It and enforcement ornt agency. Our rules allow us to have a quorum, so that is not affecting our work, but we have to Reach Agreement to take action. Fortunately, most of the work the ftc does is very much focused on real harm to consumers, fraud. Those are areas where there is a lot of agreement. Other thing happening under my leadership, i have asked staff to take a look at the things we are doing that maybe need to be better focused, or perhaps have a more limited impact on business, had we . Efine harm sufficiently are using our resources to the best advantage for the American Public . I believe staff is very supportive of that. We are moving ahead. Peter we invited you to talk ftct Telecom Policy and the. What is the dividing line between what the fcc regulates ftcwhat, perhaps, the regulates . Ms. Ohlhausen the dividing line now is different than it was before 2014. Forfcc has authority practices affecting commerce, but we dont have authority over common carriers, and that goes back to the ftc act. But previously, Broadband Internet have not been considered a common carrier service, but that all changed in 2015 when the fcc issued its open Internet Order an extended title ii authority over Broadband Internet access service. Since then, the ftc has been nudged out of oversight of that. Rc of the internet ecosystem we still have oversight over the circleers, but around who is a common carrier got bigger by the fcc through the open internet over. Open Internet Order. Peter does that get confusing . Ms. Ohlhausen i think it is confusing for consumers. A consumer using the internet may not understand, well, this part of the messages being carried by the isp, so it is under one set of rules, and the edge provider can use this information on a very different way under the ftcs approach. That is my ccern, that drawing these lines in place s not really benefited consumers, and it has also tilted the Playing Field towards allowing the edge providers to have kind of in the 04 kind of an easier road than the isps. Brendan intobring the conversation. He covers tech policy. On the isp broadband fccacy debate, when the decided to stay a portion of the broadband privacy world that they passed last october, under pai, you issued a statement saying the main things you guys wanted to do was streamline the framework between the fcc and ftc when it came to broadband privacy. Could you run through what the difference now is in the fccs broadband privacy framework as it was constituted, and the ftcs framework, and why the fccs framework is a problem in your view . Ms. Ohlhausen ms. Ohlhausen thank you for that question. It was just not in my view. Bipartisan,d the last year that pointed out some of the problematic differences between the fccs approach and the ftcs approach. Particular. Ls, in the ftcs approach to privacy has always been on consumer perception. House incident is the data . Basically how sensitive is the data . The fcc took a very different approach. What entitysed on holds that data. If it is an isp, there are a certain set of rules, but it if it is an edge provider, those rules do not apply. That is my concern, consumers dont understand why their same data in the same chain of, basically, communication, what have these different projections. Would have these different protections. My other problem is it can create a competitive problem. Everyone is trying to compete in the advertising space, using the same consumer data, and some entities can use that more efficiently than others. The other issue is that the fcc has been a very active cop on the beat for consumer protection, for protecting consumers privacy and data security. We got a load out of that. That the fcc can provide, do they have the expertise, the staff level, knowledge, to bring this type of level of enforcement that the ftc is well known for bringing . Brendan there is someone somewhat of a Division Within the federal trade commission on this issue, because commissioner mcsweeney recently wrote an oped saying that it is great to have one cop on the beat theoretically, but when it ftc has practice, the already worked with regulators with the fcc and others, the fda, to make sure that all these things are regulated properly. What would be your response to , the Regulatory Regime for privacy works better when other commissions and regulators are involved . Ms. Ohlhausen i am very supportive of working with other regulators, but the issue here was the fccs approach elbowed the ftc out. It took away our authority to bring the type of oversight and enforcement that the ftc is well known for bringing. I think thats where my concern stems from, not a problem with coordinating with other agencies, but basically being taken off. The republicans in to aess are now working resolution through the Congressional Review Act to essentially undo the federal smmunications commission broadband privacy rule. When it comes to the fcc itself, chairman pai has stayed part of that rule. One of the arguments they make is that the ftc will be able to pick up the gap, but there is some concern because there was a ninth circuit case last year between the ftc and fcc that came to the decision that the ftc does not have jurisdiction over common carriers when it comes to not just the activities that they undergo, but also the status of a common carrier. Then the ftc has no jurisdiction. I know the fcc was looking to sort of push back on that court case, but are you concerned that ont leaves a gap in coverage broadband privacy, and there are a lot of people lets say if the ule,overturns this r the ftc will have its hands tied. Ms. Ohlhausen i have been concerned about that, and you should know that the ftc, on a bipartisan basis, has supported Congress Getting rid of the common carrier exemption, because it does not make sense anymore. It was put in place with networks were pervasively regulated monopolies. It is much different today. Ftc hast t case, the had a lot of amicus briefs filed in support of our position, so i hope that there is a chance the ninth circuit may reconsider the impact, because previously the common carrier exemption, we had interpreted it as just applying to status. We cannot have oversight over an activity, but it did not pence out our authority over the whole entity. But i will say that i hope that to get theapable ninth circuit to reconsider, that congress would also consider it. If it is redraw the lines, but it would give us oversight over common carrier activity. That is what we have asked. Is the advantage of the ftc having authority over a common carrier, rather than the fcc . Ms. Ohlhausen i think the advantages that it will increase the level Playing Field not just for businesses, but for consumers, said the same rules apply no matter who is holding your data, based on the sensitivity of the data. That is what we base our framework on. Consumers are not necessarily concerned on the chain of custody of the internet. Their messages are passed back and forth. They care about how sensitive the data is, what promises have been made about it, and how you are going to use it. It is going to be used in a way that will injure me. I think that creating a consistent approach and oversight is good for consumers, and also good for businesses. Also, the ftc has a lot of expertise in this area. We have good lawyers, that economists, good investigators who know how to bring these cases. Ofhave brought hundreds Privacy Security cases, so i believe we have been a very effective cop on the beat, and i would like to see us back there. Brendan what happens in the meantime while this case is pending . If the ninth circuit decides not to take it up, or if it has to go to theport Supreme Court, and the fcc le is overturned, what happens to Consumer Privacy in the meantime . Ms. Ohlhausen i would say that you realize this gap was created in 2015, and we have been operating under that the entire time. My understanding is that the ftc has authority under section 22 to bring Enforcement Actions, and i believe chairman pai has mentioned that the fcc could act under that provision. Brendan and it is on a casebycase basis. The chairman would have to have a complaint, not just something to broadly regulate. Ms. Ohlhausen i am not going to speak to what the fcc can do. You can ask the commissioners about that. Workedms. Ohlhausen has on several different privacy issues, including data protection, Cyber Security. She was a partner at Wilkinson Barker now are in washington dc, and spent several years on the staff of the federal trade commission. Riven borderline is with with theorderline is morning consul. Go ahead. The Cyber Security concerns, i know you spoke about this earlier this week. You said your feelings that the ftc is primarily not a regulator when it comes to mandating best Cyber Security practices for internet connected devices, whether those are from a stats, smart refrigerators, cars, really, everything is being connected to the internet these days. I want to expand on your reasoning why you think the commission is not the best place , andgulate these practices if not the commission, then what is the best way to secure these devices . Ms. Ohlhausen i am glad you asked me that, but as i feel that coverage of my remarks was incomplete. My point was the fcc ftc is an enforcement authority, and we have wrought Enforcement Actions in the internet of things is. We brought a case in a against a Company Called trendnet, which had a camera with a security flaw, and the ftc published that case. Weve also brought a case against asus. We were a router maker for flaws it was a router maker. There were flaws that it had that could affect the internet of things. There is an understanding of the difference between being an agency of extensive regulation, and an agency that enforces the law. We are definitely enforcing the ftc act. We are also bringing to bear our policy resources. We had a workshop on the internet of things and issued a report on it, and we highlighted greater cyberve security practices in the internet of things area. I also think the ftc will continue to pay close attention as technology develops. Peter german ohlhausen, when you talk about regulatorys humidity humility, but the main . Ms. Ohlhausen understanding what do you mean . Ms. Ohlhausen it is very hard to predict the future, to know where technology is going, to know where the risks might happen, and where the benefits might occur. I think it is very important to focus on the harms that are occurring, or that are likely to occur. We are a small agency with limited resources. We should direct our resources to harms that are likely to occur in the marketplace. I believe are active enforcement in that space also sends the right signal to businesses, to Pay Attention to what you are doing. Yodont wa to be under a lawsuit on the ftc. It is bad for your business, bad for our customers, and it can be bad for the entire industry. Thats why i believe regulatory can direct us to use the resources in the way that is the most bang for the buck for consumers. Is it different from what the former german ramirez discussed . S. Ohlhausen not necessarily of substantial harm goes back to our statute for unfairness. We have to show that an active practice is likely to cause substantial harm for consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid. To use that authority, we have to share what substantial injury is. Going back to our unfairness statement, and identified a variety of harms that could cause substantial injury, substantial harm, certainly financial. But it also involves health and safety. We have long interpreted it to involve information about children, things like unauthorized surveillance in the home, going back to the trend that case trend net case. There were cameras being turned on on laptops without peoples consent. I dont think there are views of unfairness are different, except when i have signaled is bad, as we continue to have all these technologies using information in new ways, we need to think hard on what substantial injury is in the Information Age we are again now. Visioample, in the in case, i filed a separate were sayingat we the collection of individualized fearing data can cause substantial injury, if it is without the consent of the tv owner. Was signaling that this is an issue we need to think hard about, and i wanted to bring in people who are thinking on these issues to talk to the commission as we move ahead. Peter can you and commissioner mcsweeney have a discussion in the hallway, or is it because there is just two of you, you have to send out notice ahead of time . Commissioner ohlhausen it depends on what we are talking about. If it involves an issue where we might have something we need to would need towe have a notice that we are talking. Peter what about you and chairman pai . Are there any restrictio on your discussions . We dont make a quorum of every of anything when i talked to chairman pai. How does a lack of a quorum affect the ftcs ability to operate and make enforcement regulations, anything like that . Comm. Ohlhausen we do have a quorum. We were constituted as a fivemember commission for a reason, and i think having more commissioners there to weigh in and give advice and support would be useful. There is certainly the potential that commissioner mcsweeney and i could come to a different view on a matter that we need to vote deadlock, there is a it means the action does not move forward. With a obviously republican administration, the end result would be a republican majority, which, given the regulatory outcomes you would like to see, i think would be very good for your professional have you had any conversations with the white house on one more commissioners and nominations are going to be coming down the pipe . They arehausen i know thinking about it, but i also know they have a long list at a. Ahead of them. The ftc is functioning well. I do n expect toee the crisis we saw today. But i do know they are engaged in figuring out who the next commissioner should be. Ofndan there has been a lot talk among conservative groups that seem very eager to take you from acting chairman to full chairman. Is that something you would be interested in pursuing, and have you heard anything from President Trump about that . Comm. Ohlhausen i have been heartened by the support i have gotten from a number of groups who understand my record, who understand the vision i have tried to laid out. One of the things i have tried to do is articulate what that vision is. I have announced that i have convened an economic liberty tok force, and the ftc wants pay close attention to these issues and work with the state and the governors and state legislators on this. I think the vision i have laid out is very consistent with the concerns about job growth and Economic Opportunity that the Trump Administration peter german ohlhausen, you talked about some of the states, there are all sorts of different standards internationally. Everything is expectable today. How does that affect your work with the europeans or other groups . Usm. Ohlhausen what affects directly these days is through the Privacy Shield agreement that we had reached with europe. Privacy is a very active discussion point in europe, certainly is in the u. S. We see european privacy through ens, and u. S. Privacy through a different lens, how do you make that work . We may never commits each other that one lands is right and the iser lanes is wrong lens wrong, but we need to focus on interoperability. We need to work on making it interoperable in a way that protections that europeans want and expect for their data can be expected when the data is transferred to the u. S. , when then that note immigration order came from the white house, there were a lot of concerns from data regulators within the European Union that this might negatively impact europeans data. There is a section of the order that specifically talks about the government being able to collect data on citizens from other countries. When i talked to you then, the interpretation the ftc had was governmentffects collected data, not commercially collected data, which is where the Privacy Shield falls in. Is that still your interpretation, and have you heard anything that indicates the europeans may have gotten that message and are a little bit calmer over the situation . Comm. Ohlhausen since i spoke to you, the department of justice confirmed that the immigration order did not affect it mentioned the privacy act, not that it affects the Privacy Shield. Since that time, the europeans have been vacated they understand the clarification. Brendan and that is the correct interpretation, that commercially collected data, that is where the Privacy Shield falls. It is not the government collecting the data. Omm. Ohlhausen right there are National Security portions of the Privacy Shield. The ftc does not have any involvement with those. Brendan understood. So, no impact. Comm. Ohlhausen well, im not going to speculate outside of my area of expertise. Brendan two sort of look forward, if you were to becom permanent chairman, do you have any sort of broad agenda items that you would like to see taken on during your tenure, maybe something not necessarily on the front or when it comes to Telecom Policy, but something you thought that the ftc should address for a long time . Comm. Ohlhausen there are agenda items, and one of them i have already mentioned in the visio statement is we need to think harder about what potential harm is in the information, so i would like to continue that inquiry. I have are economists looking at it. They are looking closely at the economics of privacy, but that needs to be a bigger part of the discussion. We need to get comfortable with what this means Going Forward as the technologies evolve. We have to gain trust oversight. I mentioned the Economic Liberty Task force, but i also want to focus on abuse of government processes. I have written extensively about what i call the brother may i problem, which means you need your Competitors Commission to enter the marketplace. I will use enforcement tools where i can to reduce that kind of thatand that kind of barrier. Brendan can you give an example of a brother may i case . Comm. Ohlhausen one went all the way to the Supreme Court. In involved the dental board in north carolina, me up almost exclusively of dentists, claiming they did not want to allow nondentist to whitening in the state to take place, so they sent out ceaseanddesist letters to Business Owners in north carolina, saying this was the unauthorized practice of dentistry. It was driven by concerns of people cutting into the process of dentists engaging into tooth wh in itening. This is something we see over and over again. Occupational licensing has really flourished in the u. S. It used to be 5 of jobs, now it is up to 30 . A lot of these jobs have no relation to the health or safety or kind of consumer perfections protections that we think require licensing. It has to do with florists, interior decorators, things like that. You need the permission from your competitors to go out and put outflowers or throw pillows, things like that. Brendan on the substantial harm question when it comes to privacy, you want to take a closer look at this and look exactly where it walls where it falls. Is he your concern that regulators are airing too much on the side of prepared commerce to collect information, or maybe consumers are too sensitive, and there needs to be a recognition that this is going to be collected and it is beneficial for consumers to do so . Where is the ftc likely to fall over the next several years . Omm. Ohlhausen it all depends substantial injury is part of our unfairness test. It does need to be balanced, but one of the things i am concerned about is the note of choice access security approach, particularly with the onset of the internet of things, is getting outstripped by what is happening. If you can collect little bits of nonsensitive data and use that to assimilate much fuller mosaic picture of a person who reveals sensitive elements, i think we need to Pay Attention of that. But the technology is changing the ability of companies to assemble this, and some of these full profiles may be very beneficial, but they can also cause harm, and we need to be alert of that. Peter Maureen Ohlhausen is the chair of the federal trade commission. Comm. Ohlhausen thank you. Announcer this weeks sunshine week, an annual campaign for Greater Public access to government. It is also cspans anniversary week. Ago, the house opened its debates to tv cameras for the first time, and the cable industry launched cspan to Bring Congress into americas homes. The gentleman from tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, the house of representatives over the preceding for the first time to televised coverage. I wish to congratulate you from your current in making this possible for your courage in making this possible, and for the leadership to make this a reality. Television will change this institution, just as it has changed the executive branch, but the goodwill far outweigh the bad. From this day forward, every member of this body must ask himself or herself, how Many Americans are listening to the debates which are made . When the house becomes comfortable with the changes brought by television coverage, the news media will be allowed to bring their own cameras in. In the meantime, there is no censorship. Journalists will be able to use and that it as they seek to. Fit editthey see as they see fit. Ofope that the leadership the United States senate will see this as a frndly cllenge to begin to open their the gentlemans time has expired. The narrative of this medium anaerobic debate has the potential to revitalize representative democracy. In a and the Cable Networks launched cspan 2. Availablehives are and searchable for free at cspan. Org. It is provided as a Public Service by cable and satellite affiliates across the nation. Next week, the House Intelligence Committee looks into fbi director james comey will testify. You can watch it live at 10 00 a. M. Et, monday on cspan3. The president s pick to be the next Supreme Court justice will begin his confirmation process starting at 11 00 a. M. The Senate Judiciary committee will hear opening arguments. Live it all get underway at 11 00 a. M. Et monday on cspan2. The fifth Circuit Court of appeals in new orleans heard moral arguments recently in moore v. Bryant. Carlos moore is a Mississippi Attorney suing over the confederate battle emblem in state flag. This is 40 minutes. May it please the court, Michael P Scott on behalf of the plaintiff appellant, carlos moo re. I like to Start Talking about a