There was an interesting article in the New York Times today abetter an aider and of the attackers, it appears clear that that was inspired at least in part by the sermons and lectures coming out of yemen over the internet. That radicalized farook. Were still not clear on how her journey became to become a terrorist. They managed to kill 14 people are largescale terrorist attack like paris where you had a 130 people slaughtered, mumbai, madrid 191 people killed, simultaneous terrorist attacks executed by a halfdozen or more foreign trained terrorists. That presents the kind of terrorist attack that i would say is most consequential and we want to make sure that we prioritize and focus our efforts as a government and with other governments on preventing that. Obviously we need to also prevent the San Bernardinos, the chattanoogas. I have to tell you, no matter how good the fbi is, if you are talking about lone wolf radicalized terrorists being able to kill a number of people, that is going to happen and it is extraordinarily difficult to stop. Dena general hayden, do you see this distinction between cells and lone wolf attacks . Are there ways to stop lone wolf attacks . If conversations about an attack directly taking place over dinner . General hayden you can reduce the likelihood and reduce the number of fatalities. This is below a threshold where you have any realistic expectation that your Law Enforcement of Security Services can get this to zero. These kinds of things will continue to happen. I think they are accelerated by but we see in the middle east. Youve got the inspiration coming out of isis. It is like the hand of god carrying out the will of god. A narrative that is genuinely underpinned by the battlefield successes. Were talking in our discussion a few minutes ago. In addition to whatever tightening we may be comfortable with, we need to kick the ball field. We need to get into the offense rather than restructuring our society, lets do a little reconstruction out there. This is a case where the physical destruction actually has a powerful ideological impact. Very often chaotic success carries with it ideological burdens. It might actually make the long deep fight a little harder to do. Imposing battlefield defeats on these forces undercuts their theological underpinning. You get a victory not just tactically but strategically. I totally agree with the analysis that what happened and San Bernardino is kind of what we were expecting from isis. Charlie hebdo level. Paris was a little surprising to me. It shows a growth in the ambition of isis and it was coming at us faster than i expected. It was more similar to al qaeda, in that it was directed, and complex, with multiple parts. In one sense we now have to do with both ends. Increasingly sophisticated complex attack which i think we better shopping. Better at stopping. And the spontaneous attacks that may just be the cost of doing business. Robert i agree that this is not just about defense. The best defense is a good offense. The offensive strategy against isis is the subject for a whole other program. Were going to be focusing on when you are on offense, you still have to defend against these attacks by the enemy that wants to strike you in your homeland. Its what isis was able to do against the russians. Thats the one we have to prevent. We are doing better than most people think in the United States. Dena it is far from clear that San Bernardino really had anything to do with isis. Beyond a posting on a Facebook Page just minutes after the attack that said in broken english that Tashfeen Malik pledged for support. The criminal complaint in this case is absolutely fascinating. Something very typically al qaeda. One of the shooters wanted to go and join the army in yemen. It is very early to talk about this being a isis case. We may find out it is a tangential one. Robert apparently farook was radicalized going back to earlier days. Dena lets talk a little bit about how we come back Something Like this. There has been a lot of commentary on the role of the state department. Whether or not they should be checking social media before they let somebody in the country. Your views on that. Jamie i do think that we are surprisingly not great at social media. We are not great at surveying it or doing it. That is stunning to me. The enemy is way better at using social media to full maintenance mount and inspire. We dont have a counter narrative. We dont have the same power in that space that we should. The two go hand in hand. You have to have a greater sophistication and governments along with the private sector to figure out what is happening. As robert said, when you have in asymmetrical warfare, we said this in the 9 11 Commission Report, your best tool is intelligence. Proper boundaries on it but you have to use it. Dena i was looking at the ideas big data and intelligence. This was before the snowden revelations. Have you seen Big Data Analytics being used in this space . How can it be used to prevent these kinds of attacks . General hayden it follows the path of what we would call disambiguation. The whole universe of data points being boiled down into very specific things. Weve gotten fairly good at that. Disambiguating identities so that we can target someone either for action are for collection. Or so they dont get on an airplane. We need to perfect that and use it better. Its not a contrarian view of the complementary one. An awful lot of what now passes for analysis is disambiguation. Going from the mass to the specific. That might be at the cost of broader strategic appreciation for what is going on. It was a mix of a policy problem and intel problem. We may have been so busy as an Intelligence Committee chopping down trees over here that we kind of missed the second growth forest. The data is good that we have to do that effective disambiguation. Dont forget you need to tell your policymakers to keep reaching nuanced strategic appreciations so that you are not forever in the loop where all you are doing is arresting or killing people. Jamie big data is being used by every American Company to really great ends. We are capable of analyzing huge amounts of data. And citizens today huge amounts of data. In a way that we didnt to five years ago and certainly not 10 years ago. The ability to analyze and use Machine Learning to keep ourselves smart about what is happening out there. Whether it is the micro of the macro. It is critical. When the government starts looking at lots of data, alarms go off about what the protections are. I would rather focus on what the protections should be then say it is too dangerous and we should be handsoff. It is one of our key tools. If we are blind to what is buried in the data, we are not going to be as effective in protecting our country. As somebody who grew up in this environment, i would rather take the time to build a system that works appropriately then i would risk of not doing that and having the American People be so afraid that they wholesale throw out civil liberties. That is the real risk here. We have to appreciate that we talk about the massive pendulum swings that weve had in this country between security and privacy. Robert one of the most important things that we did shortly after 9 11 was to essentially posit the question of how can we use data more effectively that we had. To better identify the small people that buy post terrorist a terrorist threat to the United States. That might attempt to enter the United States from abroad. If youve got people on the terrorist watch list, the real problem is the issue of have you narrow down the haystack of those under 1 of people and they are foreign nationals, some of them are now foreign fighters that are trained in syria. The potentiality that summary might fall into that category. And use border search authority. The broadest Law Enforcement authority that any agency or government has. How do you use that to engage those small fragmented people in sophisticated counterterrorism questioning to determine if they do pose a risk. To deny them entry into the United States. That is using a lot of data, whether or not it is big data. It is part of the National Targeting Center that was set up by borders and customs officials. To ask him some questions for we allow them into the United States. If you are foreign national, you have no right to enter the United States. It is hundreds per year that we deny entry. They are put on it airplane and sent back. Since the underpants bomber, we are able to do this intervention before they get on an aircraft in a foreign airport. Like heathrow. They dont even get on board the aircraft. If we believe and we assess them to be a security risk. We tell the airlines dont board that person. Dena one of the things that surprised me post paris was how there was such debate about Syrian Refugees. Two of the paris attackers as far as we know came through greece. Possibly with fake syrian passports. Let me start with general hayden. Do we need to worry about the Syrian Refugees . General hayden i was on a panel a year or two ago. We were talking about the nsa metadatabase. Eric was just going on about how we understand why they want to do it. You can learn this and that. We dont do that. The use of even that database is very narrowly circumscribed to simply querying whether a known terrorist has ever had a phone call that ended in the United States. Private industry takes it as a given you would do it this way but the government, not so much. There is no requirement to be stupid along with being generous. I would advise the chief executive to speak like Mother Teresa and then grab whoevers filling my chair now poke his finger into his sternum and say you make sure nothing bad happens. We can do both. We are talented enough to do this. Dena should we be worried about Syrian Refugees . General hayden there is a danger. We should be prudent about it. Just saying it is not happen is destructive of our security. Robert this is another example of overreaction in our country which we see after every terrorist attack. Congress also overreacts. It is axiomatic. The fact of significance is not that there were a couple of people with syrian passports came into europe. The fact is there were foreign terrorist fighters were belgian citizens, french citizens who had fought and been trained by isis and had european passports. They could go anywhere in the eu. The refugees, we are able to let people. It takes astute counterterrorism questioning. It takes a president who tells the department of Homeland Security make sure that somebody who is a Security Threat doesnt get in. There is vetting. Weve had people that went off to syria and are fighting for isis. Now we know isis is intent on getting some of these people back asymmetrically to attack countries in the west. I do think we have some protections in the visa waiver program. Congress just strengthened these protections by making it clear to the europeans that if they want stay in the program they are not have to share information with United States. They are going to have to have the capability of knowing who they are. That is an intelligence issue. Im not too impressed with what our eu colleagues are doing with respect to even having the data that we need to help protect not only them but to protect the United States. There are some sharing on the intelligence levels. If youre a german citizen and use it in turkey for six months they dont even know that the come back to germany. There is a random checking of passports. You could be a german who was radicalized and trained there. They are so far behind in terms of actually having the system in place. Their external borders are protected by the weakest nations in the eu, greece and bulgaria. Their external controls in terms of Border Control and using their authority are almost nonexistent. So they dont even have the data to share with us. Dena what about the socalled brain behind the paris attacks . He was one of most wanted men in europe. Lets talk about encryption. Not just in the San Bernardino case, but in the paris case. Jamie, should phone companies be required to respond to process . Jamie gorelick every citizen is required to respond to process. My law firm represents Many Technology companies and i understand there is another point of view. We have legislated that and was implemented which basically said to phone companies that you have to create the technical wherewithal so that the court a finding of probable cause says we need this information that could be executable. Right now what our Technology Companies are saying is that is commercially very problematic for us. Therefore were going to offer encryption across the board. It is true for telephone companies. There are any number of apps. This is a hard trajectory against which Law Enforcement is working. It is very difficult. It is not going to be perfect. But we should enable the people who are there to protect us to get information where there is a lawful reason for getting it. Everyone else is free keep their secrets. But bad guys, whether it is a child molester or terrorists, should be able to have their communications discovered through lawful process. You can see him, but he is vibrating. Lets me sharpen that a little bit and ask you. The fbi director said that he thought this wasnt a technological problem. The encryption. It is possible to have a way to search that. It is a business decision that Silicon Valley companies are making that as a business decision. Can you talk about that . General hayden at the end of the discussion it is both. It is a combination of technology and business. Creating a door for the government to enter at the technological level creates a very bad business decision on the parts of these companies because that is by definition weaker encryption than would otherwise be available. You dont have to split the baby. Both of those realities are true. If i was jim comey, this is more of a Law Enforcement issue than an intelligence issue. Because intelligence gets to break all kinds of other roles. I am saying that to say that im going to speak in absolute terms. I get his point of view. Jamie he is responsible for us. General hayden i dont think it is a winning hand to attempt to legislate against technological changes. If you choose to criminalize it here in the United States it from happening. I just dont think it is worth the candle. Even in the security lane, i think i can still win the argument. Im joined in this by Michael Chertoff the former secretary of Homeland Security. We dont normally require citizens to organize the lives for Law Enforcement. Were going to guarantee that the chip would always be a way in. Mike used the same arguments and he fell on his sword and he lost. He will tell you now and thus began that they greatest 15 years of electronic surveillance in the history of the National Security agency. We figured out ways to get around it. Before any civil libertarians want to come up to be and get my autograph, let me tell you how we got around it. Bulk data and metadata. There are tools that we can use at the intelligence level. Jamie if you are responsible for domestic safety, it is a really hard argument to swallow that dont worry about it because we can find out stuff outside the United States. It is not true that we dont legislate to require people to organize themselves so that we can respond. We have all kinds of requirements on businesses that they have to be able to respond to certain inquiries that Law Enforcement makes. My view is similar to that. Robert i want to associate myself with the Jamie Gorelick view of this issue. We faced a very similar issue. Technology does change. Building off their switches and they didnt have any portal for authorized wiretaps. So you can intercept a phone call where there was probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed. The user of this phone was committing it. Congress passed legislation mandating Cell Phone Companies build in portals for Law Enforcement use so they can access with appropriate court orders. If there is a potential terrorists in the United States we have probable cause to believe that terrorists is in communication with another terrorist, i want to be of a present that evidence and get a tap on to that cell phone. With all due respect to general hayden, the fact that we dont have the capacity now is there are Internet Companies that want to sell privacy to everybody even to criminals and terrorists. That is, if not outrageous, it is inappropriate. Dena we require United States companies to do it there will be companies elsewhere that wouldnt. Robert i think the chinese will do it anyway. Jamie the chinese are likely to do it as are the french and the germans. I dont think the mood france right now is too hospitable to the notion that you can sel