tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN February 25, 2011 10:00am-1:00pm EST
and he won a lanrmlide. this is not gw ng to drop to 7.4%. but if it's 8.1-8.3%, i thi3 r his chaemres are ge atd in gett re-elected. if it's up to 8.9%, that will be tostine a ople i had to predict today whether president obama was going to get re-eldidted or not and had a choice of knowing who the reper klican ny jinee was gw ng to be or what the unthe bhm rate -- but it's incumbent on the current president and voters vote their pocket books. host: a link fro wthe site is avrdspredble at c-span dw aviri and cook political doifering. cia .or6 c13 by the way the ongw ng
situation in libya. the diplomats annouemring they are lea200ng their post. all of this coming as u.s. oing the devela ments in that country. yesterday in a 20-minute rthe lbling phone cal0. we were able to obtain that from al-jazeera. it's availllile to listen to on our website at journal@could bpaor6or6 c13 we'll have c repuberage of the governor's association. this will fa llow a session at the white house ass meet. the topic? jais and the econo le. ople you are watching this network and notice some slicden alicio drop, we want to hear from you. send us an email at beedia roblems@ wae anen uor63 tse have been receiving complaints watching this and noticing the alicio dron'and then trying to figure out what
the praile wis. our tdidhnical staing it. we want to hear fro wyou to pinnempint where the problems are. later in the day, because so repuny have phoned in. 202-626-3400. but the easier and faster way is to sendtestss an e repuil. . i vetestss your name and how to reach you and tell us who your cllile pro200der is. the n.g.a. all weekend live on c-span. thank yohonfor jw kenngtestss. enjoy the rest of your day, and have a great weekend. . .
governors' association. o'malley will leave that and other governors will talk about jobs and building competitiveness in their states. back at under way at 2:00 p.m. eastern. also today, a look at the afghan security forces. the u.s. is pulling back in a crucial valley in afghanistan. the pesh valley we will hear from the afghan defense minister today coming up at noon, eastern agreed that will be on c-span. we will look at the number of stories on libya. the french president nicolas sarkozy is saying the libyan president must ago. president qaddafi must go. also today, the u.n. security council is meeting. nato is meeting today. in addition, the entire libyan mission has walked out of the meetings in geneva regarding the u.n. human rights commission. that started poorly today and we will show you more of this.
we want to show you a part of it. it got under way earlier today with a statement from the chair of the council, navi peli. they talk about libya and this portion runs just under 10 minutes from earlier today. >> the gravity of the situation and the violence and repression of the uprising in libya demands such urgent attention as the secretary general of the united nations noted, the important nature and scale of the attack
on civilians are egregious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. he condemned of them without qualification and stated those responsible for brutally shedding the blood of innocents must be punished. let me remind this council that at the 2005 summit, world leaders unanimously agreed that each individual state has the responsibility to protect its population from crimes against humanity and other international crimes. this responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes. it includes their incitement through a pro . and necessary means. when a state is manifestly failing to protect its population from serious international crime, the international community has the responsibility to step in by taking protective action in a
collective, timely, and a decisive manner. in its emergency session this week, the security council highlighted the need to hold their responsibility to protect, to provide humanitarian assistance, to allow human rights monitoring, and to assure accountability. my office is prepared to respond to these needs as a matter of highest urgency. as we meet today, the protesters who are exercising their right to freedom of assembly have denounced the brutal ways of their government and continue to challenge its role at great peril for themselves and their families. they have appealed to the united nations and to the international community for protection. we owe them our solidarity and protection from violence we must heed to their aspirations for freedom, dignity, and responsible governance.
their protest is a display of people's power and exercises direct democracy that deserves and commands international respect and support. the international community has repeatedly urged moammar khaddafi to desist from violence. despite international condemnation and appeals for restraint, the libyan leader chose to foment conflict. he called on his supporters to get out of their homes, fill the streets against the protesters, and attack them. one thing is painfully clear. brazen and continuing breach of international law, the crackdown in libya of peaceful demonstrations is escalating alarmingly which reported mass
killings arbitrarily, detentions, and torture of protesters. tanks, helicopters, and military aircraft have reportedly been used indiscriminately to attack the protesters. according to some forces, thousands may have been killed or injured. let me reiterate that the states have an obligation to protect the rights to life, liberty, and security of people under their jurisdiction. the protection of civilians should always be the paramount consideration in maintaining order and rule of law. the libyan leader must stop the violence now. libya is a member of the human rights council and pledged to respect human rights. libya is a party to various international human rights treaties including the international covenant on civil and political rights. it has the obligation to
protect and implement rights and freedoms as enshrined in international human rights treaties. under international law, any official at any level ordering or carrying out atrocities and attacked can be held criminally accountable. widespread and systematic attacks against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity. witnesses in and out of libya consistently described horrifying scenes. libyan forces are firing at protesters and bystanders, a ceiling of neighborhoods, and shooting from rooftops. they also blocked ambulances so that the injured and dead are left on the streets. reports from hospitals indicate that most of the victims have been shot in the head, chest, or
neck. that suggests arbitrary executions. doctors at relate that they are struggling to cope and are running out of blood supplies and medicines to treat the wounded. images of unverifiable origin appear to portray the digging of mass graves in tripoli. according to several accounts, killings have also been carried out by foreign fighters who reportedly continue to be brought into the country and our be equipped with small arms and light weapons by the government to suppress the protests. in this connection, my office has received reports that some libyans are turning on refugees and migrants from other african countries, suspecting them of being mercenaries fighting for the libyan government. at the same time, there are reports that the authorities
have suggested that certain foreign nationals have been primarily responsible for initiating the unrest, thereby encouraging attacks on foreigners. it is important that the safety of all foreign nationals be insured and that the freedom of movement of those wishing to leave the country be fully respected and protected. libyan authorities must allow the safe passage of humanitarian and medical supplies and humanitarian workers into the country. they must also insure that the legitimate demands of the protesters are addressed. the fundamental human rights of the population must be fully respected and promoted. excellencies, libya's neighbors have a particular responsibility to exert the utmost vigilance to protect the vulnerable. i am concerned for the safety and well-being of refugees crossing into neighboring
countries, particularly tunisia, egypt, italy, and malta. i urge libya's neighbors to open their borders and ensure that refugees fleeing the violence in libya are welcomed and treated humanely. libyas political allies are uniquely positioned to exercise their individual and collective influence for the protection of human rights in libya. in this context, i welcome the initial steps taken by some governments and regional organizations. more needs to be done. i encourage all international actors to take necessary measures to stop the bloodshed. i have also called for an independent and impartial investigation to investigate the violent repression of protest in the country. let us be clear -- today's shocking and brutal situation is
the direct outcome of a careless disregard for the rights and freedoms of zero libyans that is marked the almost four-decade long grip on power by the current ruler. justice for on going as well as past abuses must be attained in order to be meaningful for all the victims. there can be no doubt about the need for action by this council now. the human rights council and its mechanism should step in vigorously to help end the violence in libya and hold those perpetrating atrocities accountable. the council should use all means available to compel the libyan government to respect the human rights and he the well of its people. the victims of human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law deserve no less. thank you, mr. president.
>> thank you. >> part of the u.n. human rights council meeting earlier today in geneva -- more of that later in our schedule. this is the entire libyan mission in geneva and they have quit. french president nicolas sarkozy said moammar khaddafi must resign. the ap says president sarkozy said in turkey that state violence in libya cannot go unpunished and added that qaddafi must go. we will have more from the council later in our session and we are looking for discussion on this at the u.n. security council. nato is meeting today and look for more administration views later today at the white house briefing and from the state department. this weekend, the others will talk about how to grow their state's economy, education, and cyber security as they gather in washington for the annual winter meeting of the national governors' association. we will have live coverage throughout the weekend on c- span.
now former president bill clinton and others look back at the 1995 dayton peace accords that ended the violence in bosnia. this was held at the new york university hosted by the clinton foundation and it is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> there was widespread ethnic cleansing and we put terror's in europe have been banished forever. at home, there was not much appetite for a distant war. abroad, our european allies
steadfastly resisted tougher measures that might put the humanitarian mission at risk. by mid-1995, bosnia shelled out thousands of innocent people and took un peacekeepers hostage. president clinton concluded that american leadership was the only hope for peace. that august, we began an all-out diplomatic initiative backed by the use of nato force to shift the balance of power. the early weeks were scarred by a tragedy. first the debts of three american diplomats and then a brutal attack on sarajevo. the relentless air strikes by nato together with bosnian gains on the ground finally led the
parties to a cease-fire. for 21 years -- for 21 days, are negotiating team led by our extraordinary ambassador, richard holbrooke, pushed and prodded pressed and persuaded and finally prevail. ed. after nearly four years of bloodshed and 100,000 killed and more than 2 million displaced, the leaders of bosnia, croatia, and serbia turned the page from war to peace. for president clinton another battle was just beginning. the president pledged to send 20,000 troops to help make to implement the agreement. most americans opposed the idea. many in the military were skeptical. much of congress was dubious at best. dick armey declare that winning
the support of the house would be like pulling teeth to the back of your head. in fact, the house refused to take action in support of the mission. the president moved forward because he knew it was right. we have helped end the terrible war and now we would lead for peace. it has been said that courage is not simply one of the virtues but the form of every virtue as a testing point. to be sure, president clinton showed political courage in seizing the initiative to stop the bloodshed. he did what needed to be done to enforce the peace that had been so hard to secure. bosnia was also a reflection of his values. his abiding belief that prosperity and progress must be ruled in unity, not division.
he had a vision for europe and a transatlantic alliance at a time of historic transformation. it was a vision of a peaceful, undivided europe as we neared the end of the century has seen some of humankind's worst brutality taking place on that continent. he knew that such a cure would never be born with a fire raging at its heart. all this happened in the last 15 years. it is easy to forget how bold that thinking really was. there are many steps along that road. nothing was preordained. especially not the peace agreement that we revisit today. the president also had a vision for u.s. leadership in the world. his belief in the power of our common humanity and america's unique potential as an active force for peace. it drove the administration's
effort from the balkans to the middle east to northern ireland, mayor eritrea, to ethiopia, burundi and ecuador, to south ecuador and south asia. in his post-presidency, he continues to champion a world where interdependence works to everyone's advantage and those who are blessed with the benefits of today do more to spread the benefits and strengthen the burdens. the success of our work is measured by a single question -- are we better off now than when we started? 15 years after dayton, we know the answer in bosnia to the question is yes. ladies and gentlemen, i am honored to introduce william jefferson clinton [applause] sahar>> thank you very much.
please be seated. thank you very much. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. thank you and thank you sandy for the introduction. i would like to thank a number of people. first, i would like to thank the leaders from the region who have come here who will be represented on the second panel and whom i will introduce later. i want to thank all those here who served in the administration during those early turbulent days, some of whom will be on the panel shortly. i would like to thank warren christopher and tony lake to play pivotal roles in the resolution of the bosnian crisis who could not be here today. i want to acknowledge those who are not here when we missed. first, dck holbrooke look
forward to dominating this whole session today. [laughter] the three bay -- great public servants we lost in 1995. ron brown, chuck meisner and all the people at the commerce department who were lost on the plane in croatia and their families are here. i hope what we do today is a reminder of what could not have been done than without their loved ones. there are a lot of people for all the fits and starts of that policy who are alive today because of their service. i am profoundly grateful. i would like to thank john sexton, the president of nyu and all the people here for hosting us again. i would like to welcome the
students who are here. many of them may be too young to remember what happened after the breakup of the former soviet union. there are conflicts between the serbs and the bosnian muslims and the serbs and croatians and the conflict in bosnia and croatia. then, there was killing in bosnia. that dominated the news as much as the demonstrations in cairo and other cities in egypt today. before i introduce the panel, i would like to put into context what all this means. and go just a little beyond what the film did. many people seem to think that the 1990's after the cold war and before 9/11 were peaceful,
uneventful interludes between the cold war and the the dawn of the struggle against terrorism. i think those of us who were there would beg to differ. first, in bosnia alone, it understates the sheer scale of the destruction and the killing. in a small nation, 250,000 people were killed and more than 2 million people became refugees. secondly, the date in the accords -- the dayton accords and the nato resolve to act the way we did was really the first test of what the world would do
to order its self in the aftermath of the cold war. the cold war dominated the organization of america's foreign policy until about two years before i was inaugurated. the struggle between the united states and the soviet union created a whole architecture of diplomacy, military support, intervention or lack there of, around the world. during both republican and democratic administrations our policy was driven by what was generally called containment. containment to me meant two things. first of all, that we would try to contain the spread of communism to the conference which existed at the time any given president took office. secondly, we would try to
contain the dimensions of the conflict so that the two nuclear superpowers did not ever use nuclear weapons. it was a useful and often productive construct and we did not have another nuclear war. i have often said only half in jest that on the nuclear issues, it may be that each country's spies or the other is best public servants. they did their jobs well enough that we knew enough to avoid the war. on the ground when it came to geographical containment, it often lead to contortions of our values. when everything got pushed through a narrow funnel in terms
of whether this or that or the other conflict would or would not advance the interests of the soviet union. it led the united states into supporting extremely repressive regimes in central america and into the iran-contra problem. it caused us to see the vietnam war through the blunders of the cold war struggle to much early on. there were all kinds of other issues which we are not here to discuss today. after it was over, there was a big issue. how would the world organizes itself now that it was no longer bipolar? what role with the united states play? how we manage the outbreak of racial and religious conflicts most vividly represented by
bosnia. ? how were we going to relate to russia? the russians had political, cultural, and historic ties to the serbs. is there any way they could be involved in the resolution of the problem in bosnia and later in close above. kosovo? it was the worst killing since world war two which took place on the european continent. what about nato? could they have a non-cold war mission and should have more members? how should the united states view its interests here? secretary jim baker who i admire very much once famously said when referring to the balkans, he said the europeans should have let, it is their problem
and we don't have a dog in that hunt. how should we view africa? how should we view latin america now that we no longer were twisted and contorted by the cold war into supporting repressive regimes in central america? all of these things had to be worked out and work through. you could have all the theories in the world but there had to be a specific example that informed us about what we could and could not do. in the balkans and in bosnia- herzegovina particularly, there was an enormous humanitarian issue at stake and one that was hard to escape. when we see twitter and facebook and youtube and 24-hour
cnn coverage of what is happening in egypt, it is hard to remember that the balkans may be the first conflict that was a long way away in a small place where we actually knew what the heck was going on all the time. we did not have anything like the level of interactive communication and instantaneous information then then we have now. when i took the oath of office, there were only 50 sites on the entire internet and the average cell phone weighed 5 pounds. [laughter] that is embarrassing every time i say that. it makes me feel agent. ncient. the things we take for granted now, it was a new thing in the balkans. it meant that deniability was not an option.
for the -- for the united states or other great powers. it is important to keep that in mind. i thought we did have a dog in the hunt. i thought in the aftermath of the cold war, the united states had to redefine its relationship with europe and with nato and that all of -- and that would lead to a great burst of enlightened democracy, freedom, prosperity, and security would have looked like a fraud it the rest of the world did nothing to help there. on its own merits, i thought because we knew, we had an obligation to try to reduce the slaughter, reduce the flow of people thrown out of their homelands, restore decent
conditions and recreate the possibility that europe could find its way to a prosperous, secure, democratic entity. as you saw from the film, there were many people who disagreed with me on both sides of the aisle. there were many people that thought that by doing this, getting involved, the united states was blowing a chance to claim the so-called long awaited peace dividends. they thought if we could get past this conflict with the russians, we could dramatically reduce our defense expenditures and invest in long delayed infrastructure and other needs at home and deal with the problems of our cities and minorities and improve the performance of our schools. getting involved here was the beginning o a slippery slope. that was giving in to the
imperatives of a military industrial complex. there were people who thought would be another vietnam. there were many people who believed that this whole thing was a fool's errand and that in general, it was foolish for us to be involved. you saw the film said 70% of the people were against us sending troops there even after the whole peace accord was completed, after dayton was signed, the opposition was 58% i tried to put together an aid package for russia because they could not afford to bring their soldiers home from the baltic states. 74% of the american people were against that an 81% were against aid to mexico. they voted against our aggressive early involvement in kosovo after we had gone through the agony of bosnia. this was a tumultuous and
contentious time. there's a lesson in all that. for the politicians. people higher presidents to win for america. in foreign policy, you have to put you oar in the water for what you believe is in the best interest in the country and our values for the world and if you are right, it will come out all right. if you are not, it doesn't matter what you did on day one was popular. people fall i lost my mind helping mexico. two years from now, when we have another million or two of illegal immigrants and drugs are flowing across the border and people ask why did that? i had to make a decision.
i say that as a cautionary reminder especially to the young people. we are dealing with a lot of conflict situations where we have limited control, but some influence, and a lot of variables. the president has to do what he thinks is right. the people fundamentally and expect us to do that. you should not ignore popular opinion, but if you know something that most people don't, and you can see around the corner, you have to do what is right for the nation and the world. the more interdependent we get, the more that becomes true. that is the context in which this occurred. i was also around the criticized by people who had more moral
consideration on their side for not doing this sooner than i did. warren christopher went to europe early in 1993 and tried to build support from the europeans to be more aggressive. i kept working at this because the objective was both to stop the killing in bosnia and give them a chance to make it and to maximize the chances of a united democratic europe. i did not believe we could do that if america acted unilaterally. so you understand and i am not criticizing other people, there were many people who hit me day in and day out because they said that the longer you take to act, the more people will die. more people will become
refugees. i felt the only way that peace could and/endure is if we couldo it with europe and our nato allies with the support of the united nations. it is important to put that out that we were getting it from both sides. i asked you to think about that as i bring on the first panel. the panelists are secretary of state madeleine albright and then the ambassador to the united nations and was always an aggressive supporter of american intervention in the balkans. general wes clark who were many hats and later became the supreme allied commander of nato but at this time was our principal military negotiator in the peace process with richard
holbrooke and was on the road that day when we lost those three find people and was indispensable to this work. ambassador peter galbraith was ambassador to croatia in 1993, mediated the agreement in 1995 that ended the conflict in croatia and helped and the muslim-croatian conflict within bosnia-hercegovina. he has gone on to oversee elections in iraq. i encourage peter to say this. he was also at the center of a big controversy about what would happen while the conflict was still raging before we could get the international community involved in terms of whether the
croatians and of bosnian muslims would be wiped out in bosnia because there was an international arms embargo which seemed to make sense. that was to minimize conflicts. it was a fraud because the bosnian serbs were being supplied by serbia which had its own weapons manufacturing capacity and the arms embargo operated only in effect against one side. the europeans were unwilling to lift the arms embargo so it looks like we were supporting an arms race and even greater carnage. we did not want people -- we did not want the battlefield to predetermine the outcome of negotiations. as you will hear i'm sure today, some reversals on the battlefield led to a balancing of interests which but the peace agreement possible. peter goldberg was at the center
of that which included $1 million congressional investigation as to whether we had done the right thing by not vigorously enforcing the arms embargo enough. that is a euphemistic description of what we did. [laughter] i thank them all. i would like to thank ron brownstein, the columnist for times."angeles " he was involved when we began to raise these issues. he had a willingness to come here and moderate a panel. let's welcome the panel and get on with the proceedings. [applause] with it this evening. [applause]
>> mr. >> good morning. the president has introduced our distinguished panel. let me start with an issue that president clinton raised read the title of our panel is the dayton accords. they are not the beginning of the story in bosnia. during the last two years of the george h. w. bush administration and the first two years of president clinton's administration, there was a great deal of uncertainty about how to proceed. richard holbrooke wrote on the first pitch of his memoir about dayrton, the international response to this catastrophe was uncertain. why did it take so long for the u.s. and europe together to intervene? secretary? >> first of all, let me say that
from listening to president clinton, you all know how fabulous it was to work for him. it was every day exciting and you could see how his mind worked and how dedicated he was to what he was doing. it was an honor and pleasure to be able to work with you, mr. president. i think the hard part has to do with the fact that, as he said, we were so focused on the cold war fighting the soviet union. the other part is that there had been the gulf war. there had been a war. had won it apparently at the time in a way that tired of people out. at the same time, there were many other things going on. one of the hard part when you look back at history is that you forget a lot of the context. we had a humanitarian relief operation in somalia. there began to be the refugees
coming out of haiti and something was happening all the time. as the president said, people were ready for a peace dividend. they did not want to get involved and we had spent 50 years looking at the world for the soviet prism. i was not born in the united states. i was born in czechoslovakia and for me, munich was a central part. people ask why we should do something about a country we cannot -- we cannot pronounced? the same issue was going on in the balkans that was described as a bunch of tribes that had never gotten along. people did not know why they should do this. i think the president had talked about if the economy is stupid. there were all kinds of other issues. it was hard to motivate people you have to understand the context of so many other things going on at the same time. >> peter, your perspective on
the initial years and what inhibited action? >> it is striking and president clinton discussed the criticism which i heard every day. why aren't you doing more? you're the one country that is in a position to do this? frankly, at the beginning, there was disappointed with president clinton who had in the campaign indicated he would do something. the situation had become more complex than when he spoke in august of 1992 about lift and strike. that is because the war had broken out in bosnia between the croatian forces in bosnia and the muslim forces, the government. as long as that war continued, there was no practical way for assistance to get through to the bosnian government. when i arrived, i was one of president clinton's first appointees to arrive on the scene, my job was to try to
minimize violence between the two and stop the atrocities against prisoners, get humanitarian supplies. i sent a cable the first week which -- in which i included a joke describing the situation in sarajevo the jet that was going around sarajevo was the serbs had cut off gas. that meant there was no water or wait to boil the water on the ground. there was a cholera epidemic. the joke was grim. what is the difference between sarajevo and auschwitz? at least an auschwitz they had gas. that was tasteless. it went to the president and he is to an ultimatum in july of 1993 to the serbs to turn back on the gas and that humanitarian crisis was defused. the next step was to end the war between the moslems and the croats.
we succeeded doing that in negotiations that took place in croatia. there was pressure on the president of croatia. he was persuaded to change course. we got the alliance between the two and the washington agreement that was signed in president clinton's presence in march of 1994 and then came a critical decision which president clinton discussed. the president of croatia came to me and said the bosnian government, the president has asked what the u.s. attitude was if we permit arms to transit our territory to go to the bosnian government? some of them were coming from iran but that -- but most of them are coming from the black market, from russia, interestingly. president clinton took the decision which i thought was the right one.
i told him that we don't object. he actually had hoped for the opposite decision. he did not really like the end of the muslim-croat war. the arms began to flow. the president of bombay -- bosnia's about was the single most important thing that led to peace because it reversed a situation in which the serbs have all the arms and were in danger of being exterminated. if the battlefield changed. it was a very significant set of steps. the washington agreement, this decision, that led to dayton. it did not happen all the sudden in 1995. >> what about the american military? was the military primarily skeptical of greater involvement? were there key decision makers that could play a useful role to bring this to a close?
>> i just want to say what a pleasure it is for me to be here with madeline and sandy berger and peter galbraith and especially with president clinton. when i think back on those years, there was unified leadership in the united states government. there was a man in charge who had vision and courage and he took as to where we need to go. the military was not really part of that vision. colin powell explained it when he was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and his attitude came down as him going to the meetings and i say to tell me what you want to do and i will tell you what it takes but will not help you do the policy. the military was in a reactive mode i got there in the spring of 1994 and every weekend there was a crisis. it was north korea, it was haiti, it was a shootdown of aircraft in bosnia. i had no idea.
from the outside, you could not see this. inside the military institution, we were recovering from the war in iraq. we were digesting the lessons learned and we have precision strikes and high-technology. if you could see the ground, you could control it. we are also wrestling with the bad memories of vietnam. there were two bed memories in particular that stock. one was the so-called weinberger doctrine which general powell put up in the 1980's which says you have to have decisive force. we call the overwhelming force at first and that was too much and it became decisive. we had a tendency to worse case what the opposition would be. people would say it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to solve this problem and we cannot afford it so let's stay out of it. there was also a sense that maybe there was an idealistic strain in the american political scene but when the going got
tough and you started to take casualties, the idealists would not be with you and the military would be blamed. we want to be very cautious about getting committed. that was the military posture. >> you are describing a posture that is not as reactive as resistant. >> : palle and i are very close friends. -- colin powell and i are very close friends. he was on the ground and people kept asking him what is going on. i was at the u.n. and i was known as a multilateral madeleine. [laughter] every day, people were asking why i was not doing something. i actually saw a different diplomats than any other american diplomats. i would come to meetings and talk about this. it was the end of the gulf war
and colin powell would come to our meetings. he is big and handsome and has lots of medals, the hero of the western world and i was a mere mortal female civilian arguing with him about the use of force. i said you have to do something. we would have these arguments and he is a brilliant briefer. he would take is up a hill and we would be able to take it but it would take a zillion troops and a zillion dollars. and what would i say to the sergeants mother when he stepped on a land mine. i ask what he was saving the soldiers for. he got there is any wrote about in his book. i practically gave him an aneurysm from this and he basically had to explain. his book came out and we want. i called him up. he said i did not understand anything. he sent me his book and he inscribed it and he signed it
patiently, colin. i sent it back and i send it back as forcefully, madeleine. [laughter] >> the initial sense in both administrations was that the europeans should take the lead on the problem. warren christopher who was the secretary of state win over in the spring for an unsatisfactory series of meetings and left without a clear direction or plan. it seemed in those first months the administration was struggling with what was the right balance in the post cold war period between consulting with allies and leading allies. >> we wanted to greet a europe that was free. the first president bush was working on that and we thought the europeans were ready to take
some responsibility. they're doing well economically. nato was functioning. i think we had a sense this was at the heart of europe and why couldn't they do something about it. it was very frustrating. at the u.n., it was very frustrating because the europeans there -- i would go to a european ambassador and asked for his help and he would say he could not help because the eu does not have a composition. two days later i would go to the same person and ask for help and he said the eu does have a common position. the, as the president made about jim baker -- the comments that the president made about jim baker is that they thought they could handle it. it was very hard. we learned that we needed to know what we wanted to do before we went to consult you needed to figure out how the system worked. what i think is interesting about all this is that the
president talked about this. this was a perry of institution building. i love being ambassador to the u.n. because what we thought was that the u.n. really could function in a way that had not been able to during the cold war because it was paralyzed. by the veto. peacekeeping operations could in fact supplement or takeover at the beginning on a military activity. it was a very exciting period in terms of looking at institution building that we publish the beginning of the 21st century. president clinton kept bulb -- building bridges to the 21st century. this was one of the aspects that we were looking at. it was very, very deliberate to expand nato and deliver it to use alliance structures and you end to be able to deal with the post-cold war problem. >> peter, the idea of your taking the lead on this, did
that seem to you plausible or were you dubious? >> there was a huge failure of institutions. richard holbrooke who's white is here and i would like to say hello to hear, he described as as the greatest failure of collective security since the second world war. that was in the sense that the idea of the un was really a collective security treaty. if there was a country who was an aggressor, we gang up on the aggressor and presumably the aggression is deterred. it had worked against iraq when they invaded kuwait. it was failing here. the europeans had said initially in 1991 when the war broke out in croatia -- the president of croatia is here -- 15,000 people died in that war.
that was your second deadliest war since the second world war. the europeans said we will handle it. then they sent a troika, that was the leadership of the european union that consent -- consisted of luxembourg, portugal, and the netherlands in an environment where military power counted. that was not a very impressive representation of your. i don't mean to fault the individuals. that is how the european system worked at that time by 1993, people in the region had given up. what gave the u.s. some much power was the first that the impression that had been left from our spectacular military success in a gulf war i, the sense that we were in vincible. we had all this military technology and it is great until you use it.
in those days, it looks terrific second, we were the last resort. when i would carry out my diplomatic assignments, i felt like the voice of god. people would never say no that we won't do it. the president of croatia said we are exactly right and they will try to do better. when i would come back nothing had happened. they said they did their best but could not get it done we had enormous influence in this particular situation. that may well be unique. >> >> when we take a stronger leadership role and using all the tools of diplomacy, what is the reaction of the europeans and the russians as we move from
a consultation of saying this is what we want? how do they react? >> first of all, the president had a very good relationship with the president, setting the basis for everything. there were different strains in the russian government that we came across. we had the russian ambassador to the contact group which was a foreign minister. igor was a wonderful guy. i used to swim with him every morning. he spoke a little bit of english and spoke a little bit of russia and. he would be passed -- richard holbrooke would pass and the memos and say take a look at this. don't you like this? we think he understood it. he would not be able to object. they were very cynical of what we were doing but also knew it
propose. my russian counterpart came up to me and said, you americans, we know what you are doing. you say you are going into bosnia, and that is our part of europe. you say you will be gone in the year. "we are russians. we know better." do not worry. we would do the same thing in your position. they viewed it as part of the geostrategic chess going on. we had guys there were very western-oriented who try to make the relationship work and deepened. we brought the russians on
board. >> the journalist in the wishes i could bring the former president back up on stage because it goes to the interesting point of consultation versus direction. do you view the decisions of 1995, of the bombing, the concentrated diplomacy, as a change in president clinton's and the people's view of whether it was a turning point on the way toward europe terminology later in the decade? >> he was the first one to say it. the bottom line here is that i believed it was an evolution. and i remember when i got interviewed for my job at the u.s. and president clinton made it very clear that he saw american
leadership within a setting where we work with other countries. and that was the force multiplier. so i think it was an evolution. there was a way of figuring out that if the europeans and the others were kind of being dilly dallying, we did in fact have to take the leadership role. it was a very interesting way to think about how things should be done. the truth is, the first president bush did a good job in building a coalition on iraq. that was a good model. then what president clinton did was take it to the next level. we did know why it -- we did know when we wanted to do something and how we wanted to do it. we used every tool in the
national security toolbox. multilateral diplomacy, bilateral diplomacy, we used the law, law enforcement, these people were ultimately indicted. we used sanctions. we used the threat of military force and we used military force and we used richard holbrooke. i think that this was really an amazing way of using a set of tools and that one has and conducting but mainly we had a president that directed it and believed it and understood the role that the united states had to take. >> peter, did the way that the administration approach this problem represent a change from when they first came in? >> it was an evolution. i think it is important that we
have a proper appreciation of the historical record. the bombings was a croatian and military offensive that took place in august. and that involved -- this was the way the world is, some pretty tough moral choices. the croatians -- there was an enclave in bosnia with about 160,000 people. in november 1994, the serbs surrounded it completely. the serbs were squeezing it. add that time, the croatians indicated they might launch an offensive to liberate it. the instructions i got were very strong. no, we do not want a wider war. there was a danger that the same
thing would happen -- the same question from the croatians. our concern was that instead of 7000, we might see 40,000 men and boys murdered. we also knew that given the nationalist behavior, there would be consequences for the population in the serb-held areas. it was a tough choice. we made the choice. we gave the croatians -a no- light, which they interpreted as a green light. the plan was based on a 51% for the federation, 49% for the serbs. when the serbs had 75%, they had no interest. the nato bombing help but it was a series of steps that led to that. >> obviously, bosnia is a
turning point when using the word evolution. we see it moving in other directions after that -- cosimo, afghanistan. talk about bosnia and its impact on nato and the way it operated. >> nato had already done some missions in the bosnia area so we had two exercises, an air exercise and a sea-born exercise. britain and france both had their forces under u.n. command in bosnia. in the summer of 1995 after a failed bosnian offensive to break out of sarajevo, and the breakout of serbs, the new french president decided he would reinforce and the british went along with it so they put some artillery there.
the previous idea on peacekeeping missions -- these are forces that are not military forces. they are there to provide assurance. with the presence of artillery, suddenly became more muscular. this was the beginning of talking about the real and nato will because if you are going to talk about real forces, you need real command and control, a real logistics', real reconnaissance and intelligence. so, then in the summer of 1995 after a massacre, everybody got very serious when negotiations started. we begin to deal with nato as the alliance and started to talk about a prospective role in the occupation and. >> to talk about the period -- you talk about the period after the agreement. yet it has entered probably more
than many people expected at the time. what allowed this to take? >> i think that the people wanted to have peace. at the killing was very dreadful. -- the killing was very dreadful. i think they were ready. but, there was international support for it. it was rocky. the europeans took part. the un took part. but it was not simple. it continues not to be simple. in 1997 when i became secretary of state, we were trying to work out a way that out of bosnia there could be a way out through a bridge. i asked his permission to get this bridge opened so that the bosnia would not be totally landlocked. there was going to be a big ceremony. according to the dayton accord,
there were three prime ministers. this is a true story. we get there and one of my press assistants wanted a picture of us on the bridge. there were a lot of suits around. no one had on name tags. she said would everybody who is the prime minister raise their hand. it was an example of the problem. how in fact you could get this complicated system to work -- it is still an issue. i hope our next panel talks about it. what it showed to me is that you can not check off a problem as done. it has to be managed. the international community needs to continue to be a part of this. what we learned in bosnia we took to cosa vote. we are trying to bring serbia and this whole region to go back to this our original idea of a
europe that is whole and free. >> i think i would like to say something about what it was that was accomplished. first, very much in human terms. and i saw this almost every day. there was the frontline 40 kilometers away and there were refugees living in houses with babies dying because of the absence of medical care between the contested sides. never mind the massacres that occurred from time to time. at that ended it. -- that ended it. it was not a sure thing that dayton was going to be successful. i wish richard holbrooke was here on the panel because he really had a huge amount with
the accomplishment along with the support from president clinton and others who were involved and his team. let's consider what the alternative might be. we might be discussing here in 2011 year 20 of the bosnia- croatia and wars. croatia could be an area where serbs occupy a part of the country in constant turmoil. the impact that that might have had on europe. it was profoundly demoralizing to europe. never mind the presence of the refugees. frankly, the un mission, while a cap people alive, it was a failure. there was a lot that resulted from this success.
while the constitution of bosnia of the unified state -- it is far from perfect. these days, you hear a lot of criticisms of dayton accords. at dayton, we were not seeking to create the perfect country. we were seeking to end the war. and we did. nobody has died in hostile action since 1995. in 16 years, that is a remarkable achievement. >> i want to ask two questions. let me start with you, madam secretary. this was a case where we use all of the tools in our toolbox. military force, diplomatic pressure, consensus building. obviously, the circumstances are very different today. is there anything from that model that can apply to the challenges we face in
afghanistan, pakistan, and with the unrest in the arab world? >> i do think that, first of all, i have said that there are not a lot of tools in that toolbox. here we are the most powerful country in the world and there are not a lot of tools. what i think we have learned is to try to use them to get there. what is interesting, they took the lessons of the balkans to some extent into afghanistan to talk about what they call a comprehensive approach where you do the military and civilian activities together. where you learn lessons that you cannot solve all the problems militarily. you have to have a civilian component in terms of reconstruction in the political work, in terms of getting the population to understand what is going on. also, to have alliances work.
i think that is one of the ways that the lessons can be learned about how you use which institution. you need to mix and match with these tools. i think that is what is going on. it is not easy. how to keep the american system together in terms of getting the bureaucracy to agree on something. we had some internal issues. i think you have to move the process forward. it is internal with the u.s. if it has to be done in a way where you know what you want -- it has to be done in a way that you know what you want. sometimes, it goes down better. >> general? >> i think you have to have the right conditions on the ground. that is one of the most important lessons from dayton. not only did we use all the
tools in the toolbox, but we consulted with allies and friends in the region, and we set the conditions. i want to go back to what richard holbrooke did. richard called and i do not know whether it came from him or washington, but we've marched in on a sunday morning. -- week marched in on this in the morning. we said it stopped. we are about to -- they are in complete disarray. they are shooting deserters in the streets. milosevich has sent a new general to take charge. this is the opportunity. you want us to stop. they said stop. and they stopped. after that, it never got going again. and that was the 51-49 boundary.
the serbs did not know it could not get going again. richard saw that and got the conditions on the ground set. you have to have the right personality. you have to have the ability to put all the pieces together. richard holbrooke was the right personality and he did it at dayton with a lot of help from a lot of people but it was solely his responsibility to make it happen inside dayton. there was a lot of us who saw pieces and bits of it. i cannot begin to tell you about all of the pieces of it. he did everything in the world to bring those people to get there. he finally got the president to keep in session at the end. so, even when you use all the tools and when you set the conditions right on the ground and even when you have done all the rest, there is a certain amount of pressure that has to occur to bring it to a close.
>> peter, you have been close to the bosnian challenge. what your thoughts about anything that can be taught? >> let me turn to that. i would like to add something to that story. i listened to the tape of the meeting that dick and i had it. we met with him alone. one of four trials that i testified at. it was not quite as unambiguous as that. what was extraordinary was the fact that at the outcome of this were these trials. when in these tribunals were set up, every journalist said to me this is a cynical exercise because you are not prepared to do something. yet, all but two of the people that the been indicted have gone are dead or died from the
process. i have to tell you as a diplomat there is nothing that is given me more pleasure than testifying at this trials. normally, what you do is take a lot of abuse from terrible people. some of these where terrible people. in the end, all you can do is write your memoirs that nobody is going to read. i got to put people in jail. the second point i would make about your question -- what are the lessons? i think one big lesson i would say is don't try to apply to many lessons. what came out of bosnia was the sense that the elections were held too soon to. that lesson was then applied to iraq where we had a prolonged occupation which was
a disaster. from my experience, i cannot see anything that is applicable to bosnia except this point. we had partners in bosnia. that is the key to success pri in afghanistan, we do not have a partner -- that is the key to success. in afghanistan, we do not have a partner. >> it was not exactly -- even though the president talked about internet and cell phone, it was not exactly that long ago, but it was a different world in the sense that people talk about the 1990's and the early part of the 21st century as a moment with the u.s. is unchallenged from any other nation for world supremacy. is the model that we pursue our goals in the world then still applicable to today where we are talking about a much greater diffusion of power?
is it the vision of the u.s. as the strongest nation still the way we should be leading the world today? >> first of all, you have to remember there is nothing about the definition of indispensable that says alone. you have to be a part of it, and engaged. the american people needed to understand the things that happened in some faraway place actually affected us at home, and our engagement was something that was very important. i think that continues to today. it has to be done within a structure that is perspectives of other countries. americans do not like the word multilateralism. there are too many syllables and it ends in an "ism." [laughter] i do not think we are the most powerful country in the world. we have a little bit of a
screwed up economic situation at the moment. we need to do it in combination with other countries. that is the model that i think comes out at the end of the 21st century. >> we ultimately have to have a clear direction -- >> i think one of the issues in bosnia is what is national interest. there are a lot of ways to define it. i do believe that american values in terms of not allowing people to be massacred is a part of our national interest. everybody defines it a little bit differently. it takes that leadership to explain it. why would you want to put people in harm's way? you can either explain it because it does not affect us physically or it does not affect our moral values. >> is the way we exert
leadership in the world today -- should it be different than it was at the point of dayton and bosnia? >> is going to be different because the power relationships are different. i think america is still the greatest power, still has the greatest values, still has the greatest credibility. week delivered and we are still the indispensable -- we still delivered and we are still the indispensable nation. we have to find ways to engage them with us and get their contributions. >> peter, you have been up close with our latest setbacks. what your thoughts about the nature of our leadership today? >> i think that the dayton period and the leadership of president clinton was unique. inevitably, america's ambition
in the world was going to decline. i think the previous administration accelerated debt declined with some very poor choices in terms of places that it pursued issues it. i think one of the other lessons of bosnia and the wars in the balkans is just how interconnected we are as people on this planet. there was a hope on the part of policy makers, the first bush administration that did not want another foreign policy venture during an election year, they were in trouble. that we could set this aside. i thought she and dick might share the nobel peace prize because she really exemplified a press and that put what was happening in bosnia in our
faces. we saw that the people who were being shot at by snipers were not some faceless people. they work women in high heels, children who looked a lot like us. i think that is very important. we live in a world where we have this immediacy with what is going on in egypt. i think that is another one of the big lessons of bosnia. >> it is really a milestone in recognizing -- >> yes. >> i think i can speak for everyone in the audience this has been an incredible torque of the issues. join me in thanking this terrific panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> over at the white house at this hour, president obama is meeting with democratic governors. martin o'malley and a number of other democratic governors. we will hear more from the president's spokesman at 2:00 p.m. eastern. that news conference will be on c-span2. on c-span3, the state department briefing. they said today a ferry carrying more than 300 individuals, many americans, has safely left libya. the democratic governors' meeting today -- they will have a couple of discussions this afternoon focusing on jobs and state competitiveness. we will have live coverage of that coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. also on afghanistan, the u.s. is pulling back in the central -- in a central valley. we will hear from the afghan
defense minister at noon on c- span2. a couple of updates to report to you. the evacuation of americans -- the state department also reports they have chartered a plane out of there. french president nicolas sarkozy asking for muammar gaddafi to step down. a number of meetings all over the world in fact. nato meeting today as well. we will update you with any news as it is made available. >> this weekend, governors will talk about how to grow their states' economies, education, and cyber security as they gather in washington for the national governors' association. we will have live coverage throughout the weekend on c- span. was a sightstro
founded and recently held a conference on digital privacy. you will hear from some of those in the field about personal data. this is an hour. >> good morning everyone. thank you for coming to today's forum. this is the first time we have had this. we have an exciting list of speakers. the reason why the lights are so bright is because we do have c- span here in the back, giving you an indication of how cutting edge you are to be here today. i am going to be your mc today. i am going to make sure you do get questions and answers after each speaker, provided they do
not run for too long. by and a tv reporter by trade, but i also do private media training and i also do a workshop at media at the stroke. i also host corporate web sites. first, i want to do a couple of housekeeping notes. does everybody have why fight? -- wi-fi? i think we have a slide for that that we can show you. and the first coffee break is at 10:15. you will get a chance to speak to some of the speakers. at 12:30, there will be a boxed lunch across the hallway. the bathrooms are a bit tricky to find it.
if you go out here, you take a right and then you have to go across and upstairs. plan for about a good five minutes to visit the restroom. also, i wanted to mention the way we have a program, there has been a change. in the morning, which will be laying the groundwork. in the afternoon, we will be looking at the business challenges and opportunities for people. i want to point out to you right after alexander from the gild group, we are going to have a media guru talking about the benefits of publicness. we are not sure if that is a word yet but we will make it one by the end of the day. i want to take informal poll of who you are. how many of you are in advertising or marketing? ok. how many of you are in charge of
i would like to start this morning by telling a story about an artist i saw speak. it just so happened he moved out of a storage facility in florida in 2001 and left on an extended trip across the planet. he showed his work. when he came back into the country through detroit, he was stopped at the immigration desk and asked if he would go -- he was told to go down to an interrogation room. he discovered very quickly that the fbi wanted to question him about the contents of his locker because the people that
owned the storage facility claimed he stored explosives in his locker and because he looked arab they suspected he looked like a terrorist. he went into survival mode and told them as much as he could. he explained his history, where he traveled, answered all the questions. but the fbi was not completely satisfied. they kept reminding him along the way that they could throw him into guantanamo bay if he did not cooperate. eventually, they let him go and when they did they said they were going to keep track of him and he should be aware that he was on the watch list. he decided he was going to do something about it because he cannot imagine going back to the life that he had before this happened.
so, he invented a little ankle bracelet that would identify where his location is all the time and post it on a google map. every meal, every booking, every phone conversation, every single step of his life, he photographed and recorded, and then he sent it to the fbi. he did this for about six months. he inundated them with more and more photographs, more and more information about where he was going and who he was speaking with, all of his recordings of his phone calls. eventually after six months, the fbi said "stop." he realized something that was very important and he saved himself because what he did was in the market where information is a currency, he flooded the market and devalued the
currency. i am not a privacy expert. i was interested in speaking here because at the same time the invitation came, the wikileaks sawgrass started to unfold. i am sure all the view -- the wikileaks saga started to unfold. what strikes me as interesting is the recent decision by twitter when asked for -- when the government asked them for information about the wikileaks account decided to fight the secrecy order and succeeded and informed the owners of that account that they were being investigated, so the owners of that account could take steps to fight the subpoena. until i heard that story, i did not really think about twitter's behavior different then google's
behavior? i started doing some more research on the subject and started asking myself some questions. some of the questions are questions i would like to ask you. how many of you have read an entire terms of service from beginning to end? do you do it each time you sign up for a new service? not a single hand raised. ok. how many times have you seen lines at a toll station at the lincoln tunnel or the george washington bridge and you see people going through the e- zpass and you see some cars and pay in cash? you wonder why are people not signing up for e-zpass. they are not destitute. i heard an interview with a number of people who said we do not want the government to track
us. they are sitting in their cars on their cell phones -- [laughter] and they take a picture of their license plates when they go through the toll plazas. many of you might not know this. if you use google books, it keeps track of your ip address for the entire time you are logged into gmail and it keeps track of the pages you have read it. the amazon kindle does this as well. those companies do not inform you if law enforcement context them and asks them for that information. facebook constantly changes its privacy policies. can anyone here recite facebook's privacy policies? every time we connect with facebook connect, we do so
because of convenience but we do not realize what we are giving up in the process. recently, the supreme court ruled 5-2 that the police can search for phone if they stop you and find it on your person. without warrant and without cause. if they rifle through your e- mails, your tweets, your photographs, they are likely to find some form of illegal behavior. i never thought i was actually -- i have always heard this thought that you are always doing something a little while driving in new york. i did not realize how much i was doing something illegal until i was an accident years ago because i was loading a car on the street side of the car after
doing some shopping and a car sideswiped my door and took my car door off. i thought this was an open and shut case. i was parked critic. there is a law that you are not allowed to load the car from the street side. you should think twice about what you have on your iphone or your black. when you are traveling anywhere. if you keep it in a concealed bag, the police need a warrant to search it. if you keep it in creek did, if you keep the password on it, they are not protected by the fourth amendment to search you. you are protected from the first amendment and you are not required to give them your pass code. most people do not even think about these issues and do not really think about the impact of their lives as they clicked and
link for convenience. another important aspect of this is remarketing. how many times have you been on the website and went off of the website and there pops up that pair of shoes staring you in the face again chasing after you? there is a number of companies that are doing massive amounts of data collection. they are repackaging that data and selling it in the hopes of generating huge amounts of profit and creating convenient for you in for their customers. personally identifiable information being stripped is a fallacy. i would highly recommend that you look up the university college repressor by the name of paul ohm who wrote the piece about the database of ruin,
where he points out that even though 87% of americans do not have the same zip code, birthday, and sex, if you then add information about how they are rated movies or what movies they raided on netflix, 80% of the time the individual can be identified. the more databases are marked, the more rhee identification is possible. the more databases emerge, the stronger they become. more matches provide more clues to identity. regulation can protect privacy only at a great cost. because utility and privacy of data are intrinsic connected. no regulation can increase data privacy without also decrease in data utility. as the utility of increases,
privacy decreases. to increase privacy means a reduction in value such as inundation, free speech, and security. privacy and security are two completely different things. sometimes, all of this data can be used for good. google does searches now, allowing people to sense when flu epidemics might be starting. we all love the convenience of having our basic information available when we visit a web site. every time we do, we get something -- we give something up. and like to digress and talk about wikileaks for a moment. how many of you know who bred lead manning is? he is the gentle man charged with the crime of leaking the
250,000 cables to wikileaks and also a previous video of two reuters reporters being killed by helicopter gunship that was shown on abc television. what many people do not know is that the reason why bradley's manning did that act was that he was charged with reviewing the security of individuals who were arrested in iraq for protesting and for trying to undermine the government of iraq. and as he was reviewing their final, the 16 or so suppose it insurgents, he realized they were asking for more government transparency on the street.
when he realized they were just read and butter for democracy and not in surgeons, he went to his superior and said these people should not be in jail. they should be out on the street promoting democracy. his boss told him to shut up and research more insurgents. he was so angry he decided he was going to take some action because he felt the system he was in was unfair. he also leaked to reuters the deal. when he saw the video that showed the reuters reporters being killed -- when he saw that video, he saw the date stamp on the video and went back and googled the date and discovered a report in the n.y. times that two reporters were killed in a fire fight in iraq. he realized that, with a second,
it was not a fire fight. it was people walking on the street and a helicopter gunship pilot demanding permission to fire on what was an ambiguous situation. the reason i tell you this story is that we cannot be thinking about whether wikileaks did the right or wrong thing. we should be thinking about whether or not the systems we have are beyond reproach and whether or not we have systems of accountability to make sure there is fairness applied wherever possible. it is a broken sense of trust. so, my recommendations to all of us and to the world in relation to this issue is that we need to start looking at major changes, because the reality of is the
technology is moving so fast our laws and regulations cannot keep up with it. they need to be updated to reflect the reality of our connected network and our hand held printing press lives. it is not enough for the government to promote these tools as instruments of freedom around the world. and then be angry when those tools are being used against us by people who believe we are oppressing them. if we are going to do that, we better either make sure that we encourage the use of those schools wherever possible or that our own policies are simply beyond reproach. next, and for those who work for companies and are particularly focused on privacy issues, companies need to make their technology more transparent and consistent about what
information they are collecting about us and on the servers and giving people a direct and easy access to opt-in or opt-out. they need to develop standards for informing people of what information they will or will not share with government authorities and under which circumstances. we need to take the same steps of protecting our own information and the cloud as we would document as if we were protecting documents in our own home. finally, these companies need to take responsibility for the fact that much of the public discourse, freedom of speech, is actually happening on the networks they are profiting from. and that they should not necessarily run for the hills because some angry rhetoric is being spotted by some politicians where there is the
hinting of some criminal activity on the network. when wikileaks was seeking donations, it was still possible to make a donation for the ku klux klan. lastly, maybe the most important thing is we need to educate ourselves about what is at stake each time we buy a new ipad, sign up for another two-year contract, posted its logo on facebook, or simply drive through a toll booth, or swiped and mastercard. a we join in never ending dance of data collection without a clue of what the consequences might be. there are those who argue that all of this data will make our lives more convenient, efficient, and a safer. in a couple of cases, they actually do. we never seem to ask ourselves at what price are we going to
pay. what will we do when the machinery become so powerful we cannot stop it or step it back and undo it and get back to the personal privacy that we thought we had in a free society of yesteryear? i hope you agree with me that to ensure the future where citizens are ultimately calling the shots, we need to arm ourselves with the best, most timely and most accurate data and information we can. ironically, this is the same reason julian assange says he created wikileaks. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think we have time for a couple of questions real quick. we have to make sure you talk into the microphone or else no one will be able to hear you on
c-span. does anyone have a question? i have a question. i know you do a lot of work about the obama administration. so far, how would you give them in terms of reading them and their use of technology and in terms of transparency, how would you grade them? >> if i were to give them a great, it would be something like a c +. one of the little known facts that people do not realize when we change administrations, we actually go back eight years when we change parties because there are only nine months in a transition perio. i'm sorry, nine weeks. democrats go back to the people who had their hands on the steering wheel at eight years before it. what we really got with the obama administration was a clinton white house.
with it, we got governmental thinking that is very much 20th- century, very much top-down. even though obama was known during the campaign to have used the internet very extensively, and they produced a fantastic open government directive, getting every single agency to actually comply is very, very hard. there are those who say it costs too much and those who are just lazy because of civil service rules and regulations. so, in vision, i give them an a. >> we have time for one more question. please state your name and title of. >> i am from media bistro. i have a question, taking on the role of the devil's advocate. what do you say to people who say i have nothing to hide?
if the police confiscate my cell phone, let them have at it. how do you want people -- people who are not concerned about potential dangers? >> i think they are naive because they may not think today they are in any kind of danger but that is because they are living under the false impression that our free society will continue to protect them. and, so, there is an inherent responsibility of every citizen not just to think about what it means for themselves but what it might mean for their fellow citizens. why are we always so struck by stories of injustice being served? if we felt that way, we would not be creating a legal system to adjudicate different points of view. it seems like the notion of -- jeff is going to talk about
this. i think there are some benefits. the benefits are only there as an illusion that was built in the 20th century. if we are going to be so connected and this information is going to be used in ways we do not even know, i am not sure those people would be saying the same thing. >> we have to leave it there. thank you so, so very much. [applause] ok, we are moving on to what is called the personal data ecosystem. our next session is with one of the people behind the personal data ecosystem. she calls herself the identity woman and is kicking it old school with a presentation on paper, right?
please welcome kahlia hamlin. [applause] -- kaliya hamlin. >> ok. so, the reason for this presentation is that they said you cannot be on c-span with [unintelligible] those guys with heavy black tape up there can help us attach it to the easel. perfect. move it over a little bit. move a closer so it is in the light. there we go. perfect. thank you.
this needs to get taped because this is going to go whoop. thanks. perfect. that'll do it. >> you are going to rival this off, right? >> yeah, at the end of the day. put your fish cards -- put your business cards in the fishbowl. ok, i think we are good. thank you for inviting me here to speak today. the purpose of my talk is to explain this new future and possibility for personal data that really i have not seen explored in very many places at all.
on the one hand, you have "do not track" proposals so that end users can say do not collect any did about me. on the other hand, you have business as usual, leaving the door open for more innovative and pervasive data collection and intrusion. there is this third possibility aligned with privacy needs as well as presenting enormous business opportunity. there is the need for personal data storage services that allow individuals to collect their own personal data and manage it. give permission access to the digital footprint, to businesses and services they choose to provide better customization, more relevant search results, and real value for their data. with other industries, i have come to believe that there is more money to be made in an ecosystem that allows users to
determine which businesses have access to what it did under what terms and conditions then tour is under the current, more diffuse system. i am going to articulate the broad outlines of this ecosystem and talk about developments in the industry. for those of you might find it unusual that i have a team focus on money and business models. after all, i am known as the identity woman. after first learning about identity technology in 2003, i have been an industry catalyst for these technologies. in this role, i have convened the internet identity workshop
every six months for the last six years. this event has brought together independent developers, a major web companies, companies who felt identities solution for their employees and a range of others interested in our work. our focus is on user-centric technologies, how individuals, and users, and the citizens can be empowered with their own identity online and have it be persistent and under their control. many of you have recognized in our logo of the allusion to the famous new yorker cartoon on the internet nobody knows you are a dog. to me, our local symbolizes three human rights which we believe are worth fighting for it. the freedom to be who you want to be on-line, the right to anonymity, the right to trade information about yourself that can be found on line, the ability to express verify claims
about yourself and entered the information when you want to with people and organizations. there is a personal debt ecosystem today where everyone unknowingly participates. for the most part, they pay no attention to these rights. each of us admit information about ourselves and our activities. this information is collected by a wide range of institutions and businesses that people interact with directly. and then they are assembled by the inner brokers and subsequently sold by the data users. this chain of activities happens with almost no participation or awareness on the part of the data subject, the individual. then, this data is used and affects individuals lives. the wall street journal in a
series of articles have outlined several examples. life insurers are beginning to explore how risks can be assessed. transaction data and social networking data linked by common e-mail addresses to link, and profiles of people. some clients solicit e-mail addresses that pay for services to determine the name and demographic of the individual behind the e-mail address. this week, the washington post reported that banks are promoting advertisements in online banking because of online behavior. we can see all the money being made by buying and selling it. the community of technologists focus on identity have labored since 2000 for on technology
such as information card debt that has limited success. while i have come to realize that unless businesses see a return to over and above the cost of stopping new technologies that are aligned with end user interests, nothing will >> being cut is not sufficient to transform. it must be built into the personal data ecosystem. here, i like to highlight a key distinction that there is a fundamental difference between being watched, and being seen. and being seen is an act of mutual social recognition. i see you. if you see me. we see each other. we are seeing. being watched his unit-
directional, done without the subject when it -- subject's knowledge. beanstalk is when someone's watching activity is being aggregated -- been stock is when someone's watching activity is being abrogated. the search industry is stock in subjects, but collecting information about people without their awareness. in the "wall street journal" series, they tested the top 50 web sites and found that they installed cookies. many send information about individuals to third parties, and they have identified over 100 middlemen. in reaction to these widespread industry practices, many consumer and advocacy groups have proposed do not track
systems, and governments here, in the u.s. and europe are looking at formally regulating these industries. some are moving to limit data retention. google and itemizes that after nine months. previously it was 24 months. my contacts concur that the writing is on the new -- concur that the ready as on the a lot -- on the wall. soon, they will only be allowed to hold severely limited amounts of information about people for a short amount of time. the present model is not sustainable. not only our government will bring to regulate these activities, it is not only -- is not even the best way to get useful information about people so they can get the services that they want.
the community i am leading is approaching end user empowerment as a whole by simply asking what if individuals were given the tools to collect and manage their own personal data, there digital footprint, and whether there were tools for integrating all of these on behalf of the individual? one's call blocks, and g.o. location laws, -- geo-location logs, medical history, television viewing, and the list goes on and on. what if we give people the power to see themselves and collect this information -- information no one else can integrate?
what if they could choose to integrate all of the information they wanted for as long as they wanted? on this next graph, you see this red dot, that shows us what is happening today. data at graders, brokers, and users are collecting information. this along the bottom this time. along this access to the amount of data. this is being pushed towards the zero. the green dots shows us what would happen if people were given the capacity to store their own data -- if they could keep as much data as they wanted for as long as they wanted. digital footprints could be shared with future generations. a user-centric model will enable new class of services that are more valuable to the individual, and these would be
based on access -- data that has been accessed with permission and notice. the foundation of this ecosystem is data storage services that are totally end of the control of the individual. we can see early examples in the marketplace already. they are not big ideas. there are startups doing this already. so, -- statz is a start up the support you putting your own information together -- mobile phone records, health and fitness records, shopping, payments, and transportation -- they give you instructions on how to export your statements. this often involves dozens of steps, and is very labor- intensive. it is not easy, or something
everyone will do, but it is possible. graplin does personal clout search, so you share the information about where your linkedin, your flicker, your google, all the services you are accessing, and you use them to search your own use of cloud services. sonal.com.com -- per sun does not have all the funding yet. there are two open-source projects, higgins project and another project. there is a company called mydex in the u.k. that have launched a
community pilot where they are helping constituents share information with government. >> excuse me. you have a typo. it is s-t-a-t-z. >> here is a pen, and i will fix it for you cannot do that empower point. -- 6 its. you cannot do that on power point. with these new data sets, new opportunities emerge for data and advertising. there is one more company i wanted to talk about. it is founded by my colleague, called kynetics. bill gertz rule sets. as a rules language -- it b
uilds rule sets, that matches personal and public data together. you can imagine a location system that is linked to your birth date, and your appointment calendar. it would recommend places to stop on your route that they to go and get a president -- present for someone that as a birthday. there is a way that could make people's lives easier. it allows for marketing where people are choosing companies, businesses, and third parties that they trust. it also allows for the emergence of vendor relationship management, where individuals are specifically choosing to share future buying intent and wishes with companies they want to do business with. it is like a corollary to
customer relationship management. so, in conclusion, you can see that this model is a middle way, in between the business as usual, the better and more pervasive stalking, and do not track, where individuals are put in control. it is basically a win-win-win for everybody. regulators win because they do not have to regulate the industry the way they do now, and users win because they get the data and value-added. they do not just throw it all away. innovators building on this new tax system, there is huge opportunities, and we think more money can be made -- new adco system -- new ecosystem, there
are huge opportunities we think more money can be made down. we have a website right now that his aggregating lead industry thinkers, and a podcast, while also mapping standards in this space, and our first project is to do a value-added analysis of the current ecosystem around data, and how the new ecosystem well worth. i will invite you to participate with us in three different events. the identity collaboration day in san francisco on february 14. the 12th and the identity workshop in mountain view, california. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think we have time for one
or two questions. >> please identify yourself. >> last week there was an announcement by the commerce department about identity, and it created a hubub about whether or not this was an easier way for the government to track the spread >> the government has been embarking -- track costs. but government has been barking of a national strategy. they released a draft this summer, and have continued to a rate -- iterate -- they announced that the department of commerce would house the strategy. it is about identities. it will ask people to use those identities to log into government sites so a does not
have to issue identities to millions of people. you can use the credentials from your bank to log in to the irs and check your taxes. you do not need another bank. there is also an article i wrote that covers as more comprehensively. >> kaliya hamlin, will you be around a coffee break? >> i will be around current >> if anyone has more questions, they can find your part >> i love that identification collaboration date is on valentine's day. we will leave it there. kaliya hamlin, thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we are never doing that think again. i should explain why that happened. when we heard c-span was coming, we were thrilled. there was a game of operator
where we were told we could not have slides, but that is not true, but then the message got sue kaliya hamlin, and she created this art package -- to kaliya hamlin, and she created this art project. it is retro, but i kind of like it. we are going to have a break after our next speaker. i want to start off with privacy location and social networking. you have heard of foursquare and other software that lets people know where you are. our next speaker is the co- founder and chief scientist at zipano technologies, which is created software that can control who will find you and wind. please welcome dr. norman sadeh. thank you for coming. >> thank you. good morning, everyone. when i was told about the no slide rule, i knew i did not have the graphic skill, so i was
fortunate enough to check with c-span. lesson number one, never take no for an answer. what i would like to do today is ask the following question -- i am a technologist. i am not a lawyer. privacy is a broad space. it seems clear that the issues you are looking at are going to require coming at this from a number of different perspectives. i like to ask what technology can do in this space. within destitute, i would like to ask with you a couple of questions -- within that city to, i would like to ask a couple of questions about reconciling privacy and not working. there are extreme views on this. one view is that you cannot argue with success. look at facebook. they are going to get to 600 million users very soon if they
have not already. then, you look at -- you probably know what you think about their approach to privacy. the conclusion is perhaps nobody cares about privacy anymore. in fact, there are quotes from mark zuckerberg that indicated -- he has been on record that same giving users control is going to result in more sharing and feel a -- field -- make people feel more comfortable, therefore we care very much about privacy. obviously, you would not have seen the kinds of things we are seeing. this is the example of what something -- of something people were talking about six months ago. if you remember, if you went on google, you would say how soon,
and the first choice would be how to delete your facebook account. it is not something that is completely straightforward to do. as we know, also, the number of users continues to grow quite impressively. so, really, the question now is what is going on here? do people really care about privacy, or is it a case that perhaps we have entered a new era? as someone who also works in academia, i like to answer these questions by collecting data, and running experiments. i have been engaged in deploying a share in the applications, well before foursquare came about, trying to see if we can come up with
answers to these kinds of questions. those are what we are looking at. for those of you who are not familiar with location sharing, it is hard to put the exact numbers. it is the idea that you might want to share your location with others, your friends perforce where is popular in that it allows people to look for your locations. i have been here so many times, maybe i will get a discount. if you have a number for other locations that to different applications. latitude by google would be the same thing. you can select a few friends. looped is another player in that
space. the only way to collect data is to build your own stuff, unless -- otherwise you are basically subject to whatever policy people will decide to have. changey can't decide to its policy. we decided it would be safer to develop our own. i'm not here to promote that. here are the kinds of things we have observed. what you're seeing here, which is one reason why i insist on having slides, is you are seeing the presence of 30 different people when it comes to sharing their information with different members of the carnegie-mellon community in pittsburgh. they present the seven days of the week. the vertical axis represents a 24 hours of the day. red means do not share.
green means share. this is essentially what you're seeing. the challenge here is a good default policy. as we can see, there is quite a bit of diversity. we have three people that are completely green. these are people that have nothing to hide, the truly parented people, but the majority of the people, are in between. they are willing and interested in disclosing information under some conditions, but certainly not all of the time. when you look at the chart, and try to come up with a good default for different people, the answer will be very challenging. somehow we are not completely convinced this is the right way to go. another challenge, is that you can see the sun facebook every
day, and when you come up with policies, they tend not to change them. even though mark zuckerberg might not be bragging about making all of these different settings available, but the majority of viewers never touch these settings. whatever facebook has decided, they will go ahead with. that does nothing to be entirely satisfactory given the variety of users we have if you look of the chart i just showed you. what is more interesting is that not only are people very diverse when it comes to how they feel about what information to share when, but there privacy is very rich. these are the results of another study that we conducted to try to understand how rich these preferences are. when the fed different groups of entities that they might want to share their location -- we look
that different groups of the entities they might want to share their location with friends, facebook friends, and advertisers -- with. friends, facebook friends, and advertisers. so, the question now is what kind of attributes what i have to expose to users if i wanted to do a good job of capturing the conditions under which they're willing to disclose their location to different entities? when it comes to close friends, you do not need to give them many settings. people have a small group of people, maybe three, four, 5, and it depends how big your family is, but is a very tiny number. if you do sharing beyond that,
like for instance with members of your community and so on, it turns out that just sharing based on who that entity is will not cut it. this is what people refer to as white list. look at any application that supports sharing. there are people that are considered ok. if you are courageous, you can talk all the monad off. -- toggle them on and off. when we said, what does people had rules where they could constrain the conditions in which their location could be visible to these groups, subject to things like time of the day, day of the week, or where they are? this graph shows in different colors how much better you start doing when it comes to really capture in the privacy that people have. the accuracy of measures how
well you are capturing people's true preferences when it comes to sharing. if the white lists do well with friends and family. when it comes to members of the committee, the accuracy is about 20%. this is where you are seeing. that is your whites list. as you start adding more attributes, and you are allowing people to control the time of day, day of the week, or location, to determine where they are, you start seeing all the sudden accuracy goes up. it means all of these attributes are actually part of what you will need alternately if you want to do a good job of capturing the difference in areas where people might be willing to share information with others. one reason why applications like glad to have really failed is that there is not -- like latitude have really failed is
that there is not that kind of accuracy. i have been sued will a few times turned i have talked to their legacy people -- i have bandwidth to google a few times and talked to their latitude people. you think their users have hundreds of friends, so it must be the same on let's, but the answer is users are people will have five friends or more. that tells you is what -- that lets it has not been able to capture any of that -- latitude has not been able to capture any of that. people tend to err on the safe side if they are given controls. as it turns out in social networking, that is not a recipe for success. why? social networking is about sharing. if you end up with controls that will result in little sharing,
the application has no value and you will stop using it. what is very interesting is if you measured the amount of sharing that the different settings could lead to, what you are seeing is that the amount of sharing as you increase the settings that you make available to viewers. from what twists, -- from white lists, to increasing the control, and as you make these things richer and richer, you can specify sophisticated preferences that they might have, that would ultimately make them feel comfortable sharing. what am i talking about? to make this more concrete, a common preference you can not specify out there is i moment to
share my location's with my colleagues, but only 9:00 p.m. -- 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and only one item on company premises -- but only when i'm company promises. -- premises. as you make these studies or richer, and i will show you the real kicker here, you see there is a lot more sharing. with facebook brands, you can -- friends, you can increase the amount of sharing power with mobile advertisers, the schering increased by a factor of two and a half. as this goes on, there are conceivable way is to reconcile privacy, at least on the surface, and in fact a socialite working in business conservations. i have taken shortcuts in presenting that. these are essentially very
theoretical results pare their saying what if you have -- results. in practice, things are more complex. if you give more settings, you need to convince them that they should use these settings. most of the time, even though facebook might have these settings, very few people use these settings because it takes time, they're not motivated to change the settings, perhaps not really understanding what is going on, and as long as they do not see how bad the settings are, there is nothing that motivates them to change it. the question we have been asking it is how can we actually achieve the kind of results we have shown here? hear, are the kinds of things you can start thinking about -- here are the kinds of things you can start thinking about.
the first graph was confusing. it was actually an illusion. it looked very complex, but as it turns out, if you move away from the idea that you should only have one policy for all users, it turns the you can come up with interesting default profiles, privacy personas. the idea is that you can come up with three or four personas that people could pick from. you have a fully paranoid types, the completely open, and in between i can get one or two types, and capture a good amount of their preferences. how can i do that? if it turns out that even though each user looks different from the other, when you look along the time the mentioned, it is a lot to do with the fact i was showing you absolute times. if you look to people more concretely. we all have mornings, we all have something called lunch time, we all have a meeting,
something we call weekends. some people have weekend's that happen to be sunday and monday. some people are early risers. others do not get out of bed before noon. use of the students i have a carnegie-mellon. if you want to start reaching these are the students i have at carnegie-mellon. if you want -- these are the students i have at carnegie- mellon. essentially, you want to project these in a more economical manner. perhaps the morning for you is different than the morning for someone else. let's look at things like where your home or your work is, even though they are different locations. those things? we have very much the same meaning for different people, and chances -- have a very much the same meaning for different people. we of looked at the measure that
we call location and trapeze. entropy is a -- entropy comes from thermodynamics and refers to how confuse things are. this place here has a very high entropy. my home is lower. it is only the same people like show up. it is my family, my wife, my children, and that is pretty much it. occasionally the plumber, perhaps. one question is how this helps potentially predict things about how people feel about sharing their location? as it turns out, these are highly correlated? -- highly correlated bit. the high places tend to be where people would advertise their location, like starbucks.
fewer people want to be mayor of their own place. those kinds of observations can actually lead to the definition of interesting default privacy persona's which you can exposed to people just by asking a small number of questions toward preferences that capture what they would like to do. it is nice, but it is not the whole story current how do you motivate people to engage with these policies -- story. how'd you motivate people to engage with these policies? auditing we have known to make a difference. allows people to see less than looking for them, and it lets them decide whether or not they are happy. this guy looks like he is stalking me.
maybe i had better change my rule for this person. this sort of person has been looking for me. that was fine record i wish we had maps. he could not find me i'm going to open up. we have played a lot with these interfaces. initially, it was about allowing people to see who was looking for them, and later on, it is providing feedback, but taking that one step forward. we have led people to ask questions like why is it someone could not see my location. help me correct things if you can. what is interesting is that when you look at the result of, for instance, exposing auditing function delegates to users, just like the interface i showed you, if you allow them to seed was been looking for their location, there is an interesting result we have observed over and over again.
this is not true for everyone. on average, people tend to open up. they open up selectively. they start with course rules. they might allow a small number of people all the time, but as they see that other people are looking for them, they are going to actually carved out special rules to allow these scenarios to happen. it means that the application has more value if i expose this expression this, and give people more insight five years ago no one was using location sharing -- insight. five years ago, no one was using this location sharing. people continued city conservative, or regret two years that i can not -- that i
posted that facebook picture. the next level tends to do what netflix does in the sense that it collects feedback from people it sells the user, now that you have reviewed things, -- hit tells the user, now they you have reviewed things, some in what you have learned to read it is very different from traditional moline learning. -- learned. it is very different from traditional machine learning. you always want to be in charge techniques that can learn but also work with you so that ultimately remain in charge. how'd you do that? the user understands what these techniques have done. these are essentially the kinds
of things we've been looking at. obviously, i could continue talking for a long time, but the point i'm trying to make is that are these things reconcilable? social networking and privacy? if i did not think so. there are different technologies that will be needed. i do not have the answer. these are just examples of things led have shown to make a difference. what are we talking about? we're talking about providing people with a better set up profiles they can pick from, helping them understand what these profiles really do, which facebook does a horrible job that. you have to essentially engage with the user, and get them to better understand what is going on, creating the right incentives for them. if you do that, you will end up with more sharing the the user
feels comfortable with. the fact that they are close to 6.5 million -- 600 million users, it is not an accident. they get the sense that they do like the idea of doing some sharing. this is a fact. among some privacy advocates, the rights solution is to close down facebook. you will not get a policymaker to agree. when we need to do is come up with technology that will allow users to use these tools in a manner that is more in line with expectations and what the user tools comfortable going. here are a couple of other things we have been playing with. i have been assuming so far in a nice manner that if you give users tools that enable them to specify exactly what they want, they will be very happy. the facebook guy who posted the
embarrassing picture and came to regret it, might have been very happy when he posted the picture. he may have understood roughly what he was doing. the problem is two years later he was stealing distantly. -- feeling differently. the question is, can you help users? you do not want to force users. people should abbott choice. one of the merging concepts in this -- should always have a choice. when of the merging concepts is sub-paternalism. one idea is to see if you could use information from other users who are essentially like- minded. we would look at people who have been using the location sharing, and looked in their preferences. could we use these preferences to come up with meaningful suggestions for new users so
later them at the same mistake others have made? those are the things we are playing with these days. beyond that, we are looking at things like it is privacy the ultimate problem? it is not the case that when someone says where are you, you either disclose your live to dan wanted to, or you say i am not willing to tell you. english as much richer. you can say i am out of town. i am busy. i am shopping. as it turns out, you can come up with a taxonomy of expressions people use and actually predict based on the number of different factors who is requesting, what is your social relationships, whether or not you are currently very close to each other, what kind of term will be the term that someone will ultimately wants to choose in describing their location.
if you can predict that, you might be able to move away from the black and white for that word either you disclose, or you did not and move toward a more sophisticated way of sharing information this is where i am going to conclude -- information. this is my conclusion. may i have exceeded my time. hopefully, i can't convince you beyond policy making, which is an important part of the quake -- hopefully, i can convince you that beyond policy making, and in port in part -- an important part is about context. your cell phone and application you can download will allow people to access. the question is will we be able to live up to the challenges that all of these applications and contextual attributes will
present us with? all complete, my belief, and this is a long-term vision, as a kind of technology that we have been developing, these technologies will eventually evolve into some kind of an .ntelligent agent we're talking about policies on websites. we are talking about android disclosing information. who is ever going to be able to evaluate these things on their own backs you are going to need some level of automation, -- own? you are glen burnie some level of automation. -- you are going to need some level of automation and functionality. it will help the user, by
knowing what the right question is to ask the user. everything is collecting information about you. tomorrow, there will be even more. that is probably the only way for. this is roughly where i would like to finish. i would like to acknowledge our many sponsors 11 funding this work. -- who has been funding this work. there's a lot of support for innovation, and we have also decided that it might be time to commercialize some of these ideas. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, norman sadeh. we have time for a couple of questions. does anybody have any questions? will you be around for the coffee break? we have a shy audience if you would please speaking to the microphone. >> there has been a lot of talk
about the difference between utility and privacy, and how privacy is situational. you lay that out in an interesting way. have you found anything out about people who want utilities so bad that they're willing to give up the privacy? it is almost a sense of learned helplessness. my question is more along the lines of the marketing side. what we try to create -- explain to people is why privacy is important, and people say they don't care because you look at how they behave. is there anything that says they do care, and here is how they show they care? >> it is clear that people care. they have been asking these questions and there has been confusing studies that suggest that perhaps people do not care. the most recent research that i am aware of, and the one that seems to be the most convincing
there were a lot of examples where you could get people -- and we still see this today -- you are giving away your location in return for eight coupons. perhaps you are willing to do that starbucks, but maybe at the hiv test clinic you are not going to be willing to do that. those are the kinds of things we are talking about. all of the evidence we have collected suggests that people do care about privacy, but it is not a flat level of preference. will vary quite a bit. this is in part what i was trying to locate -- convey with location record we are willing to share with a wide variety of people, but not across the board. i might be willing to share with some of my colleagues, my family, under much more broader conditions. >> i think we have time for one more question. >> i am with statz.
you mentioned that people would look at privacy recommendations. it sounds like an interesting evolutionary system. have you quantify the number of paths people tend to follow? is there a strong correlation? >> we still need to conduct experiments. this will happen over the next six months. has anyone of these experiments is challenging to conduct as it turns out. he need to control conditions properly, otherwise you get -- you need to control conditions properly, otherwise you get a lot of noise. we worked very hard on recruitment a representative size of people, trying to make sure we work under controlled conditions to extract those kinds of things. >> very good. dr. norman sadeh, thank you very much. [applause]
we have a break now. half an hour. i will see you back here at 11:20 a.m., with marc rotenberg curren. there is coffee, and maybe some cappuccino. deal like that one? -- do you like that one? >> jen nation's governors are in town for the annual mentor -- annual winter meeting. if the president has been meeting with democratic governors. we will hear more about that with jay carney's briefing. he might have more to say about the president and his comments on libya. the president reportedly spoke with the turkish prime minister today. we will tell you more about libya in just a moment.
house republican leaders today held a conference call talking about their budget proposal for 2011. eric cantor outlined a plan to keep the current operating for two weeks beyond march 4, which included $4 billion in spending cuts. that was a conference call. we have posted that on our website, and a lot more about the budget. you can find that at c-span.org. we mentioned the governors. a lot of coverage this weekend. we begin today with the democratic governors meeting at 2:00 p.m.. they will have discussions on jobs and making their state's competitive. live coverage is coming up at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, governors will talk about how to grow their state's economy, education, and cyber security as they gather for the annual winter meeting of the national governors'
association. we will have live coverage to rob the weekend. >> sunday, on c-span's road to the white house, a former arkansas governor and presidential candidate mike huckabee who shares his thoughts on president obama and a possible run. as the gop field begins to take shape, watch "wrote to the white house." >>, the latest news from libya, the associated press reports that the militias loyal to muammar gaddafi opened fire today. also, diplomats in geneva unanimously condemned libya and ordered a probe into the possible crimes against humanity. we will show you some of the from this morning momentarily.
also, the u.s., according to the associated press, is moving closer to imposing new sanctions on that gaddafi regime. officials say the administration could impose travel bans, freeze assets, and take other steps. they say the announcement timing depends on safety of americans and other foreigners. at 300 people were evacuated by ferry today. where was she really opening statement from the chair of the u.n. humanitarian council. there are speeches from this event as well. this is about 810-minute portion. will have more of this letter in our program schedule, and also online. if this is from earlier today. -- this is from earlier today. >> mr. president, distinguished
members of the human rights council, ladies and gentlemen, i commend the initiative of this council to hold a special session on the situation of human rights in the socialist people's libyan. the violent oppression of the urgentg aidemand attention. as a secretary general of the united nations and noted, attacks on civilians are a egregious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. he condemned them without qualification, and stated for those responsible, they must be punished let me remind this call so that -- punished. but me remind this council that the 2005 summit, world leaders unanimously agreed that each
individual state has the responsibility to protect populations from crimes against humanity and other international crimes. this entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement through appropriate and necessary means. when a state is failing to protect its population from serious international crimes, the international community has the responsibility to step in and by taking protective action in a collective, timely, and decisive matter. in its emergency session this week, the security council highlighted the need to all the responsibility to protect, provide humanitarian assistance, to allow human rights monitoring, and to insure accountability. my office is prepared to respond to these needs as a matter of highest urgency. as we need today, the protesters
who are exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, have denounced the brutal ways of their governments, continued to challenge its role at great peril for themselves and their families. they have appealed to the united nations and to the international community for protection. we all them our solidarity and protection from violence. we must heed their aspirations for freedom, dignity, and responsible government. far from being manipulated by external forces, their protest is a display of people's power, and an exercise of direct democracy that deserves and commands international respect and support. the international community has repeatedly urged muammar gaddafi to resist from violence. despite appeals for restraint, the libyan leader chose to form
and conflict. he called on his supporters to get out of their homes, fill the street against the protesters, and attacked the -- attack them. even though reports are still patchy, one thing is painfully clear. in brazen and continuing breach of international law, the track down of peaceful demonstrations is escalating alarmingly with reported mass killings and torture of protesters. tanks, helicopters, and military aircraft have been used indiscriminately to attack the protesters. according to some sources, thousands may have been killed or injured. let me reiterate that the state's have an obligation to protect the rights to life,
liberty, and security of the people under their jurisdiction. the protection of civilians should always be the paramount determination in maintaining order and the rule of law. libya must stop the violence now. they are a member of the human rights council, and pledged to respect human rights. they are also a state party to various international human rights treaties, including the international covenant on civil and political rights. it has the obligation to implement rights and freedoms. let me also recall that under international law and the official at any level ordering or carrying out atrocities can be held criminally accountable, and widespread and systematic attacks against civilian populations may amount to crimes against humanity.
witnesses in and out of libya consistently described horrifying scenes. libyan forces are firing at protesters and beit -- by standard, sealing the bystanders, seal it off neighborhoods, and shooting from rooftops. they also blocked ambulances, said the injured are left on the street. reports from hospitals indicate that most of the victims have been shot in the head, chest, or neck, suggesting executions. doctors relate that they are struggling to cope and are running out of blood supplies and medicines to treat the wounded. images of unverifiable origin appear to portray the digging of mass graves in tripoli. accounts, killings have also been. out by foreign fighters who
were, and reportedly continued to be brought into the country, and are equipped with small arms, and light weapons by the government to suppress the protest in this connection, my office has received reports that some libyans are turning on refugees and migrants from other african countries, suggesting -- suspecting them of fighting for the libyan government. at the same time, there are reports that the authorities have suggested that certain foreign nationals have been primarily responsible for initiating the unrest, thereby encouraging attacks on foreigners. it is important that the safety of all foreign nationals be in short, and the freedom of movement of those wishing to leave the country be fully respected and protected. libyan authority must allow the safe packaging passage of
humanitarian and medical supplies and humanitarian workers. they must also insure that the legitimate demands of the protesters are addressed, and the fundamental human rights are fully respected and promoted. -- lydia'ss neighbors have a particular responsibility to -- lydia's neighbors have a particular responsibility to protect the vulnerable. i am concerned about refugees crossing into neighboring countries, and to killing -- particularly to nietzsche and malta. -- tunisia and moscow. libya put the political partners and allies are uniquely positioned to exercise their collective influence for the
protection of human rights in libya. in this context, i object i welcome the initial steps taken by some governments and regional -- i welcome the international -- initial steps taken by governments and regional organizations. i have also called for an independent and impartial investigation to investigate the violent oppression of protests in the country. let us be clear, today's shocking and brutal situation is the direct outcome of a careless disregard for the rights and freedoms of libyans them as marked the almost four-decade long grip on power by the current ruler. justice by -- for on going as well as past abuses must be attained in order to be meaningful for all the victims. there cannot be no doubt about the need for action by this council now. the human rights council and its
mechanisms should step in vigorously to help end the violence in libya, and hold those perpetrating the atrocities accountable. the council should use all means available to compel the libyan government to respect the human rights and he did the will of its people. the victims of a human rights violations, and violations of international humanitarian law deserves no less. thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> just part of a day-long emergency session of a day-long human rights council. they have condemned libya and ordered a probe into possible crimes against humanity. meanwhile, the president's spokesmen, jay carney is holding a press conference. the associated press reports the u.s. is moving closer to imposing sanctions on