How many new things you see for the first time and people try to ask my new to because its been a year, then you realize that someone who is not in the industry susan and i both came out of the industry and we are pulling behind and doing what we can to stay up, but we are trying to take a slightly behind Technology Knowledge and relate to people. One of the big reasons we started the internet of things caucus was to help educate other lawmakers about where technology is headed. So that you have a good basis understanding where policy might be impacted or needs to be impacted. The other role we play is to make sure that we have laws uptodate where the world actually works. We have outdated laws to ecommerce and people having cell phones and all information transmitted not only in the u. S. But around the world. We have a lot of work to do to keep policy uptodate and keep future looking as well. Host what is specific petes of policy you would like to see updated . Guest one is reform to the Electronic Communications privacy act. This bills was written in 1986, a long, long time ago when people didnt use email to communicate and we need to update our laws so we have a warrant standard for all information. So right now information that is stored on a server in email that you might have isnt under the same warrant standard that a piece of paper in a file draw would be, and i think most americans think Digital Information should be treated like Digital Information in terms of protecting their privacy. There is piece of legislation called the email privacy act. That email information requires a warrant just like physical information. It passed the house last congress unanimously. That never happens. And so, its an important piece of legislation. Again it is just updating a lot of the way the world works today and protects peoples privacy. Host congressman issa, same question. Guest she is right saying that that is very important. Product examples not just in legislation but interpretation of the law and make some cases not legislating. We have the famous situation that San Bernardino murderer whose phone was an iphone. The government came and said we would like apple to write a Software Program so we remotely lock it and get at the information. It created a question that hadnt been a question before about privacy. If you ask someone to break into a safe to get documents that is reasonable thing to do. If you ask them to design a safe that it is not safe, thats a question. The other question came up bass few days ago, was the arkansas case where theyre asking amazon to deliver any and all voice recordings that may have been captured on their amazon echo that was inside the crime scene. Both of these have to be related to governments need to know, criminal prosecution, and balance of how does that really relate constitutionally and with existing laws. So as proponents of the internet of things we know were asking people to consider putting hundreds of thousands of microphones, of speakers and of various diagnostic equipment into their homes and on to their bodies and weve got to get it right whether or not youre going to do that for your own benefit in you feel that your privacy is going to be unfairly taxed. I look at those to say, we have to educate people in order to get the benefit of these products well have to have laws that make them feel safe in their own homes with these products. Host lets bring ashley gold of politico into the conversation as well. I want to ask you both about the internet of things caucus and what is on tap this year. When you started a couple years ago, when you were starting out, both you said a lot of lawmakers didnt know the internet of things was. Do you think people up on the hill made progress the last few years . Do you feel like the conversation is broader now . Are lawmakers being brought into the fold and are more familiar with it . Guest weve done a good job of at least scratching the surface. To be honest the consume irproducts industry made internet of things people more knowledgeable because most members have one product or more that is an iot product. That is good news, theyre aware of it. What theyre not aware of is, to be candid, the growth rate and challenges that are going to be faced. I mentioned those two cases. There is something as simple as suzan may have products were both using of internet of things, how does she make sure she has her space and i have my space and we own whatever those rights are . Those are questions that judiciary and other committees are going to be deciding. One of the things i see happening to lever off of that, the energy and Commerce Committee has decided they want, to be honest, be very active in that. That means well have to grow the internet of things thinking of multijurisdictional. Well have to have people from several committees if we want to bring the right people in to Work Together to make sure all committees are working on legislation that will not get to the floor and have huge opposition. Guest we have just scratched the surface. We talked about a few key areas in the last congress. Big data in smart cities were areas we focused in on to help folks understand real use cases that were happening. And some early progress that was being made, things like smart cities, where different cities using things, different censors on transportation. We also have Incredible Opportunity in all areas. This is infrastructure when you talk about sensors figure out how much water a plant needs to farmers dont have use too much water that they dont need. We have to remind people the breadth of opportunities. There are expected to be 20 billion connected devices by the year 2020 of all sorts. To remind folks of issues of inneroperability, consumer protections, privacy, security, important issues as well we want to make sure people are i wear of and are thoughtful looking at policies. Do you feel youre still in kind of the education phase rather than starting to really think about what kind of legislation might be useful . Guest i think were continuing in the education phase and legislation will be limited. It really is one of those things this many case what is 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 what is great about the internet of things has been organic. Some of the privacy protections are being worked out fairly successfully by your old bosses at microsoft, by apple, by google. Im not saying theyre perfect but looking at a complexity at a level that congress wouldnt and laws with it, and coming up if you will solutions. I will give you one that is a great question for all of us. Do we want every internet of things product from our fitbit to sensors in our car, do you want them to be actively making the world better, not on our behalf but on behalf of the world in a way that is not attributable to us . In other words, as suzan mentioned it, do we want to make sure it is sending a word whether there is sprinkler on where there shouldnt be on rainy day . Do we see it and want our products to report it . Those kinds of Software Algorithms are being developed. There is going to come a time when they will come to congress and they will say, we want to be held harmless from using that nonpersonal data in a way, well get releases but we want to be held harmless well not be sued for using it. At that point were going to have to try to figure out what is in the publics best interest. That is not terribly new, but it is new electronically. Today, if you make a phone call and say there is an accident on the side of the road, and you report it youre held harmless from some inadvertent event because you thought you saw something but would your sensor be held harmless. Right. Also, president elect trump famously doesnt love using technology all the time. We know he talked about using tweets but not using email and computers and will you have a tough time getting him into all those internet of things stuff . Guest i was there in new york when he met with tim cook and elon musk and some people from the technology world. I think what were going to have to do is recognize most president s and Vice President s dont spend much time using electronic devices. They are in a bubble. So can we, can we keep him aware of the benefit of these products in a way in which hell support it but at the same time not trying to turn him into an al gore. I think were going to do okay on it. I will say this, he is an interesting character in that he is talking about things like, you know if you want to have something really secure, sign it, put it on a piece of paper, have courier take it in sealed envelope. That may seem absurd but my time on the select Intelligence Committee that is actually how you make sure you dont have something that can be duplicated, disappear. Anything on a phone call can be vulnerable. In a sense we hear what he says. Thats probably the most important thing for him to know is that has president , everything he says, everything he does could be listened to and could have an effect. Im kind of happy that he bet gets that part. Suzanne and i will have time getting importance of what we can do with technology for a very broad world. Host that goes to the question of hacking and privacy. People get that and understand that dont they . Guest the president elect, some of his cabinet choices have been concerning when we talk about issues of privacy for example, or issues of encryption. She is will be important conversations we had last congress that will continue Going Forward. One piece of legislation we passed last congress was the usa freedom act, reining in the nsa on bulk conversations and that is something senator sessions voted against. I have greats concerns what it means for privacy Going Forward someone who could potentially be attorney general. These are important conversations for all of us to have. Given there hasnt been an explicit policy the president elect has put out, there is definitely reason for concern based on some of the information we have on his cabinet. Guest this is one of the areas which you see two members of Congress Might not agree on some things but we tend to be the same on these issues. Conversely, the bedfellows on the other side are interesting. Marco rubio also voted against usa freedom if i recall right while cruz voted for it. Within both parties you will find people on both sides of it. If you think about the case of san bernanadino, this was, the attorney general of president barack obama allowing the Justice Department to attempt in court to demand that a Software Company work to its own detriment in an order. They got an initial order and then backed off. 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 while you have senator wyden and myself and others on the other side. And i think thats where education is so important. Were not going to come to common frowned ground until we all understand the tradeoff and hopefully well find common ground. These issues are not dividing us by party but dividing us interpretation what is safety versus privacy. Guest there is issue with respect to the Technology Issues that can be very bipartisan. So im hopeful as we work through these issues well have bipartisan support but we have to see in terms of what stands for the future administration will take. The current administration, president obama started the us digital service. That was actually something i think did a great job of bringing in thought leaders and experienced Technology People from across the country, having them work on hard problems happening in the federal government. I would love to see that continued and to keep that interaction happening Going Forward. So well see what happens there. I even have legislation to keep the u. S. Digital service in place, so hopefully well continue some of those ideas into this, into this next congress and the next administration. I was going to ask you about the u. S. Digital service. Are you bringing back a bill in this congress to try and continue the work of the digital service. Guest we will. I would like to see that continued. I hope that can continue because it has a big impact in terms of bringing talent in that can be helpful as we make sure government is 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 theyre interacting with government agencies. There are so many opportunities for us to update how we use technology in the federal government, frankly all levels of government and so i think the u. S. Digital service has proven and could continue to be very helpful as we move forward and we use technology better. Host how do you think the Net Neutrality argument and potential changes to that after affects Technology Policy . Guest i think the priority of Net Neutrality is making sure that people have access to information that they want to see. There is not someone who is throttling or preventing blocking access to information. So i think Net Neutrality is a very, very important tenet in technology and something very important we actually preserve. Guest im in this case exciting that the fcc will be changing leadership, and we may get a more nuanced interpretation of Net Neutrality. We might get the fcc back off some of their claims of jurisdiction that are beyond what theyre entitled to. I always give a simple example that have voip in their home probably experienced. If you have no, if youre completely net neutral and i give you any given bandwidth, just take one gig bandwidth and your apple ipad decides it wants to back up to the cloud, youre on a phone call, your phone call starts sounding like youre talking through a tin can, and that is because in a standard home with a standard product without layer three, what is happening is, it is not differentiating between your highly important streaming of your actual conversation and the bulk up load of information. And when they talk Net Neutrality, often theyre talking about, well we cant have any throttleing at all or any priority. The reality is we all need to have an honest broker. We dont need to have your software being put hine my software. But we very often need streaming video or live audio to be given a certain amount of bandwidth priority over somebody who says im just backing up my database. Thats a good example of why pure neutrality is actually bad for you because you and i, we all want to have certain priority of service. Thats where the fcc should be allowing rules for priority of service as long as they are not priority of service of my services versus somebody elses Like Services and i think that is what the fcc will have to take up refining this rule so we start producing products that do have is priority of service. Host isnt there a role for congress in this Net Neutrality argument to set a policy . Guest i think there is a big role for congress as we see a lot of areas that used to be thought of as separate areas continuing to converge. So when you talk about telecommunications and we talk about cable and television and we talk about the internet, weve seen so many things that really come together that are using similar underlying foundational technologies and i think thats one of the important things we have to look at is, how we have policieses that are siloed in different areas. Different rules in different areas, now that things come together more where are things headed in the future and how does it impact policy. That is an important thing. That is sometimes where history dictated where policy has gone but weve seen a lot of changes that happened with technology and convergence and that affects technology as well. Do you think congress will legislate on Net Neutrality this year if the fcc doesnt roll back the regulations . Host thats a great question. I anticipate they will have those nuanced changes. I think that is healthy and quick way to get to a solution. I always believed Net Neutrality first and foremost was an antitrust question. It was about monopolies behavior. I use example of somebody else, if youre a Cable Company and prioritizing your own shows over the competition over an internet line that youre leasing to people i think that is monopolistic behavior. We should either have the courts determine that it is or they feel theyre not able to that congress could add that or modernize it. 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 regulatorily or by congress. You know, before any of us in this room, before our grandparents were born we put into place antitrust laws that today still 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 doesnt change, for example, your right to know if in fact youre being given an adverse priority of service, and that may be where the fcc has a major role making sure these Communication Companies disclose their priorities and what theyre doing in the a a way tht allows the customer to decide whether theyre getting a fair deal. On the topic of monopolistic behavior how do you feel about the pending at t deal with time warner . President elect trump said publicly in few tweets that he is opposed to hearing. In a hearing some republicans seemed very fine with the merger, some democrats were not. What do you think, how is that going to play out . I think weve gone from a pretty lax definition of the relevant markets to an overly crit