The past and shed light on where we are today there is much more significant accountability and oversight constraints with respect to the fbis surveillance activities than there were in the past. Just this last week the director of the fbi was telling a story about how on his glasstop desk, underneath the glass, he has the onepage argueization hoover submitted to Bobby Kennedy for observation for surveillance if dr. King. It has no limitation on dureration, the scope, what could be done with what was collected duration it was a broad authorization. It director keeps that on his desk right now and every morning he is responsible for certifying applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which was enacted after the king survilance. So the director literally puts the stack of applications on top of the onepager every morning. The applications are like this. Each one of them is quite extensive and thick with numerous recitations required by the law and i can talk about those in a second. But the point is that the era of today, the protections in place today, are substantially different than that one point time. You have layer upon layer of requirements that are an effort to have countability and oversight with respect to every application, the director or the deputy director, or some other high ranking official inside the government has to sign certification that meets certain statutory requirements and explains the purpose and necessity of the surveillance. That is what it is in essence. And in addition, every application has to be signed pie the attorney general, Deputy Attorney general or the deputy general for National Security. They have to sign their name and are accountable. Something that didnt exist at the time is the Foreign Intelligence Agency court which is a real court of judges who review these applications and the government cant go forward with these surveillances except in limited circumstances if the fisa judge hasnt signed off. Permanent oversight committees didnt exist during the dr. King era. That is a hugely important oversight mechanisms that exists today but didnt in the past. In addition, if i may take two more minutes, the statute itself has a number of standards set forth in it that again constrain the power of the government and focus the governments attention to make sure we are doing these types of highly intrusive surveillance. That the government is doing them in a way that is consistent with the constitution, the statute, and i would submit with american values. So for example, there are specific standards about what it means to be a legitimate target under fisa court. What is the standard . Probably clause. There are limitations on the duration of the surveillance and the facilities so the phone or where the search is conducted. Those have to be described and the judges had to make determinations under the law with respect to what they authorize. Importantly, there is limitations on what the government can do with the information once collected. One of the most problematic things is what the fbi did with the information after it collected it. The amount of information that was disclosed to other people and the sensitivity to other people that was exposed was quite astounding. Today there are several important parts of the statue that limit that type of use of material. In particularly, the information cant be used for an unlawful purpose. Only a lawful purpose. There are courtordered procedures that apply for m minimization and that means they have to limit the collection consistent with the governments interest in obtaining, producing and disseminating foreign intelligence information. So what i guess i am trying to say is the structure the government learned a lot from these cases. Congress learned a lot. Congress passed law. The government has been implementing those laws for a long time. We as the fbi have learned a lot from it and recognize to this day, right now, and every single day with the director having this on this desk, that we need to stay focused on this particular case but the larger issue it raises with respect to it being cautious about our own exercise of power and the beliefs we have when we are thinking about exercising the power that you have given us under law questioning our thinking and why we are doing something and pushing ourselves to make sure we are not deceiving ourselves and we are not unwear of our own biases and focused on what we should be focused on when we engage in investigative activity and use investigative tools. This is something i want to tell you this is something we think about very much today. It is very much in our mind. With that, i will turn it over and look forward to your questions. Thank you so much. I think it is important to recognize and underscore something you said, mr. Baker. And that is it is pretty interesting. In dprcongress, you have folks talking about the dr. King case like ellison and rand paul. But it is important to say in the executive branch, the one person, and i am repeating myself prom this morning but i want to make sure everyone hears me is dr. Comey. He trains all fbi agents on the case. The director case a speech about hard truths and at the start of it he told this story you think is an introductory speech story and talked about his grandfather being a police cheese in yonkers and his grandfather became unpopular after he apparently cut a fire hose that bootleg les were using to transport beer from the place they brewed to the beer to the speakeasies in the neighborhood. The story is inocilous until you realize wait it minute, there was a time when beer was illegal in this country. And then you think not too long ago it was illegal to be gay. There was a time it was illegal to be japanese and living on the west coast. Japanese american living in your home in the western participant part of the United States. And there was a time when it was effectively illegal to be a civil rights leader in modern america. So how can the fbi say it should always be able to access the information on on phone to root out illegal conduct when throughout history the law has been misused in ways that hurt vulnerable people. There is lots there. We are most definitely not saying we should always have access to everybodys phone. That is absolutely not what we interested in. We want access to data that we think is necessary in order to conduct our investigations that you want us to conduct and you, the america people, have charged us to conduct. When we have appropriate Legal Authority to do so. When we have a search warrant issued by an independent judge that says there is probably cause to believe there is evidence of a crime on that particular device what we are saying is we will try to pursue that and get the evidence off the particular device because that is what we are expected to do. We are investigators so we investigate. What we have been trying to say with respect to what you are referencing is increasingly for a variety of reasons, including encryption, we are unable to obtain evidence in a case in a situation where data is maybe stored on a phone or in a situation where we have trying to do wire tap and the data is in motion and because it is encrypted we are unable to access that. What we are trying to say and director comby said it and where did and i am trying to say how we think about it. We think of our sebselves as th service of the American People. We belong to you. You own us. We follow our direction. It is our responsibility to tell you how it is going and make sure you understand what difficulties we are encountering because you want us to protect you. We have trying to tell people when it comes to electronic surveillance it has been very effective and over the years it is much less effective today. What do you want us to do about that . The laws today, generally speaking, do not enable us to get access to this type of data. Is that okay with you . Is that all right in situations where you have the woman in louisiana who has been murdered and her mother thing thinks there may be evidence on her phone and we cannot access. Is that okay when you is a situation involving a child and a Child Predator . Is it okay when we know we have leaders in isil in syria communicating with people in the United States and people in the using encrypted communication. We can see they are communicating but cant see what they are saying. As a society, are we willing to live with the inevitable Public Safety costs that are associated with encryption which of course enhances all our privacy include mine. We are charged with dealing with cybersecurity threats so encryption is great in that regard. We love encryption. It helps us in so many ways as a society. But it has cost. We need to think about it as as society how we will deal with those cost. Maybe we say we will except it. Maybe that is it. The value associated with encryption is so tremendous, great and beneficial we will deal with the cost. I spent most of my career de department of justice and beingae fbi now one thing that is impressive is the proximate of giving advice and i am closer to agents going into the houses and putting their lives at risk and i am therefore closer to the bad guys and collectively we are closing to the victims. We have the face the victims. There are no demons on any side. The companies are trying to do things they think are legitimate and i dont question their moeft motives. Long answer to an important question. I want to open it up to the audience but first i have question. Can y one nugget to consider. I think one of the most powerful things in the book is how the fbi uses information. A lot of people know there was a wire tap in your book the fbi versus Martin Luther king you talk about how the fbi didnt just takeant the information or use it for blackmail but they brought up the press. I invite you you are not supposed to ask questions if you are a lawyer but i invite you to speculate what would dr. Kings life been like in the absence of that surveillance . Two points. Dr. King was able to survive as a landmark civil rights figure because the journalism standards were set by bradley not by nick denton. In todays america dr. Kings private would have destroyed him before 1963. And the degree of sexual voyeurism that hoover, phillips head quarter supervisor on the king case the degree of voyeurism was not limited to dr. King by any means. The bureau tried to do that in many instances. But american journalist back then nobody touched it. Nowadays you can see what has become of this culture. Second point which albert touched on, too, scores of people, probably several hundred people in washington, knew what was going on. Knew that all of this sexual information was being passed around to catholic bishops, heads of foundations, religiousx journalistic, political figures all over the government. Not a single whistleblower stepped forward. I mentioned the Organizational Culture of the hoover fbi, the Organizational Culture of the hoover fbi meant there was never a whistleblower. Whether we cite someone like jeffrey sterling, an africanamerican who is in jail that we should know, or we think about a Great American patriot that is living under Vladimer Putin it teaches us whistleblowers are necessary to american freedom. Without whistleblowers you get a hoover fbi. Ladies and gentlemen, we have time for one or two questions. I know. Trust me. We could stay here all day but mr. Baker has to be General Council of the fbi and garrow has many things to do. My question has to do with what the lesson the fbi is drivi driving currently from the Martin Luther king and how does that apply to new technology . Not just under surveillance authorities but the fbis racial and ethnic Mapping Program which we know from Public Disclosures of the manual, the guide is permitted or believes it has the authority to collect publically demographic information about race in the community. The aclu has filled public records request about the program. How that authority is being impleme implemented and not leading to wide scale racial profiling and intelligence gathering in investigations. Thank you. So sitting here i cannot give the details of that program because i dont have them in my head. Let me say this. The protection of Civil Liberties is baked into anything we do there. There are limits to ensure Civil Liberties are protected. We have people in the operati Operational Management teams that are excellent. They are all over these kind of issues. We are in a challenging environment, right . So the world is constantly changing. The technology and tools, analytical tools we have available to us haare constantl evolving. We have to do make use of these tools but do them in a way that fits into constitution. We with constantly worried about things that i am guessing you are worried about. We want to make sure what we are doing is defensible because we know to the public and to congress and because of whistleblowers we are going to be held accountable. At some point all of this stuff comes out. We want to make sure what we are doing is defensible. Sometimes it is hard to figure out in the moment what that means. We have robust discussions and debate within the fbi about what is the appropriate thing to do, what are the requirements, and there a lot of pressures on us in terms of the fisa discussion. You get critiques also it is too slow, there are too many requirements and that slows us down especially when dealing with alqaeda. So you have all of these pressures and the idea is put in place the appropriate mechanisms, structures and people who can make the right decisions. For the second and final question i want to recognize that a lot of folks are watching at home from live stream and we have a para scope feed. So i am going to give you mr. Baker a question from parascope. I will paraphrase a little bit. The question is where minority populations are often disenfranchised how does that affect the totality of the American People who are quote unquote authorizing the fbi to do what it does . To collect this data or not. And the questioner asks isnt it true many of the American People who want this data are not the ones at risk of being surveyed . [applause] trying to make sure i understand the question. Tough one for the fbi to answer. We are, as i said before, we are the servants of the American People and the american Political Institutions that tell us what to do in particular congress and the courts. That is a question about the nature of u. S. Democracy that i am not sure that i can or should really answer. I would like to just use a phrase i mentioned to jim yesterday. A phrase that pushes back against todays theme. Muslims are the new blacks. Think about the political culture today with communities under suspicion. We will talk about that immediately after lunch actually so stick around. We face old questions in new context. Ladies and gentlemen, i think it is important to recognize the unique conversation we have going on. I want to reiterate what professor butler said. We invited a lot of the nations top intelligence officials to come and many said yes and that is important and we really appreciate that. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. We have so much for you in the afternoon including a discussion of precisely overlap between the africanamerican population and the Muslim Population from professor zee. We will reconvine on time and that panel is not to be missed. We have a cafeteria, we have food trucks, we have lots of businesses in the neighborhood. One more round of applause and see you at 1 05. [inaudible discussions] [inaudible discussions] welcome back to government surveillance session at georgetown. We have a debate about predictive prisoning and predictive sentencing. A Police Officers decision to stop a citizen on the stret for years was predicated as having reasonable suspicion. And up until recent history that was a human decision and of course driven by bias. What happens when a computer makes that decision . What happens when a computer not only makes the decision about woo to stop, arrest, what happens when the computer makes the decisionoon what that individuals sentence should be. Those are the questions at the heart of the panel and we have an extroidinary panel. We have adjunct profess of law here. Mr. Ferguson, sonya star, and we have christy lane scott from the United States department of justi justice. If you join me on welcoming our panel on predicted arresting and sentencing. We have four panelist, one moderator and 45 minutes. Sonya, you can start with talking about predictive sentencing. I am not a surveillance expert so i am learning a lot. I am here talking about datadri datadriven tools used to pro ticket the future crime risk by the sentence. These tools pervade every step of the criminal Justice System from bail, sentencing, corrections, to parole decisions. My work has a focus on critiquing their use in sentencing and parole but many issues are similar across the board. A Risk Assessment is one that bases a prediction about the clients future risk of crimes is based on an algorithm. The most poplar ones are corporate products and their formulas are proprietary so we know something about the variables but defendants dont get to know exactly how their risk core is calculated. The algorithms vary. All contain variables related to criminal history. The rest vary but there is a few different categories. There is social economic variables like past and present house employment and housing, available to pay pills. Next is related to family background. Do you have family members in prison . Do you have friends with criminal records . Next is demographic particularly gender, age and marriage status. And psycho socio assessment barriers are done and they ask if you have oppositional attitudes toward the criminal Justice