Transcripts For CSPAN Security Versus Privacy 20131104 : vim

CSPAN Security Versus Privacy November 4, 2013

Having their work examined by intelligence commissioners and insure they act under proper legal basis. I take those responsibilities very, very seriously but i believe we have a good system in this country and we can be proud of people that work in it and proud of the people that oversee it. David anderson. Mr. Speaker, we mentioned the Energy Companies have been outsourced to china, french, lights may go out, pensions will freeze this year and we have big six. Does the Prime Minister have any regrets by former tory movement and defamation of the in the world . What i would say, to the honorable gentleman in terms of Energy Security that he back ad government that in 13 years never built a single Nuclear Power station. Oh they talked about it, boy, did they talk about, but they never actually got it done. In terms of chinese and french investment, i think we should welcome Foreign Investment into our country, building these important utilities so we can use our fire power for the schools and the hospitals and roads and railways we need. Andrew percy. There are, in my constituency, sure to be over 100 Wind Turbines and 30 or 40 in the planning system. These turbines are paid for by my constituents but not restricteded to concreting jobsn my constituency. Can he assure changeses to green subsidies, that the jobs in that sector of energy are actually here in the United Kingdom . Well, i know how hard my honorable friend has worked with other mps on a crossparty basis across the region to try to attract investment into our country and we should continue to target that investment. Will the Prime Minister join me paying tribute to the positive role played by trade unions in the work of the Automotive Council which has brought the renaissance in the u. K. Car industry . I think the Automotive Council has been extremely successful. Where trade unions play a positive role i will be the first to praise them but where, where, frankly, where frankly we have a real problem with a rogue trade union that who nearly brought the petrochemical industry to its knees we need to have a proper inquiry, a labour inquiry of if they had any courage, any vision, any strength of decisionmaking they recognize they need to have the question time airs live on c every wednesday and sunday nights at 9 p. M. Eastern and pacific. You can watch it on www. C span. Org, were you will find video of other programs. Next, a discussion of security versus privacy. Seer that another chance to british Prime Minister David Cameron taking questions from the house of commons. Author Neil Degrasse tyson on americas call for engineers. As nasa goes, so does america. If nasa is healthy you dont need a program to convince people it is good to do. They will see it. We are going to dig through the and look for life. Look at the nasa portfolio. It has biology, geology, aerospace engineers, electrical the stem fields. Science, technology, engineering, and math. Nasa is a wheel that a Healthy Society cap. Book tv has aired 40,000 programs about nonfiction books and authors. Next, a discussion about privacy versus security. The Rand Corporation hosted this panel, which includes the special agent in charge of intelligence in the senior aclu attorney. This is just under an hour. Let me introduce the speakers. You are going to figure out who they are once they start to talk to they are not seated yet. Its a great topic and a great panel. Henry is one of the young stars. Analyst and senior a professor at the graduate school. That is him at the far end. He is an expert on risk analysis and decision techniques across a wide range of issues and recently testified before it toss, applying homeland issues. George, in charge of intelligence. We are glad george can represent the agency tonight. He has been in various capacities for the fbi, focusing on intelligence and weapons of mass instruction. To fort taken him hoover, and he also has been the on scene commander in iraq. Is next to him is the ambassador cameron. He is a retired career diplomat now. He was the ambassador to pakistan from 2010 until 2012. He will have hairraising stories about that relationship at a time when relations were not easy, including the capture. Nd killing of Osama Bin Laden before that he had an assignment in baghdad where he had responsibility for overseeing the planning of the drawdown of u. S. Troops. He had a mission in the Czech Republic and poland. He served in the security counsel under president clinton and bush. Is the senioreast staff attorney at the aclu Southern California office. The distinction of having one important cases against the lapd over searching entertaining , and theyskid row were raiding africanamerican barbershops without a warrant. And haseen a law clerk a distinguished career both outside and inside the aclu. Please join me and welcoming our distinguished panel. [applause] henry, over to you. Thank you, gred. Greg. We are here to talk about security and privacy. Events of the last two years have put these in the forefront. The boston bombing reminded us that terrorism is still an ex officio and existential threats. A month later, Edward Snowden began releasing revelations about massive surveillance that our government was doing. This kicked off a healthy public debate about how we balance privacy and security. As you heard from greg, it is our mission at rand to improve the quality of Public Policy decisionmaking. That is why we brought together this panel. People who have different views. Everyone here has deep expertise. We are hoping to have an open discussion. There will be some things and questions they will be unable to answer because of the situations. We will try to guide the discussion over a few topics. We will start with trying to understand what works with Intelligence Security and why we feel we need to put measures in place. We are then going to turn to what are the increased risks of mass collection of data on the public . Finally, what are the implications of this on how we implement Foreign Policy. It serves as an overarching of the things i would like to see us cover. I would like to start with the first question on the rent we face and why we need security. If there are no random no benefits, we do not need security. How has the threat of terrorism changed over the past decade and how have our methods adaptive . It has changed in relatively significant ways. It is a far more diffuse threat than it was 10 or 15 years ago. It is not necessarily align to buy group, but principally by ideology and other driving fact theres, driving factors. Secondly, the threat seems to progress at times very rapidly. What may appear to be a localized threat today could be on our doorstep tomorrow. Lastly, they do not necessarily appear based on their actions in recent actions are indicators of that. Big and complex attacks are their goal or their aim to accomplish their objectives. Relatively small in comparison attacks that are relatively simple to put together and execute seem to be a preference. They have the same tools we all have to communicate in a worldwide capacity, through the internet and other social media, which makes communicating plans and intentions relatively easy, and also to gain support and materials. These are some of the challenges weve inc. We are responding to. These are some of the challenges we think we are responding to. As someone who spent the last 10 years out of the United States, this is not something americans will seek to deal with on their own. This is going to take some sort of cooperation with foreigners, those who are friendly to us in understanding those foreign and understanding those foreign elements who are not really to us. It is not just an american task. You make a big mistake if we see it as only hours. From a security this, what types of steps is important for us to be able to take . From my organizations if, we have to show Due Diligence that we do not dismiss even what may be the smallest allegation. But to do that within the construct provided to us through congress and stemming from our constitution. Make sure that we leave no stone unturned and that we do that with the responsibility to protect the citizens. That aspect of our work is present every day. Even with predicated investigations and facts that can be substantiated, we must balance that with the responsibility to maintain Civil Liberties and privacy. We cannot do everything that may be available to us until we can demonstrate lesser intrusive methods have been effective. Every day, men and women with the fbi work toward accomplishing that mission recognizing they have that responsibility of policy Civil Liberties and privacy along the way. Let me jump in here. From an outsiders perspective looking at Law Enforcement practices, not only federal Law Enforcement, but also local enforcement like lapd or in way pd nypd, it seems that Law Enforcement has shifted from a traditional Law Enforcement model finding bad guys, investigating them, seeing if you can find their friends and invest gave them, to more of an intelligence and investigate them, to more of an intelligence model, collecting information and collecting dots, which might appear innocuous. And put together, it might reveal some sort of crime. Whether that is the nsa program gathering metadata or suspicious activity or porting programs and local programs suspicious activity or reporting programs. There has been a shift to collecting lots of data. There is a question as to whether that is an effective model. Look at william websters Community Report on the fort hood shooting. One of the conclusions is that intelligence analysts missed intelligence because of a relentless work load created by an explosion of data they have to process. There is a question about whether this is adding more hay to the haystack and an ineffective way to police. Thank you for bringing up those points. You also highlighted that Law Enforcement has a couple of rolls. They have the role of investigating crimes. In today Law Enforcement has a couple of roles. George, you mentioned there is an effort to try to do this within the realm of protecting Civil Liberties. There is a history of cases where some of those Civil Liberties have been abused so checks have been put in place. I would like to ask your view on where those checks are effective and where you might have some concerns. There are a lot of checks that have been put in place. Some are less effective than others. Within the nsa programs we are seeing, a lot of checks have proven ineffective. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment sets up a warrant requirement. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The shift to a more universal collection mechanism requires the bypassing of that. Whether that is true, the oak warrants issued bulk warrants issued through fisa courts or the data gathered outside any kind of warrant. But that model seems to be and in effect of way of overseeing ineffective way of overseeing. What is in effect it is the secrecy. One of the things that is stunning about the revelations and the scope of the programs is how far they have gone without any public discussion. Also, in the context of the fisa courts, we have seen fisa judges saying, we are not the most effective check on this. We cannot evaluate the information resented to us in onesided situations in a one sided preceding where there is no adversary. He cannot supervise what is being done with our orders, what is being acted on, because we are just a court. The secrecy and adversarial nature of the fisa court is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. That brings to the next brings us to the next part of this discussion. We have heard about the things we need to do to respond. I get asked a question, are we safer because of what we do . In many ways, that is the wrong question. The question we posed that is, what have we gained in terms of safety and what have we lost . I will turn back to peter to start with. What are some of the risks of mass surveillance . It is always difficult to articulate the value of privacy thomas but i will give it a shot. Value of privacy, but i will give it a shot. There are a few answers to that. Most people are doing something wrong. [laughter] it may be not what they think. Running red lights, sloppy reparation of your tax returns. Preparation of your tax returns. People do things wrong. Government does not always target bad guys or who they think are bad guys for exactly the reasons you might inc. All capone was reasons you might think. Al capone was gotten on tax evasion. A lot of times we see what seems to be contextual charges brought. An investigation that has a National Security agent on it results in an immigration charge or a the poor patient proceeding or a deportation proceeding. Somebody gets into their head the idea that you are doing something wrong. That can create a problem. Government is made up of people who are fallible. Individuals can abuse the power that has been given to them. That includes world actors. Rogue actors. Edward snowden did not do what the government expected. In los angeles there was the public disorder and Intelligence Division that compiled information and used it for political purposes. Information that is collected for Law Enforcement and security purposes is often used on political groups. If i could provide some perspective. The fbi operates through mandates that are codified in statute laws written by our congress and signed by the president into law. That process has produced, appropriately and necessarily, oversight, not just in the executive branch of government itself. The department of justice is obviously in the fbi as well. But also with the congress and through the court system and the judicial branch. That is to make sure that they and and day out, the work we are doing day in and day out, the work we are doing is representing the people of the United States and is what is required at that point in time. They have an expectation that we use those tools. They have an eagle expectation that we balance the use of those tools equal expectation that we balance the use of those tools in a predicated investigation for which we are allowed to use those tools to protect Civil Liberties and privacy. Just because we have the authority by law to use certain techniques, we have a responsibility and a requirement to do so in a manner that is least intrusive whenever possible. Sometimes, even an interview is to intrusive. If we think you have been involved in wrongdoing because we have received information and we cant corroborate aspects of it and we are authorized to open and we can corroborate aspects of it and we are authorized to open investigation, we can have a discussion with you at your work lace. The interview itself at your work place. The interview itself is less intrusive, but doing it at your work place is an intrusion on your privacy. This causes people to have concerns they should not have. We take care to measure the technique used and the manner it might be used before we do it. Oversight is provided by the leadership as well as those individuals responsible for conducting the investigation. That happens as a matter of practice every day. Some of the discussion highlights a couple of things that leads to the conflicts that we are talking about. Maybe because of this there might be intimidation. There might the First Amendment concerns or the possibility of an unwarranted search. Peter, can you expand on the way people have framed whether or not these constitutional concerns are at risk . That is certainly a concern. We have seen that. It goes back to the point i was making earlier about surveillance being targeted against political groups, whether it was surveillance of Martin Luther king during the 1960s by the fbi, or whether the fbi placed its own undercover agents inside the occupied sandy relief efforts. That has a real potential to chill peoples political activity, people who may want to go out and participate in occupied sandy relief efforts or the original occupied efforts. It may be chilled if people think their participation may be noted and that may have repercussions down the road. This is a good audience to convey that point. There are young people who might want jobs that rants or with the state department who might have second thoughts you might want jobs at rand or with the state department who might have second thoughts. To go back to the oversight, there is a legal issue with oversight by the courts, particularly surveillance. There is a doctrine that says you cannot challenge a program unless you can prove you have been harmed by it and your objective reaction to the existence of the program is not enough. You have to prove you have been targeted. Nobody can prove they have been targeted by secret surveillance programs. The aclu has brought the challenge of warrantless surveillance programs and they have been thrown out. The court says, we understand you may be a journalist and you let you may be chilled because you have a reasonable believe you may be monitored. You cannot prove you are being monitored. We are not going to take the case. That takes the court out of the oversight picture and that is a real problem. One aspect of some of that is the concerns you discussed about people being affected by awareness of surveillance not choosing to do something. Isnt that already happening .

© 2025 Vimarsana