This would be the traditional notion of Foreign Affairs and national security, the isis has been able to use new capabilities and new technology, but thats only consistent with and complementary to the massive amount of land that they now govern in parts of the world. So first of all describe how those two pieces of ice is work to make as successful as it is, and can challenge me on that notion that land, that im in the 20th century world. Well, landed both isis strength and a vulnerability because it means that it is possible to attack them in a way that wouldnt be possible if they didnt have a location. The reason land is so important to this group is its i noticed it, and organized criminal ring extraordinarily successful at criminal activities. In fact, it was founded by a secular fog who found religion thug. Its important to them because their most important source of revenue is what they call taxation, and what we would call just that. Protection. Yeah, yeah. So that is one of the things that makes this group different. Its both its strength and its vulnerability spent i think land is very important if for a group like isis that declares a state or a caliphate, and theres a sense of domination and control for gentrification a special seat at the table of the International Community if you want. But for most types of threats that we talk about, you dont need territory. It actually doesnt matter where you are physically. To attack someone on site recommit anywhere around the world. It really doesnt matter. To start a bio threat, a bio weapon or release some harmful virus, it doesnt matter where you are physically. And the drones as we know allow you remote attacker it doesnt really matter where you are physically. So i think if anything that is approaching technologies diminish the importance of territory, and on the flipside jess is right, territory is also a vulnerability. By the weight not just for isis. The United States can control what happens in its own territory but has no jurisdiction elsewhere. If you have a cyber attack emanating from somewhere else, yes, doesnt have jurisdiction, they can do anything about it. Plus even within the United States territory the government now relies on all these private companies that bruce is talking about. Think about the bp oil spill. Who deals with the bp oil spill . Is that the government . No. Its bp. Bp is the only body that has the expertise, resources, a capacity to plug the well and clean the water. The government provides some support, perimeter support, but the government has become a much weaker tour, in terms of its reliance on private actors to perform its own executive function. The same things in cyberspace, wakeup is attached, if the county doesnt cleanup, even sony was attack by north korea, i like this notion of land being both an asset and a liability. Entities. Depending on who you are you going to choose land or not debate about the balance goes. If you are isis youre trying to become a state. If youre trying to get into i guess the u. N. , in the Government Club so land is an asset. If you are a criminal group, if you are a hacker, land as a liability because now we know where you are. When you see this democratization of tactics, you are seeing it, a lot of tactics that dont need land. And i think this changes with history. This land as were power is centered is really only 1400s until now. Before then the castle to keep was important land. Margarine was largely irrelevant. It was the isolated pockets of where you were. Now i think nationstates are fading more come and the notion of land as a locus of power, while still real important, the United States as an example, is getting fuzzier, getting more diffuse. Think about, imagine a big Climate Change negotiations. Who do you think has more power, axon or bolivia . Its not even close. Exxon. The land it doesnt get power in this particular sphere and we are saying more security related spheres of have that characteristic. A common theme, and i dont know if you know it, but all three of you mentioned the challenge between security and privacy in dealing with either u. S. Populations and limiting Online Access to data. And all three of you sort of suggest we should do it that way, that is not averse is, its an and. And it seems to me though, in reading that i can help the audience thin because how can yu conceive of it as an and, when the government can do this in terms of Data Analysis or drop a drones anywhere in the world, or monitor muslim populations in the United States to make sure i violent extremism is going on. How can people think that in the future, in the threat were facing, that privacy will be a factor in any of this . Is not just privacy. Within the book we tend to think about security and liberty more generally as a balancing act. You give a little bit of something in exchange for the other, and theres kind of a zerosum game in between the two. And we think its more accurate to think about in terms of take a turn from biology where these values sometimes conflict is sometimes actually mutual reinforcement, they always depend on one another. So security without liberty is largely meaningless but its also true you cant have liberty without security. We didnt have these debates about surveillance. Where bruce and we disagree in the comments or via as an evil, where privacy versus a cutie but i think about Airport Security. We dont call it surveillance because we dont like the word but, of course, it is surveillance. The reason we submit ourselves and go through the tsa Airport Security procedure is because we think it enhances both our security and our liberty to plug. Wouldnt be find other ways. When we have government regulation that protects our medical records we dont trade liberty for privacy. We can do think this kind of regulation enhances both. The protection of our medical records enhances both our security and our privacy. In this complex world whether so many actors, the big brother but theres so many little and mediumsized brothers out there, it would be wrong to just think about it as he always trade one for the other. A lot of the time you are trying to maximize both. I also use of the term liberty. I use liberty versus control. Security versus privacy is the economy comes from the false belief that surveillance enhances security. You said it. We surveilled muslim populations because it counters terrorism. It actually doesnt. What we know about it is, it is very invasive on the populations. They feel less secure. They feel less safe. They feel more hostile. Theres a documentary on Community South of chicago, Muslim Committee was surveilled through the 90s and early 2000. Really beautiful commentary on what it does to the fabric of community. It doesnt make them more secure. So i think the security comes from this false belief that if you have less privacy, you get more security. But we dont buying for chinese level surveillance. We dont pine for east germany. We dont wish we lived in iraq. Would actually like the fact we have a privacy, and that gives us security. We are not secure when we all observed. Theres an interesting primatology relationship. We feel like pray because surveyors feel like predators. Of course, there are examples of sometimes having to give it up something, some liberty to get security. Airport security is a great example. Lots of others. We want the fbi to investigate crimes and your into our lives. To how to make that trade off . We do that, we have some mechanisms and its pretty simple, transparency, oversight and accountability of windows mechanisms are in place we feel secure giving the Police Abilities to invade our privacy because we know and we can verify that theyre not going to do that capriciously or in selfserving ways. Think about how this might work in a country like china where you dont have those checks in with his wife it is like nsa surveillance which doesnt have transparency, not counting snowden, thousand of oversight, thousand and accountability. This is surveillance that is making us less secure rather than more secure, something the police might do which we much more transparent. Kind of a long winded answer. I guess id like to give a counterexample. The president announced in february of this year that it would be three private cities would be a countering violent extremism program. In london is boston is boston to another is los angeles and another is minneapolis. And theres a lot of concern about Civil Liberties when the government starts trying to work with individuals in at community that may be ripe for recruitment. By the way the are many converts who are as i said earlier where we, and foreign fighters or isis. But i think of how i would feel if i was worried about my child. Whats happening again, imams want help. They are desperate for help from the government. They know they can do without the government and yet the government cant do it without the moms. Theres an example where on the one hand there is a Civil Liberties concern of the people who are most actually acted often are not as concerned as those who are thinking about it intellectually. Jessica brings a good point up in a book which i want for you to try out little bit, the challenge of government, talk about government, especially in terms of isis, theres a legitimate intelligence interest in allowing extremists to use social media up to a point. That theres a dance in some ways going on if something bad happens. You dont think you have to think about isis. Think about child pornography. Can you describe that is a government able to actually sort of monitor but then be able to tell we are past the point of this being a dance and now this person is radicalized enough to jump on a plane speak with this group is unprecedentedly good at using social media. They have been using a specially twitter, youtube and facebook, took an isis recruit the sites much more quickly than twitter did, but it is a very important source of information the way they communicate, recruit, move onto encrypted sites comes in this thing up to 100 hours trying to recruit one individual. The trade off is if you take it all down as the United Kingdom is trying to do, how to continue to be aware of whats going on when you take it down one twitter account to another one pops up . And what my colleague, michael often found, is that what happens is the new twitter account, the are a lot fewer people like us, odyssey theres a lot of academics who are following the isis accounts. How do you find that trade off . You are right, juliette, presumably that applies in child pornography as well. There is a trade off. And i think i like the United Kingdom, we havent banned, we have insisted that every single one of those sites, accounts get taken down immediately. This is in the democratization of tactics. We are seeing isis use twitter as an organizational tool, so can has collectors. So can syrian dissident. So these tools of coordination, of mutation, of organization are incredibly empowering for everybody, both the good guys and the bad guys. The only thing that is keeping our society afloat right now is there are way more good guys and bad guys. Most of the organization that on site with assistance, whatever they are, with modern technology is for good. And i think its interesting to watch this. Syrian dissidents use facebook to organize. This year in government uses facebook to arrest its citizens. We are seeing very complicated power play between traditional power, which i think of as governments and corporations and is more distributive power, which may be isis, might be a criminal organization who wants to assassinate people with the drones, or even individual drone hobbyists. This balance is changing and were seeing this democratization which really gets into daddys notion of many against many. And i set you up for that. Eletter to our previous conversation about the privacy and liberty and security. Theres this notion the internet is this virtual place and its the sake of because its virtual. Its where our thoughts are and sort of our other self and thats why nobody should be in the business of watching what we do. Its would have are very real love and relationships and Financial Transactions and medical records and all that. Just like we want to be in a place that isnt policed in the physical world, im not sure wanted in the place that isnt policed in the socalled virtual world. Facebook and what a wonderful because, sort of want to be a citizens, what claims do we have, visavis those corporations are those corporations that give these platforms to all the wonderful things they create but also the potential harms. Do we have any claim against them . Ear i think we share very much the same sensibilities that think about product liability. We have demands from companies all the time to make sure that what they give us are produced for us is safe, regardless of what is security related or not. Think about drug and food administration. The government cant make sure that the food you consume or the medicine you take is safe. What they can do is order these companies to make sure that its safe. I think a lot of that, not just what we want in a relationship with a big brother but what we want from these corporations, how much selfregulation, selfmonitoring. Did it take on site or allow them . Is there something in our state is reset to mention that does limit to Market Forces but says heres the line that you cant cross anymore. Last week john brennan, director of the cia, his aol email account was hacked by a teenager, i a kid spent why does he use aol . [laughter] because hes other generation i got an aol account. We know why uses aol. Whats important is he did nothing wrong. He didnt have a lousy password he didnt write it down. He didnt share or email it. What the hacker did is called verizon can pretend to be a verizon employee and get information about john brennan. Credit card information, use an income email address, a bunch of its information, and use that, called Aol Customer Service virginia to be john brennan and got the email password reset. John brennan is sitting, having dinner with his friends and to companies, unbeknownst to them, are tricked into the hacker getting into is the new. Who is at fault . It speaks to cabbies go directly. It is those companies fault. And brennan cant do anything about it. It has to be the government assisted those companies, you cant be this sloppy. We are just not going to let you. This is a matter of public safety. So we do agree that government needs to be, take a much stronger hand in these commercial systems. So the government and the particular specifically is government sort of comes up in these books as both a bumbling and big cannot get enough and using aol accounts, to compare to the twentysomething we are the odd email. When my daughter tells me, dont email me. How else are they going to email anymore. I still print, i have to be honest with you. And also though a perception learned about the government as being a mission, allknowing, all powerful, maybe both are true. But given the threats that you will describe, i think the overall question is what can the government do . What should it do and does it have the tools necessary, given the kinds of threats that we describe . Jessica, i will start with you. I think theres a limit to what the government can do both about whats happening in iraq and syria. You know, we are unamerican. We think we have to fix every problem. Also, we played a role in bringing the problem so theres a sense of moral imperative. At the same time im not sure how much we can do without making things worse. When it comes to recruitment of foreign fighters, its very hard. The private citizenry can play a much bigger role, and i see an army of individual muslims who have decided to take on this problem of equipment, who are actually responding to kids online. In fact, yesterday i spent quite a bit of time. Theres a kid in libya he was telling hes to join isis and weve been in communication, at least he says he is from libya. I dont know where he is. Anyway, weve been having this long conversation. I also think the state department is trying to respond to the online recruitment with something called think again, turn away. It basically says ice special event. Listen to us. Its a bunch of middle aged people try to come up with something with aol accounts last night. And it really needs to be 19yearolds who are doing there. Im going to be participating next fall in an effort to get students to compete to develop the best Online Platform to respond to this. I think thats important for the private sector to get involved. Just to pick up on what jessica saying, that there thes the chance the National Ticket apparatus, the revolution also a city with security clearance, the traditional notion of the white guy from arkansas who speaks through it which is getting recruited from the cia, next great Government Employee might have been arrested for pot use and a couple tattoos additionally good at hacking. We will have to change the notion of it. Its an overarching theme, the notion that governments are slow and ponderous but very powerful. The more disputed users are fast and nimble but inherently less powerful. So we are going to see this, this puzzle is a bad word. Battle between the quick and the strong. Theres the cyber criminals and the fbi has to go through a procurement process, have to get someone a clear and. You dont have to get a clearance to join isis. Probably best if you dont get one. So this group will be moving faster. This group will be stronger. So its kind of a little david and goliath thing you its an open question whos going to win. Traditionally, big and strong winds. Go back 10, 15, 20 years, but now governments, they are realizing that they have to be, active early. So can they learn and nimble . And the fast learned strong . When new technologies emerge, which side are they going to benefit . Getting back to searing dissidents using facebook to organize. Searing governments use facebook to arrest dissidents to whos going to win the next platform . Twitter. All of these technologies, current and future are going to affect this quick versus strong and thats what youve got to watch whether its strong corporate, stronger but, what is quick criminals were quick dissidents or quick anything. I think th