Welcome back ourwitnesses and i now recognize the gentle lady from washington. Thank you mister chairman and thank you all for your very informative testimony. You all touched on this but a common refrain we hear from companies is during the course of this committees investigation but also just on my own i have many of them in my district is that they cant possibly be violating antitrust laws and the primary argument is that its because many other products either cheap or free and therefore consumers are inherently benefiting. You all have indifferent ways talk about this. To me the big question of course is is free really free . Consumers i think its increasingly clear are paying for the products that they use read theyre paying in data, theyre paying in privacy and often dont know theyre giving up and of course the Big Tech Companies use that data to build these massive empires of information about consumers then give them spectacular advantage over newcomer businesses, allow these companies to scrutinize every aspect of peoples lives, create and sell the products that have the best chance of being successful in the marketplace. Its almost a bulletproof advantage. Doctor valletti, youve mentioned the history of acquisitions. Facebook had made 67 unchallenged acquisitions, amazon and may 97 and google had made 214, mostly unchallenged acquisitions and you presided over the ecs, eu investigation of google, amazon and facebook. What kinds of access to these companies have to information about consumers as a result of those acquisitions and you talked about the thresholds being one of the potential problems for why investigations arent opened. Do the thresholds of investigation need to change if we are to challenge him of these acquisitions . Thank you very much forthe question congresswoman. Do the thresholds have to change . Im very pragmatic, to the extent people have the powers looking for acquisitions is fine by me,whatever is the method. Im even in favor in fact of changing the structure of presumption when it comes to strategic platforms. With such a humongous market power, i would wonder whether instead of asking the authorities to prove that its anticompetitive and then they could rebut efficiency to change it and say you guys are not going to merge with anybody unless you prove to us that its going to create efficiency so i would change the burden of proof. In terms of reunifications, i cannot disclose information about any case but my understanding of those cases is that some of the claims here a lot of time competition is one click away, theres always been available. I didnt see that in the data at all. I didnt see anybody on search results on page 2, i saw everybody relation so i saw a lot of stickiness, the fact that some of us may have choices that represent the averageconsumer data , its ironic that if somebody comes from academia, the ivory tower has to tell these companies theres a difference between theory and practice. In theory they can do that but in practice consumers never act on those choices, they just defaults. Commissioner furman, several of the dominant platforms serve as critical gatekeepers while also competing with the businesses that are dependent on those platforms and amazon for example runs a thirdparty marketplace but it has its own private label goods and both in committee andwhen i met with them recently , they really testified that this dual structure doesnt pose any conflicts of interest and say that its common for retailers offer private label products alongside thirdparty products. What do you say that and whats your response . We hear these analogies of comparing it to Grocery Store cereals and the white label serial and it doesnt work. I am so worried i hear from investors and venture capitalists who say im not even going to fund a business that needs to distribute through these platforms because guess what . As soon as it takes off it will be copied and all the business will be steered elsewhere and that worries me for all of those small firms who want to enter. We need to look deeply, and thats why mentioned section 660 of the ftc act to scrutinize big picture of course individual companies, we will look iftheres anticompetitive conduct. We have to go after it and fix it but writ large across these markets we all need to understand how this works so we can figure out how to maintain our economy that is why brent and thriving. Related to that, my time is expired but what are the tools of the fcc is not using that youcould be using . There are so many Things Congress has equipped us with and one of the pieces that i hope that we will use much more aggressively and thoughtfully is competition rulemaking. It doesnt need to put any burden on any company that can clarify the law about whats legal and whats not so that we dont have to spend millions of dollars on paid economist and litigators that slow down divisions and ultimately may harm a lot of people in the process and we need toresuscitate the use of that tool. Thank you very much, i yield back. I now recognize Mister Armstrong for five minutes. Thank you, i appreciate it. Miss layton, i just want to talk about data portability and you say that its overrated can you just explain that a little bit . I think we have the premise of number portability , we know from the Telecom World when youre going to go from one mobile character carrier to another you want to take your phone number but i think when you look at the internet world where you have multiple kinds of platforms, if you have social network data, that doesnt facebook, it doesnt necessarily met to amazon though the data is not really valuable to another platform. The bigger thing i think is something thats come up in this hearing. I think were overrating the value of data overall because as a person who worked in the Analytics Industry i had interfaced with 2000 companies and after time, the data the grades and if you are an innovator its less interesting for you to get a platforms data. If youre going to innovate you want to do something new and different. So data portability is the answer to cure all ills is underrated area ive seen this in some of the economist studies in gdp are as well as that users dont also value dataportability. And i said that to, the basic framework is you should have control over your own data but as ive been here ive learned way more about this than before i became a member of congress is part of the reason and its fairly complicated is as to what is there and i think thats part of the reason. You say consumers dont really necessarily see this as a benefit, is it because they dont understand what it is or because. There are switching costs and i think thats a fair point that other panelists have raised but i guess what id say is the value to having, if we think we should have five major Search Engines and this is somehow that makes it competitive, what makes competition in thisindustry new technology . Is doing Something Better and different more efficiently so where i think we should focus on is that the innovators look at the other parts of the economy where the opportunities are. There are green fields, in fact area that the way it is todaywill be the way it is forever. When we talk about data portability, where talking about moving. In other areas theres an entire market niche whether its bills of lading, free on board, those types of issues so when youre dealing with this data portability, as anybody looked at the liability shift as we move from one person to the other . If theres a bridge which, part of the Privacy Concern is breach of data and it usually ends up with a Credit Card Company or a bank but if its portable, more than one person is handling that data as it moves from whether its microsoft, amazon, facebook to somebody else. That is a fair point. And my question is along with that portability portion is the cost of compliance not for Large Companies who quite frankly weve seen this and i want to ask you a question about a dodd frankand allergy. Larger companies arent necessarily scared of regulation read what they want is regulatory certainty. All are companies that employ four or five people when youre dealing with data portability have a compliance cost associated with that while were trying to regulate this, we have to be concerned that we dont regulate , we dont have the inverse effect where the cost of regulation makes it prohibitive. With your experience with the gdpr and the california solution now, let me clarify first that it is very new so having empirical evidence is a long shot but its just been happening for a short period. Gdpr has been introduced because its a fundamental principle of privacy that individuals want to ensure so anytime we do a costbenefit analysis you want to see the impact on firms but also the benefit that we get if whatever privacy revelation is enforced. The second point is that im skeptical when i hear some of these numbers which are typically coming from institutions which are funded by google, facebook. They european evidence is that google and facebook lost on the advertising side after the introduction of gdp are so it is a cost of compliance about whether its only the low firms , the finality that you hear is from the big guys, not thesmall guys. Im going to ask mister chopra, we dont have big banks and we dont have the exception of national companies, big business. We are a Small Business state. The single biggest thing ive heard and this has been long before the 11 years since dodd frank was introduced, in our rush to regulate, banks caught up in it so there are, are there any lessons we can learn from how we did dodd frank so that we dont sweep up the little guys in regulation . If you have 37 compliance officers on the fifth floor and you go to 40, if you have two employees and you have to go to five you may no longer have a local bank. One thing i would urge you to think about is complicated rules, they actually benefit those who have a lot of lawyers and lobbyists to get around it and lobby for exemptions. In my testimony i talked about the importance of bright line rules and even bands because when i have the same conversations with community bankers, they will say if im banned from doing fine because thats really easy to understand. But if its so complicated, guess what . The largest bank in the world , they find their way in and get their exemptions. They win and the small guys lose andthats not a system or a country i want to live in. I dont know if theres time for me to add because we are at negative time. Congressman, i think you make an important point and i think youre absolutely right about worrying about the Small Businesses. Sometimes in regulation its tricky because there is a tradeoff. Something that might be harmful for any size business to do, you make the rule and its easier for the large one to comply than the small one and you end up entrenching the incumbents. In this area of competition you can make sure that doesnt happen because if youre talking about rules, code of conduct as i proposed Digital Markets unit to do, you cant keep people off your platforms, you can let them on other platforms. You cant prioritize your own product, those rules would only apply to companies that i would just designate as having strategic market status, only apply to the Largest Companies area if youre a Small Company and you want to prioritize your own products, you want to keep people off your platform or make rules, you can do any of that. Theyre only worried about if you have some bottleneck power of using it. I have a unanimous consent just to put Ranking Member collins statement into the record. I now recognize the distinguished gentle lady from the state of florida. Thank you much distinguished gentleman from colorado. I want to thank you mister chairman and thanks to all of you for being with us today. Thanksfor your patience as we want to cast our vote. I want to start with mister chopra. Several of your statements, youve argued that the core problem leads to dominant platforms, at least dominant platforms who engage in serial privacy violations is their Business Model. Which relies on the monitor use of data and incentives facebook and google to engage in constant surveillance. What problems do you see with the behavioral advertisements , Business Model. I think were seeing more and moreevidence that behavioral advertising again, that is advertising to a demographic of one. Exposes us to a whole lot of risks including manipulation and shenanigans in our democracy. It is very, very profitable though. Facebook earned 55 billion in revenue. Google, even more. Advertising business is big and im concerned that that behavioral advertising model is inconsistent with how we have thought about immunity online. Right now we give rod immunity under section 230 of the communications decency. Id support that immunity that i dont know if its consistent with this behavioral ad model and surveillance. What you see as the solution. What role can, how can Congress Play a greater role in dealing with this problem. Part of it obviously is through Better Privacy protection. Ill speak about how i looked at the Facebook Order violations. Repeated an early violations of that order. Settlement not only completely let executives off the hook, and they paid a small fine and their stock went up, theres no substantive limitations on their use or sharing of data and for repeat offenders, there needs to be some bands on this type of behavior because if theyre going to break the law have to look at the economic incentive that is driving it. I think you said earlier that when you have billions and billions of dollars , 5 million in a settlement, its like not much incentive to change your behavior. Thats right. When these big fines are not big penalties for Big Companies and i worry its not a penalty, its an incentive. Also want to urge congress to think about how do we beat up individual liability and ftcs facebook settlement, we did not depose Mister Zuckerberg or mister sanford but guess what, they got full immunityin the settlement and if the Court Approves that , what kind of standard are we setting and i just think thats fundamentally wrong. Doctor, i want to ask you about that but some have argued that heightened concern about digital monopolies is misguided given that Companies Like ibm, yahoo, myspace and blackberry were all once viewed as dominant, but ultimately were taken over by new firms and i know we talked a little bit without naming the specific companies early but could you do, do you agree with that you or what your feelings about . It we believe in economic competition . Sure as a principal but i see theeconomic evidence, when it comes to some , keep in mind social networks, other mind perhaps silicon marketplaces, nominative going on to have awarded . In the long run were alldead but i think we will fix some problems before we are dead. Before that. But in light of your, im going to move on to doctor furman. In your view how readily available is quality data to new entrants . If an entrepreneur wants to launch a new Search Engine for example what challenges can he or she expect to face in light of googles existing dominance and i know we have kind of talk about this space, protecting privacy and competition but i just want to make sure its clear , not just the people in congress but to the listening public as well, whose directly being impacted by the decisions made. Google has a very good algorithm. Google also has a huge amount of data about how consumers search to train the algorithm. A bright kid in a garage could come up with a good algorithm that they wouldnt have anything like that type of data in order to make it work nearly as well as google works today. Thank you and mister chair, id also like to hear from miss layton. Any response to either of the questions that i asked that you would just like to respond to. Vacuum, i appreciate the opportunity area i would agree with doctor furman that when we look at artificial intelligence, thisis a greenfield. Youre correct that the scientists sitting in the garage or on the lab could come up with a lifechanging or transformative algorithm. I am, in contrast to the other panelists i dont believe the data is a bottleneck because of having people working in the industry, the data you collect the grades over time if youre an innovator you will look for the spaces where there are opportunities. Its less interesting to look in the past, you want to look to the future to say how would i, where could be a place where i would add value in the future. Healthcare is one of the most inefficient industries. It takes up one fifth of our gdp. That is where we need to have data to make it more efficient and lower the cost so what i would like us to do is to look forward, i dont want us to adopt revelations that peter based scientist from making tomorrows innovations because they have to have all these permissions and releases from everyone. They may not lookat personal data, theres other areas where there is no personal data involved. Quantum computing, astronomy and so on and they may go in those fields probably the biggest area where we can create the benefit is on human health. And so for example in iceland have this amazing registry of genomic data that was collected for many decades. Gdp artist putting all of that up in the air. Can you find the cancer treatments, can you look at a lot of the new innovations . We dont know now because that was not collected under the gdpr environment so there again, thats the question i would have. Health is an area where we need to see are we putting the bottleneck on the innovation . Thank youmister chairman. I now recognize myself for five minutes. One other the other questions we are grappling within this investigation is whether or not our antitrust agencies like the ftc have fallen short as in effect of a cop on the beat in this digital marketplace and whether or not that is due to insufficient legal authority, or whether its due to weak leadership or as i like to refer to it the need for enthusiastic and creative leadership. Is it partly the result of regulatory capture . What is your view, what should we be thinking about as we look at this insufficient or inadequate enforcement of our antitrust agencies, particularly ftc. What do you see as thesource of that . One of the things i reflect on a lot is how did the ftc miss much of the subprime mortgage crisis that originated in the nonbank sector. The ftc was really the only cop on the beat there and we saw what happened. So one of the things that i think i took away from what ive learned on that is number one, we need to use the tools we have much more energetically. 2, we need to be much more analytical and not think in the world of theoretical economic models but real evidence and look at how markets actually work so of course, we can use more authority. We can use more resources, but the number one thing we need to do is energetically use the tools we have. And for you to think about doctor valletti mentioned this to, should we be thinking about aging presumption. Should the largest firms on the planet, should the burden be on them . To show why their merger or their rollup of tons of companies is in that interest . Theres ways you can change the way courts are acting and i urge you to do that. But i also urge you to conduct oversight that makes sure agencies are using every tool you have equipped us with. In february, you gave a comments to the university of colorado where you said, competition Enforcement Actions at the bell labs Consent Decree created the conditions for scores of startups to innovate and flourish. But we often focus on the cost of action and regulation, we should also be asking ourselves about the cost of inaction. You believe enforcers or lawmakers should be considering remedies like the one imposed on bell labs , particularly since a lot of focus of this investigation has been the impact of this market concentration on innovation targets, kind of the opportunity to make the next Race Technology platform . I appreciate that. One of your areas of inquiry in the investigation is whether spinoffs or divestitures of firms may be useful. We colloquially call it breaking up but there aremany other remedies we need to think hard about. Should we be opening intellectual property that has been abused by dominant firms . And how much good that incubate innew activity . Theres all sort of history about how we have pursued this and the benefits from it. Can we look to separate lines of business to end those conflicts of interest and create more Economic Activity . We should work with you on all that but the discussion must be bigger than breakups but of course breakups must be in the toolkit as well. Im going to stay withyou commissioner because were going to do a second round. I want to transition to some of the recent privacy settlements at the ftc i have criticized publicly. You recently defended along with commissioner slaughter with facebook area you stated the settlement gives facebook a lot to celebrate which was similar to what i said. Can you explain whatyour concerns are with the settlement. I know that you said in part be 5 billion settlement was insufficient because it didnt address facebook surveillance and manipulation based Business Model which is what incentivizes facebook to engage in the violations in the first place. What do you think the effective residents, what was your criticism and what you think remedies would look like. I think of this in multiple buckets. We should start with this is a case of recidivism, repeat offender so its not just the first time and in my view of the evidence was clear that there were multiple early violations there was knowledge of those. I think of it number one, where is the individual accountability . The officers and directors who called the shots to violate the laws so that they can put money in their own pockets. Without individualliability , you will not see the level of deterrence you need and the federal rules of civil procedure in our court find officers and directors to federal enforcement orders. Number two, what is the actual conduct really goes core economic incentives and to me, there should have been some real thought on actually banning some of the worst Data Collection use and sharing practices and we have to think of course, monetary relief is important but us consumers did not get a penny of that. So im not sure headline 5 billion is going to do much. My time is expired and i recognize the gentleman from im sorry. Gentle lady from pennsylvania area. I want to thank all our witnesses for joining us for your testimony. Consumer privacy as been an important issue for all of us both as individuals and representatives for our constituents but the way that data is collected and used by the large platforms obviously impacts the ability of consumers to maintain their privacy and the options they have make informed decisions about their online activity. Doctor, i wondered if you could expand a little bit on the third point that you made regarding privacy degradation leading to an objective detriment to consumers. And i think you said that imposing terms of service with weak privacy protections that are not well understood but are accepted by consumers because of the lack of alternatives has to be due its market power, can you talk about that a little bit and any perceived remedies that you might suggest . On the objective consumer harm, as i write in my piece, it can be risk of data breach, Identity Theft interesting also, a consumer profiling which is not in the interest of the consumer business ofdiscrimination sporting or being shown more expensive results. So if you are in this moment, your dishwasher breaks down. And youre going to find dishwasher repair in my area, youre going to be shown one most likely, one result with a nice graphic interface because its a realtime action that most likely google will be doing and who are they going to select . The one that pays the most. We have lost the original function of the internet to us offer us choices because behaviorally speaking, consumers dont go to page 2, page 3. They just are hooked up to these devices and theyre meant to keep us online as long as possible so they learn about us and we buy whatever is offered to us and theres an underlying auction happening and theres only one platform for that. If youre looking at a car thats a choice that would take i am much longer period so it can be different. And for evidence, the most important thing i would start from his really try to think carefully about privacy. How privacy regulations which are done in the interest of the American People and American Interest institutions. With your permission, one point. When facebook started, there was another social media platform called myspace and one of the reasons that facebook was able to unseat myspace was partially on privacy and control of data. You will be able to control who sees your information. We should want firms to compete on privacy. These changes the terms of service hidden in the fine print where they can collect more data and unilaterally impose these terms, that is a price hike. We are paying with our data and that valuable data the more competition will also be critical to how we think about protecting privacy. Im wondering in other contexts weve seen that you can change the dynamic by having an opt in rather than an opt out. Is there any possibility of doing Something Like that in this spirit . For example having to optout of the savings plan rather than opting in . We know behavioral defaults are highly influential and Companies Get to take everything from you and you have to figure out a way to opt out. Its like fulltime job with all the websites you have so shifting the burden to companies i think would be a great way to really reduce the burden on all of us and actually it Consumers Want to share their data proactively and really want to renew that, let them tell that company and get them permission. Ive also had conversations with my kids and other constituents about the power over consumer data. Putting that back in the hands of consumers and the example they like to talk to me about is moving your Music Library possibly from apple to spot if i. Mister furman, can you talk about data portability and if thats something weshould be exploring . Absolutely you should be exploring that and its not just downloading your data, its being able to port and move it over in a simple and transparent matter. Companies are making progress in doing that through steps like the digital transfer project. Theyre making that progress because they think regulation is coming and they are responding to it and to do this is not just simply passing a law and saying you have to do it, you have to roll up your sleeves and go through use case and figure out how to balance the different concerns but if you can do that, it would create value for consumers and more competition. Highyield back i now recognize the gentleman from north dakota. Thank you misterchairman and i think the chairman does have a myspace account. Doctor latham, you seem like you wanted to respond so ill give you a little chance. What is driving the price is the quality much of the ad and how its written and whether the landing page for the edge goes to his relative end so whether google is rewarding its quality of advertising. He makes an interesting case that a service once you create an ad that is also an issue of who amongst the plumbing industry will organize to invest in google. It could be theres also reflects the competition of the plumbing side and the other part is if you are the consumer you want to have the information in the ad format gives you a lot of things to look at. I only say that because its not a fact that the highest top level as paid the most and in some fields like asbestos those keywords could be worth 5000 a click. They are clever around using that but there is many other areas that are not used at all and the clicks could be assent. Its hard to generalize that that you have to look at the data. I will move into Something Different because in your Senate Testimony you stated gd pr has a risk identifying with respect to convicted felon successfully removing Search Engines in your footnote on that stated the Finnish Court decision concluded the right to be forgotten provides conflicted murderers the right of publicly available information removed from google listings. For i let you answer this i want to say i support ban the box and its fantastic and i have thoughts on that when were done but its a First Amendment and put those aside and can you expound on that a little bit . Again, we dont translate the gdp are perfectly to the United States for those reasons but we can and a right to be forgotten has been pushed back by the European Court but this issue about people being able to expunge data they dont like maybe its in eyesight in theory but we have in the United States or respect for public right to know so for example what you seen in the European Union are dirty politicians who have that bad articles about them and get removed from the media and move from the Google Searches for child predators and all these terrible characters are able to weapon eyes the gdp are for those reasons. That is one of the things that we need to understand as members of congress is that it still only gets you past the first stage. You can ban anything from google and panic from a facebook search but i can tell you my private investigator would find it in three seconds. If you go to the second stage of an interview and you are doing work for the federal government you have to have certain insurance designation and any kind of a simple as a hazmat commercial drivers license and these are good concepts but i think sometimes we use the available availability of information as a scapegoat. If we are serious about this and i think if you are 19 and have a nonviolent felony on your record the world we live in now compared to two generations ago is different you can never outrun that conviction. You can. If it had in north dakota in 1970 you can move to madison, wisconsin and start her life over because no one from madison would drive to the county courthouse and look up records but we use this availability of information as a scapegoat because, as i said, any job you apply for that has any kind of insurance issue regular issue, framework issue was going to find it anyway. We need to address the fact that companies with insurance comedies they listen, we support this from a congressional level and bipartisan support and we have to change insurance culture and hiring culture and allowing those things to happen in the fact that its not does not hit on a Google Search doesnt mean its not going to exist. I agree. I think we are mixing a few things. One thing is gd pr, one thing is right to be forgotten and the first step is for you to understand what you interpret as privacy. These are the boundary between your private sons and the outside world so what do you thank you will share on the family or community or friends and when it comes to Digital Space the idea there is not a choice that we have known what these boundaries are so blurred that you must look into that and must have a recognition. I agree that because we talk about opt in and opt out shortly after there was congressional testimonies before i was here he started seeing these windows pop up on your social media platform and when i talk to a high school or college age group of kids after that happened i would ask them did any of you check know and yeah, but not a single hand goes out. How people define privacy in the next generation is also something that is changing dramatically. I think the gentleman and organize myself for five minutes. I want to build upon that that they made about this notion that consent would be trying to find out what your consent to do would be a fulltime job. As it turns out even if you devote your time to it as a fulltime job you still would run into the situation of this take it or leave it context where if you dont agree to a certain amount of collection you dont get the service so the consumer or the user in this context doesnt have the power even if you devoted to fulltime in navigating and trying to any wonder why we dont create the kind of consent we require in most other contacts, medical consent, consent to a drug, it is the knowing consent and the person knowing what they are consenting to and consenting on why we have allowed the complete turning out on of its headwear but everyone is presumed to look to the total collection of everything about them unless they can find something to object to. Its curious. Its an important area to look at. I want to turn to you for a moment and google has 2 billion users on android and what we hear often is these services are popular and people have no problem with the corporate surveillance in these loose privacy controls and is in it the fact that the numbers are so great and evidence that theres a problem in the popularity of the services proves that we dont need to worry about this but what you say to that argument . s services are popular and its evident and but that nobody cares and one point i make in my piece is that consumers are not putting in a position to understand what the cost might be because they cannot conceive of the data is going or whether something is coming back because they just dont know and cannot make comparisons because theres a lack of competition and going back to your original remark youre probably aware that earlier this year germany had a case against facebook and on appeal in the car now but they said that the consent that the customers want to be on facebook had to crosslink data with whats app and its grant which belong to the same company. They did said you did not tell them what you would do and you cannot do it unless you inform them in some appropriate way and if you do not and if you dont consent you cannot deny access to the service and facebook because you dont need that consent to supply the primary services. Thank you. In july as part of this Investigation Google testified before the subcommittee that posted and i quote, formidable competition around the world rightdoublequote. It stated that users can choose from a menu of search providing including being yahoo and in light of your work at the European Commission do you agree that there is intense competition in Online Search whether in europe or the United States . As a general statement so i would be more precise when it comes to save general search in this condition is not there and in european they are done by a one Search Engine and they do Something Else to change [inaudible] they are clear in the data and i do see people speaking all the time and never changing. Doctor fuhrman, i have a couple questions. You can respond to that quickly. One quick point to add. Google would not pay so much money to be the default Search Engine on things like ios if it was really easy for consumers to switch. What role do you think information asymmetry of play and how we should understand Digital Markets and corporations routinely have more information than regulators and the public but digital platforms seem to enjoy an astronomical advantage so how should this have enforcement policy connects back the enforcers mean more resources and the cma in the uk is created a digital unit with excellent staff in terms of Data Analytics and the like. We also need to design policies around data openness that reduce that asymmetry between some of the big platforms and their competitors and the public and regulators. I think many of you made this point that competition and privacy can be complements such that more competition can incentivize firms to provide users with more privacy but they can also be at odds such as interrupt ability and data probability could expose uterine user data to a broader set of corporations so how should and forces and policymakers strike this balance . The answer to that will be on a casebycase basis. A lot of cases they really are complements and a lot of cases only one of them is indicated and the other barely is. You need to have both objectives. You cant just think about privacy and completely ignore competition and you cant just thing about competition and completely ignore privacy. A part of why you want to establish a unit of body regulator or something that would have both of those objectives. I want to know if you wanted to respond to any of what i no, okay, good. I would just ahead that when there are so few dominant players that opens up more abuses of privacy and im worried that our economy in this fear is drifting toward the chinese model where there is massive amount of information on people elected without their consent can be used to manipulate. I reject this argument that if we want to compete with china we need to have our Companies Look like them. The beauty of our country is when new and trends come in and challenge the dominant one. I dont want that system. I agree. At this time at ask unanimous consent for the following statements be traduced into the record or a written statement from the australian competition and Consumer Commission chair discussing his investigation into the digital platforms without objection. Written statement from [inaudible] discussing the intersection of competition and privacy without objection a letter from Consumer Reports detailing their priorities and examining data and privacy competition. Without objection written statement from [inaudible] on the digital platform economy of antitrust policies and without objection a statement from the European Union commissioner for competition, margaret [inaudible] with her expertise on the digital economy. Without objection and with that i will conclude the hearing with gratitude for our extraordinary witnesses in the queue for being here today in marketing significantly to our Ongoing Investigation with that this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the use of the data is predicting the behavior of users in a way that takes advantage of those services or products and so this is alarming and consistent with the other things and i think it gives us an opportunity to hear about the remedies and things we should be thinking about in terms of the ftc mother not we have changes in statutes and presumptions and whether or not we need to provide a better mechanism to have consent of their data the most important the invocations are not just other consumers but the application on the economy broadly, not innovation and entrepreneurship in startups to enter the market place to survive but its a productive, useful hearing with compelling testimony from the electorate. The commissioner did sort of hinted he is worried about federal capture and federal agencies [inaudible] do you share that concern the large Tech Companies have captured the ftc . There is great concern the Large Technology comedies have a disproportionate influence over great literary process. Part of that is a larger function that when you have these tremendous conversations of economic powers and all the election people who also share those views that come out is right literary capture on the right literary side so this is the commissioner concerns are serious and i share them and i think its a new way to look at it. What about the argument for the commissioner phillips at the ftc that you have it wrong and that there are tradeoffs between privacy and competition and that if you cut off access to certain third parties for consumer data that helps privacy and makes it harder for them to provide service on these platforms . I dont think theres a tradeoff and i think that presumes that people are making that choice knowingly and voluntarily and there is no evidence to put that and its also when you look at the take it or leave it Contractor Services very often they are fused consent to that collection and mean and mean they dont access the service or product. I dont think give a marketplace for that were consumers are getting this information and then knowingly consenting to its collection. You know, we are seeing more and more evidence of this massive collection of data and the presumption seems to be in the current model that companies can collect everything they want from you and that if you protect yourself from that collection will safeguard your privacy that you have to figure out some way to do it and spend a lot of time trying to instruct them not to do it if you can even do it and then run the risk of not getting access to services. We ought to think about why we are getting this argument with his presumption that these Big Companies get to take all this valuable information and that the consumer has the burden of somehow refuting that or acting against it and its an odd presumption and as opposed to other areas versing consenting nose whether he or she will consent to and is a formidably consent to it. This is the reverse. It involves the collection of normas amounts of very private information about every Single Person in this country and one thing that the investigation has to look at is that the right model and create different presumptions that more properly safeguard. [inaudible] i think one of the things the investigation is looking at is that we are looking at the existing antitrust statutes whether it needs to be modernized and updated and were looking at the work of our antitrust agencies to determine do they have resources and do they or staffed with people are sufficiently enthusiastic and aggressively enforcing antitrust and do they have the resources necessary to do that and that is part of what were looking at mac i would not say theyre under investigation for this is not a prosecution but an investigation that relates to the clotting information that we can make informed judgments with the. Policy, legislation, regulation and this is an investigation or requesting information so we have the best data in the best information to make judgments about how we respond to this and that includes looking at the way the ftc operates so its not a prosecution investigation but part of our review. Can you give an updated estimation timeline . Our hope is to conclude our evidence collection end of the sheer beginning of next year with the idea that we will have a final report instead of recommendations in the first part of next year. This provides enough time to act on that. Youve gotten the first trench documents. Have you also gotten the documents you are seeking from the competitors in Smaller Companies . I cannot comment on that at this point. If you are on the Financial Services committee what question would you ask Mark Zuckerberg . I looked at the questions i would ask for both the ceo of facebook but also some of the other leaders of these technology that come at a time so i wont work through the Financial Services but thank y you. [inaudible] do you agree with that and if so, what do you do about it . Is clear that is correct and i think thats one of the things we will look at in the course of this investigation and what are the kinds of things we can put into place. Again, to protect consumers so they have a real control over their data to the extent they want to protect their data seat and they have the ability to do that and most importantly the digital marketplace is working so there are competition based solutions that will create an opportunity for new markets that may offer different range of protections that are more attractive to a consumer and they have the ability to go there, sorry, rather than being left in the Walled Garden they are in now. Look, theres a lot of overlap as you think about these issues and theyre not so separated and connective and i expect that we will continue to work closely as we craft legislators. Could you give us an idea of what documents youve gotten or not gotten without divulging too much . Were just in the process of mac i was interested in hearing your reaction were you able to hear about or listen in on Mark Zuckerbergs speech yesterday where he served on the public Charm Offensive and we want to hear what you have to say about it . I did not see what he said yesterday. Ive been very clear and i take mr. Zuckerberg to cooperate with this enunciation seriously and he made that commitment to me directly in our face to face meeting that has proven to be true so far. Its a work in progress but look, ive been up been clear about the facebook of conduct of facebook [inaudible] consider that serious and think in many ways theyve been a bad actor in this space and we need to understand what has allowed this to happen whether it be on the enforcement side or on the inadequacies in that legislation or bad conduct of the companies but ive been clear about that and this investigation is centered on one company but they are in a porting part of this committee review. Thank you everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] heres a look at some of our future programming this holiday week on cspan. Today at 5 45 p. M. Eastern a joint Economic Committee hearing on the high cost of raising a family. Then at 9 10 p. M. Constitutional litigator Justin Pearson talks about occupational licensing requirements of the federal society. There are three types of abuses you tend to see and the former slaves and the right allies and they would have the arms taken away in the right to vote taken away and they would have the right to be selfsufficient taken away and the right to be economically self sufficient and pretty sore stories of forces forced to go back and work for their former slave owners because of occupational licensing laws because this prevented them from being able to be selfsufficient. Watch this holiday week on cspan. Period this holiday week booktv is on cspan2 bidet with primetime features night. Tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern Nancy Eisenberg and Andrew Burstein discussed president s in their book, the problem of democracy. Even president George Washington in his last glorious second term went along with Alexander Hamiltons idea of crushing and internal rebellion, the socalled whiskey rebellion in pennsylvania. At the head of the army that was as large as, if not larger, and what washington commanded during the revolution. Friday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern roman pharaoh and his book catch and kill. What is uncovered in this book and documented in a very carefully fact checked away is much bigger than any one network star, network executive, any one network but about patterns of coverups in corporate america. The way in which people get hurt if problems swept under the rug with payouts and nondisclosure agreements instead of addressed. Watch the special airing of book tv this holiday week and every weekend on cspan2. Cspan Slide Campaign 2020 coverage continues saturday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern with hawaii congresswoman in hudson, New Hampshire on the at 2 00 p. M. Eastern former Vice President joe biden in peterborough, New Hampshire. Monday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern, entre nous or andrew yang in nashua, New Hampshire and tuesday at 11 00 p. M. Eastern senator Elizabeth Warren in boston. Watch the president ial candidates live on cspan or online at cspan. Org or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Up next, testimony from Inspector GeneralMichael Horwitz on the recent report alleging abuses of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance facts known as pfizer. He also addresses the justice departments decision to start the investigation into president trumps 2016 campaign and the possible relationship with russia. The Senate JudiciaryCommittee Hearing is about 5. 5 hours. [inaudible conversations]