The camps lone doctor was completely overwhelmed so the doctor wrote out instructions handed medicine to him and asked him to help. She said a lot of these people are not going to make it. This will just help make them more comfortable. Then he and his friends sat with them. They would sit with them so they wouldnt be alone. Reporter a friend also from the north bay had just left base camp with a head cold hours before the avalanche struck. Scott holder told us by phone that he has not yet been willing to watch the video of what happened. I purposely avoided watching the videos. Im sure i will at this point. I just dont want to put my mind there, because thats friends im watching. Reporter again, this is john reiters third attempt at everest and the second time that an avalanche has turned him around. Coming up at 6 00 well speak with his 13yearold son, augustin about whether or not his father should try again next spring and about his fathers passion for the mountain. Mark matthews nb
Which is massachusetts, and ive been talking to some of my colleagues from massachusetts. Would you agree with that . I think also oregon has a pretty good standard. There are elements of other state laws you may not consider specific data laws. A pretty High Standard . It is a pretty High Standard, yes. Thats the starting point for us. Theres been some discussion about the Standard Energy in commerce. Would you say its a higher standard than what our bill would propose. Our standard is a reasonableness standard. So i think the difference here is not only might there be a difference in what the language says in that bill i think, also, we would be looking to the common law of the ftc and others to flesh out what the specific requirements are but its really important as were thinking about how strong the security standard is, to think about who has the enforcement power and whos going to be guiding the parties there. If the federal agencies are solely responsible for it even a strong st
It. I said in the opening comments that the preemption should not have the unaintended consequence raised outside the bill. We would certainly be willing to make that plain. Miss moy, you said i thought i heard you say that we shouldnt have 50 different standards is not the answer. Is that what you said, or did i mishear your comments . So what i have said is i think the best for consumers would be to create a floor, not a ceiling so that states can continue so set a National Standard and then allow states to protect additional categories of information. So my understanding is 13 states have data breach standards like this. And ours would be better than all of them except maybe one which is massachusetts and ive been talking to my colleagues from massachusetts. Would you agree with that . I well so i think that oregon has a pretty good standard and i also think there are elements of other state laws that you might not consider specific day sta security laws. A pretty High Standard . It
Congresswoman maloney no. The standards have been flexible. I think congressman nugerbauer and congressman carnie have done a good job in doing the same thing in their bill, which is to say, were going to have standards and were going to allow them to be scaled. I think thats a good model. In other words theyve worked well and they wont be too burdensome for smaller institutions and retailers. Id also like to know your feelings about the having a minimum or a floor standard. I know that california oregon have a standard thats higher. I think its important you have to have a floor. Do you think it should be a floor or should it be a ceiling and why . Another great question. Right now we have nothing. Right. Something is better than nothing. Absolutely. And so floor would be progress, but ceiling, if its set high. We passed what we thought were nation leading standards and notification standards. You wouldnt want a bill that undercuts the 13 or so states that have done this. If youre goi
Were about to compromise the Payment System, the electrical grid, you wouldnt say lets kick it to the states. Lets let them handle it. I dont think you would do that. Whatever you do will be helpful, even if directionally. It will be better than what we have now for the sectors that dont have any standard in those states. Miss moy . Right, so i would say a couple of things. One is that consumers are protected right now by the federal trade Commission Section five authority, and the ftc is enforcing that. As weve heard, theyve enforced over 50 cases since 2001. And consumers in the other 47 are, you know 47 states and three jurisdictions are protected by breach notification laws. So there are protections existing for consumers. I think setting a floor and not a ceiling, as ive mentioned before, there is a clear pattern in terms of whats covered, even by the disparate state laws. So as a practical matter, most companies that have to comply with the laws of multiple states are just comply