""do not track" through developing some tools for consumers is very important so consumers can control the extent to which they are tracked online. "do not track" is an issue that some folks have been dealing with very deeply. and have go oned some tools. some of the browsers have developed tools. some trade groups have developed tools. and some standard organizations are working on developing tools around tracking online. i would like to see more progress made there. and finally, you know, when comes to legislation here in the united states, all that i've been talking about thus far haven't been in the legislative sphere. it's been more in term of developing best practice and providing better tools to consumers so they understand how the data is being collected and used for what purpose orth. we can use some more laws in the united states. baseline privacy legislation would help. don't need to worry about and would make clear to consumers you know what their rights are and what could happen to the data tap ping particularized law around data brokers and data profiling is helpful. i already mentioned data security. so again, taking step back and looking a the the big transatlantic picture. i think there are clear similarities between what europe is pushing in its proposed drag or, you know, some folks in europe are pushing it. i think that here in the united states we share many of those ideas and values that have been pushing them forward. but here in the united states i think there is room for improvement. and, you know, i've certainly spent a lot of time talking about that. >> let me ask you two quick things. and read you think you're optimistic it. but the report did come out with recommendations. i would love to hear you talk about that. >> it's true. we have good privacy enforcement in the united states. that's with respect to the laws that we do have on the books. and i have spent a lot of time trying to educate folks here in the united states in, for instance, the act community. they need to make sure they understand the supply. for instance, if they're engaged in activity that might touch on credit reporting, or, you know, a list or a list tool to screen perspective employees are credit reporting law applies. i spent a lot of time trying to educate entities in the united states about the breadth of our privacy laws. and similarly, i've spent some time talking to our european counter part about the breasted of the privacy laws. we don't have it. but in sensitive areas whether it's health information, although question talk a little bit about that. there are some gaps there. whether it's health information, children information, or credit reporting information. we do have good laws. and the ftc is definitely the cob. we are join on the state and do great enforcement. i've heard any european counter parts say that they wish that they could combine their regulation with the ftc's enforcement process. i know, for some businesses that might be more -- [inaudible] [laughter] i think we can say there was a general groan in the room. >> i thought it was a dhuk -- chuckle! [laughter] we have had some trouble though communicating how well we do privacy enforcement. one of the tools we use in addition to the specialized laws i talked about is the federal trade commission act. the ftc generally prohibits unfair and deceptive act of practices. it doesn't focus in particular on privacy or financial fraud or ad substantiatuation. it applies in all of those areas. join up with a law that created us in the 1914 and designed to be very broad and remedial. we use it in just that way. google, facebook, myspace, and twitter are all under twenty year orders as a result of our belief they have violated our federal trade commission act. so we focus on software developers, app developers, an lettic firms, ad networks. you name it, we have look at the practice. when we felt they were violating either the deception principle or the unfairness principle. we go after them. >> how do we deal with the safe harbor when there's limb understanding even in the u.s. about how privacy rules work? in fact, how can we safe guard the safe harbor that is so important to the data? >> that's one of the areas around which i have seen change, i think, in the last three months. as a result of the nsa and snowden revelations? started to be a growing scftion in europe that safe harbor was the problem. the reason why european citizens data was being looked was being examined by government for national security. between europe and the united states. without getting too detailed and too involved in the role of the law. i can say from an economic perspective and a relationship a business perspective it's clearly an inincredibly important tool. and allows far huge amount of trade and important relationships that consumers benefit from and that businesses benefit from. and it became a target in the conversation. i started to say in september and i said just last week if it was an easy target but wasn't the right target. if we want to focus on government surveillance issues we should. or happening through rules or adequacy determination or any other mechanisms for cross-border transfers. that is where the conversation should have happen around the appropriate scope of government surveillance. what i've noticed and frankly the e.u. commission issued report on first step in the report on safe harbor. and i think that this conversation i've been engaged in as well as others. i don't want to say i'm the only one. it seems to have gained residence. if you read the european commission's latest report on building trust, as they call it, between the u.s. and the e.u. they talk about the importance of safe harbor. they talk about the porn of maintaining because of the important ties and the level of business that is transactive between the e.u. and the u.s. swrg said. it's been in existence for 15 years. a lot has changed in 15 years. i can ramble off the fact and statistics about the way things have changed and the number of smartphones people have. the collection of the information. the internet of things. all of these things did not exist or were in existed in the mind or perhapses that would be selfless. but now, you know, i think what we need to do is take a look at safe harbor and say are there ways we can improve it. and the e.u. commission has proposed may 13 recommendations for improving it. some of which i think we ought to on this side of the atlantic take serious look at. i talked about it last week in europe. i said there are ways that i think we can without doing too much work. they're not a heavy list. but it would help get rid of some of the irritants in term of how share boar operates. the vast majority of the companies used an alternative resolution mechanism like trustee or bbc or something like that, which is free. it's free to european citizens. it the european citizens has complained about a company they can go either to the european data protection authority. kind of like the country specific regulator or go to one of these companies and they can have their complaint heard for free. 20% of the companies that have signed up for safe harbor are using an alternative dispute recognition that charge the consumer money. a long time consumer advocate. i have to say that i don't think that's the right direction here. i think we should work hard to get the mechanism fees con as close as we can to zero. those are things done easily so people can understand what companies are in safe harbor. what companies are out. what their privacy policies are and things like that. and finally, i think we, you know, we ought to be looking at the other cross-border data flow framework that we have been talking about globally. and apeck. the asia-pacific cross-border that is being developed and pushed forward has an interesting concept built in around accountability mechanism. so before a company ever reaches someone like me a regulator who says you violated the law. they have put in place mechanisms for self-assessment, for checks so there's an entity that can help make sure they're in compliance. i think it's a really good concept that can be helpful to companies. and i think we ought to be thinking about whether or not there's room within safe harbor framework for appropriate, you know, accountability mechanism that are basically kind of a self-regulatory mechanism before you get to the -- [inaudible] so those are the ways in which i think it can be improved. i think the e.u. has all the things i've talked about, you know, they have in some fashion or another some, again, i think are relatively easy lists for the united states. you ought to be taking it seriously looking at them. >> it's a great tour of what is going on between us and europe. and really detailed and i think there's a lot of people around the table to chew on some of it provocative, i think, even! we'll have a great discussion. i want to open it to peoples' questions. please identify yourself. that would be terrific! if you want, you can turn your name tag on the side, and i will know that i should call on you. asen the gentleman has done in the back in a great way! >> i am the apple of the class here. thank you. it's great i enjoyed your remarks. >> can you say where you're from? >> i'm alan from austin. and the question that i would have for you in light of this discussion is, do you think -- [inaudible] and the enforcement you referred to for adequacy and safe harbor for the united states is really -- almost in congress. yes, it works. it's been in place for a long time. it serves a length of lot of useful purposes. system are not that different. to tweet us so differently maybe more political than objective. >> so really interesting points. [laughter] the adequacy determination. let me start with the first question. you raised a bunch of questions there. do i think we are adequate within the european framework? i think given the other countries that i have seen been deemed adequate, i think we are especially because of our strong enforcement. i remember going munich for a bunch of businesses and regulators in germany. at that time, it was a couple of years ago. maybe a year and a half or two years ago. they thought that all privacy enforcement in the united states was done through self-regulation. and i said, well, agree, no really. t not true. let me explain automatic we coin the united. it's not a sentence. it's a paragraph or two paragraphs. it's a more detailed conversation. but personally do i think we are adequate? yes. on the other hand it's not my job, right, to name determination. and thing what probably makes the most sense for us right now in the united states is to recognize that the e.u. has not determined that we are currently adequate. and to try to focus on interoperability that is try to focus on how the safe harbor mechanism works. how binding corporate rules work. how other interoperateble mechanisms work. the e.u. said okay even if you're not adequate we allow data transfer through the mechanism. and just to make sure there's a trust level in those mechanisms so we still have those to support the incredible amount of trade and also consumer benefit on both sides of the atlantic. so interesting provocative question it would be my perspective on it. >> you're very twitchy. [laughter] [inaudible] we have done a lot of work looking at the economic impact and how affected the u.s. -- [inaudible] one of the big changes we see internationally is the -- [inaudible] other countries are looking restricting data. keeping it in the borders. it obviously has a huge impact on how it works. for disclosure or voluntary disclosure additional privacy and security. there's a lot companies can do to make it more secure. they can put in place term of service. we can have domestic laws. what we can't cofrom the private sector any response to concern if you give our data to a foreign company, government will mandate you disclose it. there's nothing that the private sector can do. that's it's a problem right now. especially from the private sector. [inaudible] >> it's an important issue. as i said in the opening dialogue that we had. the issues around government access to information. whether it's information that private company hold or information elsewhere at the state or local level. all of this is -- there's a huge -- in my view, a very robust discussion underway in the united states about the appropriate level of surveillance. and how it's taking place. i think it's great that conversation is going on. i have personal views about it. i'm sure everybody in this room has personal views about it. but my job as a federal trade commissioner is to focus on commercial use of information. and there in that fear of commercial use of information, again, i think i would disagree with you there's nothing companies can do to better protect information. i understand where you're coming from. which is, you know, someone taps in to their data, you know, whether it's a government entity or whatnot. you know, there's -- they can't really stop it in the current framework. and therefore they are very involved in that conversation. the first conversation i talked about is how is government doing that. but having said that, i know you want to jump in. having said, i think there is a lot that companies can do to improve privacy protection. focusing on privacy by design. data minimummization. deidentifying data as much as possible. we have tons of recommendation about what businesses can do to enhance privacy. and what is so special about this moment in light of the revelations while again, i think commercial use of data and government use of data is separate and needs to be separate conversations it's a moment in time when our society as well as the global community is really focused on data flow and what is happening with data. i think now is a good time for companies to step up to the plate and say, look, we get and we're going do as much as we it to try to enhance privacy and data security. in fact, i think you're seeing that trek companies in particular in the united states. who are dialoguing, i believe, today, the president and having written a great deal about their desire to disclose more what is happening on the government surveillance side. what i want to see them is focus how they're using data and how the datas are flowing to data brokers, to big data an lettic firms and others who are creating profiles about consumers for commercial use. i think it's an important moment. i see what you're saying. chris. >> thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible] looking to the safe harbor report and how it plays out in the coming months. if you could talk about how we keep that shift and tone going. [inaudible] that must be done to safe harbor to -- as you put it look at very carefully. >> i think we need to take list very seriously. i think we're taking it very seriously. i'm sure there will be an intergovernmental group qoping a formal response to it. i've had conversations with my counter parts in the e.u. and folks at the commission level. including those i thought were relatively appropriate. not necessarily easy. i didn't focus on it in that way. these thing should be done. and then those that i thought will present a more difficult will have a more difficult road. for good reasons. and i try to describe what some of those reasons are. but i do think it's important that we move. we meaning, you know, our government moves relatively quickly because i do -- i'm pleased to hear you recognize the same shift. and you see that. i wouldn't like to keep the momentum going in the correct direction which it's heading. i think it's important. i think one of the ways we can do that is to make clear to the european counter part that we recognize the issue they raise. we think they are serious issue and we want to work with them. i'm hopeful we will soon have a position and sit down with them and talk through each of the points. they mentioned to various time frame. i think the report will be ?iem march or april. i think that we should be looking at january. which is a couple of weeks away to begin the conversation in a robust way. i think there are events taking place in europe they identified for me. which will raise the political focus on the issue even more. in order to build trust that the europeans aring asking us to build. i think we need our part. [inaudible] i think the company is 35 contracts in the fbi. i don't see anybody is stopping thm. and the difference between the data base and the fbi in arkansas. there is one check and one click away. or microsoft building in new york city which collects information from the -- [inaudible] meter readers and such in to one base. it's hard to imagine that kind of privacy. teach me more about how you protect our privacy. .. that i call reclaim your name and i would like to see american consumers be able to reclaim their name by use of some of these greater transparency and control tools. for instance, you reference the arkansas company. we might as well call it axiom since we all know who we are talking about. they have taken the first up step along the road of providing much greater transparency to -- they provide some information about some of the data that they have a consumers use for marketing. there are other large data brokers that i believe could easily provide similar transparency tools and it's not just important to let consumers know what data you have about them but also to the extent that it's used for marketing purposes i think that data should we -- the consumer should have the ability to suppress it to say i don't want to market -- the market in des on the fact that i've diabetes and i don't want to be marketed based on the fact that i'm whatever ethnicity or whatever. consumers should also be able to collect information if they want to and then finally to the extent this information is used for important decisions like are you who you say you are and can we do business with you, eligibility decisions that are not governed by current law. i think consumers need to have the right to see that information and corrected if it's wrong. otherwise decisions are going to be made about them that are based on inaccurate information. we do a good job protecting privacy and i tried to outline some of that in my opening remarks. it's hard to talk about it so quickly that i think there is room for improvement particularly in the area you have identified. >> so damned. >> thank you. thanks for your comments commissioner. i wanted to pick on something you said about safe harbor and go on a slightly different direction. the way things have changed in the last 50 years with respect to forward the that's true the internet itself so 15 years ago it was one to one and now it wasn't transactional and that was a lot of structured data. today the internet is one of many. there is lots of unstructured data and is certainly transactional and there are 40 or 50 different players. but the way that we still think about the internet and privacy in particular and the oecd guidelines and those were obviously born in a different era. so, i would be interested in your thoughts on sort of how we adapt those guidelines in the 20 in the 21st century transformative technology like the internet and data. you talk a little bit about transparency sort of in the context of data brokers but what would you like to see in terms of transparency and accountability as we begin to think about how we adapt those? >> really great question and deep because there are a lot of different ways in which we can adapt some of the principles to modern technology. i think a great starting point for that conversation is the report that the federal trade commission did in 2012, where -- i mean i think the fair information practices are still good because they are general. the trick is not so much do they apply to new technologies but how we are going to apply them to new technologies. we talked about implementing three or four techniques if you will or getting businesses and industries to focus on three or four ways in which they can help shape new technology so that consumers do have noticed in choice and there's accountability and there is transparency and accuracy and security and all those other very information privacy principles so we talked about the need for privacy by design. that's one issue and i touched on that weekly before. that's the concept where we don't place so much of the burden on consumers to make a million choices about privacy because it's just too hard and too overwhelming for consumers. instead company's focus on building privacy into their privacy services and they do so in the beginning not one of problem arises and they are sensitized to doing that in the beginning. the second would be just to engage in much since her notice and choice for consumers. that is you know it's fine to have a full-blown privacy policy that is 10 pages in small type that no one ever reads except for academics and technologists and us. we read them. but no consumer actually reads them. it's fine to have that. at the end of the day that's helpful but is much more important especially on smart loans when you think about the limited real estate that's available there, to have quick messages to consumers. we are about to collect your geolocation. we want to download your contact list. is that okay and if it's not okay in consumers say no, it doesn't happen. the consumer can still use the app or whatever but at -- that information is not access. icons, pictures, simplified notice and choice very important issue. transparency is the third issue and i touched on that. i think there's a lot more we can do to inform consumers about what's happening with their data and what control they might have over it. the fourth principle is an important one and that's the issue of identification and how as much as possible we can really focus on using information in a form that is the identified as robustly as possible. we have a three-part recommendation on how to de-identify. actually a three-part. first of all d. i'd -- from a technological perspective than the company that is engaged in using the information promises to not re-identified the information because now there have been so many studies showing how easy it is to take de-identified information. if the information is transferred to anyone else the company that holds that day that makes the company is giving the data to promise to also not re-identified. these are principles that i think can help deal with the current incredible change we have seen in technology and focus on how we can implement these important principles in this new technological age. but it's complex. i recognize that. >> it's complicated that you are making it come alive. we have a lot more questions. paul i think we missed you and i apologize. >> thank you. paula stern the stern group, my own consulting firm. i have told altogether your very interesting comments with the comments we heard earlier and we are not supposed to say that, are we? but i was also at another setting this morning and i am interested in the negotiations between the united states and europe and recognize that the word is that because of the snowden revelations making the negotiations and even more difficult job. >> the. negotiations? >> yes. >> excuse me between the u.s. and europe which is commonly called ttip, the. and investment negotiation partnership. you suggest that there is room for agreement, at least on, in your positive reactions to recent european regulatory enunciation's. i am very conscious that there is the whole u.s. interagency process and the ftc is an independent agency and i don't know how much you have to coordinate with the. representative of many people feel that these. negotiations that are going on between europe is really more about regulatory conversation than anything else. so my question is, to what extent do you have to relate to or do relate in this atmosphere in which these negotiations have now had three meetings in the president has put some emphasis on this? >> so, the issues i was talking about in terms of safe harbor and the report in terms of how to maintain it and the need to improve it and how can be proved is separate and apart from the ttip discussions in. negotiations. we are an independent agency as you pointed out. we are not officially -- the federal trade commission is not involved with the ttip discussions but the usr and other folks who are deeply involved with it, they ustr the u.s.. rep, and others to consult with our staff from time to time about technical issues particularly when it comes to issues around privacy enforcement because again trying to explain what we do and how it's done in the united states again is not a sentence, it's a paragraph. so we are not at all at the table in this discussion and we are really focused -- my job is to focus on protecting consumers and protecting competition and with respect to privacy and data flows, to make sure that we have appropriate law enforcement and we are engaged in appropriate law enforcement as well as policy development around those issues. and you know, i have been a cop on the heat weather at the state level or at the federal level now for a long time and i'm a big believer in enforcement. that is our job which is different and separate from the. negotiations. >> i just want to comment in two ways on that. one is a thing or haps part of what is coming up is that a lack of the nsa revelations created either a real sense that lack of trust or created a hook for some tougher negotiations as part of the ttip and one of the things the u.s. has talked about doing his putting in an e-commerce chapter in putting free flow of information into the negotiations. those of you who are not aware of that, this summer the council on foreign relations had an independent task force had this fabulous report called defending an open global resilient internet chaired by john negroponte, samuel palmisano and adam siegel. one of the things the calls for is the you put in free flow of information and all future. agreements. >> that's exactly what i think it's important for us to break down the silos and really see whether in fact this is happening. >> there are a few people here from the federal government from other parts besides the ftc. do they want to comment in any way lex okay. >> thank you commissioner for your always thoughtful points. tims thereupon be with the application development. i have come to the conclusion that appropriations are -- choices for consumers but they are only slightly better than government particularly foreign governments making decisions is my personal opinion. we are entering an era when consumers can benefit on a great scale for mass customization and mass personalization. i worry that we will set in place to things like limit data collection done on or for consumers benefit will limit the opportunities for consumers to make choices themselves about what goods and services they can obtain at low-cost or no-cost. i'm wondering if you could share your thoughts about what we can do to ensure that mass customization, mass personalization, individualize goods and services become an opportunity in the future and that we don't foreclose those by setting rules as we think about putting in place the very thoughtful limitations. >> well, some of what i talked about i do think would focus on collection issues. so, and thank you. that's also a very thoughtful comment and thoughtful questions as always, tim. you know this issue about collection has, but great deal and they do not discussions and whether or not there are permissible purposes for which information can be collected as well as used. my view is that in terms of tracking consumers on line, given the incredible breadth of information that is now available, the explosion of data about each and every one of us as we walk around with our smartphones and use their apps and are engaged in on line activity and the activity is all getting linked together to create very rich profiles, it strikes me that well you are presenting a framework that arguably says well if there's no collection you don't have any methods for consumers. i am trying to say i think we need to be thoughtful about the way in which information is either collected or created. and health information is a great example. we have some very strong laws around how health information can be used -- collected and used. it is focused on traditional medical providers or entities that work with them, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and other entities that are really in the health care system. but consumers are going on line now and investigating you know what does it mean if my skin is itchy? does this mean i have a condition or my kid has been up for five nights and i don't know, is that the flu or is that a cold or tell me something about diabetes and early onset or heart conditions or whatever. people are doing so much on line that gets identified with them personally and so should that information be collected? should they collected the consumers may have a health condition simply because they inquire about an issue? inquiry may just be curiosity or it may be a school project. in today's "wall street journal" for and since we saw a reference to companies that are gathering that information and using it to find out if consumers might be interested in participating in clinical trials. now, clinical trials are an incredibly important function in this united states. it has incredible benefits for consumers, for health care, for doc year's and providers and pharmaceutical companies to understand what works and what doesn't work on an evidence base is. but consumers are kind of shocked when they are called up and they are asked would you like to participate in a diabetes trial and they either don't have the condition or they have it that they'd understand why someone is calling them up and asking them about this when they have no connection with that entity. i think these are some deep and important issues that we need to think about, how this information is collected or frankly think collected. some of the entities that are handing out this information are presuming the consumers have certain health conditions based on the restaurants that they go to, the way they shop, the clothing they wear and things like that which apparently you know in maybe 80% of cases, 85% of cases, 90% of cases or whatnot may indicate that consumer has a certain condition but it's not always going to be true and even if it's true should entities be able to make these predictions about her health colon -- conditions and collect that information in an identifiable way? these are questions we really need to drill down into. i don't think we are yet -- we haven't yet touched your problem which is if we stop collecting all these great benefits are going to go away. i think we need to look at the type of collection that's going on and the creation of creation by consumers for the purposes of profiling that's going on in the draft whether this is appropriate or not. >> do you just have one question are you not have a question in a more? [inaudible] >> i see out we would come back to that so market they wanted to ask your question. we started out with you talking about your being optimistic and conversations with europe going in the right directions in one of the things we like to do at this roundtable is right rate down silos and break down silos to train people who think about the internet and people would think about the economy and people who think about foreign policy and i should add. policy as well. people in those worlds do not talk to people enough. mark to answer your question maybe we can get back to what is it that the people from the. world who aren't in this privacy in internet world can take that knowing that has improved in those conversations can take back and be able to say this is where the u.s. is of course strong and if you want to make it more -- go ahead. >> commissioner, thank you. i had an opportunity to observe you and all your skill sets last week. for the benefit of all of us here thank you for your leadership and effectively communicating the distinctions between the commercial and national security elements and let me just say i think you did it under shall we say very trying circumstances when i observed that so thank you. >> mark, you have to identify yourself. [inaudible] from my own prior experience in the less government and observing the media my sense is that if a member state level there is a deeper awareness of the distinction between commercial and national security and i'm curious from your visits and meetings whether you think that is the case and show we say the use of other public authorities in europe about that distinction? and i would be remiss since we are on c-span2 to say thank you for your commission and your hard work on patent use and conduct an very pleased to see the comments so far have been overwhelmingly supportive of your initiatives of thank you very much. >> i'm sorry mark. could you do to me a favor? the decision you wanted me to talk about? >> last week and you open today talking about the distinction between commercial and national security dimensions, the information flows and the different traditions in different legal regimes both here in the u.s. as well as in europe and whether my sense is from prior experiences if that is the distinction that is appreciated as a member state level and shall we say other public arenas and whether you sense from your discussions at a general level whether that observation is true or not? >> so, you know it does appear to be drew that national security issues are dealt with at the member state level largely speaking in europe and in my conversations and by the way i should've started out by saying thank you for your kind remarks about me. it's very nice of you. you know, so when i speak to my colleagues at the commission, that is the european commission, or even the dpa, the data protection authorities who also are not this is fairly focused on national security, you know they recognize that. they recognize what their competency is and isn't. but you know i think they make a fair point and i think we should keep in mind which is you know there are some provisions within the safe harbor, the european commission's determination that safe harbor was going to be a mechanism that would be left to transfer data. it said it's got to be proportionate and it's got to be appropriate and so there are some tools that they have that the commission level rather than the member state level to look at this issue. and what i remind them of and you know so we all need to recognize that and i think that's an important point but i tell them that you know, in order to really understand the national security issues at stake, the national security folks need to be at the table and they need to be having a conversation about it with them. and so i think one of the things that has happened especially over the last three months or four months whatever it is its folks at the european commission level and folks within the dpa community in europe that is the data protection authority community and others have had a dialogue here in the united states with some of the people who are focused on security issues. i think that has -- it hasn't alleviated all the concern but i think it helps them understand the breadth of the issues in the wrath of the problem. i don't want to leave this part of the conversation without emphasizing again that i do think it's important that we in the united states are having this discussion about the appropriate scope and whether or not what is happening now is appropriate and whether there are changes that could he made to maintain national security and get enhanced privacy of consumers and citizens. that is a conversation i think not only that needs to happen here but also needs to happen in a transatlantic context. >> i want to come back to the ttip that i do need to suggest that julie we are going to make you delve into. policy or get involved in. negotiations that you emit involved with at all. i just thought for those of us in the room are familiar with what's going on in the trader world and there are others in the room who understand how the u.s. e.u. conversations at turned much more productive on privacy that it might make sense to share that information at a talking point level so you all could be a little bit better armed. >> i have de-identified myself by coming to this talk. [laughter] >> that you have re-identify herself. >> i have lost my right to privacy. i just want to get back to the issue of solvency. thanks for your recognition of the importance of separating at least conceptually the national security from the security issues from the commercial issues but american companies and others around the world have different approaches while they may both be all consumers of processes the data they don't necessarily have the same approaches to privacy. separate and distinct from that and while commissioner reading clearly has taken the revelation as impetus to first aid agenda there are multiple others agendas in europe as i'm sure you know and whether it's the tax agenda, the digital tax agenda, whether it's just the basic rules of competition, the notion of data as a national or european resource, all of these things are pushing a and it's very difficult to operate on just the privacy silo in pushing this. i do think it's important but i'm heartened to hear there are benefits to looking at this at the ttip level. it's important that all these agendas be aggregated and the security piece so we can have that great conversation. otherwise this is just going to be a nice little opportunity for selecting protections which we have already started to see as individual european companies have started to take advantage or look at the revelations as a business opportunity. that was a long-winded question. >> was there a question there? >> what do you think? [laughter] >> we are out of time julie so why don't we combine that with the other remarks and i will just say something about the future. >> one of the things i found most interesting in the european commission's report on safe harbor was the recognition of the value of data and the economic value of data but it was coupled as i read the latest report, it was coupled with the recognition that value is enhanced by cross-border flows. i have heard the same things you are talking about, you know, the need to create zones and things like that. but i didn't read that in the latest iteration so what i'm trying to communicate to all of you who are either directly involved in the. discussions or are following them very closely is there a appears pierced to be an open window now to have a healthy conversation about these cross-border data flows and let's not lose this moment. let's understand the moment for what it is. let's recognize that there is a need to address concerns. national security is happening separately but on the commercial side and in particular -- i have 40 talk about what i would like to see done with commercial data. let's leave that aside too although i very much believe in that and i believe it needs to have needs to happen in the united states but just on safe harbor let's recognize the moment that we have and take seriously their requests that we look at 13 or so changes and respond to them appropriately. it's a moment that can be lost for all the political and policy reasons and others that you have identified. so let's not lose it is what i would say. >> obviously it's been a fabulous conversation and i really appreciate everybody who came and especially those who asked questions and julie i hope you don't mind. >> you have done an amazing job but we want to keep up exactly this kind of conversation. i think some people are having, are seeing pieces of this element and you know not only with europe but in the context of internet governance in the context of things that are happening in asia and it's really important that we are all conversant on all the pieces so we can work reductively. i think julie you have spoken at different times with where we need to be better but also where the u.s. including through the enforcement actions of the ftc is incredibly strong and we have a lot to be proud of and i think it's important for us all to realize that as well. .. kngood morning to many good friends nathaniel philbrick audiencfriendsin the oddiance. the wilson center knows a lot about brazil. our institute is the premier place in washington for dialogue on the u.s.-brazil policy. we were thrilled to sponsor the president there and host governors prfrom brazil and we will air the good, bad and ugly in the ship. shannon is part of the good. i hope he is relieved to hear that. after four years as the ambassador to brazil, he is back as senior advisor for secretary kerry. there are rumors about his future... to remind brazil is the b in bricks. the president was a target of u.s. surveillancsurveillance. she's issues and more will be addressed by ambassador shannon. tony harrington is here to introduce tom. but before that let me applaud brazil and the u.s. to move past the edward snowden information. i know about surveillance issues and i disagree with what edward snowden did. none the less, i welcome to public debate about how we should restart/reset what we do on surveillance. as the two largest economies we are dense. and as tom shannon says the challenge for the united states and brazil government is to catch up and align their policy. and tom is here to help us understand this post-edward snowden era. let me turn it over to tony harring t harrington. he was the united states ambassador to brazil during the clinton a dministration. welcome, tony. >> thank you, jane, and thank you for the fine leadership you bring to this important institute in washington. the energy and reach of the programs under your leadership. i first met tom shannon in 1999 when i was unexpected and told i would be going to brazil. i was upgrading the bilateral relationship. i met this other fellow on the stage about the same time. these two folks accelerated my understanding of brazil. tom was the director in the southern cone at the time. it was apparent that tom was not only knowledgeable about brazil but developed an unusual awareness and affection while serving to a prior u.s. ambassador. with tom's advice we were able to conclude a lot of significant agreements and open new space in the u.s.-brazil cooperation. tom has been a rising star in our foreign service since then. serving as whitehouse senior direct and assistant director of the state for the western hemsphire. and with informal indication from the brazilian government that they would be delighted to see tom back in brazil. he served as an accomplished ambassador to brazil and returned long enough to add a couple gray hair and serving as political aware at the request of secretary clinton. two jobs, one salary, i believe it was. last year, tom was nominateed and c-- nominated -- to the ambassador ranking and that is a rare recognition given to only 53 diplomats over the last 50 years. and secretary kerry, as jane noted, has brought tom to the int int intercircle as senior advisoadv. ambassador tom was the suing thread for the torn relationship. in march of 2011, months after the first women president in brazil, president obama went to brazil and in his address to a large group in brazil, the president decided it was long time that we join on the stage like china is on our stage. this helped readjust the stage with the openness and engagement with president obama was an important, constructive step. and then followed with the president's visit here last year. she set the theme as the brazil-u.s. strategic partnerships for the next century. we so need to get on so to speak. this kind of mutual high level outreach wouldn't have happened without our skilled ambassador in brazil and back home with the state, whitehouse, and the interconnections. as we know, further elevation in the brazil-u.s. relationship was represented by there state visit for the brazil president planned for a couple months. the last visit by the brazilian president was 18 years ago. all of you are aware of the situation that led to announce the postponement of the last visits. is our hope this will new meeting will resolve the questions that are recognized st leg legit. and that in so doing this will p permit the rescheduling of the visit and moving forward with the relationship. having tended and paid attention to the relationship since i was ambassador, i believe the reasons that led the president to make the invitation and the president to accept remain valid and current. further and keeper engagement is in the interest of both governmen governments, the civil societies in both countries, and the business sectors whose interest are remarkable and very similar. i was in brazil last week for the clinton global initiative in rio de janiero and the largest conference held by the con federation of industry in brazil and both occasions addressed by the president there and president clinton not only opened the very successful clinton global initiative meetings, he was always asked by the confederation of industry to address the body but he was prevented because of his travel and connection with the memorial for president mandela. the leadership of cni told us it was the largest gathering they had had. several people called up saying they wanted to hear bill clinton do this thing. the awkwardness around the nsa issues in no way take away the achievements of the service of our just returned ambassador tom shannon. we are lucky to have him serving with secretary kerry. generally and where we trust brazil, relationships will have to room to realize the potential for engagement, bilaterally on the stage and multi latterly as well. it has been a personal privilege to work with tom for several years. it is pleasure to have him this morning to share perspectives that are unique on the state of relations and the future of relations with the u.s. and brazil. we will have time moderated by the speaker as well. please join me in welcoming ambassador tom shannon. >> good morning. it is a great pleasure to be here. thank you jane and to the woodrow center. and tom harrington thank you for your work. and thank you paulo. we were talking about the great work the wilson center is doing and as many of you know this is a busy town. and there is a variety of interest and immediate interests. keeping your elected leaders and thought leaders focused on the larger neighborhood is sometimes a challenge. but i think the woodrow wilson center and the brazil institute are doing great work. you have people expressing interest and i am very grateful for the work that is done here. thank you and thank you, paulo and tony. this was build as a conversation with me. i would like to make it a conversation as quickly as possible. and open this up to address your interest and your concerns. before i do that, i want to say a few things and share a few thoughts. i spent four years in brazil nearly. leaving in september and coming back to washington. i have had the good luck by being asked by secretary kerry to work with tim him on broader interest. but my interest in brazil isn't waning. brazil is inserting itself deeper into the world and it will not let me go. i am interested in the strategic side especially as we look for way to ways to share the world and chart similar paths. nearly four years ago, in january of 2010, i was invited by paulo to speak before i went off to brazil as ambassador. in that instance, i made a few asse assertions. the first was that, although brazil was described as an emerging power, i said i don't agree with that. i said it had already emerged. secondly, i said their emergence was the product of their own domestic transformation. it addressed poverty and social exclusion and built a functioning democracies and created one of the largest economies in the world. it was globalizing as it developed. and brazil's emergence was putting them in contact with the united states in parts of the world where brazil wasn't present before. this new engagement meant that the united states had to understand brazil in a different light. and that brazil had to rethink its relationship with the united states. and finally, i noted that while brazil and the united states have been friendly, there has been a polite distance as we go about our business. but we saw more activity between the society and people that would affect our diplomacy and foreign policy toward each other. and our societies and people would be the principle driving force, not the government. and i would argue i was right in all of those assertions. my four years in brazil have convinced me they are valid and alive in shaping the u.s.-brazil relationship. and although brazil has seen its own fair share of internal political evervescence since last june, there is broad public space for citizens to protest and make their views heard. and we have the capacity to respond into meaningful way. as we look ahead, i think we understand that brazil's domestic transformation because it was done in a democratic and market contest has shown that democracy and markets can develop. and brazil is showing it is not about status quo. they are about creating space with the right social policy and approach to development that the people themselves can have a central role in determining the development direction of a county. this is a powerful message. it is a powerful message from the point of the view of the united states and countries around the world who are facing challenges the government here is facing. whether it is moving from open to closed economy. whether it is going from tar kick to regional integration and isolation to globalization. brazil has laid out a pathway or example that should be encouraging not just to the united states as we look for ways to influence the world in meaningful ways but also as countries themselves try to determine how they can harness the peace and stability. o our ability to engage globally and shape method of cooperation whether it is in foreign assistance, or agriculture development or promoting non-proliferation or fashioning broad trade agreements, how we relate with brazil and how they relate with us is going to be increasingly important. one of the striking things that has happened over the past several years has been the growing activity between the societies and people. the most evident and dramatic of that is in tourism. especially the demand and visas that we have seen coming from brazil. and the flow of brazilian tourist to the united states and brazilian students to the united states. our visa demand has increased by 600%. 32% by last year. it is continuing on an upward swing. the exchange rate has declined as far as the brazilian consumptioners and tourist are concerned. their society is globalizing at a fast clip and the united states is holding fascination for the brazilians. they are also connecting broadly in the united states in a variety of ways. in this regard, i think that what we are seeing increasingly is a response from the united states, a growing interest in brazil, increase in tourism, granted not at the same level as we see on the brazilian size. the business side is growing. we have seen an increase in the bilateral trade. and this is a trade potential that is only being barely exploited. there is a lot more that can and should be done. the focus of the relationship on building out that commercial and investment relationship has been one of the priorities of this administration and one of the priorities of secretary clinton and remains a priority of secretary kerry. what is striking about the emergence of this new activity is that i believe increasingly our societies will determine the direction of the relationship. in the process of doing so, both of the governments by encouraging this have been building a balance in the relationship that help us in rough times. similar to saving for a rainy day by increasing the activity of people in the society, we are creating the government that will be demanded to fix problems. and that will bring me to the disclosure part eventually. but before i get there, the larger point i want to make is as we look at the relationship over the past several years, our purpose was to build the 21st century partnership. that is what i told the wordpress upon arriving in february. it is now a mantra of the relationship. it was used as the slogan of our relationship with the president of brazil visited the united states the first time. as we built out this 21st century partnership and we needed to build a solid and robust dialogue structure. we needed to focus on the frequency of dialogue and the quality. we need today connect the governments at -- needed to connect -- the governments to make sure we had clear direction to move forward on issues that were important to us. and we discovered that as we talked and as we built a dialogue around key issues of m importance to us, the points of view converged. this doesn't mean they are the same. there is still stark differences. but we found important areas of cooperation and concern. whether around climate change or food security or the fight against transnational crime and the proliferation of weapons just to name a few. but as we did this, we always recognized that we needed to build a 21st century platform for this relationship. i mean that those of you who are real brazilian you know we had ambassadors in many areas of the country along with rio de janiero and sao paulo. that shrunk down over time. and if you think about it, that structure having people on the coast and embassy in brazil would be like trying to cover the united states with an embassy in virginia. it doesn't work. it doesn't work for the people-to-people outreach. so the president's decision to reopen consultwas a big step of tapping into the potential visitors to the united states who were not able to travel because they were unwilling to travel all the way to the coast or to brazil to look for visas and it also expands the commercial outreach. it is my hope we can expand our presence even further and build back the presence we need to address the country of proportions like the united states. another important component of the flplatform is rebuilding th brazilian diplomacy. because of the many people we had in the region and our peace core presence, the united states government had a large amount of speakers who understood the country and knew it well and the united states could call upon them to help them understand what happened in brazil. that changed through the '80s and '90s and much became spanish-speaking process. and because of that decline, we began to use in the our language expertise and ended up drawing upon other offices. but that has all changed. and that is because of the demand for visa and the personal demand we have to staff our visa sections. we have hundreds of young officers who have done their first and second tours in brazil who speak their language and traveled throughout the country and know it well. we are creating new spaces for them to travel through brazil for several tours. we are reb replicating what we had years ago and it will help create an understanding of what we need to do for years ahead. we remain convinced the united states and brazil is continuing to build a strategic partn partnership. and by that i mean what can either country get from another. how things changed remain the same. but it is strategic because both countries work together to understand the common understandings of the world. and this can be done only through the dialogue we have been building over time. the decision by both president's to postpone the october state visit was from the edward snowden disclosure. this has interrupted a dialogue that was nascent but growing and held huge protential. i believe we can recover from this for our own citizens as we try to understand how the activity in brazil can enrich the lives of our citizens and show that our diplomacy has a relevancy to the daily lives of the citizens and that will make it unique in the larger diplomatic efforts in the world. it will underscore the importance of social diplomacy. as we attempted to deal with the disclosure issues we are engaging with them technically and there was a political engagement in which the administer of justice travelled to the united states and met with the president to express brazil's concerns. and talks between the president of the united states and the president of brazil as they try to sketch a way out of the challenges. the whitehouse released the results of the presidential review group that was addressing the impact of technology only intelligence gathering and that is the first step toward a larger review of how the united states signals intelligence and it will form the bases for us to reengage with the brazilians and pak make our comments about the best way going forward. they have been attentive and waited to what we will be able to offer them and how we will be able to move forward in the aftermath of the disclosures/problems/and challenges. we don't have that clear pathway yet, but we will in the new year when we finish the larger review and take a look at the recommendations that have been shutdown. -- issued -- this is a work in progress. but it is worth noting that the united states and brazil have discussed this on national form. whether it is nsf or other assemblies where resolutions have been presented. the united states and brazil and other partners who are interested in the internet governance as a human right and the role of espionage. we have been able to fashion text that the united states as joind consistance on. this is an important step because it realize that both of the governments have the capability of understanding the concerns of another and addressing them in an international environment. just yesterday, the assembly voted on a resolution from the third committee in which we were able to join concensus. that is a positive sign. we also appreciate the way the brazilian government has handled the communication between edward snowden and his effort to solicit some asylum from brazil. the response from the government is noted and welcomed by the united states. it is evident what the snowden disclosures have done besides creating a level of pause at one part of the relationship, it hasn't affected the people-to-people engagement and society-to-society engagement. we have found a deep and abiding engagement to continue ways to faction a more fluid and productive investment relationship between the two countries. in this regard, i think we have a lot to work from. we continue to see a huge flow of brazilian students to the united states which has been having a big empath -- impact -- on universities. this will be the largest influx of students from the western area we have seen in the 21st centu century. the impact is going to continue to be large. the visa demand hasn't slacked off at all. it is growing at an important rate. and this i think create as certain urgency to find a way to address the problems made by the edward snowden disclosures. we are committed to a larger relationship with brazil that understands we occupy different places in the world and have different interests in some ways, but we are committed broadly to interest that are similar and compatible. the u.s.-brazil relationship is worthy of looking at how it fits into an international environment. many are familiar with the long war phrase and in the aftermath of 911 it was said we will walk away from the enemy, but they will not walk away from us and we should bere ready to fight them. we still face challenges and have enemies, we are in a different environment right now. given what we have seen with the rise of china and india and the giant economies and significant countries such as brazil, mexico and others as major regional powers. and the emergence of people as major drivers and definers as so much of the foreign policy that we are in a time and space that while we protect our security, we need to understand the future wellbeing is all about partnerships and alliances. this is going to require focus and energy. while the long war might be present for us, we have the immediate of the long diplomacy. it will require us to rethink how we engage in the world and the types of partnerships we want to build. i think our relationship could be the bell weather here. it is important to understand that brazil is a country that emerged through its soft power. it is part of a larger network of countries calling on reform on international institutions at a time where nothing is forcing this. but the institutions are becoming less relevant and capable of addressing some of the large problems and concerns the world faces. so our built to reestablish moment in the u.s.-brazil ships and to insure it is back on the track we want will have a big empai impact on the amount to conduct this diplomacy. many years from now much of what we consider to be important will not be important. much of what occupies every day will fall away and become the dust of history. but what is eremembered and judged is our ability to accommodate the rising powers and responsive to the larger challenges the united states face. and promote peace and security and the ability of individuals to achieve, not just a place for themselves in determining nat n national destiny, but in terms of social as well. this means an environment in which each of us is respected. and i believe the united states and brazil, because of the broad commitment to democratic values and human right and open societies, are in a unique place to do this. i hope you all share this. i would like to end there. just reminding ourselves this is the hundred year anverniversary the expedition to brazil. i have a picture of them standing on the floor deck of the vessel as it sailed into the place where they stood before beginning their journey. he is dressed nice, erect and head back and chest out and obviously proud of where he was and what he was doing. roosevelt was dressed in camping clothes with his hat off, hair messed up, glasses awry and slightly scrunched and looking at the camera as if he was wondering what was happening. it was a remarkable moment in the sense it captured the proud man and roosevelt who had so much to do. but what was striking was having to two men in close quarters and having them traveling down the river with no hope of coming out at the end, but an expectation they were on a historic journey that would identify the source of the ampamazon and accomplish something around the world was remarkable. this as a the image for the relationship that recognizes that friendship and courage can accomplish a lot in this world. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> now we will have the conversation start of this. i would like to tell those who are following this on web cast or c-span that you can send us questions to our twitter account at brazil institute. and just before i open for questions and to maybe complete the story ambassador shannon shared about the roosevelt trip. it was renamed the roosevelt river but the locals refer it to as the teddy river. we talk about people by their first name. i would like you to identify yourself, wait for the microphone and identify yourself. >> bill rogue. it is a pleasure to see you again. you mentioned, and i agree, the future and the past has been determined by the society. in order for that to continue, the observation in question, is don't we in america first have to convince our society in relationship to the security issues that we are willing and will modify surveillance so that that can be transmitted to brazil? in brazil, the politicians do represent the society so we have sooc to convince them. do we have to convince the society in brazil and had -- the -- politicians and there is a good section -- in brazil that is skeptical. >> that is a great question. one of the challenges of the democratic societies is to create space for the kind of dialogue we have to have now. that is one of the reasons the president decided to name a presidential review group. he wanted to look specifically at signals and intelligence gathering and the impact of information technologies on the 21st century and have a space so people could talk about this publically. one of the issues with this kind of gathering is it can't be talked about. they have done a good job of playing lout the options of the united states. as far as brazil is concerned, we have a lot of work to do, as do the brazilians themselves and it will take place at a variety of levels at the same time. some is done by diplomats and ambassadors and some will be done in a broader spear. one of the opportunities that have been presented is the ability to engage with the publics about intelligence work in the 21st century and understand what information technologies mean for us in many ways. if you look at the disclosures issue closely, what you have is a mapping of 21st century technology and a mapping of the internet. and a recognition that the way we communicate is changing the fundamental understanding we have about privacy and individual agency. and much of this isn't related to intelligence agencies at all. it is relate today large companies and how they predict and influence how consumers behavior. we have been arounded -- offered -- a window into the century. we will be able to make decisions about how information is gathered and how we want to structure it. >> i will add a couple observations from my visit last week and meeting with the business leaders and several congressman including a senator of the president's party. this isn't a representative sampling, but the basic theme was we would like to get on with it. get past this. so i think within thought leaders there is a desire to move on with the relationship in a constructive manner. this particular senator had been a part of the delegation that came and met with the vice president biden. he was warm about it including the biden experience where the vice president said you know, i grew up with two preceptions i would like you to violate both of these and trust me. that is the exchanging a brazilian politician welcomed. and there is an interest in the collaboration of the revolving scheme of the internet that the united states and brazil should be prepared to operate on. thank you. >> hello, i am from sao paulo. the united states government said they are ready to discuss the new date for the brazilian president visit. have you received any sign from the brazilian side that they are ready to discuss and how likely it is this can happen at the beginning of next year. and considering your engagement and involvement with brazil, how frustrated were you with what happened? and yesterday we had a very concrete example of the consequences with the decision of the brazilian government to buy swedish check sites. and how you saw that. >> thank you. listen, i had the pleasure of beginning my tenure in brazil with wikileaks and ending with edward snowden. pogo was right. we have seen the enemy and he is us. however, obviously, diplomacy and representing a country like the united states is not about personal experience. it is about a responsibility and a duty not only in this regard to president obama and the united states government, but more broadly to the people of the united states of america. it is an honor and privilege. so we try to do the best we can. i have deep affection for brazil. i am deeply committed to the u.s.-brazil relationship and building the kind of partnership i talked about. and finding myself in a situation we had to slow down what we were doing or look for other ways to express this partnership was frustrating at one level. but at the same time, these are challenges that in an odd way we rel ish because it allows us to show what we are capable of. it tests us and allows us to expand the context of our d diplomatic activity. in terms of the decision yesterday, congratulations to the swedish people and the brazilian air force. this is something they wanted for a long time. it is coming too late even now, but it is an important step. we are disappointed. bowing did a lot of work in brazil and will continue to do tremendous work. and the great bowing teams that have come down to the brazil area are very proud. and this won't affect our relationship with the brazilian airforce. we have seen clear signs from the brazilian government that it is prepared to engage with us in a meaningful way about disclosures and whether that is international and such as the n uu. u.n. general's assemly and in the request for edward snowden's asylum. i feel good where we are right now. this is an ongoing discussion we are having. we made it clear that we are prepared to reschedule. and i still think the conversation with the brazilians have to ripen a little bit before we get a response. >> julia? >> thank you. hello, i am with the counsel on foreign relations. i think your opening address and comments have made an effort to answer the question i am going to ask you again, if you don't mind. i think if we go back, and i would like to ask you how do you address the september -- skeptics that point out -- that going back to the 2010 agreement and then the reaction to the nas disclosures which germany's reaction was greeted with greater understanding than perhaps brazil was and even now to the choice around bowing, i think in the town and some of the other organization, we understand their reaction as a knee-jerk anti-america actions. and that trade on the long list of issues that are still pointed to as proof that the united states can't have the kind of strategic partnership with brazil that you have advocated for. i would like you to address that skepticism head on and maybe use a couple examples in latin america where it is pointed to as a place where the united states cannot have brazil as a partner for reasons of how brazil advances their interests that are different from ours. i would like you to poke holes in those arguments if you could. >> as we built the relationships, and they are between two at least, and sometimes more, there are people who are skeptics on both sides. on the united states side, there are people that tend to view brazil within a south american conte context and view it as a country that has behaved differently than partners and different ambitions. and that is sometimes viewed as attempting to limit and frustrate our influence and presence in south america. on the brazilian side they are people that wonder about the value of brazil attaching themselves too closely to a country like the united states because of the global reach of the united states and the extent to which brazil finds itself sucked into our wake and is forced to participate ing things or act in a way it doesn't feel is in its best interest over time. part of our challenge has been to address those people and reshape the understandings of the relationship recognizing that there is a certain degree of truth on both sides. and that our interest ad times do clash. and our ambitions work across purposes sometimes. but as jane noted at the beginning, the converganence is more important than the divergence. and we are to recognize these as we try to build out the parts of the relationship that function well. the reason i talked about the long diplomacy is because this is the challenge of diplomacy. and this is a larger challenge we will face with brazil. ...