This is 90 minutes. Good morning. I feel like we should vote on something, but were not going to do that. My name is jonathan and on behalf of the Robert Kennedys school of politics and the internet association, im delighted to welcome everybody here and in the virtual world. We are live streaming. At least as far as i know. I would give you the url, but if youre on the lifestream, you party know it. If youre here, you dont need it. We are also being recorded for posterity. Our good friends and neighbors at cspan will be putting this up against the friday night battle between the house of representatives subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and a briefing at the treasury department. I think we are looking pretty good. Be aware. We are broadcasting. We are in the penthouse on the fifth floor of the kennedy school. The school is named after john f. Kennedy. The institute of politics here has been from the start designed to inspire and support the political aspirations and Public Service of young people, something president kennedy was wellknown for. Who can forget his speech . App not what you can do for yourself but app what you can do for your country. How far seeing it was to see the role of coding and the App Ecosystem for the future of the country in the world. We will unfold as two panels. I will be moderating the first one on will the government break the internet . The answer to any question in a headline is no, but we will have to investigate. Then we will have a second Panel Moderated on why internet policy matters. This is a rare and special opportunity to gather the Amazing Group of people we have around the table today. We hope in our limited time to make the most of it. Before we start the first panel, i am pleased to turn the mic over to Michael Beckerman from the internet association. Michael. Thank you. Thanks to the Harvard Institute of politics for partnering with us. We are going to ask the question will the government break the internet . I agree with you. I hope the answer is, no. The policy issues were going to talk about today, interim governance, Net Neutrality these are important to the future of the internet and the Internet Users and companies around the world. These are important issues that voters care about, were looking forward to a great conversation. Thank you for taking the time to moderate. Pleasure. I am going to take off the introducers have to put on the moderators hat. Im going to get into the middle of the well. [laughter] this is where we need to jeopardy music or something. Lets see if this will work. All right. Hello, everybody. As you may have noticed, i have called this panel. This is a roundtable that has right angles. If i do my calculations right with approximately 25 people on the panel and roughly 85 minutes to do it these introductions would not be done before the time is done. We have a special configuration. I want to use this to our advantage rather than our disadvantage. This is how i suggest we do it. To bear in mind and adopt the ideal as we proceed, we are speaking for posterity. Dont forget that cspan is recording this. Imagine that 20 years from now when people have a jet packs and swedish philosophers Nick Bostroms ai has taken over. Spoiler alert, it doesnt look good for us. They will be looking back nostalgically at 2014. Maybe the names of the companies will have changed. Maybe the configuration of the network will have changed. I urge us as we discussed to think about what we would be saying to somebody in the future about the issues we are facing now. I think that will keep us at the right level of importance for what we want to say and it gives you license to explain a little bit the issue that among many people here dealing with governments all the time on this , who may represent government we have shorthands for all sorts of things. Two unpack those shorthands so that there is a little bit of a translation for others, i think it would be quiet good. That also means that since we are not doing introductions around the table, when you first speak up, feel free to introduce yourself and do an extra beat. Dont just say, i am from ebay say as you may remember as. As or maybe not. Technically, it was echo bay. We have already learned something today. [laughter] an extra beat on the introduction. The one other guideline i would give is often and especially in government affairs, our points are usually three in number. I like to adjust that to one. [laughter] give or take. How about just one thing with an elaboration and we can keep the conversation flowing rather than and there being three different reasons. That will make it harder to follow. Sound good . Yes . As michael hinted, we have a mclaughlin groupesque set of issues. How is that for dating the panel . I wont keep them hidden. We will talk about liability and surveillance public and private, and Net Neutrality, this is in the news recently. Finally, that governance. The thicket from which there is no return. We want to touch and integrate on all of them. I want to think a little bit about the category of socalled intermediary liability. Which i understand to mean that governments regulate people, but at other times, they realize dont regulate people, regulate any institution in between the government and the people and put mandates there and then you can still effectuate regulation in a more subtle and powerful way. We see examples of that in Copyright Infringement defamation. As the internet has grown in the american context, weve seen some balance struck, good or bad in what the government may , require of intermediaries. One example is coming from europe with a newly recognized right to be forgotten. Adam, where are you . Here. I dont know why it occurred to me that adam should be asked first to weigh in on the right to be forgotten. Tell us what company you are from and how it is going . I am adam and i lead googles u. S. Public policy efforts. Google is a Search Engine company was a Search Engine company that did a lot of great things. [laughter] humble. The right to be forgotten is an interesting issue that a lot of us in the u. S. Look at the ruling of this European Court of justice and think this is outside the bounds and not something that would gain traction here due to our First Amendment and strong intermediary liability principles. I think its important to acknowledge some of the feelings that motivate the desire for a right to be forgotten. The fact is there is more information about all of us online than ever before. That is true. A lot of the search costs for finding information that used to be hard to find have been obliterated. It used to be you could find a criminal record in the basement of city hall. The internet has obliterated that. In a lot of positive ways. The fact is that people are concerned about the impact. What concerns me about the right to be forgotten is it has not been balanced with some of the other competing values such as the values of Free Expression and the benefit of the consumers right to know, particularly about things like whether a vendor has had bad reviews against them, whether a potential babysitter has had criminal offenses. These are things that people could request to be removed from search results and i think thats very anticonsumerist. Adam, does this represent a shift in thinking with google from a stance that used to say we index the internet. If you have a problem with that, please consult the internet. Right. To a stance that says, there are a lot of tricky things that need to be balance, and may have quibbles with a privately activated process where a person comes to google, gets a form, and maybe a link goes down between a person and the information. This is a new reality. Thats right. The reality is and why the court case in europe has been heavily dissected is it hinges on whether google is a Data Processor, which the court ruled it is, or a newspaper or journalistic organization. We are showing some prioritization, which we are. That is the value of search results. The reality is that googles search results do both. They believe that these results are more important to the user than others. Last question. On the mechanics of it, how is it going . Give us a sense of the flow coming after the opinion came down. Are there plans to open it up voluntarily to other citizens, because i have a small list in my pocket we have received 100,000 requests. We have a backlog of requests. We have to go through these one by one. Are their jobs posted for google right to be forgotten processors . There arent, as far as im aware. Unfortunately some of the cases , we have seen have been former politicians asking to have news of their criminal convictions removed. In our view, these are not in the public interest. One of the things we are monitoring is there is some interest on the part of regulators and policymakers in parts of latin america and asia, looking at that and saying, is this something we should consider. So far, you are limiting this right to where it is required of you to implement. Only to european citizens and only within our european domain. Only in localized portals. That does mean that if i am in britain and i am alert enough to say i can perform a search in england. And that has been an area of contention. I can imagine. Are there other companies at the table that are watching this very closely . If youre not a Search Engine is right to be forgotten implicating what you do, either now or in the future . Its remarkably quiet. Is this a google and Search Engine specific thing . Wow. Brad . I thought i saw a hand go up . No you didnt. , fair enough. Brad young. I am a senior counsel at trip advisor. We were once the Worlds Largest travel site. That point in time is now. It will be disingenuous to say were not watching with interest how this unfolds. We have looked at the European Court justice decision and we have seen how google has reacted to it. There is also a proposed directive before the eu that we dont know whether it will be enacted or not. We dont know what form it will take. And if it is, how they each country will implement that directive. In our view and speaking just for trip advisor, the decision raises more questions than it answers. Who is the Data Processor . Who falls into the exception . What is a relevant and who decides that . Should google not allow the intervention . Matters of public interest. Right. Where is that line drawn . A politician is one thing. A b b owner providing poor service to paying customers where does that fall in the line , it . I think there are a lot of open questions. Adam was saying its 2014. Its not as simple as let the internet deal with it. There are lots of equities to be balanced. There is plenty to quibble with. This is the new reality. Is there a similar thing going in that class of sites like trip advisor that solicit reviews and other information from people that might make institutions it might make or break a hotel if it gets a certain ranking or review. Is it your view that this generally gets sorted out in trip advisors commitment to its users will have the right things happen . Are there ways in which this could go awry . I think each individual platform has the algorithm, the rules and ethos that users come , to expect. Those are always evolving. I dont know at what point in time that you want the government determining whats irrelevant. Take them down. We got rid of the cockroaches. The prior owners are in jail. Trip advisor, though should all be cleansed. How would i do that through a contact form . At trip advisor, there are situations where we will remove a large amount of reviews. Change of ownership is the most common one. Major renovations, you just put on three new wings and hired new management. It will be a different experience for the consumer. There are judgments. Are those judgments made according to your conscience and what makes for a Good Business . Or is there a shadow of Government Intervention should you do that wrong . Not at all. I know that your lawyer is at the table. He is sitting right here. [laughter] those are made for what is best for the community. The larger the volume, the more experiences you are able to offer up to someone who is trying to figure out what to expect when they take time off and spend their hardearned money and take their kids somewhere, the quantity is very helpful. We have determined that there are certain things that are irrelevant. Maybe they should be forgotten. In certain situations, you put new linens on your beds, we are going to leave all the reviews up about the restaurant downstairs. That does not everything. Anything else on the right to be forgotten before we move along . I cant tell its because its uncontroversial or because its totally controversial. [applause] i just want to add one thing. This wont go away as an issue. Yes. The debate about the european protections will be the next arena where this takes place. We have precedent under the fair credit reporting act where we say that information should be used like bankruptcy or foreclosure, negative financial information, but it cant be used to get somebody past 10 years. Weve made a judgment through legislation in this country that type of information has an expiration date. If it is in the hands of a big credit reporting firm. Right. We acknowledge that there is value in the meantime. We dont want it to be held against a person forever. We will have to weigh a lot of these things legislatively about how we feel a persons history ought to follow them prefer that for certain types of information. We require sex offenders to register forever. If you look at france, they believe any crime should be expunged from your record once you have done your time. They want people to have a clean slate. We will have to make these judgments legislatively. Its easier when the information is in the hands of the government deciding when and how to release it. Once its in the Public Domain its much harder to effectuate putting the genie back in the bottle. Your prediction, five to 10 years from now, will there be an american right to be forgotten recognize legislatively or as a matter of Customer Service . I dont think there will be a right to be forgotten on the same scale. It will be miniature laws and other steps taken to it dress address certain types of information. Are some of the accordance is with american law, before the modern web and many of the companies here were up and running, are those holding up well . I think i have in mind defamation and other state law claims that might involve an intermediary, those tend to be off the table through the Communications Decency act. We see section 512 of the copyright act which encourages and immunizes intermediaries in many circumstances against Copyright Infringement claims, even if the site is the way in which the infringement is happening, so long as they take things down when asked. Is that holding up well . Is there any ask anyone at this table would have to tweak that in america one way or the other . This is the most wonderfully [laughter] todd, tell us where youre from. I am with ebay. We do payments through paypal and we have a Small Company called a stub hub for ticket sales. It goes to your point, jonathan, about the Communications Decency act and whether the government will break the internet. If you look at section 230, we would have said today that the internet had been broken. The irony of section 230 is a law meant to limit speech on the web ended up being one of the greatest proponents. Part of this is the government acting in ways that doesnt come out the way they expected it to come out. I do the two did get anywhere close to passing section 230 in the United States. As the far end of the pendulum it allows everybody to start from a position of we are going to work to keep openness as the basic principle and work act back from there with the exceptions. It sounds like you are saying, congress, keep up the good work. Just to put you on the record. Thanks so much for your enlightened legislation in the internet area. A senator from nebraska ended up being a visionary that he never expected to be. [laughter] you can layer on acceptable use policies, things that in the companys judgment like auctions that are prohibited. Sure. That has been from day one also. That was part of the protection of section 230 and 512 that provided for the ability for companies to exercise judgment and to get rid of things they believe are in the consumers interest. When theres been a conflict and commerce. Fake rolex watches, fake wetsuits watches being sold on ebay, is that settled now . I would say that the great copyright and trademark wars over the internet are not settled. There is always the ability for people to push the envelope. I would say in general for the vast majority of commerce, its a much better situation than it had been. I think there is no reason to reopen the digital millennium copyright act, and globally most , companies have adopted similar statutes and regulations. Can i ask you to weigh in on this . I am also from trip advisor. We used to do an online review. Intermediary liability is an issue that we confront relatively regularly. I would agree with todd. As the state of it is today in the United States, 230 is a terrific bulwark to our Business Model and others here today. It is under threat from time to time. You can see that there is a a group of state ags a year or two ago trying to claw back some of those restrictions. In europe, it is a little bit more unsettled in terms of the regularity and the rules of the road there. It is a less friendly environment for the intermediaries. As todd was suggesting, nothing in particular you would ask of the government . Nothing in this area that you are particularly fearing it will do . On the u. S. Side . Y