Good afternoon everyone and thank you very much for attending our event on kids and on line privacy. My name is a token in the policy director put it like to start by thanking the staff for securing the room for us to have this important discussion today. Briefly by way of background for those who arent familiar with the family suggested an International Nonprofit organization making the on line votes ever forget to their families. We will discuss one of the most important issues facing families kids privacy on the internet. In the United States the collection and processing of childrens data has primarily been regulated by the childrens on line Privacy Protection act and its corresponding rules for over 20 years. This law long preceded Facebook Snapchat youtube. In the last six months we have seen numerous posts including change in the way childrens information is regulated. At the beginning this summer the federal trade Commission Published a request for Public Comment on implementation. With all of this activity in mind they released a white paper which you should have received underwent today and you can download on our web site. We believe limiting the Data Collected from children and preventing on line marketing to those under 13 however there understanding we create engaging educational content for children we Want Companies to be incentivized to protect childrens information rather than to ignore their data. With that in mind i will hand it over to Stephen Balkam who will moderate the panel this afternoon. Sara thank you very much am i. Thank you to the team lead by emma morris put all this together a fantastic in such a sure period of time in the middle of the summer so they can do that. Also probably its pretty obvious cspan is here. We are live so when questions come around just be aware that you could well be taken up on broadcast tv. Im the founder and ceo of the on line familys safety institute. It is want to mention we are also has taking. I know its not brief but its a good so please use it and of course this video at cspan is doing right now will be archived at cspan and we will also provide a link. Im actually going to ask this esteemed panel to introduce themselves. Starting with you mark, phuket tell us who you are and where you work and maybe a tweet links description of your work in this space. I am mark eichorn assistant director in the Privacy Division of the ftc. I have been in that job for about 10 years. With the ftc does this protect Consumer Privacy and reinforce policy work around it so we held a workshop on Educational Technology issues and will have a workshop is that tober. Thank you very much. Hi everyone thank you for me. My name is john falzone. I run a Certified Program which is an ftc approved safe harbor program. I worked with companies primarily in a entertainment and toy spaces to ensure they are complying with the law and regulations and generally doing right by consumers. Joseph wender senior advisers senator ed markey when his congressperson in the late 1990s was the author and we have been active in the last 20 years and then im pushing all sorts of kids privacy and advancement issues and most recently introduced a 2. 0 bill which i am sure i will be discussing during this panel. I am jim halpert i cochaired the global privacy and cybersecurity practices at dla piper and back in 1998 as a senior associate i helped negotiate and draft language that ed markey wound up sponsoring with conrad earns and richard dry and that became the law and was there at the creation and i think filed seven sets of comments in the 2000 rulemaking. I was there at the creation and hope to provide context over time. Thank you all. Its quite a breadth of experience both past and present and no doubt well into the future this issue is not going to go away. Mark let me start with you. What is led the ftc to see comments on the rule now then it some is some of the time . Before answer that i will spam speaking for myself and not for the commissioner of the commissioners. Oh come on. I speak for one of them and im not going to say who. [laughter] we do this predatory review process of all of our rules and guides every 10 years typically and that is on a routine schedule. With copa we revise the rule in 2013. Substantially to add personal information that wasnt really connected when the rule was first implemented or when the statute was first passed and expanded the rule in other ways to persist on identifiers but also third parties collecting information from sites when they have actual knowledge that they are working with kids. We hear about copa a lot. There are a number of statutes that reinforce and rules that we enforce and there is a lot more discussion and talk about coppa then many of the others. There is been a lot of change in technologies. The workshop we held, the time the statute was passed there was no mention of the statute whatsoever for School Senate race this issue of if somebody is using an on line service in the School Context can the teacher provide incentive for not on those kinds of issues . We have sort of address those in the statement for the rule but we have never really address them more directly in the rule itself and when we held the workshop a couple of years ago on these issues its clear that this industry is accelerating. Theres a huge amount going on there and we thought about sort of making sure that we address that issue properly and giving public ideas on how to do that. I would just say to highlight one more issue are one more change obviously a lot of us use voice assistance and when the commission revise the rule in 2013 week had coverage of audio collected from a kid. That raises questions about if you have a voice assistance that is directed to kids for some reason and you are choosing it to do voice activated searches essentially then we realized that was an issue. We issued a discretionary enforcement policy that basically said if you use it for something quick like that and immediately delete it, we are not going to be a case involving that. Thats another issue where we want to get the publics input to see how that might be integrated into the rule and also other issues about voice assistance and other issues with smart tvs and that kind of thing that we want to address. Talk a little bit about the process. Where coming up in august. What happens next and when are you going to deliver your thoughts . It will be a while. The comments are not due until october 23. We are having the workshop as i said october 7 and we expect we will get a lot of them put there as well. Once we get those comments we will sit down and go through what we have got an review the input and then figure out where to go from there. Just to make clear what this is, there is sort of a process for rulemaking where we put out particular stats basically regulatory language that we proposed. This is one step before that which is that the information gathering phase. One thing that could come out of this is the next step as we could end up making a regulatory proposal. How are you currently working with companies to create content and taking a step back from looking at it how are you currently working with the momandpop shops who are creating an Educational App for instant . Well, one of the things we do is we have a hotline for coppa where companies can reach out to us and sort of propose an issue to us or ask questions about the rules. We see this as trying to facilitate compliance with the rules as opposed to catching somebody in violation. So that is one avenue. We also have consumer and Business Education that we put out and the faq on coppa where we sort of tried to make the rules as clear as possible. There are several ways we do that. John for those of us who are not familiar with safe harbors lets do a little bit of that level said. What is safe harbor . First of all safe harbor is part of the legislation. The safe harbor regime is intended to be providing independent oversight and enforcement of the acts act but on the selfregulatory basis. In other words its not mandatory for any company to be a part of safe harbor. Something you should choose whether or not they want to work with the programs. The esrb is one of the oldest safe harbors in one of the oldest coppa safe harbors but there are seven companies that provide safe harbor services. So the companies that work with us have chosen to become part of our program. They say depending on the program some sort of fee for services and our job is to make sure that those companies are first and foremost complying with coppa and the amended coppa role. Many of our programs from the safe harbor standpoint is her primary objective. Everyday my team is in web sites and apps that our members are putting out and they are looking through them just as any user would. They are doing scans to see whats happening on the back and making sure that one practices of that member are in line with what coppa requires an two, the policies that they put out in other words the disclosures that they are making are reflecting those practices. Talk a little bit about how you guys promote the creation of content for kids particularly the under 13 market which has endeavored a lot of creators. Talk about that. Its an incredibly difficult market to be frank. Most of our members dont really even get into that market. The majority of the web sites and apps. Its difficult to monetize and complying with the law. We are lucky that some of the companies that we work with have strategies for monetization that go beyond advertising and apps. Those are your traditional ways to monetize within an asp or on a web site. Some of our members especially in the toy industry, its not as fairly about that for them because they have brands that they are just look to keep that they can monetize in other ways but its a difficult market to be in and make money in but it is one where if you have the right longterm view you can be very successful in that. Our job is we start working with their members as early as we can on the process. If they have something thats under 13 and a true child directive censor something thats going to be a be directed to an older audience we start working with them as early as we can to develop process to start flagging issues that might be coming. The companies that work with us no coppa and they are trying to do the right thing by working with us but they dont always necessarily what everything is. Then you have companies that succumb to us when they have Just Launched or are planning to launch something. Those Companies Often think that they know everything and they are compliant with everything and when you get into it its extremely complicated. There are a lot of issues that you just have to work through but you can work through them if youre willing to do it. One of the most complicated issues that we come across when talking to companies is the distinction between actual versus constructive knowledge. What is this extraordinary distinction between actual and constructive knowledge and how it relates to this coppa rules . Just by way of background coppa is triggered when the on Line Services either directed to children under 13 years old or the operator of the on line service has actual knowledge that the user is under 13 years old. That is coppa in its current state in the way that it works. Actual knowledge is what it sounds like from a legal standpoint. The company has to actually know that user is under 13 years old. The most typical way a company would know that is if the user has identified under 13 years old. A lot of web sites apps contain the registration process or some sort of age process so user may identify they are under 13. We have all seen those popup. User might identify as under 13 and automatically at that point coppa is triggered regardless of what the web site is pretty could be a site that is intended for parents but if they collect the users age than coppa would be triggered. Constructive knowledge would be a situation where the operator should have known that the user was under 13 so that could be based off of any number of actors of information that they might have available to them. Its sort of broadens the scope. Okay, thank you. Joseph votel was your reaction and your bosses reaction that coppa would be reviewed much earlier than expected . Our reaction was cautious optimism. It was very supportive when the rules were reviewed back in 2013 and he clearly sees the landscape has changed in the six years preceding. So things like biometrics, things like genetics, things like voice systems and although things that mark discussed, its clear that they are much more prevalent in the ecosystem today and that the commission should be taking a look at that, so thats good. I say cautious optimism because we dont know yet what the outcome of this world making will be. If in the end the rules are strengthened after really good thing but uis have to be wary of potential bad players or others coming in and attempting to weaken them. Until we see what the final product of the process is i cant say if we are going to be happy or sad. I dont want to prejudge the process because its good they are certainly starting it. I had the privilege of testifying to the Senate Judiciary only a month or so ago on the topic protecting innocents in the digital world. During that hearing the tc came under a barrage of criticism. Presumably you watch that hearing. Do you share the level of criticism for the ftc or what more could the ftc do in this case . I think particularly in the kids privacy space the jury is still out. As Everybody Knows in this room there is a case pending about youtube and whether they violated and what the fine is going to be and what the new obligations from going to be placed on google. That agreement has not been released and has not yet been announced so i think what they do and that particular case will be indicative of the position they are taking on how serious they are in enforcing coppa. I do want to say. We will see what they do. Im sure you talk about senator markey zone proposals which politico mention three of them this morning. Tell us in twiddling descriptions. Three different bills, the trifecta bills if you appeared the first one is a coppa 2. 0 bill which he is produced on a bipartisan basis with the republican senator from missouri what that bill would do in short is to be consistent with both california and gpr would create is that the larger acronym . Yes arra Data Protection agency. What we do is create and Everybody Knows coppa is 12 and under and senator markey as well as others believe that 13, 14 and 15yearolds need special protection. It still need special protection so what the bill would do is extend protections of 13, 14 in 15yearold who have also changed the knowledge standard. It would and targeted events for kids in the does create an eraser button consistent with the law in california that allows parents and children to erase information that they themselves have posted so as not to violate the first amendment. The other two bills on the camera act which is the children Media Research advancement act which is directing nah to do a fiveyear study on the impact of technology on children. Its obvious that kids are totally glued to these things now so what are the emotional, cognitive and the physical impacts of this incredible increase in technology by children . The last bill which has not been introduced yet is called for kids act. The kids internet design and safety act. That bill is seeking to give the ftc new authorities to address exactly what i was just describing, the practices by many web sites to glued children to the device but all the strategies they use with regard to autoplay and other functions to sort of bring kids in an picture they dont stop watching but i have a 3yearold and it works very well on him. He will not stop watching the device unless they were put out of his hands. The that bill we would be introducing it in sometime in september or october we will address what we do about that. Parents are equally glued. Oh at the problem. This room is doing pretty well. And looking around and this is a testament to how good this panel is. There arent that many people on their phones right now. We do watch the tweets from time to time. Do you think coppa should be modified or a total rewrite of the law . You arent going to throw coppa that . No. We think the markey holly bill we are seeking changes, modifications to the 12 and under regime and then we are seeking new protections for 14 and 15 but we are not looking for a complete rewrite. They have been effective but as evidenced by the tc starting their process now and my bosses billiken be improved upon because the world. Looks different than it did when it was passed in 1998. This is a perfect segue to you. When you wrote the bill in 1998 when we were all much younger, 20 years ago how has the world changed . 20 years ago i had a 1yearold child who is now driving up this afternoon to enter his senior year of college so its a good long period of time. We have seen really what was the nascent internet age where in particular forms of verified parental content were very limited to a world where people authenticate all the time on their devices for a variety of different things. I think that offers opportunities. One of the barriers we have heard from joe before is with coppa is that its so difficult to get verifiable parental consent that the idea of creating, getting into a coppa compliance framework, its a real terrier and discourages investment in the content of activities for kids. It could be very positive. On the other hand one can imagine in a world where a syndication is much easier and straightforward that may be less of a if he will Walled Garden were not much can grow practically. So i think this potential rulemaking resents an opportunity to make coppa realistic, realistically reflect that people are not going to give away their credit card for verification in todays day and age with all the information about data but to allow a much easier authentication with a lower barrier for parents to agree for their younger children to have learning opportunities. Including issues like what is content that is harder for children. The commission has done a lot of good thinking about that. Including looking at the sort of advertising of an honest start site. This can reflect whether the site really is targeted to children or not. So the rulemaking offers i think opportunities to address and to raise the profile of some of these issues. At the same time, ive questions and we will get to this about some of the other elements of the kids act, and of some questions in the actual rulemaking about how some other ideas would work in practice. I wouldnt describe them as concerns but they are questions. I think those are worth exploring as well but i do think that essentially putting in the role of much of the verifications in the faqs, including also about educational Online Platforms that make absolutely clear that the school act in local apprentice where barbara is applying the federal Education Rights and privacy rights. These are to break them down some of the barriers that i think often discourages layout of new forms of learning for kids for example online. At the same time, take the guidance in the faqs, which is designed to for example, look quite broadly at what sites are actually targeted to children. Theres a lot of enforcement of, an area where the Senate Hearing overlooked that this is an area where they are very active. That in Public Education and changes to the rule. This can sensitize a lot of sites to the fact that they may do certain portions of their site may actually be targeted to children. This is an opportunity in this new world where there is been in a lot of evolution and a lot of guidance from the commission over the past ten years that could go into the role. Jim, about ten years ago we did a panel in london, we agreed that coppa had become this kind of global standard that the europeans pretty much adopted similarly and asians. Now we are seeing with dvr, it is kind of coming back to us. There are new regulatory you regimes which are particularly in europe which we are now going to have to Pay Attention to. What other International Trends positively and negatively that will impact us here. In general, this is an area, speaking to somebody who coeds a global privacy practice of lawyers in 40 countries who follow, this is an area where Different Countries look at this slightly differently. We have a first amendment, many other countries dont. There are key issues for example, about 15 yearolds ability to communicate that really in europe, its a concern but not the same order of concern. Europe is taking not taken a uniform approach to this. They let each state to establish the age where parental consent is not required and consent by the individual is substituted. It can vary between 14 and 16. Leasing diversions there, weve seen different approach in japan. Not countries that are updating the privacy laws do not adopt uniform on view in the us, we have california that has been formally with its own privacy law. The take the view that kids between ages 13 and 15, should affirmatively consent to sale, this is somewhat particular definition of sale, which means more than sale. Essentially you youth monetization or thirdparty advertising in exchange for something of value, essentially use up teenagers information in thirdparty advertising. If the website or Online Service or any business offline, has actual knowledge that they are dealing with a child. So the result is now something that is where the kids act goes way beyond the requirements of california law. The broad idea of often consent for teenagers, is now something that a lot of companies is working very hard in the us to roll out. Expectations in the cpa for california residents, california is the seventh of us economy and hamza huge number of people. When the law takes effect on january 1st, 2020. We are seeing changes, that are again a little different. An opt out of sale, or an opt in to sell but we are seeing changes in the us just as we are seeing them around the world. Im going to come back and ask you about the c word. Concerns about whats going on with the coppa review and also the proposals that are coming from senator markey and others. Tonight really have questions or than anything else. What are your questions. I think theres really an issue for example with constructive knowledge. What is that really mean in practice and how is that operationalize question or does it mean that a website or Online Service needs to really gate very heavily and potentially drive a whole lot of people through because they might be deemed to have constructive knowledge to prove that they are not teenagers. If thats a result, this will be a rather frustrating online experience for everybody sitting in this room. There really are issues around that. I think there are questions about what the ftc will do on the streamlining coppa consent sites to balance further clarifications of the reach of. Thats a very important issue to making the law really work well. I also think that the question of the issuing the kids act with regards to coppa 2. 0. Sorry. Thank you for correcting me. There is a question really about what is it mean if you have a site that is not targeted to children but happens to have a lot of children are teenage users. And, if the basis for it simply having an audience figures where it turns out, an example would be the offices and tv shows that my friend created a character after me. It turns out that the target audience was not pre teenagers but was very popular with a lot of 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 euros. [laughter] we want to see that. Im not as tall or as goodlooking sorry. The results of this is if you simply look at an audience and lets let the audience, that can fluctuate. It is not a great metric for what targeting to children is. They were targeting doesnt really square with what may be the effect of a particular site. I think that scenario is really a lot of questions and the result i think is of a rule the city coppa consent model would apply. It would be the size would need to collect more information in order to figure out who the kids were and then to authenticate them. That would result probably in more Information Collection in order to for sites to be compliance. I dont think theres an easy answer here. Joseph may have some ideas. Her response to that. I really have, difficult issues here, it is collocated. The overall goal of protecting kids privacy as vitally important. Figuring out how to do this in the smart way that doesnt incentivize more Information Collection that facilitates parental involvement in a way that allows kids to obtain information in the cracks down on scrupulous monetization of kids information. Where there is some targeting of kids. I think its really the truck. We are really here to see how this rulemaking if it happens with the ftc as a essentially Congress Legislation would think about these issues. The first instance, the fcc is actually done an excellent job. I think we all should look forward to its work. We should be patient because this is such a delicate balance. Having an Expert Agency do with us in the first and since before Congress Goes and legislates again is probably a good idea. Thank you lets use those questions to thrown open to the panel. We got the constructive knowledge question, the reach of, and the unintended consequences of collecting more information with coppa 2. 0. I will start by saying these are all good questions that jim is asking. I am not going to get up here and say that our bill is perfect in that we have all of the answers. This is part of the legislative process and this is the same way that it is part of a rulemaking process at a federal agency. Rulemaking process, you have some comments. The legislative process you have lots of number members that will offer amendments and go through marketing through a committee and then go to the floor and then left reconcile with the house. Thats how it should work. [laughter] in theory. I will say on constructive knowledge, two things, one i want to address the question that was raised before about how do you, we think its a false choice that you either protect children or you have creativity and new apps or new offerings for children online. I think ed markey firmly believes as weve seen over the last 20 years there is a way to do both. A lot of companies have mastered both. A lot of companies obviously have been deterred from doing it but a lot of not. We should be entering this process as we are thinking about rewriting or revising the law and the agency or doing so in congress with both goals in mind. What good, safe, educational content. For children at the same time, it protects them and their privacy. On the constructive knowledge. , but i would say is, there is clearly a problem right now with channels and sites, essay channels because of youtube. Size overall though that have an unbelievable number of children users or children users that dont fall in to the two categories that were mentioned earlier. Which is actual knowledge, because there is age gauge, or intended for children. So one of those examples is there is a specific website about toy reviews for children kids. Its highly popular for children. Arguably right now, and the operator of the site knows it. Everybody knows it. And since that they have constructive knowledge that kids are being directed to the site to see what our popular toys right now. But it falls outside of the two categories that were mentioned before. So doesnt trick trigger a coppa. So we need to find a way to address these types of websites that are clearly being used by children but also at the same time not fall into the trap of the unintended consequences that jim described earlier. There may be a way to take that particular example, one might argue that this content was overwhelming significance and interest to kids. It wasnt that different than a cartoon site for example. That might or may not, it could be the way the reviews are done too. Are they really done for parents and talk about other criteria that the parents would talk about. Resident un boxing site that a child would like. This is really cole, within the ftcs market speak to this, some ways get this question for a site like this or perhaps tweak the role. Rather than adopting a constructive knowledge and standard for this sort of site because a particular example, you may well have others that are important but this one i think can fit probably the existing framework. I think this is one of the pressing issues of copper, which is there are when the roll was passed, there was the sort of idea that the super bowl being the tv analogy where people are pretty sure that there are kids watching the super bowl but it wasnt directed at them yet all told, theyre possibly been millions of kids watching the super bowl. I think when the extinction you need to make between a site and a site where sort of like yeah, due to the nature my site, i pretty much know i have an ordinate appeal to the kids and maybe its not only intended not intended forum at all but i know that i have a large following among the kid population. I think thats a challenging situation where i think the constructive knowledge approach is may be designed for that kind of situation. Under the current role, you have your actual knowledge bucket and you have your directed kits bucket and theres sort of is another category out there. I think we do will avoid the super bowl side though because if you think about it and this would be true of many different ways that people get online and communicate as well as particular content, we do have a huge cop showed population adults and older teenagers who are also part of this mix. The only way to distinguish and to figure out who are the younger minors, is to collect information about the users. That is the catch 22. It may be about inking a little bit more broadly about sites and services that are actually directed to children that actually should have knowledge that they are collecting information about a lot of children. Without adopting a constructive knowledge standard across the board, because i think thats where the super bowl is a great example. Can you imagine americans logging in to watch the super bowl and when its being streamed and having to wait for 45 minutes while all of these people are screened to make sure they are actually able to watch it. That is not a great experience. This is the balance. Is hard. You are describing the online space, espn. As a general audience site. Adults go on, every day. I went on it this morning. The kids go on it as well. Teenagers going to do as well. How does that compare. What side of the line is that versus the example i gave before, i would toy reviews forget site. Clearly a difference between those two sites. Theres clearly a difference in audience between those two sites. I think we all agree with espn. Com site that it wouldnt be trigger, but its the toy reviews forget site, now it becomes a lot harder. Im just going to say the trick of course. First of all let me say, my job is much easier. [laughter] i just apply with the law is. [laughter] you know what youre told right. [laughter] of course in the context of this discussion, the trick is to write the law and to interpret the law regulations and guidance in a way that doesnt sweep in the espn. My son is 12 so i am right in that sweet spot. Espn is the first thing, 630 in the morning, he is downstairs and he is in on a espn app. He is already done probably three football draft by this time of the day. They are on the sites. We have to ask ourselves, first do we want the sites to be swept in. If we agree that we dont, and at the sites we are targeting our those unwrapping toy type of situations, how do we our house line drawn. How does make it possible for me to be able to save my members, this one is triggering and this one isnt triggering. Thats already quite frankly difficult even in the current regime, its a difficult issue to take on people to really smart people can look at it from two different angles at the same type from two different angles and come up with different conclusions on that. She met with the current fcc guidance and roles address the question of mixed audience sites. Very specifically. It might be good mark, to eliminate this a little bit more for the folks in the room but with the current approaches. Since we are talking about the problems. Youre the lead for the agency so we completely different to you about the fcc you of that. In his audience the exception was created in the 2013, role and basically, it applies to a service that is already directed to children. If i am in a situation where i kinda feel like kids are sort of like a secondary part of my audience but my main audience is over the age of 12, then i can train a sort of cuppa compliance areas with younger kids. And have an age gate where personal information is collected from the older kids. I think that is one way to approach the problem that you are talking about on size of me sort of heaven in order an ordinate appeal area think you still have this issue of if people dont avail themselves to the box and they dont consider themselves directed to kids in the first place, you stop the situation where they may be collecting information personal information from a lot of kids. It wouldnt be in that exception. This whole discussion is making me think of the ico, the uk authority on privacy, recently put out something on how approach kids. They havent finished their process yet. I believe theyre going to finish this fall. Their document kind of suggested that they would create a setting where its almost like, for one thing theyre protecting kids under 18 as i recall. There also setting up a system where it seemed like they were going to be lots of the internet which was sort of safe for kids under the age of 18 and more information wasnt collected. Then there would be some kind of thomaston agent gating process for adults. Kind of a different approach. Is a verification. With the ico wants is a verification. But we think of as traditional age gate, is a self identification of somebody that is over or under 13 years old. The ideal, that doesnt work or at least in its draft forum of the age appropriate design, does not work. Well see between now and november i think 23rd is the deadline for the final to come out with not they stick with us or not because they frankly, came under a lot of scrutiny for essentially requiring the collection of a lot more personal information to verify. Ones identity are ones age so we will have to skype to see how that ends up coming out. Let me make sure any questions in the crowd here. Questions concerns about cuppa. If not, do we have a microphone or, to speak loudly and say who you are. [inaudible conversation] s argument is to in order to ensure ask parents about intervention. [inaudible conversation] collect all source of information about these people who they dont have to be identified they can tell from the information collected, are they kids. They are already collecting information. I dont understand. [inaudible conversation] this is the question. There is so much Information Collection online. These sites should know already that they are collecting information from a child. I think that that is can be true in some situations but in many situations, it is not. So the typical website and bear in mind that, applies to any online site or service will not have that information. They will have the ip address, some information about that site usage. They are not in a position to be a gatekeeper. Same thing for an isp. If you sign up for an Internet Access service in your home, there is a lot of activity, its very difficult to distinguish everybody logsdon with the same ip address as they go out from that internet. Its very hard to tell who is me and who is my now 22 yearold son, its hard to tell. Even with those surfing, a lot of surfing that the parents will do, i did it to show my sons online math problem sites. Things like that. They would actually use the site and sometimes i was surfing looking at appropriate sites forum trying to curate their Internet Access experience. I actually looked at a fair number of sites that were absolutely quality sites but they were targeting to children. It becomes a little bit harder, if you have a mobile device they have sneak to the individual but then again most kids under 12 dont have these, i hope. Then you are in a position to be able there may be more information to be able to track the foremost home situations, it is very difficult. I think we have time for one more question. [inaudible conversation] examples of certain abuse into certain things on sites. [inaudible conversation] go ahead. Let me repeat the question. So the question is are there examples or recent actions that will push legislation one way or another to be passed or not. I think there has been no host of alleged violations of, in particular the youtube allegation during earlier during the panel. But there is also a number of, new technologies that are out there. I think voices system is a terrific example. Not just alexa in your home this design for adults, now there is an echo. Kids version for amazon. It is designed specifically for kids. So it is designed to listen to everything a child says and then respond when a command is mentioned. At the same time, ill mention another product that was not even brought to market but was proposed and since pulled. A product by mattel called aristotle. My boss had written the company about before it was debuted. It was intended to be a Voice Assistant specifically placed in babies rooms. The device was going to respond to the needs of the baby based upon whether they were crying or what else. Play soothing music or give other safe things to the child, the whole device was designed to listen to the baby. And respond to the baby. Certainly as a father three yearold, are pretty eyeopening and starting examples. I think in this larger context, of privacy compromises on a large scale, facebook and obviously data breaches which are so many that i can even name and all. This doesnt really have that much to do with the outreach. Will that all of those things are pushing congress to act on privacy and we think that coppa or kids in particular and teens in particular must be its own special part of that larger copper hamza package. If it were to come to be. We are quickly running out of time. I want to go up and down the panel and say by the way, there is something we much bigger city on top of this discussion and thats the idea of an federal privacy bill. What happens to coppa and, 2. 0 and all of the stuff if that starts to move. I dont want to make predictions about what congress will do, ive work on the hill for ten years and i know not make predictions about what will do that being said, congress at some. , will tackle privacy in a comprehensive way. Maybe this congress or next congress of the following congress, i dont know. What is expected to happen, is that bill will not eviscerate, justin the way it wont for about or privacy laws or hepa or all of the other privacy laws that are out there. We live in a in this country, vulcanized privacy world where there are individual privacy statutes that apply to different agencies or different context or different types of information. What will happen i think, obviously our goal, i think the most realistic and the most results of a comprehensibility that we will motivate coppa in some way and it wont get rid of it. It likely would consist with europe and california bump up the age of some way, create new protections for 13 and 14 and 15 euros. Mark your personal thoughts question or. I can adopt the i can just i just work here role two. [laughter] if Congress Passes something [laughter] legislation that says here is the new law of the land and we are no longer having specific perceptions and this is the framework then, we would abide by that. If they pass something that says hey, we are keeping coppa and maybe tweaking this or that and this is all part of the sort of overall privacy landscape, we would adjust to that too. There the bosses. Tom you want to step out on limb question mark. I dont have any insight obviously. He knows where hes talking about as far as where things stand. My own personal view is, has been around for a long time and a lot of work has gone into companies complying with it. It sure makes sense to me that if its going to be changed and supplemented, not wiped out and started from scratch. Personnel i would i would say never bet against ed markey, getting a privacy law through congress. He has been the sponsor of more federal privacy legislations that any person who is ever served in anybody yet. He also has excellent relations with speaker and leadership in the house. I am sitting here looking at this, i think it would probably help private federal privacy legislation if ed got more involved in that process because hes very good at cutting deals. I would assume that something is likely to happen when teen privacy. Also because this ecpa, has already established a new set of requirements 14 privacy. I would bet that federal privacy legislation if it cramps state law, and its past while democrats are controlling one house of congress, it will at least capture the general requirements of this ecpa in it. Looking ahead, at that level, knowing the sponsor, i think will likely see something happen with regard to older teenage privacy and again the fcc h done great work so i hope that the fcc continues to have it supporting under coppa for under 13. Without disrupting that too much. Theyre totally are some issues here that week can and probably will be addressed when federal privacy legislation comes in. Whatever happens, we will be back up here on the hill. [laughter] we will be taking to this to the conference in washington dc called 2020 vision. The future of online safety. Were going to be talking about artificial and intelligence. Screens and keyboards possibly go away which makes the privacy question even more interesting to say the least. Help me in thinking this wonderful panel. [applause] [inaudible conversation] weeknights this month showing whats available on cspan two tonight will show bestsellers. Abc news chief Legal Correspondent recounts libel case against president theodore roosevelt. In 1915. Write a true crime book. Then surprise george will, american conservatism. Watch thursday night being in at idiom. Enjoy book tv this week and every weekend on cspan two. Next information on homeless this in washington dc. My name is cindy borden and i am the acting ceo for homeless veterans. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the 2019, conference. Its driven by data. [applause] before we get started i would like to take a moment to recognize the veterans in the room. If you are a veteran, please stand. Come back [applause]