You view your role as a member of congress as it comes to tech policies . You know i just came from a consumer electronic show. And when you remind of how much the industry is growing and how many new things you see for the first time and people try to explain them to you because it has been a year. Then you realize someone who is not in the industry, you know suzan and i both came out of the industry. We are falling behind. We are doing what we can to stay up but we are causally trying to take that slightly behind technology and relate to people who really have never done much more than just go to best buy. And it is quite a challenge sometimes because the folks want to understand technology. But once they get past will that is data isnt it . You know you realize you have a bit of a challenge. And we are very lucky that we have, not just suzan and myself in a number of members that have done what they can do to stay on the technology. And Suzan Delbene a former microsoft executive how do you view yourself as a member of congress when it comes to this . Because i think it is about educating other members of congress about how Technology Works today. But also where it is headed. One of the big reasons we started the internet of things caucus was to cut educate a educate other lawmakers about where technology is headed. And so that you have a good basis for understanding where policy might be impacted or needs to be impacted. The other thing i think we play a role is to make sure we have lives uptodate alaws up to date. We have many policies updated that did not contemplate everything from ecommerce to people having cell phones and all of the information transmitted. Not only within the us but around the world. So we have a lot of work to do that is not only to keep policy uptodate but also the future as well. Was a specific piece of policy you would like to see updated . One important one is reformed to the electronic indications privacy act. This was a bill written in 1986. A long time ago when people do not use email to communicate. We need to update the laws so we have a standard for all information. Right now, information on a server, an email you might have is not under the same warrant standard that a piece of paper in a file drawer would be. I think americans think that their information be treated like physical information in terms of protecting their privacy. There is a piece of legislation called the email privacy act. To update the law that says information requires a warrant for access. Just like physical information. Past the house last congress unanimously. That never happens. And so, it is an important piece of legislation. And again, it is just updating a lot of the way the world works today and protects peoples privacy. Congressman darrell issa same question. Suzan is right to say that is one of the critical ones but i will give you some examples that lead to the question, not just of legislation but interpretation of the law and maybe in some places not legislating. We certainly have the famous situation of that San Bernardino murderer whose phone was an iphone. One of his bones. And the government came in so we would like apple to write is a Software Program so we can remotely unlock it and take information. It created a question that had not been a question before about privacy. You know if you ask someone to break into a state to get documents, that is a reasonable thing to do. If you asked them to design a say so it is not safe then there is a question. That is one question. The other one just came up this past few days ago which was the arkansas case. They are asking amazon to deliver annie and all voice recordings that may have been captured on their amazon echo that was inside of the crime scene. Both of these have to be related to government need to know, criminal prosecution and a balance of how does that really relate constitutionally and with existing laws . And so is proponents of the internet of things, we know that we are asking people to consider putting hundreds of thousands of microphones, speakers and of various diagnostic equipment into their homes and onto their bodies. And we have got to get it right on whether or not you are going to do that for your own benefit if you feel that your privacy is going to be unfairly attacked. So i look at those and say we have to educate people that in order to get the benefit of these products we have to have laws that make them feel safe in their own homes with these products. Lets bring ashley gold into our conversation. I want to ask you both, what best for this year a couple of years ago we were just starting out and want to be said a lot of lawmakers didnt even know what the internet of things was. You think people on the hill have made progress in the past few years . Does it be like the conversation is broader now and lawmakers are more familiar with it . I think we have done a good job of at least scratching the surface. I think to be honest the Consumer Products industry has made the internet of things, people more knowledgeable. Most members have at least one product were more that is in internet of things product. I think it is good that they are aware of it. But they are not aware of, to be candid athe growth rate and the challenges that will be faced. And i mentioned the two cases but there is also something as simple as suzan and i may have products that we are both using that are the internet of things. How do we make sure that she has her space, i have my space and we both on whatever those rights are. Those questions are also questions the judiciary and those committees will be deciding. And so one of the things that i see happening to lever off of that, the energy and Commerce Committee has decided that they wanted to be honest, be very active in that. And that means well have to grow the internet of things to be think of itself as multijurisdictional. So we will have to actively recruit people if we are going to bring people into make sure all committees are working on legislation that will not get to the floor and have huge opposition. I think we really have scratched the surface. We have talked about a few key areas in the last congress. Big data and smart cities. Those were some areas we focus in on to help folks understand cases that were happening. And things like smart cities were different cities were using sensors on transportation. But we also have incredible opportunities in all areas. This is really infrastructure when you talk about it. Sensors that can help you figure out how much water a plant might need so that in a farmer, does not have to use more water than they need. There are huge opportunities and i think we have more work to do to remind people of the breadth of opportunities that there are estimated to be 20 billion connected devices by the year 2020 of all sorts. And also to remind folks the issues of interoperability, consumer protections, privacy, security, all of these are important issues as well that we want to make sure people are aware of and are thoughtful of when looking at policies. You feel that youre still in the education phase rather than starting to really think about what the legislation might be useful . I think we will be continually in the education phase. And legislation is going to limited. It really is one of those things where in many cases what we need to do is take a deep breath. And not necessarily jump on every piece of legislation. The same for the executive branch. Much of whats great about the internet of things has been organic. And some of the Privacy Protection are being worked out fairly successfully by your old bosses at microsoft, by apple, google. Im not saying they are perfect but they are looking at the complexity at a level that congress would not inlaws would not. And coming up, if you will, solutions. I will just give you one that is not a ais a great question for all of us. Do we want every internet of things product from our ato sensors in our car. Do we want them to be actively making the world better . Not in our behalf but on behalf of the world in a way that is not attributable to us . In other words, suzan mentioned it, do we want to make sure it is sending a word about whether there is a sprinkler on where there should not be on a rainy day. We see it, do we want our products to report it . Those kinds of Software Algorithms are being developed. There will come a time when they will come to congress and they are going to say, we want to be held harmless from using that nonpersonal data anyway, we will get releases but we want to be held harmless that we are not going to be sued for using it. And at that point we will have to try to figure out what is in the publics best interest. And that is not terribly new. But it is new electronically. Today, if you make a phone call is a theres an accident on the side of the road and to report it, you are held harmless from some inadvertent event just because you thought you saw something. But will your sensor be held harmless . Right. Right. Also, president elect donald trump, he does not mind using technology all the time. We will know he likes to to. He talks about email in the computer, do you anticipate youll have a tough time with him getting into all of this internet of things stuff . Well, i was there in new york when he met with tim cook and elon musk and people from the technology world. I think that what we are going to do is we will have to recognize that most president s and Vice President dont spend much time using electronic devices. They are in a bubble. So, can we keep him aware of the benefits of these products in a way in which he will support it . Or at the same time not trying to turn me into an al gore. And i think we will do okay on it. But i will say this, he is an interesting character in that he is talking about things like, you know if you want have something really secure you sign it, put it on a piece of paper, have a courier ticket in a sealed envelope. That may seem absurd but in my time at the intelligence committee, that actually is how you make sure that you dont have something that can be duplicated and disappeared. Anything on a phone call can be vulnerable. So i think in a sense, we hear what he said. That is probably the most important thing for him to know is that as president , everything he says, everything he does could be listened to and have an effect. I am kind of happy that he gets that part. Suzan and i will have a time getting him and others to really get the importance of what we can do with technology for our very broad world. Now that goes to the question of hacking and privacy and people get that. People understand that, dont they . Well, i think the president elect, some of his cabinet places have been very concerning when we talk about issues of privacy for example. Or issues of encryption. These would be important conversations that we had last congress that will continue Going Forward. One piece of legislation we passed last congress was the usa freedom act in terms of bringing in the nsa on collection of information. That is something that senator sessions voted against. And so i have, i have great concerns about what it means for privacy Going Forward with someone like that who potentially could be the attorney general. These are going to be important conversations for all of us to have. Given that there has not been an explicit policy that the president elect has put out, i think there is definitely reason for concern based on some of the information that we have on his cabinet. And this is one of the areas in which you see two members of Congress Might not agree on some things but we tend to be the same on these issues. Conversely though, the bedfellows on the other side are interesting. Marco rubio also voted against usa freedom if i recall right. While crews voted for it. You know, within both parties you will find people on both sides of it. If you think about the case of San Bernardino, this was ayou know the attorney general of president barack obama allowing the Justice Department to attempt in court to demand that a Software Company work to his own detriment and in order. They got an initial order and then backed off. So here you have the Obama Administration trying to rip apart some part of privacy. And you have senator sessions and perhaps many others on the other side of the aisle who would agree with him in those areas. Where you have senator whiting and myself and others on the other side. And i think that is where education is so important. We are not going to come to Common Ground until we all understand the tradeoff. And then hopefully we will find some Common Ground because it is these issues, they are not dividing us by party. They are dividing is by interpretation of what, of safety versus privacy. There is an interesting issue with the respective technology issues. It can be very bipartisan. So i am hopeful that as we work to these issues that we will have bipartisan support. But awe have to see in terms of what stands for the future administration that will take. The current administration, president obama started the Us Digital Service. There was actually something that i think did a great job of bringing in leaders and experience Technology People across the country and having them work on hard problems that are happening in the federal government. I would love to see that continued and to keep that interaction happening Going Forward. So we will see what happens there. And we have legislation to keep the Us Digital Service in place. So i hopefully will continue some of those ideas into this next congress and the next administration. I was going to ask about the Us Digital Service, are you bringing back a bill in congress to try and continue the work of the Digital Service . We will and i would like to see that continued. I hope that that can continue because it has a big impact in terms of bringing talent and that can be helpful. As make sure that governments more accessible to people, that websites are easy to follow and provide information. Help people track information and maybe not have to use as much paper when they are interacting with government agencies. There are so many opportunities for us to update how we use technology in the federal government. On frankly on all levels of government. So i think the service has proven and can continue to be very helpful as we move forward and use technology better. How do you think that the a argument and potential changes to that have affected Technology Policy . Well i think you know the priority of that is making sure that people have access to information that they want to see. There is not someone who is preventing or blocking access to information. And so i think neutrality is a very important tenant and technology and something that i think is a very important that we preserve. I am actually in this case excited that the fcc will be changing leadership. And that we may get a more nuanced interpretation and we might even get the fcc to back off on some of their claims of jurisdiction that i think where beyond what they are entitled to. I always give a simple example that people, if they have voip in their home they have probably experienced. If you have no, if youre completely neutral and i give you any given brand with, should take a one gig bandwidth. And your apple ipad decides it wants to back up to the cloud. And you are on a phone call, your phone call starts sounding like you are talking three tin can. And that is because in a standard home with a standard product without layer 3, whats happening is, it is not differentiating between your highly important streaming of your actual conversation and the bulk upload of information. And when they talk Net Neutrality, often they are talking about well we cannot have any priority. I mean reality is, we all need to have an honest broker. We do not need to have your software being put behind my software. But we very often need streaming video or live audio to be given a certain amount of bandwidth priority over somebody he says i am just backing up my database. That is a good example of why peer neutrality is bad for you because you and i, we all want to have a certain priority of service. That is where the fcc should be allowing rules for priority of service as long as they are not quality of Service Versus my services bert versus life services. And i think thats what the fcc will have to take up in refining this rule so we start producing products that do have priority of service. Isnt there a role for Congress Though in this Net Neutrality . Argument to set a policy . Well i think there is a role for congress as we see, a lot areas that used to be thought of as separate areas. Continuing to converge. And so when we talk about telecommunications and we talked about cable and television and we talk about the internet, we have seen so many things that really come together that are using similar underlying foundational technologies. And i think that that is one of the important things we have to look at is that we have policies that are silent in different areas. Different roles in different areas. Now that things are coming together more how do we look at where things are headed in the future . And how athis policy, that is important thing. That is sometimes where policy has day ahistory has dictated where policy has gone. Now we see a lot of changes with technology and the impacts policy as well. Even though congress is going to legislate on that neutrality, if the fcc doesnt that is a great question. I anticipate there will have those changes. I think it is a healthy and quick solution. I was believe that neutrality was first and foremost. And it was a question about monopolistic behavior. If your at t and working to the detriment for someone else, and just using them as an example. You are working to the detriment of your customer if you are a Cable Company and you prioritize your own show is over the competition over internet line that you are leasing to people. Then i think that is monopolistic behavior. And we should either have the courts determine that it is or if they feel they are not able to think congress could add that or modernize it. Because i think we have to realize that the courts are the primary place for disagreements of that sort. Not nuanced changes in the law, constantly whether it is done regulatory early or by congress. You know, before any of us in this room were grandparents, before our grandparents were born we put into place antitrust laws that still today are very operative when a judge is trying to make a decision about monopolistic behavior. And i think the sustainability of those concepts should cause us all to say, why shouldnt we use a tool that is effective if it is effective . That does not change for example, you are right to know if in fact you are being given an adverse priority of service. And that may be where the fcc has a major role in making sure that these Communication Companies disclose their priorities and what they are doing anyway that then allows the customer to decide that they are getting a fair deal. On the topic of monopolies to behavior, how do you feel about the at t merger with president elect donald trump has that he is opposed to the merger. During the hearing, you know republicans seem fine with that and some democrats are not. How do you see that play out . I think weve gone from a pretty lax definition of a relevant market to an overly critical one. And i think i am beginning to worry that one of the challenges is, when you have incumbent utility. I will use that turn like verizon, it is doing very well. And it has such marketshare as to keep them ahead of their competition in the current situation. No matter how much if you will, bandwidth is available, they find themselves unable to be competitive. And you look at other countries and they have a monopoly in more competition. You look at that and you say we should try to figure how to fix that. If we are not going to allow a merger of if you will, the three major into two major cellular carriers for example, then the ultimate mergers are certainly worth considering. And suzan said this very well, the old definition are not as good as they used to be. I think will have to look at cable providers, satellite providers, terrestrial radio providers and start saying you know what . There really are all the same overall market. And we need to look at that market and then look at competition. So i am not automatically opposed to the merger and i would like to see it in light of if we allow this one, what are the next couple of scenarios . Because if we cannot allow the next one, two or three to go forward alets not do one the way we did with the last Large Telecom merger and then close the door we have a competitive advantage by one company. Representative Suzan Delbene, what you think are some of the biggest risks when it comes to the internet . I think we have concerns of security, a lot of devices out there, information flowing. People buy for example, personal devices because they have interesting teachers and or they like the way they look. But they dont necessarily think about what happens to my information and is it stored in a place that is secure . And if it is kept updated. These are very important issues. And so we need to make sure that Privacy Protections are upheld and that people can feel that they know what is happening to their information. Make choices about what happens to their information. But also that there offering a secure environment. The things are kept up to date and the security protections are in place. And people are aware of that. That is something that i think we all have a lot of work to do and the internet of things will continue to highlight that because it is about connected devices and about information flow. And that . When you are an executive at microsoft, was privacy and big data in regular conversations that would be held . I think the big change now, it was not as much a long time ago when i was working. It was not as much of a focus of the cloud being the storage for everyone. There was much more local storage. And so people had Service Inside of companies or individuals had stuff stored on their machines. We are looking at information stored in the cloud, they are not necessarily on premise, information storage. And so you might have a Larger Organization that could protect that information and provide security for that in a different way. And those that can be very helpful. But it is a different dynamic in terms of weight Technology Works and where that technology might be. And that is something i think we are to look at as we talk about keeping our laws up to date with the way the world works today. And the energy and Commerce Committee you have aand blackbird taking key posts on the committee. We do. I think its going to be a more active committee. And over judiciary there is a balancing act that will have to occur. Because both committees have an important role. And suzan talked a lot about privacy. But, when we talk about this watch on her hand or a fitbit for the, lets just say amazon or google product that youre using to control your thermostat and turn on and off lights. Up until now, most of these parts have been nice to have. If that watched shuts down, its not going to ruin our day completely. But barely shortly, the nice to have and the need to have our reaching a crossing point to where systems of the internet of things are running things that in fact, life depends on. And so the robustness of the internet of things, the safety of it athe encryption and reliability. And the interoperability, all of those will become very important. The industry has recognized that. And ive set on panels at shows and so on where you can show that they are concerned. Government needs to simply ask, you are concerned, are you getting to an answer and what will be the national security, the Homeland Security part of it and i will just give you an example, we all know that ukraine is a long Way Technology wise from the united states. And yet, when russia invaded a the way they did it was they shut down the grid. Locked out the operators so they could not even get back in. They kept portions of that country in the dark as they came across the border. If you can do that in a relatively simple you know, this was mostly just there electric grid. Imagine what would happen if all of our connected products were to be locked out and shut off in addition to our power and telephony. Where would we be . Thats a question i think the industry has a role in and government has a role in. And so that is more serious part of the internet of things. Many of these products are no longer nice to have, it will become a need to have. Is one minute left. Go ahead. I know we recently had in the last year, the denial of a one of the issues that came up was devices. Internet of things type devices were also being coopted to participate in that service attack. So security obviously on these featured connected devices. They can be used to great things but they also are subject to aand we have to make sure they are kept . Representatives darrell issa and Suzan Delbene cochairs and ashley gold, thank you. Thank you. acspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. And is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Here is a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. At the end of general booktv is in Rancho Mirage california for the Fourth AnnualRancho Mirage writers festival. Featuring senator barbara boxer, dave barry and on saturday, february 18 we are live from georgia at the savanna book festival. We are followed in march with live coverage from the ninth annual tucson festival of books from the campus of the university of arizona. Starting march 22 through the 26th it is the virginia festival of the book in charlottesville virginia. For more information about the book fairs and festivals, booktv will be covering and to watch previous festival coverage click the book fairs tab on our website booktv. Org. [background sounds] abgood evening before we begin just to do some household arestrooms are through