Will come back to the auditorium. Both those president here and watching at home. I am again senior fellow, burried pleased to welcome you to the second panelist of the 2019 Institute Surveillance conference. This continues the theme, focusing on oversight. With respect to two controversial programs. Surveillance on section seven oh two of Foreign Policy and a provision of section 215 that provides for a burried large scale automated collection of phone records. Both of these programs have had some serious complaints. That come to live over the past year. And so we thought it useful to examine how those arose, what the nature of the problems of the discovery is and how the Intelligence Community is responding to them and whether the response is adequate. So the discussion will be headed up by prizewinning port reporter, Charlie Savage. His book power wars is probably the best portrait of nast National Security policy making. In a president ial ministration. I will pass you on to Charlie Savage to introduce you to the second panel. So good morning everyone. Both you and the auditorium and those watching at home. Will here 792 and 215 i am going to briefly introduce the con ducked behind this panel. Then we will turn to this burried diverse and Interesting Group of minds to talk about it. Ill introduce you to them and turn as i asked the first question of them. Left two hours of questions one focusing on 215, and one focusing on summative worries freight you are in the weeds. Ill explain that in the moment. And we will go to the audience questions. But also, if i should phil free to breakout of the mold if you think of something that you want to just single signal as will be spontaneous about it. Obviously theres lots of Surveillance Programs. People talk about problematic surveillance. They are necessarily talking about any program. The concept that emerged in the public view in the governments before that, after the snowden think that i for the leak of the wiretapping program. The notion is regimented and regulated overseen by a quote system of certainly surveillance where the fisa quote is setting roles and supervising a chunk of the government and usually the nsa or the fbi. In the performance of wiretapping or collection of data that went out necessarily signing off on whether individual targeted people are illegal. Which is the traditional wiretap order on this mafia figure. Instead, his whole program, heres what you can do with it. Here the limits. Heres what has to be done here is the oversight. A sneak most like the portrait or quote acting manager rather than an adjudicator. So this emerged and forgive me for those of you again, who are in the weeds but those who arent, after the 911 attack, the motion ministration created a secret surveillance both Data Collection program called solar wind. Different aspects, would aspect allows the government to intercept Americans International emails and phone calls about a warrant, are talking to, a terrace or in another element involved about collection of her from internet phone companies of but dana who was coming home. Tabasco but not what they were staying. And all this was being done unilaterally. That went out oversight and based on burried strange theories about why it was lawful. And over time the bush administration, came to live until it comes out worried about how they were maybe sustaining legal jeopardy by anticipating this elements of this will moved on Statutory Authority brought on the fisa score, that the foreign intelligence oversight and the quote issued broad rule and then supervised how those rules will being carried out. In the sand or something. Just emerged into what we now know of as similar to which is a selection of emails and phone calls from American Companies like google at t, the and targeted companies abroad. What can happen to that data especially what the government can do what is looking within this repository, or information about americans that will selected that went out a warrant. In the other big category that came out of this which came to live was known as patriot act. Collections of systematic collections from phone companies that their customers calling records. Showing domestic phone calls and every [applause] between people in the United States and a social map of whom in which the nsa used elation three to try to find hidden associates of militant terrorists. In that program would it came to live, actually was ceased to be problematic surveillance as i described it because one of their forms the Obama Administration made you unilaterally initially satan will now have each approved. So before you can dip into the scotus you need to be able to show a judge that there is a reasonable suspicion that this particular person who is universe of contacts you are looking at, has a tie to terrorism. In 2015, congress abolished that program with the freedom act and created a new system where the data will reside from companies we could still access with the judge news permission by the nsa. Some will going to talk about first, the legacy 215 program in the book data access to phone records and then well talk about seven oh two, the legacy with Surveillance Program. It is still operating. Okay. So that is the landscape. We start turning to my colleagues here. To start with, at the burried end with ben. He is the rep. Of the government voice here. His new Allison Jewell who for those of you have come here previous cycles. He is the chief Civil Liberties of privacy officer at the director of National Intelligence overseeing the intelligence agencies. Across the federal government and e. U. Staff a sneak moral but one subfloor at the cia. And then he entered the private sector after many years in june. He moved up to six him. What is that like. How is it different. Is good. For my colleagues, i would see. [laughter]. Is the different role as far as at cia, obviously much more operational. So the privacy and Civil Liberties, more of the duties there, require looking at the particular individual actions are programs whether we work going or not going to do them. Theres so certainly that role over them because there with their centers. With the role, or the work is about the Overall Community approach in integrating that approach and also setting those rules for all of these intelligence communities and how the handle it. Lets start with a think that is most news within this world. Which is the fate of the essay freedom act system in the legacy of phones and accessing data systems became out of the 315 program. Most of you probably know this,. [inaudible conversation] [background sounds] similar the law that authorizes the freedom act and that allows the messiah to tap into the records, all of the companies. That was set to expire december briefly ended. [background sounds] it was briefly extended to march. But its still upset into law and will die and blessed it was extended and the system has been shut down. It had problems in ceased to operate in the question then arose should the government asked congress to extend the Legal Authority for a system that is no longer in cases also problems and they can turn it on again. Or should congress allow the law to lapse just because its not being used anyway. Could you walk us through the argument im not asking you to take those position but could you articulate and internalize with the government about first of all, explain why the system was shut down. Then what are the two points of view they came into issue about weather the executive branch should ask congress currently not using. [background sounds] of course envoy to take those complex topic and make a more complex. Just because it will help you understand the program better. So is the fundamental done difference. Its because of the freedom act between the Prior Program and the program is in heaven. Post 2015, until. In the entire program. [background sounds] effectively a target market. The control and that, is would it can be passed accurately. [background sounds] [background sounds] it allowed effectively for certain type in a new dive boat Business Records request, different than other business route record request british and that in a more typical request, the fbi might go to a provider and see i would like to find out all of the call detail records for ben, which wouldbe all of the instances in which my phone number, my specific phone number called another phone number. And that record we will talking by the detail records is only that. This number called that number. At this time. And for this. Its not include content or names or Financial Information pretty does not include gps information. None of those are a political. A bigger wall. Different request is often referred to as to help. So instead of just getting, forgetting all of the calls between the target phone number, my phone number, and the people that i contacted that wouldbe the first hop let the second half wouldbe all the calls, between that outer layer and the person they called. So a second topic if you will. The not more than that. This fundamentally different than the Program Prior to the sa freedom act. In early 2018, the nsa panelists noted that some technical regulators and some of the data that they were receiving from the telecommunications providers. And i can go into extensive detail on that. They are concluding the review. So more will be coming out. It is burried frustrating for oliver palace but there will be a lot more coming on this. Its okay to see, some of the information coming from the providers, from that first talk was inaccurate. It did not accurately indicate the phone number a was in [applause] with phone number pretty. And because of the two talked nature of this program, that meant, and impartially theres nothing on the records to indicate that it was inaccurate. That means it took that record, and went and got the second talk. And if that first one was inaccurate and they got the second one, then those will records that will not authorized to receive. It was only authorized to receive that first information. But that all the information came in the second half wouldbe over collection. And certainly with compliances. And that is a problem. From a privacy perspective and the nsa having records are not supposed to have it. But at the david is inaccurate and doesnt actually have over indicate an actual connection between two individuals. That is not terribly useful from the intelligence perspective. There is a third problem which was as it said earlier, its not immediately a parent from the records itself, that the information wasnt accurate. So there is no easy way to determine which ones will overproduced and which ones work. And in 2018, the publicly announced to move to try to correct some of these issues. They also deleted all of the underlining data in the program from what began in 2015, until the program and these issues will identified. The program did continue for quite some time but it was also reevaluation. In looking at the complaints incident, factoring into it but they arent the only factor. If i took a holistic look at the clients issues and the data integrity issues for how accurate that data was. And how much and how useful the information was. What was the cost of the program. And compare that to other programs that they around, effectively, mayday business issue position. And we wanted to exit this program and not continue to have a reflection actually delete what they had. Is is it too much of a headache. Theres much capability from other programs that do work better. Just turn it off. Within the law will expire raising questions dewey asked for it to remain in the books. One of the two points at one end to that question. The two points. The first. Of view was the subprogram the day and provide as much value as folks mightve helped. This around into some compliance integrity issues. It was effectively an experiment. Would that didnt work out as intended. So let that authority expire. And then well move on. For not using it. Move on. That was sort of one of those articulated issues on that. And the other articulated position on this is this is an estate where we never want our Intelligence Community to use a tool just because they have it. We want them to judicially use the program would it is appropriate. And to not would its not appropriate pretty and that was not applied in this case. In a tool was the town that is not necessarily mean that is not useful tool in the future. I have plenty of tools mantle cat. But every three to five years, its not my hammer they use wont a week. Theyre useful would they are useful. So thats the other argument that the tools may become useful in the future. Lets be clear, it doesnt mean they immediately hit access to all of this information. They would have to go back to the quote, get authorization, and to restart the program. That wouldbe a Significant Program change. They would have notified congress as well that they are restarting the program. It smacked so you probably cant fill this in for the audience that trust has been that the Intelligence Community wanted to go with option a. Other authorities, will not using it, let it die. Its is it too much else is going on. Let the white house, we cant safely explain why the National Security advisor and white give up power since will not currently using it. No make that position. However, let the Intelligence Community and the senate house, and forward draft bills that would help in this authorization. So the writing seems available especially would other things happening in congress there pumping up the oxygen for a lot of debate this programs Legal Authority mayday sin. As with that, want to phil free to jump in and correct me if i need. Im not going to comment. There always robust. Let me turn now to the robert gates senior fellow, and shes also a former senior National Security lawyer at od and i as well. This looming thought that raises the question we keep having these surveillance issu issues. Theres a freedom act coming up. We also have some of to back in 2012. And so forth. Why is it that we have to keep having these cycles. Does make sense for the country to be second current debates on the same issue. What is the purpose of sunset. Can you talk a little bit about really Surveillance Programs that have a chef live. So the history of these senses are tingly as it to a foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Truly a post 911 area of National Security law. Prior to september 11th 2001 ended in october of 2001, the u. S. Patriot act was passed, which was amended a number of surveillance was will made into permissions. Ten pretty good around. It seems fairly consistent so as originally passed in 19798. It was in a substantial amendment to the law until 1994 would the search provision was added. That was a permanent authorization of the time. It did not have one of these temporary sunset things building. Congress and it considered it. The law was passed 94 that was it. So with the lighter amendments in the late 90s, pertaining to authority. And it was the patriot act where we started to see the beginning of these preventatives of sunset. Where the law wouldbe authorized with certain sunset day. What they did was the practical matter the forces the policy community and the legislative considerations to take another look after these provisions will passed. I tend to think that part of the reason for that was because of the quick nature with the patriot act was passed in 2001 so the attacks also obviously quote september 11th is about six weeks later the really substantial legislative package went through congress and burried little legislative history if you go back and look and there has brought in a sense of a record because it was and a heightened threat environment. The compromise that a number of provisions had a sense and that is really now carried for the left. About 19 years ive surveillance history in five minutes after opening. That history has continued pretty there are pros and cons to whether or not the senses are valued. From the government perspective backward night was in government, there will some at the operational loophole of frustration with the Sunset Program provision. Often times up because people within the government will necessarily opposed to the sunset and the legislative debate, because it always runs in congress handling of these sins that it runs up to the 11th hour. Here we are december, these particular provisions expire at the end of december. It doesnt seem to be, im not hearing from the Intelligence Community publicly with this debate that they are particularly concerned about that 215 program about expiring from a National Security threat prospective but i do remember in years past, in the mid to thousands. Would these would come up, they would really be operational worry that a lot more and expire and that would require that the operational loophole, not the Surveillance Program to be or have to turn on a dime. That is not a good way to conduct the National Security business of the United States. What im hearing you see the nose behind the sunset is in islam for periodic consideration by congress of care for careful deliberative debate of what the rule should be glycerin this. Thats all well and good in the abstract. In practice, congress is well know, is continually a train wreck and they dont have a