Different they could be hit with some kind of a fire. That happened to google. They said they were not they were honoring thirdparty cookies that were in fact hacking around with russia racked this. The fcc affirmative laid out under the fact that the communications of book cover them as communications as common carriers, they have to make rules. The ftc never had rules that they didnt have rulemaking authority. Host before we go any further, gentlemen, lets bring Howard Buskirk in. Hes the executive director communications. Guest i want to ask you first of all, what are you concerned for the isps in terms of where the fcc may be headed in terms of this area . I have counseled clients in different areas. If one were to apply with the privacy rules, which were developed in the context of the Telecom Reform act of 1996, which the rules really do not work very well in a world of the internet where you have apps and you have Internet Advertising Company and operating systems, all these different players are involved in collecting a certain amount of information and also involved in delivering services. The broad concern with you that they would be discriminated against him on the one hand they are required under the Net Neutrality border to carry all traffic that goes across their system regulated as a common carrier and required to support all these different entities. They uniquely would be prohibited from participating in the advertising marketplace, which they currently are very small players. The idea they would have to carry the traffic but be unable themselves to obtain any advertising revenue by virtue of information that they obtain by virtue of providing Internet Access service. The isps are very unfair in dealing with a tiny part of the ecosystem that is not a major player in the world of advertising. This should be irrational. Are there questions about how much data they would have to protect in the changing ecosystem, how much data they are responsible for. Guest there is a study that came out by the former privacy czar in the Clinton White house with some other at georgia tech which showed the majority of internet traffic by the end of this year is going to be encrypted so that the content of those communications will not be visible. On the other hand, an operating system would see that unencrypted and would have more information than the isp would. Furthermore, no longer are people access the internet. The average consumer uses 6. 1 devices to connect to the internet and most consumers are using three to five different Internet Access providers that connect the internet every day. The single home isp does not have a unique view of a huge amount of user activity. And if you consider think about it, and if you take your smartphone and connect to wifi which 46 of mobile users are doing for their internet traffic, that information is going to a wifi provider. If you access the internet from home, you will typically have a Home Internet provider. If you access information to mobile device when you are not connected to wifi, your wireless provider will be collecting information and then your work isp provider will be providing Broadband Service at the office will potentially collect information. This is a much more fragmented universe with much of the data encrypted. That study has been disputed by a number of people recently. I think its about 65 is unencrypted and that is talking about the content template is just as significant and just as revealing as the information of what site you went to and how long you were there and sort of tracking types of sites that you visit and have they not targeted on the basis of that sort of information. It is correct that the current rules that apply to common carriers were from the world of telephones and they arent adequate and really dont correctly categorize the kinds of information that should come under the privacy rules but Broadband Access providers. A modest local make it is all about, trying to figure out which things are known as cpn i which is custom proprietary Network Internet program by virtue of someone plugging into your network. The idea is to not ought to use that data for purposes other than completing the map or transaction unless the person gives permission for that to happen. Thats the way it works in a telephone world and it works the same as the broad and Internet Access provides. Host for the average subscriber, why should he carry about the information . Are there other ways than the carriers are monetizing are raising concerns . Guest you get that data. A profile can be put together and you can then be sort of targeted for kinds of advertising that can end up being discriminatory and taken it managed in ways that probably arent entirely fair. While it is true that the internet is more than the Internet Access providers, they are in a unique position in terms of you pretty much have to go through one and it is appropriate because they are unique to recognize that and deal with the data that they gather. We can talk about other questions around the socalled provider, google, facebook and all of that. I believe there could be some rules to put in place there. That is not the subject of this particular position at this point. Host jim halpert. A guest i think you need to look at the internet ecosystem as a whole. For the reasons i describe it is not true that isps have a uniquely broad of user behavior. There is also no indication of the unencrypted traffic that goes through their network and all the places where users are going. If that were the case, that is exactly what internet advertising Business Models do today. It is not particularly hard. It is present in ads you may be interested based on where you are going on the internet. This is how the ad supported Free Internet works today. The isps are tiny players in the world of internet advertising. They are strong selfregulatory requirements. Isps and others in the ecosystem have all made to follow privacy optout rules in a variety of ways that give consumers notice and control. They are absolutely enforceable today. Nothing would change that. They are binding commitments. To break off today a tiny piece of the internet advertising ecosystem and subject the net through rigorous rules that consumers wont understand and to North Augusta the internet and the not irrational urge to privacy on the internet. The fact is given the way that congress is configured right now and the house of representatives that is likely to remain under for at least six years and probably another another 10 after that. There is no legislation applies to the internet. If this one on tiny little piece of the internet ecosystem subject to potentially very confusing rules. What Consumers Want and expect us to have choices about how their information is used, to have clear transparent notice about information practices and have an easy way to optout of practices that they dont want to see being done with their data. Moving to an optin privacy rule, which is technically what john is advocating for its really quite different if you think about what happens with their health information. When you go to a doctor, you have to sign a privacy form every single time you go to a different doctor and effectively if that is what would be happening with the Internet Access service for information to be used for any purpose other than delivery of service. I think that is what johns proposal is. Curiously even other privacy groups. I think that is what we are essentially suggesting. With the isps on and did before we can use the information for purposes other than providing the service, that it should be an optin sort of situation. That is part of the problem right now to talk about all of these selfregulatory regimes in the one based on the socalled notice and choice model, where they explain in the Privacy Policy and people say that is fine. That doesnt work. Who on this table minus the last last time anyone had a policy and sometimes they raise that good my standard line is they breed like they are written by lawyers and the way to obfuscate the situation. We were together in an effort to simplify. Guest yes, we did. And it was fun. Host right now we are in the plaster of an administration. They are looking not a proposal. What is the likelihood they are going to be able to get the notice of proposed rulemaking and still get a final rule and get that in place by the end of the administration. Guest i think it will be interesting to see if they can get that done. I think it is important that they do the notice of public rulemaking as soon as they possibly can. I expect quite soon. That if nothing else raises all the questions and get the record going where people can put in their various views and can earn and if they can come back fast enough with a new rule, that would be great. But can also serve as the foundation for what goes on with the next administration. Guest theres also a good Net Neutrality order created this particular problem to solve other problems, but it created this regulatory cab. May not be upheld in its entirety. There is a decent chance wireless providers in the end, the d. C. Circuit court of appeals is reviewing a challenge to that order and there is a pretty good chance that wireless providers may be ruled to the outside of the Net Neutrality order. If that is the case, we would be an even more fragmented potential role and probably a fair amount of confusion that might slow down the rulemaking. Because we are in somewhat of certain legal ground, within that michelle at the order, we cant exclude a surprise coming from the d. C. Circuit court of appeals and further narrowing the scope of this. All of a sudden you would see for wireless providers, you could see the ftc get jurisdiction again midstream and its possible there will be litigation on this underlying regulatory fact that triggers this rulemaking. So that could interrupt this as well. Host john simpson, for folks working on trend watching this at home, what is the conversation . Guest i think it is important because if it goes through the way many of us in the privacy community would hope it goes through, i think it will mean consumers will have more choice and control over the data gathered about them. I think thats an important thing. Most people want that. You look at various polls taken in there is great concern by the average person about their privacy on the internet. Guest i think what this means is really whether consumers are going to be asked to optin when i signed up for Internet Service in the middle of a service contract, which is something that like the Health Care Privacy release that you sign, consumers are going to be ready or to onto that. I think it is better to have very clear notices to consumers and ready control where consumers can go and choose to optout consciously optout of different services. Or use of their data. Much on his advocating is a default rule for a consumer first of all will be asked to check the release so information can be used. I dont think that actually brings the same degree of thought is very clear short notices and ready consumer controls. Google, comcast and other Companies Move to providing this consumer control over uses of consumer data. I think you get to too much the same place. Guest i would want to have a clearer explanation of what it is they want to do with your data before you optin information. Do you think it out to be an optout . Thats probably where we are. We talked about being part of the process before in privacy. Would it make sense to get everybody in the room, consumer advocates and Public Interest groups and have a big discussion about this in agreement on rules and dont obviate the need for the fcc to impose regulation . I think actually that probably would not work. I would agree with you it would not work. John and i try to work and i devoted a lot of time and effort to a process where a set of short form notice i might should be developed so consumers could make choices about whether to use a mobile lab. What i found in the process as the number of the privacy advocate really didnt want to tackle that problem and didnt want i dont think were that interested in this after being a broad consensus agreement because they had other things that they wanted. On the other side, the Business Community was concerned about being very prescriptive. In the end, a code was put forward an apple, but very, google have all moved to do slightly different types of short form notice. In the end, that gets consumers, to require that its consumer that gets consumers who place of receiving short form notice but maybe not the exact way it was agreed to on the face of the code, but it got them to the same place. On the other hand, consumer advocate didnt want privacy rules in different places. So they wanted to push for bradley addressing that. Its much harder to come up with deals of very broad questions. Its easier on narrow questions. This took about a year. I think the process that would take to yield an agreement on the whole universe would be feasible, but it takes several years and i dont think regulators are going to wait for data. I think the multistakeholder process as they call it may sound good, but in order to really get something done, you need to have a formal ruling and that is what this particular thing that is coming up with eve. There is a big difference between a bunch of people sitting around the room vested in computing entry is trying to come up with something in his third of the green i think a formal rulemaking is a much better way to go. I think our experience shows that. Guest in this situation it is what is on to happen in the limited amount of time left in this administration i dont see unmediated effort to come up with it in a short period of time. Host are we going to see a big fight on this . Things are breaking down politically what they did over Net Neutrality with the Republican Commission very close to some of these rules and the Commission Majority really wanted to move forward. Do you see this sort of mirroring Net Neutrality before the commission . Guest i think this is a little bit more complicated an issue from a Public Policy perspective. There is a very strong argument that for the fcc to move forward, doing something would be arbitrary. Theres a strong argument that Internet Access providers they should not be able to do things that thousands of other players that the internet ecosystem are doing with regard to advertising for Broadband Service over Broadband Services. There also are legal questions here that are pretty complicated if indeed the net be shy with the rule is struck down as to wireless providers. All of those things may create even more i think a more supple political alignment at the fcc and i am hopeful we will work towards finding solutions that really a practical, consistent and clear to the numerous and based largely on the ftc framework. I am not sure that is what will happen, but that is the framework that applied previously. The fcc could then enforce it with much stronger penalties with the very aggressive. Again you question whether thats arbitrary because other images are not subject to that. Whatever final set of rules would resolve and be enforced to the service vigorously and nice question about that. So there is a middle way here and im hopeful the commissioners when i think about this and look broadly at the internet advertising market, and which are tiny players and they will decide doing something closer to the ftc framework makes more sense. Host john simpson, find the word today. Guest i agree that is a complex issue. Im not sure it play out exactly the same way. We will get a better sense of that in a few weeks i named one of rulemaking is so bad. It is a complex situation. Host john simpson, former journalist with consumer watchdog where he is the privacy project director. Jim halperts lawyer with dla piper, covers privacy and cybersecurity matters. Howard buskirks executive Senior Editor of communications. Next, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders speaking at the 2016th legacy dinner in columbus. They each give speeches to the group on sunday. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] 8 00 ive got to get to, so im going to be very, very brief. Let me begin by thanking all of you in ohio, to ascending marcy kaptur to the United States congress. I have no mercy for decades. Nobody in congress has stood up for the American Worker as opposed to disastrous trade policy is more vigorously and more effectively then south to kaptur at thank you, ohio, first ending her to the congress. [cheers and applause] now we just came from a great rally. We held here and upon this with about 7000 people out. This is similar to the rallies weve been holding all over the midwest in this country. The American People, working people, young people want into the political process. The Democratic Party has to open the door, welcome those people in and create a party that stands for working people in this country. [cheers and applause] this campaign is about ending a corrupt Campaign Finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections. Together we are going to overturn Citizens United [cheers and applause] to gather, we are going to end republican voter suppression. [cheers and applause] to gather we are go