We are engaging in the two both Justice Department but also fbi and others to engage in talks constructively for these companies. The Business Models keep changing. This late expertise on have a technically work resides in the private hands. In some of these models one may be we are a business and we are building a platform for people to talk and share ideas into business. Their Business Model is not we want to have that model used by terrorists to get people inside the tiny. Thats not the point of the Business Model. When we talk to these companies now theres an awareness that same platform they used for good is been used to target the people on the platform. Its Good Business to make sure your platform a safe, i would hope come in addition to being good patriotic duty. We are seeing that shared commonality of interest. What you are seeing is increased investment in resources, both Human Resources in order to identify the terrorists on your site or targeting children are those who are targeting for sexual exploitation, and the use of algorithms and other technical tools. What we need to start encouraging is right now they develop the service, rush, curtis give, then they think about the problem of terrorists exploiting it. We will get better i hope together thinking about it for you scale up that this is going to be a problem for my business. Lets bottom line the home grown threat a bit. James comey said this potential but its a lot more of these attacks. How likely is that . The fbi has been pretty good about supporting them. The frequency is increasing them. Thwarting. Weve had around 12 additional arrests at the fbi is doing everything it can working with Intel Community and private community to get in front these attacks but bottom line is tactic of targeting the youth, targeting those who are mentally unstable, targeting them to commit attacks here at home which would require you to have a nice gun isnt a big a knife or gun. Weve seen attacks in canada, australia, out of the uk, the terrible attacks across 30 british lives in tunisia we saw the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in france. Until we figure out a way to crack this terrorist threat billion payout i think all of us are on edge, then were going to see an attack like that here at home. We just had a tragic attack in tennessee, and my condolences go out to the families of those who lost their loved ones. Can you say what he using an encrypted phone or an encryption to communicate . Are not going to talk about that case specifically, but i will say of the variety of cases that we are seeing now, currently rehearsing that. Caroline, what is the cia sing about whether isil things this is a useful strategy for them and it will continue . The analysis ive seen is at a stalemate right now. Isil is not leaving their caliphate anytime soon under the current u. S. Strategy. Are we facing this threat for years to come . I think were doing everything we can to mitigate against the threat and to get information we can get in terms of threat information for the purpose, within u. S. Government like the fbi. I can myself as a lawyer predict how that struggle is going to end up. We are doing everything we can. Stepping back from the homegrown threat, can you tell us, for years alqaeda is not capable of mounting the kind of nine 9 11 style attack a longer its been decimated. But how do know that isil is or some other offshoot, given the extent to which theyre ensconced in the safe havens will be done a terrific intelligence, how are we so sure theres not a major homeland attack on the homeland likely . I would have to defer to the analysts on that when. What i do know is where sufficiently concerned about alqaeda, alqaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and isil to view themselves as being threatened by them in a severe sense to our National Security, it is over an Armed Conflict with under the aumf, the 2001 authorization for military force. I would say bad whether, look, my division was formed after september 11, the first litigating division of the department of justice and figures that we were created in 2006. One of the core reasons for christian was the breakdown that had existed between Law Enforcement on the one hand and the Intelligence Community on the other. To be dedicated to ensuring that as large we have prosecutors come in colors, regulatory lawyers, policy lords sitting under one roof focus on National Security threats and being driven on what the intelligence picture shows the threat is. In terms of what theyre telling us the threat is, it remains, we remain concerned about alqaeda conducting a large scale attack. We remain very concerned about safe havens and doing everything we can as a government through the authorities, whether its covert action, military action, Law Enforcement or other sanctions to prevent safe havens in yemen or syria and iraq or libya, from preventing terrorist groups from having time and space to plot and plan largescale spectacular attacks. At the same time in terms of the current threat from weve seen seen this change, in stead of a largescale attack, plotting and planning overseas because theyre encouraging people to do the attack at home. Spirit do you agree with jim, and that is very close to alqaeda as the top threat to the homeland of . First we defer to the fbi and Intelligence Community first. We are driven by their intel as to what the thread is. There is a clear and present danger here because, i mean, you are seeing in these cases in one instance someone with a knife trying to board a bus to commit an attack who was shot before he boards the bus. So we are seeing instances here now with the attacks have occurred, almost occurred or stopped at the last minute by Law Enforcement. We remain concerned, their children were killed with our military, Law Enforcement and intel partners to try to prevent the largescale spectacular package of. Both of you have been involved in beatings were your site off on the legality of very sensitive counterterrorism operations. Youre telling, in the agencys Lawyers Group. Both the defense secretary gates in another criticized what they called micromanagement operations from the white house. Can you shed some light on how this process works and how these decisions go through the process of . The interagency Lawyers Group is something that is been in existence for many years. Ive started going to meetings in the clinton administration, predicted that as well and have been going to this meetings, ive been in management for over 20 years. Whichever agencies are both in to the topic at hand, the nsc, Legal Adviser and, Legal Adviser told the, Legal Adviser and pull the general counsels at both senior members other legal things together to talk about that particular issue. Ive spent four years total at the nsc as i very much believe in the value of that process. The same way the nsc process of the deputies and principles level is an effective way of getting all the agencies were relevant together and to share their views and to come to us to come to office possible common understanding. Thats usually the goal of the tennessee Lawyers Group process. Each agency has its own perspective on what they think is legal, complies with international law. So the goal is to have everybody tried to come to a common understanding. I think that helps the agencies that those lawyers are advising to make sure they are all on the same page and legal degrees. This Administration Takes very seriously whether our actions are consistent with domestic and international law. Thats something were constantly evaluating. Usl or could stop a proposed covert interaction and its tracks, right . Its an incredibly powerful role you play. Yes. It true that i am the chief Legal Adviser to the agency and so if there were a covert action that if i was unlawful i would absolutely make my views known to the director and to do nothing he would be happy. As an outsider how he observed that the cia reacts to the lawyering your office conducts . Forcing to live under these rules. That was one thing i was pleasantly surprised by because i had experience with the agency for years from my time at the Justice Department and the nsc and i knew the lawyers were terrific group of people whom i interacted but i did know how the operational components for example, would feel about their lawyers. Ive almost a third of my lawyers are embedded with the operators. I think that really helps to foster a strong relationship from the ground up. And something is being planned the lord is right there, they understand what the goals are. If the original proposal is not something that can be consistent with law or regulation, that lawyer can say i can help you, if you do this other way, then that would be lawful. They have a very collaborative relationship and very much seek the views of the lawyers. Ive received no complaints during my whole time about the quality of the legal advice they are getting are a concern if you like only i if those lawyers wod just be quieter than it do what i need to do to keep the country safe. They understand how important it is because of the need for legitimacy what we do with the american people. Lets move to surveillance. One of the snow and revelations was the program in section seven of two, which gathers foreign intelligence information 702. As part of that theres a lot of and divert or incidental question of u. S. Person information. The president appointed a task force which included mike morrell to look at all the citizens. Some of the recommendations they were, if the just person information we obtained without warrants there should be new tougher rules on this stuff. Shouldnt be able to use it against a person in a legal proceeding. Shouldnt search u. S. Persons made against them. You should purge it. Those recommendations were basically tossed out. Can you explain why . That was the view of that group but we have a competing view from the president , Civil LibertiesOversight Board. Got up and running more recently which issued a report as an event, the executive branch about 702. They found a 72 collection is lawful, consistent with the fourth amendment. They knew about this and still collection issue. The fisa court is completely unaware of it. John can speak more to that to the specific habit but our rules about what you can do the information that is collected has been collected lawfully. Were talking policy concerned, the ability to search that information. Lawfully but not with a probable cause warrant, right of . 702 is a different legal construct. The idea that section 70 wasnt revealed by any disclosure that it was something that was passed into law after vigorous and open debates by the congress in 18 the paradigm that only the United States card has adopted a think is right but its more restrictive than afford any other place in the world. When we did post Search Commission report they were terrible abuses revealed in the commission report. So, set up a review effective of all three branches of government. Although adages met with some foreign counterpart, others are looking to talk to this. Right now we are bound the only country that is three branches of government involved in what is traditionally very much private and executive, the collection of intelligence in defense of the country were National Security purposes. What this regime was at its core was theres an oversight within the executive branch both by my lawyers, inspectors general, the general counsels of the Intelligence Community and other relevant agencies. Bears than applications that have to take place between the same judges who sit in the day jobs, still working as the same judges at a publicly known to be sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the legality of certain applications. Of applications are overseen by the Intelligence Community and to our reckless laws in place that require disclosure of information to those Intelligence Community, committees so they can review what those applications are among the 50 actually applied, three branches. What you saw with section 70 was a statute that says communications have changed, and many communications now that our nonu. S. Persons overseas, the same types the u. S. Has been collecting for years will hit u. S. Providers, so when youre doing collection youre serving the order on the United States provided that the reason youre serving it to target the nonu. S. Person whos located overseas. When they had that debate one of the core reasons they adopted the program was to prevent another 9 11, prevent terrorist attacks, and what the operators, Law Enforcement, Intelligence Community are most concerned about are when they know theres a terrorist overseas whos in the recommendations with the u. S. Person in the United States. So what the privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board found along with many others to examine this issue is that is very important, therefore, for the Law Enforcement or intelligence or the to go to search and find the information was targeted at the terrorist overseas and on person nonu. S. Person overseas, but when they find theres a u. S. Persons they want to find information. Theres other restrictions including restrictions on youth. That program is being litigated in an adversarial manner in our court system, including in the Mohammed Mohammed case, an individual event convicted by his peers have attended to on a Christmas TreeLighting Ceremony in portland and as part of the case there was a notice that there was fisa information indicates and the court has upheld the legality of the 7a program. Its not something that is occurring in sigir. The actual collection, the structures that are in place, largely because of an open to debate spent one more on counterterrorism and they will move to cyber. Ive got to ask about a decade the cia and Television Program and the reporter i would ask the forwardlooking question. John prater and seemed to leave the door open john brennan reinstitute, and some republican president ial candidates, rick perry, mr. Young said they would bring back which some people believe to be tortured. Could either of you see a scenario where you would sign off on the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques, how would you respond to president saying he wanted to do this would you resign . Would you go along with it . What would you do . First of all i dont know if youre aware but theres been a minute i think to the ndaa by senator mccain and feinstein fen know what codified executive order that president president obama put in place we first got here, fla which is supported by the administration including the Intelligence Community spirit that would make it law. That a future president could not, could not. I think that would frankly be the best way forward. I dont anticipate being in a situation to which i would ask to sign off on eits. And by implication youre suggesting you would not. Yes. John, what is your view of . The executive order is currently prohibited. Its also i think would be something would go to caroline in the first instance the way we are set up. Something the fbi chose not to adopt for fbi agents at the time spent lets talk about cyber. Last year at this form you explain the genesis about and the fbi were reorient in itself to tackle the cyberthreat the that was presony. Weve had the sony attack. Maybe you can when of the system works in that case. Last year we talked about the fact that we were sitting on an unprecedented scale, and again going back to the mission of our division which is take with the intel issuing is about the threat and make sure as lawyers we adopt. What we were seeing was day in day out billions of dollars worth of data stored by u. S. Companies are it was horrifying. We thought its not sufficient to watch. We need to come up with ways to disrupt and change this activity. We have christiane here from intel and what we talked about was a need and then of his aggregate is to go on offense chris young defense alone is not going to change this battlefield. Right now offense outstrips defense in terms of the billy, particularly a sophisticated nationstate actors. You get into systems. If someone tries to sell you a product, maybe some of you, hopefully not, ladies would like to sell you a product and their sales pitch is we can take your internet connected computers and make them safe from breach, we can build a wall that is high enough or deep enough to prevent a determined nationstate adversary from getting into your system, they are selling you the brooklyn bridge. It does not exist. When we are in that environment we are in the environment of Risk Mitigation, looking at other ways to address the threat. Part of that is getting smarter and having whole system Risk Mitigation approaches defensively but part of it also has to be doing what weve done in every other area of threat which is telling adversary this is not co