One thing i thought i heard is not just providers willingly sharing this data by being proactive about writing the standards. How do we know what you are doing . Is learn it involved to try to get some outcome that turks like that that would be widely available . We participate in a couple of different organizations. In the process of thinking about three authorization we have been taking of this issue. We cannot just sit back. It is not going to be as bold and fault that it should be. We have taken up this discussion about what we need to do to reauthorize. I am going to take this conversation back to my other colleagues. We need to step up our efforts and not just focus on this. I do not know when this is going to happen. The need to be looking at how we influence these metrics now. We play a part in this. She points to really interesting point. There is a tension, all of this. While there are certain for profits that will go the extra yard, because the purchasers to not necessarily
Pursuant to section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Section 702 permits the attorney general to join the authorize surveillance of targeted persons who are not u. S. Persons who are recently believed to be outside of the United States with compelled assistance of Electronic Communication Service providers in order to obtain foreign intelligence information. Although u. S. Worsens may not be targeted under section 702, communications of or concerning u. S. Persons may be acquired. 702 program is extremely complex. It involves multiple agencies, collecting multiple types of information for multiple purposes. Overall, the board has found the information the program collects has been valuable and ineffective in protecting the National Security. The program is operated under a statute that was publicly debated and the text of the statute outlines the basic structure of the program. The operation of the section 702 program has been subject to judicial oversight and extensiv
Program close to the line of constitutional reasonableness. Including the scope of u. S. Versus communications, the use of medications acquired through the internet that are neither to or from the target of the surveillance, and the use of such queries to search information collected under the program for the medications of certain u. S. Persons. With these concerns in mind, the report that we are voting on today offers a set of policy proposals that should strike a better balance between privacy and Civil Liberties and National Security. Push theesigned to program more comfortably into the sphere of reasonableness ensuring that the Program Remains tight to its constitutionally legitimate core. The key goal of our studies to improve public understanding of how the program operates. Therefore we look forward to discussing our proposal, and i want to start by dispelling a great snow should about the programs operation. First, it is audible Collection Program. The program only targets med
Anachronistic regime for the provision of broadcast programs. , we addressedly impending transition from analog to digital television. Other issues the committee considered at that time remain unresolved, while new technologies have further disrupted the market with innovations that we could not less than a decade ago. I believe we have a unique opportunity to tackle some of the big issues that will define the future of video. Licenses, i think everyone will admit represent a departure from freemarket negotiations and are usually the last resort in the event of market failure. When the compulsory licenses were first enacted, the cable and Satellite Industries were in their embryonic stages. Over it is estimated that 90 of american households subscribe to a paid tv service. Of issuesa myriad that may be relevant for consideration. Example, these licenses are necessary to foster competition, or should they be phased out as the Copyright Office and others have recommended . How many consu
Democracy. The question is, are we there yet . It seems like we have reached an Inflection Point about privacy. More people are concerned about the issue. We could see it covered in the press more. A computing factor was the petraeus affair about for which this event is case. It seems like in the case, the fbi did have warrant. The investigation made people realize that emails were not that private. Privacy advocates took advantage of that moment to put forth the concerns they had talked about for years. Two other things that happened over the last year, which have privacy at the Center Agenda one is the decision of the u. S. Supreme court in the jones case where the court found attaching a gps device to a car for tracking movement for months was not like following someone on the public highways. We have seen articles in the press about the eyes in the skies, Surveillance Drones hovering over cities that zoom from 20,000 feet to a sixinch object on the ground. These issues are part of