know you're -- >> but that's my point, and really it goes back to david's initial question, and i probably didn't answer it the way i should. it's many different things. the system they've created is a fabulous concoction of many different powerful forces all working together and increasingly real-time. it's about creating experiences, right? it's about the role of branded content. it's not just about an ad. it's no longer that way. they've achieved that goal and go to facebook studio, which is the special section on facebook for advertises and read the wonderful profiles of the campaigns for their campaigns f advertisers that won their awards. go this afternoon and pull down health marketing, see how they really do it, how they take the data, how they take your social media use and what you say to your friends, how they take your
location, how they take your history and create this personalized content for you. and we have to also be concerned about the growth of commercialism. commercial forces. when google unveiled its youtube kids app lab last year, it was an advertising system for children five and younger. they want to embed these commercial marketing values in our society in more profound ways, and they have the ability to do it than ever before and we, you, have to say no. there have to be limits. we have to have alternatives, sanctuaries, regulations and safeguards. their underbelly is at the community level because they're doing so much more -- and joe has a book coming out about that. so much more in your neighborhoods, tracking and targeting you. you need to go to your legislatures and a.g.s and say let's see what digital marketing
is doing to your communities. >> this is a perfect segue way. sandy and rob -- so jeff is i would say a trifle concerned about marketing techniques at the moment. what's around the corner? what sort of comes next? you guys live in dynamic marketing environments. the tools are being developed very rapidly so what do we expect next? what are the new technologies that are going to be used in the advertising landscape. how do we anticipate these changes, and what kind of regulatory scene do you envision for the next generation of advertising? sandy, why don't you go first. >> sure, sure. well, in my particular area at the dma, we handle the self-regulation aspect of this so we are very carefully monitoring what is occurring, for example, around the internet
of things, around the new mobility economy that's coming around, artificial intelligence. certainly there will be greater realms in the data space data tracking that we've got to make sure that we are following best practices and heightening our standards because as there are greater abilities to collect data, we have to make sure that we are offering up the transparency, the notice and the choice in each of these developing areas which are extremely beneficial to consumers. so for example, in the internet of things, great developments in terms of how you can operate within some of the newer equipment, some of the cars that are being developed by google. but we have to be very, very careful as that is being developed as data is being collected whether or not that is the right thing to do and how we handle that responsibly. >> i think one of the things that we're going to see going
forward is an increasing ability for companies that deliver marketing to do it in a relevant way, to give people less spasmy ads, more ads that are likely to be of interest to them. so i think there are a lot of different technologies that are going to go into that but i think that's over all going to be a positive for people. they're going to see less random stuff on the internet and in their mailbox and see more things that may be of value to them. the flip side of that is we need to make sure that our ability to empower people, to control that experience, keeps pace with the innovation. so i think a lot of what you're going to see is an increase in the ability of companies and i talked a little about how facebook is trying to do this. you're going to see an increase in the ability to provide, control and to be really transparent with people about what's going on. i think as companies are better able to understand, you're more likely to click on this kind of advertising about cars than advertising about food or those kinds of things. what you're going to see is a better ability for consumers to see what their profiles look
like and to see, okay, i'm going to see more ads about cars because i click on ads about cars and then actually to exercise control and say i know i click on ads about cars but i don't want you to classify me that way. that's something we have been spending time on at facebook so it's done in a way that's usable and accessible. it's fine to have a dumping ground where you say here's all of your information but it's another to actually make that a product. it's another to make transparency and control and actually building accountability for companies delivering ads into something that is a product that people can use. we've really tried to do that and i think you'll see hopefully, i hope, the industry more generally trying to do more of that to be more transparent with people about what's going on and to let them curate their experience. that frankly is good for us, i said people's satisfaction with advertising goes up when we are
more clear with them about what's going on. but it's also good for advertisers because they shouldn't want to pay to deliver ads to people who don't want to see them. >> i'm going to ask serena a question in two seconds and give joe and rob a chance to respond and then we'll open it up to questions. you're a regulator. this landscape is changing very quickly. all of a sudden the sanctuary of our homes are now places of information collection. you've got tvs that are listening to you. you've got -- >> your phone is listening to you. >> your phone is listening to you. your home is going to be controlled by network devices, and even children's toys are now coming internet enabled, so barbie dolls have wi-fi capacity and your children's chatterings were not worth saving, i'll tell you.
nonetheless, and of course all of these information collection questions are difficult ones. you're the regulator. how are you and the fcc going to manage what is a complete network society where the car is talking to the mothership, your children's chatterings are being collected and your tv is being listened to? >> it's a challenge. we do think that the ftc act, the general principles of advertising and disexception loss and unfairness are applicable. the technologies might change but the principles are the same and we have to tackle them in the same way we have been as new technologies arise. so we have -- as you know, we do a lot of workshops. we're constantly talking to industry and consumer advocates, having workshops, trying to make sure that we are at least staying ahead of this. we now have a new office that
deals with technology and research that -- and they're really helping us keep ahead of some of these new technologies in terms of what's going on in the mobile space, what's going on behind the scenes in terms of the data collection, et cetera, and that will help us whether we want to bring cases or take other actions. >> joe? >> thank you. i want to bring up something that rob talked about to complicate it, which has to do with the idea of relevance. i think that relevance is really important. i think we all like to get relevant stuff, i certainly do. there's a dark side of that though. behind relevance is profiling and related to relevance is surveillance. if we think about some of the new technologies like augmented reality, biometrics, all of these things will enhance
lance in some way. maybe it's not always going to be relevant but you'll talk into yourself that this has got to be relevant because they're profiling me. they know so much about me. maybe i should get pampers instead of huggies. the thing about it is that all of these ideas, eventually the danger is being siloed in a perspective that relates to your profile, that you really have no knowledge about. you're at the behest -- your relevance is determined by a set of values and notions of profiles that you really have no direct access to, particularly when it's cross marketer and cross platform. when it's done across so many different kinds of technologies. so relevance is a mantra and it's a kind of holy grail, but behind it can be lots of issues that we as a society have to
think about around what i talked about in terms of editorial integrity, prejudicial discrimination and the whole notion of do we want a public sphere where we're always wondering whether the person shopping right next to us is getting a difficult price for that product because they know something about the situation or somebody knows something about them that they don't know. i've heard people say i better change my actions so my profile will be better so i'll get a better deal on something. these are very interesting social issues that as a society we have to confront. >> of course i agree with joe and it's incredibly important we do this now because we're at a very critical transition moment. these elements that i talked about have really just been put in place in the last few years, this ubiquitous tracking and profiling and targeting and we've cooperated. we have to. we love our mobile phones.
the health system is about to be transformed by digital data and the obama administration is supporting that transformation. we have a lot of concerns about that. the growth of immersion, virtual reality advertising that influences us in more profound ways is about to take off. we have civil liberties which includes privacy and autonomy. we have to deal with this notion that big data is only good because we've allowed the creation of a commercial and frankly governmental surveillance state. because the companies are so invested and because they've made it so successful -- it's hugely successful. look where facebook was, where google was. privacy legislation. civil liberties laws are a threat if you look at what the u.s. companies have been trying to do to europe. who remembers what happened when you had naziism? who remembers what happened when you had communism, institutions
collecting all this information. our companies have gone out and lobbied against privacy and legislation laws. so then there's the civil liberties and privacy aspect. then there's the autonomy and human freedom aspect. this is constantly analyzing us as joe described, making predictions about us, influencing our choices, our behavior. it's shaping the larger culture. we don't know to what ends. it's interesting, the marketers will give the advertising agencies a portal, an ipad so they can have access to us 24/7 and the consumers don't know what's going on. it's not all bad. it's not all good. like anything in life i say there are things that need to be fixed but this system is reshaping everything we do. its ultimate goals are to monetize and influence our every
experience. the political parties both from the sanders campaign to the koch brothers i'm sure are using these technologies. nobody knows anything about it and we have to develop an approach to this that puts this under the control of the individual on behalf of the greater society. >> i'm going to take questions for about 20 minutes and then i'm going to let the panel sum up at the end so everyone gets their own last word. if there are questions, there are microphones. could you just come to the microphone and as you ask your question, just introduce yourself for a second. >> jim. i'm getting concerned here. i'm hearing surveilled and tracked and targeted and then i read amazon is playing with drones so i don't know if that should concern me, too. what i hear -- my question is for the industry folks. first of all, thanks for coming and i appreciate you being here and sharing your perspective. what i hear is some agreement on the panel that there is tremendous potential for abuse
here, and what i hear you guys saying is it's okay, trust us, we'll act responsibly. and let me stipulate that that's true right now. you both seem like nice people, let me stipulate that everybody in your industry is nice and going to act responsibly and so on. what about when somebody who's not so nice takes over and the potential is there. my experience as a human being, if there's a potential for humans to screw something up or do something bad, it will happen eventually. i just wonder if you could address that. >> it's a totally fair question and an important one to think about. a couple of things. first, i think we need to be concrete about what the risks are that we're worried about. this panel has raised some. i think it's probably a mistake to equate marketing with naziism, for example. >> i didn't do that. >> you did. and i say that -- >> i won't make any jokes about that. i'm jewish by the way.
>> i say that not to pick at your point but just to say -- >> i didn't say that. i talked about the consolidation and concentration of information. >> i think we need to think about what are the things that could happen that we're worried about. i think in a lot of cases though we have laws that deal with these situations, so the ftc is here and i think has fairly broad authority to go after companies that engage in practices to which they object. facebook is a company that spends a lot of time at the ftc and they're certainly not shy about letting us know if we do things that they're concerned about and that's their role. the ftc is quite active. state attorneys general is active. when we're talking about things like discrimination, we have civil rights laws in this country that cover a lot of the kinds of things or may cover a lot of things we're worried about. we absolutely need to be thinking about what's going on and what the consequences are, but we also need to realize that
we have a framework that deals with that. the last thing i'll say is about transparency and joe alluded to this, too. when there's information asymmetry, that's when some of the concerns that folks have raised can come up. one of the things that's incumbent on companies like facebook that deliver ads but all of us is to make sure that people under that marketing is happening but to hear the decisions that are being made about what to show you, here's what we think about you. we use words like profiling but the reality is it's important for people to know here are the choices that a company has made about what ads to deliver and here's what you can do about it. the more that we can rely on the existing framework that we have which i think by most accounts is pretty successful and then add to that transparency and giving people real choice, i think we can address a lot of those. i agree with you that these are things that we just need to continue to keep in mind. >> also to react a little bit to
what jeff said, if we're talking and i know you didn't really mean it in this way. if we're talking about communism, in communist countries there are no free society or the ability to commercially market to individuals based on their preferences and needs. but at the same time we do have to have very strong self-regulation as a starting point. it's extremely important to make sure we've got real time notice and choice, that we're transparent in disclosing to consumers what may or may not be occurring. it's true there are a lot of huge capabilities, big data. there are things that we can do now that we never could before. that doesn't mean that we should. there should be some real lines drawn around that. and also we need to partner with the regulators. we need to partner with the ftc, with the state regulators, and we do that where these issues really do flare up. i mean, there are a lot of current crimes going on, small crimes, fake sweepstakes, and this is across the channels, the newer channels, vacation offers,
car warranties. we've got to partner with the regulators. we've got to get in there and make sure that we're not just saying self-regulation is sufficient, that we can handle all of that. we also have to work with the regulatory framework. >> so next round, shorter answers. next question. >> hi. my name is heather graham. i'm chief council for commissioner marietta robinson. i have a different take on this panel here where we as an independent agency unlike the nsa actually have very little access to people's data, and that data could be very, very, very critically important to actually saving lives. i know we have some commercial interests up here. we have the ftc doing regulation and we have some other representatives that might not like government getting some access to this data, but everything from helping underserved communities, getting recall information after they've bought products on the secondhand markets or less safe products that they don't have
access to better resources, also you touched on health data. we don't have huge access to health data on how products have injured or killed consumers and a way to get back to those communities around lnd let them that these things are problematic and how they can partner with government agencies to get this data because the one thing we know is, big data, little data, it's very expensive and we don't have access to it and it can actually change people's lives for the good, notwithstanding huge privacy concerns that we'll have to be looking at. >> thank you for your question. we're going to pass on answering it because this is a panel on marketing. but i'm sure rob and xenia would be happy to talk to you afterwards about getting you some data. next question? >> mike. my roommate and i noticed on our facebook accounts that the news stories that show up as trending are actually different and i'm wondering if that's based off of our own what's trending within
our own friend networks or some other algorithm. jeff and joe, when you mentioned people might get advertised two different prices, is that something like a shirt or something like phone service or a loan? >> great question. rob, you go first. each of you has one minute to answer this question. >> i'll give you the one-minute answer and i'm happy to give more information later. when you see your facebook news feed, it is curated based on the kinds of things that you've told us you're interested in both what's on your profile and also the things you're most likely to engage with. we want to show you things that if you had access to all the public content on facebook you would choose and trending is the same way. you're likely to see things in trending that are related to topics that you've told us you're interested in. >> joe, one-minute response. >> yes, i agree with that. the issue -- what was the second question you asked? price discrimination.
price discrimination is across all of those. seven, eight years ago companies were reluctant to mention price discrimination. now it's pretty much taken for granted. it's not literally on the shelf. when you walk by the shelf changes. they can do it but that would show it. so the way it works is doing it on your mobile device. the mobile device has become the default way to engage people but also i've been told by retailers for example a way to make it so you will get a price and you won't look at another person and you won't feel bad. so this way you can get two different prices standing in the same place at the same time. >> we work very closely with u.s. purg on some of the these issues, especially about online lead generation. so for example they know you're low income and you'll be targeted in real time as you're walking in the street for a payday loan. that gives you an example of discrimination. >> next question? >> hi, my name is ariel tabson
with the tennessee department of commerce and insurance. i'm here today representing the division of consumer affairs. my question is specific to transparency. we mediate on behalf of consumers. we're the clearing house for complaints so we work with local law enforcement often. when they're not able to get a response from a social media platform like facebook, for example -- this is a real life example. sending out a subpoena and needing any kind of documentation or photos or anything like that in that nature, is there a mediating office or some kind of office within social media like facebook that can work with us, our office or law enforcement offices, to resolve these consumer issues or any forms of imposter scams and such? how can we, like you said, partner with you, like actually be able to contact you to resolve these complaints, not only resolve them but in a
timely manner in the interest of the consumer. >> so in the interest of time, rob is going to stay afterwards and give you the right information. >> thank you. >> it's a question specific to facebook. >> the unintended consequence of pushing a lot of information so the consumer has everything they need to know about, when a good number of the people who are on facebook have very low levels of literacy. so they're assaulted with information. they're not able to read and discern that information, how do you deal with that? >> it's a serious problem and something that we need to work more on, but we've been thinking a lot about how to deal with that as different people are getting privacy and ads information in different ways. so some of the things that we've tried to do are, one, to provide -- so we have obviously our privacy policies and other documents that are accessible to everybody, but also providing controls and providing information in context as you're using facebook, so that you don't have to go and look for a
document. you can read one or two sentences that explain how something is going. we've aalso built something new called privacy basics which is a cartoon version of the most frequent questions that we get. it sort of walks you through and you can find it on facebook. it walks you through the most frequent questions and shows you here's how you address this particular problem in a straight forward way. >> i just wanted to confirm that. that is an issue because with ftc, whenever we're talking about notice, it has to be meaningful and underable to the consumer. it's a lot simpler than the marketers seem is sufficient. >> next question? >> i'm with consumer action. advertisers and advertising platforms often make the claim that these smart ads offer consumers control over the advertising content they see. now, generally that control usually just extends to which ads one will see and not whether one wants to see ads at all.
yet, if the only control a consumer wishes to exercise is to not see any ads at all, how is that controlling any meaningful sense? >> they're ad blocking. serena, do you want to start out? do you have an answer to that question? >> if you're on a site as facebook is, for example, that's a free site, i think there is some aspect of this is the price of getting this content or using this. so if you want to -- there's ad blocking software out there that will prevent you from seeing anything, but there might be consumers who don't necessarily want to have it in either/or and trying to strike that balance and make sure they're seeing relevant ads and knowing what they're seeing is the difficult part. >> joe? >> i just wanted to elaborate on this a bit. it is true that advertising is a key support system for a lot of
the media you get. i think we have to recognize this. it's something that the 20th century created for us and people don't spend huge amounts of money for media. but at the same time, there are prices to pay. the lesson of the 20th century was somehow that content is cheap because advertisers pay for it, and we have to decide whether we really want that. >> this is a different conversation. our society at periods have had choices about whether to have a commercial or noncommercial system and the history of the united states was the commercial forces lobby to make sure we only had a commercial system. i don't think you can look at an advertising as a kind of rationale process. it's not a rationale process. it's an immersive and integrative process. for example, when you're getting an ad, it may not be be based on your interest but communications that you're doing with your
friends on facebook. it's called social media surveillance. understanding what your friends are doing, then they target you. also the ads can be literally changed in real time using all the data to make it much more personal. so it's a much more powerful process than just a static ad. >> rob, you're next. >> i agree with what folks have said, that the free ad supported internet is extraordinarily expensive to operate and i think it's really powerful and important and valuable to all of us that we're able to go online right now and see content right now. i think we should recognize that that's a part of it but facebook at least and i can only speak for our company, we really think about ads not as the cost of doing business but the central value that we're providing to people. we're connecting people to not only their friends but organizations that they're interested in.
if there's somebody who is on facebook and they say i'm not seeing the ads that i want, i want to shut them off, there may be people who just don't want to be on facebook, but that's a signal that we can do a better job at showing them ads that create value to them. but if somebody doesn't want to see advertising, there are probably a lot of websites that they wouldn't want to use. >> just one last point about notice and choice, there are some choice tools that consumers can use hopefully effectively and i'm asking you to test that out. we have dma choice for future marketing offers. you should be able to opt into that process and make sure that you're reducing your number of ads and then online and mobile you should be able to opt out through aboutads.info. try that out. we're doing the best we can with the choice provisions. >> thank you. >> pat o'neal. you've talked about relevancy and value and what not like
you're doing the customers or whatever a favor or the users. it seems like there ought to be real transparency. you've also used that word. where just like the freedom of information act where you can go in and see if the fbi has a file on you or what not, actually i'd like to go in and see what's facebook's profile of mine, not what i put as a profile, what do you have as a profile for me. if you're worried about accuracy or relevancy, you would think you would share that with your customers or users so you're more accurate or relevant. >> so this is a question of access and i'd like rob to start out answering this question, but this is a broader question than just facebook. so i'd like other people to chime in. rob, you get the first word. then we'll go down the list and serena, you'll be next.
>> i agree with your point that it's important for people to know what information is collected about them and how it's being used. on facebook at least you can go into your settings and there's a download your information option. you can download a zip file of all the information that's in your facebook account. in addition to that if you're focused specifically on advertising, you can go access your ad preferences which is essentially a list of all interests that we're using to help deliver advertisements. the hope is that you'll look at it and make sure it's accurate. if you don't want to see ads for particular things or targeted in certain ways, you can control that. our experience is that most people find relevance to be of value and are concerned if their ads are relevant. if you're somebody that's not, you can uncheck the boxes and take yourself out of those interests. you'll still see ads but they won't be targeted to your particular interests. >> serena? >> i think that's a real issue. i think there are a lot of companies and even some of the data companies that say we do
make it available information we have about you but it's not clear to consumers how to do that or that the consumers are able to do that or exercise that ability. that's something that just probably needs to be improved. >> joe, you're next. >> the only thing i would add -- >> would you use the microphone, please. >> while you might find on google what google says it has about you, the difficulty of that is that when it gets together with other companies to merge data for a particular set of campaigns, that's often very different. so any particular company may give you a certain set of data about what you have, but then a lot of data gets merged in order to learn other things. i also should say that axiom has part of its website supposedly or specific website to share what it supposedly knows about you. according to the "new york times" about a year and a half
ago, there were things they left out because they thought people would be too nervous about learning that. >> and they got a lot of things wrong. >> we shouldn't assume that these profiles are accurate, that the data is accurate. there is a process so that presumably you'll like what you get. but there's a lot of stuff that exists in the back end that may be totally inaccurate about you. >> at the same time, what they say they give you is not really what they have about you. there's a famous case of an austral austrian student and he sued facebook and got hundreds and hundreds of pages that they otherwise wouldn't have released about his profile. look, the decision-making process that all these guys, all these men and women have done, is purposely disguised. they're able to collect all this information about you every moment of every day. as joe as saying, you may go to
one site and they have 20 data partners, another site they have a different 20 partners. they're all profiling you, making decisions about you. they don't want to come clean about what's really going on, and they've made sure the federal trade commission has not had the regulatory authority to really crack down on that industry. they have fought tooth and nail. it was in dodd frank. they made sure it got defeated. that's why we have to hope that the federal communications commission makes the positive move and reigns in the internet service provider so you'll have access to your broadband information. >> i really agree with joe's statements that you've got the issues with the individual company holding data but then you've got a lot of other interactions that you might be having with companies or organizations so that really creates a lot of different data points. if this is really around data access, data hygiene, list hygiene, that's definitely something this right now has to be tackled for the company or
for the organization. >> we're running out of time. there are two people waiting to ask questions. we're going to take both questions together and then i'll ask the panelists not only to give their answers but to wrap up. sir, you were next. >> i think jeff raised the question as to whether or not there's too much commercialism flat out and it seems disappointing that the media landscape has become so saturated with this insidious type of commercialism and so much major media companies use native advertising, very few adopted effective labelling standards for it. i guess my question is, do you we need more noncommercial applications and media systems and advertising-free zones, particularly for children, and much clearer demarcation so people can be protected against collection of big data that's used against them? >> so that's the first question. you're next. >> i'm janet from mass purg. as soon as this is over i'm going to call and ask them to
create consumer advocate barbie. i think i have a specific question for jeff. i'm asking this as a parent more than anything. i have two teenagers. if there was one thing i could get them to read to kind of become aware of -- just the insidiousness of -- that thing is making me crazy more than anything else. if you could advise one thing i could get my teenagers to read to make them aware, i would find that really helpful. >> i assume this new barbie is not going to be web enabled. sandy, we'll start with you and go right down the row. everybody gets about a minute to answer these two questions and to sum up. >> in terms of the marketing-free zone question, certainly to rob's point, to others' points, that is something that should be looked at but you also have to look at unfortunately the tradeoff if you're going to those types of sites because they're not going to be supported and they may not
work as well. so that's one key point. in terms of the children's set of issues, certainly we have very strong standards to make sure that there is parental consent and notice. we follow capa. we want to make sure that we're following all of those regulations, but there is a societal problem where the parents are giving that smartphone to their kids and they're kind of not paying attention. so we have deeper societal issues that marketing is not going to be able to resolve. did you want me to wrap up? >> yes. you got about 20 seconds. >> in terms of our topic today, the new tech, a couple of key issues we should be paying attention to, data security with some of the changes such as mobile wallets. you really have to pay attention to what's happening with your data and paying attention to the data security standards. we're hoping to get a national data security standard that will protect consumers. and then also making sure that
we're providing all the options to consumers, to rob's point, providing better consumers choices, more transparency. that's our goal. >> so in response to the question, i agree with the consumers advocate barbie. i'll buy it for my kids. both of the questions and a lot of the comments that folks have made on the panel go to the question of what are the benefits of marketing in online and off line and what are the things that we need to be careful of and think more about. i think we have to continue to have conversations like this where we look at not just generally like is marketing good or bad but it exists and i think some people feel that there's real value. some people have specific concerns and i think it's important for those perspectives to come together and for us to have a conversation about what are the things that we want to make sure don't happen as we're achieving the benefits of marketing. i think also we need to do that in a data driven way. we've talked about that but i think that's a whole other conversation, making sure that
we understand from organizations that deal with consumers to understand what they want. we need to think about what is the experience that people want, what are the things that they're worried about, and how do we work together to make sure that people have information about their choices and make sure that they have meaningful choices. as we continue on and as marketing evolves and technology evolves and as people become more sophisticated, there are going to be greater opportunities for people to exercise control and have the experience that they want, whatever that happens to be. >> jeff, thank you. pervasive data collection and its use, think about big data, think about that video. advertising and marketing and commercialism intertwined, embedded deep into everything we do. they designed all of our devices and applications with advertising marketing and commercialism in mind. we do need to have a debate. you guys have to lead a debate.
cu should lead a debate. cfa should lead a debate and purg. do we want everything to be totally commercial because it is all around the world. and our companies are driving this all around the world. there should be places for specific engagement without marketing and advertising and manipulation by those who have the most resources to use all the incredible tools that the digital marketing industry have developed. i'm especially concerned about children. my organization supported by many of you, we're responsible for really the only online commercial law. that's capa. the minute you turn 13 in this country, you have no safeguards anymore and you are targeted by every company as an adult. all of that full onslaught the minute you turn 13 and now they want to undermine capa like google is doing and go after the youngest children. we should have a debate about that. the industry has fought us tooth
and nail when it comes to privacy safeguards for teens. we want teens to have greater control. the industry is opposed to it. why? because teens are such a lucrative market. what can your kid read? i can give you the great literature about how to target teens. it comes across my desk every day. i'll tell you without putting on the spot, i think kids should read the campaign profiles and facebook studio, see what the junk food marketers are doing, what the alcohol companies are doing, see what they're all doing and go to think with google, show your kid that. see these case studies about loans, healthcare, see how they boast what they can do with all this power and i think the child will be appalled. thank you. >> joe. >> i'll make it really quick. i want to say that i have a real problem with the term big data because i think it's more obscuring than anything else. i think the more appropriate term to use is preindicative analyti analytics, using this data to predict people's next steps. we're only at the beginning of
this. this is a century-long process, if not more. what we see now is baby steps compared to what it's going to be ten years from now. i think we have to realize we're not just talking about now. we're talking about the future. education is important. i talk to people who tell me my students every year, the freshmen, did you learn anything about media in high school. one person raises his hand every semester and it's because they took the newspaper course, who controls the newspaper. aside from that they don't learn anything about the media. whether or not people can do anything based upon it is a really open question, but i think we have to ask questions. we have to slow things down. i really believe that given that this is a long process, we have to urge the people in regulatory agencies and elsewhere to try to slow the process down so society can have real discussions about what's happening. i don't think it has to do with individual nice people or bad people. i think it has to do with hyper competition. i've noticed that when
competition among retailers and marketers gets crazy, all of these data profiling activities really speed up. last comment, it's something we haven't talked about. people are paying for band width based upon the ads and the videos that they see, and this is an interesting issue. if you're getting advertising in your cell phone and you're paying for time, it's a really interesting question how much money people are spending simply because they're downloading videos that are related to advertising. i think this is an issue that people have to bring up. >> serena, you get the last word. >> gosh. it's somewhat what everyone's been saying. the market is going to continue to develop, continue to change. advertising is now being targeted at specific populations. children, millennials, immigrant communities, baby boomers, seniors. it's become a very difficult
market to monitor. we really -- the ftc appreciates the help of the consumer advocates out there, working with consumers and we encourage you to come to us when you see issues so that we can stay on top of that. the issues again are always what's the consumer's expectation, is that being respected, and is it being -- are the issues that are important to consumers being informed, adequately informed and given a choice about. >> so please join me in thanking these wonderful panelists. a very stimulating day. [ applause ] before you go, the consumer assembly is done but rachel winetraub is going to say a few words. rachel? we're going to stay here. >> i'll be brief. thank you all so much. >> thank you, rachel. >> you did save the best for last, we know. >> thank you all so much for
your presence and participation, the audience, as well as all the speakers and panelists throughout the past few days, to the staff, my colleagues, this is really an effort. every single one of us works on this conference and it is something that we care deeply about, so thank you all. anna marie was out of the room when our president,+++1@s we look forward to working with you every single day to make our financial markets more fair, our food and products more safe, and our privacy protected in our evolving communications sphere.
campaign 2016 continues on tuesday, april 5th with the wisconsin primary. live coverage begins tuesday night at 9:00 eastern. tune in for complete election results, candidate speeches and viewer reaction. taking you on the road to the white house on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. this week on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the c-span series, landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions. our 12-part series explores real-life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> this is a story in a case about presidential power and its
limits during times of war, and it puts before the court central themes about the conditions under which presidents during times of emergency can do things that may not be expressed stated in the constitution and the limits that congress and the courts can place on it. >> chief justice rehnquist said the case has come to be accepted in the culture. how many cases can we say about that? >> it was a sweeping decision. it isolated the u.s. as one of only four nations of 195 across the globe that allow abortion for any reason after fetal viability, and yet it has not settled the issue at all. >> tonight we'll look at the case, youngstown sheet and tube company v sawyer, the case that significantly curved executive presidential powers, stating that it was unconstitutional for president truman to seize steel mills during the korean war. watch landmark cases tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span during.
. the u.s. supreme court heard oral argument last month in zubic v better well, challenging whether the healthcare law's contraceptive mandate violates religious liberty. religious groups are challenging a law that allows nonprofits to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage to the women who work for them. coverage is provided from the insured directly to the employee. the religious groups argue that the option makes them complicit in committing an act that they consider a sin. the question before the court is whether the accomodation imposes a substantial on the groups' religious rights under the religious freedom restoration act. this is about 90 minutes. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 141418, zu bik versus ber well and the
consolidated cases. >> the little sisters of the poor and the co-petitioners face a dilemma. they can adhere to religious beliefs and pay millions in penalties or provide contraception coverage through their healthcare plans. the government con seeds the sin seert of those religious beliefs b . with all due respect that is not true. >> could you explain to me the analogy with military objectors during the war? many of them felt that genuine belief they were pacifists, that if they registered as pacifists, that that would mean other
people would have to serve in their lieu. they were going to jail and many of them did go to jail because of this belief. why is going to jail less burdensome or less important than paying a financial penalty? >> i don't think it is but let me stick with the conscientious objector because i think it's to say that because they face jail time there's clearly a substantial burden. of course, you get to the second part of the analysis and you probably would insist on a continue yeng shus objector actually objecting. i think it's important to distinguish between -- >> let's stop there. to the extent that a conscientious objector's good faith belief is that if i register, someone will serve in my lieu, what burden is it on
the government? meaning, if you're looking at it in terms of strict scrutiny, the government sends out how many notices to people to come and serve 1,000, 1,200, do you really think it makes a difference in it knows whether or not one person is not going to show up? and if we're going down that road of what's the difference, why would that law survive? >> i think it would because i think it would be very difficult to administer that kind of system if either you couldn't even know about the objection or you couldn't take any steps on the government's part to fill a spot. but i think what's critical -- >> isn't that the same thing here? if you don't know who can pay or who's not eligible or who's eligible to pay, how does this system work?
>> two things, your honor. one, this is perhaps the unique government program where the government can provide an exemption without actually requiring somebody to opt out because that's exactly what they do for the churches, for the integrated auxiliaries -- >> no, the churches have to tell us that their church plans, have to tell the government their church plans. somebody has to tell the government who's eligible or not eligible. how is that different than military service? >> first of all, your honor, that's just not true with respect to the churches. they're integrated auxiliaries and the religion ordering only engage in religious activity. i think the more important thing, your honor, i would distinguish between the situation where somebody has an objection to opting out because the government is going to take steps to find somebody to fill their spot and a continue yen shus objector where the only way they can object is if they list
the name of somebody else who's draft eligible to serve in their sted. >> i was not quite sure where that argument was going. you're getting more into the specifics of it now. could you just begin again there. >> i would be delighted to do, justice. my important was simply that my clients do not object to objecting. part of the reason you know that is they have not been shy about objecting. they told the government in the regulatory process that they were making a mistake when they limited the true exemption for religious orders to only those that stuck to purely religious things. the little sisters wouldn't qualify because they nerve the elder elderly, poor. they objected then. they objected when they filed this lawsuit and reaffirmed it when they filed the notice to
comply. >> that might be so but what happens if somebody did just object to objecting? it seems as though all your arguments would apply the same way. in other words, somebody comes in and says, i do object to objecting because objecting will make it easier for the government to fill my slot. that's a perfectly understandable thing to say and that's part of my sincere religious belief. and you say the sincere religious belief is what controls, and there too it would seem that you would have to say that's a substantial burden even if it's just objecting to objecting. >> two things. first, it would only qualify as a substantial burden if the objection requirement was enforced with massive penalties. that's a relatively rare situation -- >> yes, we have the same penalties as are here and the person is just objecting to objecting and that's part of the
religious belief because that will make it more likely that the government will be able to fill the slot and to take efforts to provide contraceptives. >> i understand. that brings me to the second part of my answer which is i think the right way to understand that hypothetical and as i was explaining to justice kennedy, it's just a hypothetical. >> but it's a hypothetical that's directly implicated by your very theory of the case because your theory of the case says that everything depends on a person coming in saying this is against my religion and that being the end all and the be all. >> well, i don't think that's our position. our position is that the sincerity of our religious beliefs, the government can question them. they've conceded to them here. there's a legal analysis about the substantial burden but the substantial burden in this case is very clear because of the millions of dollars of penalties, the same penalties issued in hobby lobby -- >> you're not answering the
question. >> i'm trying to with all due respect. if you have everything else the same, that brings you to the second part of the rifra analysis. if our objection contrary to fact where we absolutely object to objecting, if you come in and the government based on our objection, the government provides this service through the exchanges, through title ten, through an aetna policy where everybody gets their contraceptives, we in fact object to none of those things, but if we did, i think we would lose under the second half of the rifra analysis. >> if i understand that answer, it's that if i person had a sincere religious belief that objecting to objecting was a form of complicity, then that would control and you would have to go to the second part of the analysis which is to say is there a compelling interest, has the government's response been narrowly tailored. but essentially, the difference between objecting to objecting
and your client's position is not a difference at all with respect to the burden analysis. >> well, i do think my client's objection is distinguishable from the hypothetical because this is not an objecting to objecting. maybe one way to understand this is if there were, in fact, two forms, one was an opt out form, one was an authorization form, my clients would have no objection to signing the opt out form. they would very much have an objection to the authorization form, and the government -- >> i guess what i'm saying is i understand the factual distinction that you're making but the factual distinction doesn't matter given your own legal analysis. >> i don't think it does based on this court's precedence either, but even if i'm wrong about that, you could certainly write an opinion that says that there are three legs to the stool in this case. there is the fact that the government demands more than an objection, the fact that it enforces it with massive penalties, and the reality that if that happens, then they're
going to hijack our health plans and provide the coverage against our will. >> what i don't understand, mr. clement, is when will any government law that someone claims burdens their practice ever be insubstantial, because every believer that's ever come before us, including the people in the military are saying that my soul will be damned in some way. i'm not nay saying that is a very substantial perceived personal burden by them, but if that's always going to be substantial, how will to be substantial, how will we ever have a government that functions? how will we ever have anything that the government can demand people to do in objecting? >> two things. >> -- that won't be a problem. >> two things, justice
sotomayor. what you're saying about the government not being able to function under the substantial burden and then the least restrictive alternative analysis, that's exactly what justice scalia said for court in the smith decision. and justice o'connor took a different view and they hadded a healthy debate. and you can question who had the better of the debate. there's no question which side of the debate -- >> the side of the debate that's settled which is, if we're not asking you to do something which is identify yourself and if who is going to do the action is either the government or a third party, that that's the balance that we've struck, that it's not a substantial burden if someone else is going to do the act that you're objecting to. >> if the only action involved is a third-party action like part of the bowen against roy case, you're yit, that's not a substantial burden.
but when the government says -- and it needs more -- i want to be clear, the government admits pages 87 through 89, they need more than to know we raise our hand and opt out. they also need additional information about our insurer. they require more. >> then who is the tpa? who is the insurer? that's all. >> that's what they say they need. >> then they have an independent contract. the insurer or the tpa is not dealing with ploiter at all, it has an independent obligation that is imposed by the government on it and not the -- not the company. >> justice ginsberg, that's true if and only if we provide the form. it's not just the information on the form. the government treats that form as an authorization. in the case of self-insured --
>> it's not an authorization. the law -- the regulation requires it but it doesn't matter whether you say yes or no. you say i fill out the form, i do not authorize, i do not remit, it won't make any difference. >> it makes all the difference. if we do not provide the form, the coverage doesn't flow. we haven't provided the form in these cases. as a result, the coverage hasn't flowed. the government thinks -- it most possible yus with respect to the self-insured plans but it's true of all of them, the government thinks it needs something from us so it can take that something and make it a planned document -- >> look, because the government has another interest at stake, one thing that you said -- and we want to clear this is not involved at all -- no one doubts for a moment the sincerity of the belief of your client and all the others. sincerity of their belief is
accepted, it's off the table any more than the sincerity of belief on the parents in the roy case was questioned. in none of the cases is that an issue, that's accepted. but the government has acted in this case, as you know, the original health care plan didn't provide these services for women, and it saw a compelling interest there. indeed, that was largely ignored up until then. so, as in all things, it can't be all my way. there has to be an accommodation. that's what the government tried to do. >> i agree, justice ginsburg, but just because they call it an adomization dent mean it's immune from analysis. if what they gave my clients is what they gave 345,000 churches, purely religious activities of
religious orders, if they gave that accommodation to my client, we would fill out any form they wanted to. but the problem is, we have to fill out a form. the consequence of us filling out that form is we would be treated very differently from those other religious employers. >> you started to talk about self-insured plans. is it the case that the form or the notice to hhs in that instance becomes a planned instrument? >> in both cases, your honor, it becomes a planned instrument. the government thinks that our notification in this case is the functional equivalent of the form. it's not really an opt out. the way the regulations were originally designed, you didn't raise your hand and tell the government i object. you send a form directly to the insurer or the directly to the
tpa, that they then treated as the permission slip to provide the coverage. >> that's out now. >> no, it's not out. it's still one of the ways -- >> you don't have to do that. >> the alternative, thanks to this court and its interim relief, we can now file an objection that the government treats exactly the same way. all they do that's different is they essentially -- it's a mailing rule. they take our objection and then they provide that objection to the third party at minute straighter and with the self-up sured plans, that becomes every bit as a much a planned document as the form 700. it's a little rich for the government to say this isn't your plan, don't wore bring this, when their whole interest is put in terms of seamless coverage. if it's seamless to the end user, i don't think the little sisters' perception that it's seamless to them and they are, in fact, complicit is an irrational belief, by any
stretch. >> is the essence of your objection that contraceptive coverage is being done through health insurance that you contract? >> i think that's a fair description of it, justice kennedy. and i think the only problem the government is having understanding our position is that that health plan is somewhat intangible. and i think if you put this in more tangible terms, if the consequence of us filing the form is that they would come into one of the little sister's homes and set up shop in a room, they could pay us rent. it wouldn't cost us a thing. then they operated a title 10 clinic out of our homes, i think everyone would understand that, of course, we're complicit in the coverage provided on our premises. and just because this is more intangible, i don't think the principle is any different. certainly from the perspective -- >> do we accept the -- your
client's view on complicity or do we have to see how far -- do we accept your view on complicity and see whether or not the accommodation is possible and what's the least restrictive? >> i think that's the role that your courts have had for the court. because i think they don't want to get in the role of having the truth detector test and that's not just the hobby lobby decision. that goes back to the thomas decision. if you remember that decision, you had a religious adherent who had an objection to formulating cylindrical things that would go into tanks. another jehovah's witness in the record said you don't need to object to that. that's not that big a deal. it's too attenuated. this court specifically said we're not going to get in the business of refereeing those disputes and we're not going to get in the business of trying to figure out and second-guessing whether mr. thomas is correctly understanding his faith. you have a ton of amicus briefs that reinforce the religious
beliefs that's what's at issue for the little sisters and my other clients are not at all idiosyncratic, not at all wrong as a matter of faith. that's not an area you should get into. i think -- >> are you finished? >> yeah, i am. >> all right. i have -- you must have thought about this question, i suspect. i'll assume -- i want to assume, for purposes of the question, this isn't just a matter of siping a form with an objection. you're clients are involved in the health care plan in major ways. they prob figure sign papers every five months or every day and they choose insurers, they do all kinds of things. and it's the topping, the icing on the cake, that pushes it over the edge, which is that you have to fill out the form saying i object, this is my insurer, you then can contact my employees, da, da, da, da.
it's a bunch of things. putting that all together now, are they protected by rifra? the reason that the court went from sherbert and verner over to smith was they couldn't figure out how to apply sherbert and verner. sherbet and verner rifra picks up. this is at least one difficulty with it, which is where i'm going. i even read st. benedict, not for religious purposes, i'm trying to find out something of being a member of society. sometimes when a religious person who is no the a hermit or monk is a member of society he does have to accept all kinds of things that are just terrible for him. think of the quakers. the quakers, who objected to vietnam. think of the people who object to laws protecting blasphemy. think of people who object to shoveling the snow in front of the walk that will lead to the abortion clinic. think of the christian scientists who know when they report a