Drawn. There two different private sector models. The model that has been2g endod by the president and the subject of Congress SaidTelephone Companies will continue to keep the meta data as their own Business Records and they will be approved fromyl7 obtaining t from the Telephone Companies. There was an alternative proposed that its important to understand what the program was essentially was with them inquiries of it based on reasonable suspicion that they were associated with terrorism. What they are moving towards now is making that query of the Telephone Companies. The intermediate model was lets give the bulk meta data to a third party who would hold it and have the government have the ability to sending the queries. I dont think there was any substantial support for that both because it creates a new security program. You know how it held with somebody else and it didnt seem to provide substantial privacy protections. Lets open it up now for questions from the audience so we will have plenty of time to allow each of you to ask anything you might want to ask on any of the subjects we n any of the subjects we i just wanted to poke the bear a little bit and challenge that line of use. For restricting the use of data and where that line is drawn. What would be your response to the challenge that you really cant its not really voluntary for an individual to provide meta data to a telephone f]mito62 i f qj because whats reasonable depends on what the law is and what the rules are. We moved from the model to this new reasonable expectation of privacy. It may be time and im not smart enough now to think of what the new regime would be. Privacy that doesnt rely on the expectation of privacy. If you are rejecting the third party doctrine, you are allowing people to expand the scope of your home. They can use the tools to get rid of the doctrine. It is not necessarily the consent question, but the wealth of information that is provided. The court was looking at discreet records and telephone calls made. There was not a sense that everything we do is in some ways can be recorded by a third party. Thats where i think its relevant recognizing the wealth of Information Available and that information is provided to a vird party. Even though it was not specifically about a third party issue, the reilly case puts pressure on them and my view is it should force the court and others to think about drawing lines. I was interested to hear the panels thoughts on the use side as well as adequacy of safe quarters and efficacy this was something we had to deal with. This was to facilitate information sharing among the agencies. Basically with respect to signals intelligence, you can share products within the Intelligence Community according to the rules that govern the intelligence products. They were working on a set of rules to allow they are subject to the rules that govern that agency. The protections follow the data. As i said earlier, there is no indication that the rules had been ineffective. I think what the argument has been is people think the law shouldnt allow what the law does allow. Not that we dont have effective controls to enforce the law as it currently exists. It it were to go away completely, would that mean that local police would have to get pens which i dont think they have to do. As a 30 party doctrine, there is a host of others that may takes it place. There is a special needs doctrine that said if the government is engaging in nonlaw enforcement collection, different rules apply and you dont necessarily need suspicions to engage in other activities. There is the possibility of the special needs doctrine that would expand to cover other activities that are taking place. There is a possibility of that. There is a host of other doctrines that may takes it place. That would require them to have an articulation of what the governments purpose was balanced against an evaluation. That doesnt happen when you invoke that. If they found interest in the movements with the arguments that scalia tried to look down the road and foresee some of those unintended consequences, would that mean that would they have to get a warrant if they did it for a month. That was deemed to be you dont have injuries and a privacy interest in that. There concurrences that suggest how easy Technology Made surveillance. Scalia awe the problem, but a lot of cars have data and we collected about the feed of where that car was going. They would have similar issues they had with the meta data. There will be a change. It wont be overruled. Penn registers will be penn registers. There might be limits or recasting largely because these are older doctrines and a lot of consequences from repealing it. The National Security council with the project here in d. C. The government would be in a special advocate president with the private and Civil Liberties interest. I think the president supports the idea of a special advocate and that comports the fisa Court Processes continuing to work whether they change in any respect as a result will remain to be seen. There is a few within the branch that a special advocate construct will not unduly impede the operation of the court. Do we have time here that the other panel did. I have on the tip of my tongue. I have thoughts on the classification and how that affects the debate between the privacy and security. Can you explain what you mean . I forget who actually said it. When you classify everything, you protect nothing. Im curious to see once the information is collected, how is that categorized and how does that affect the argument between being able to achieve both privacy and security concerns . The classification is an independent concept from collection. An executive order of when you classify information and it depends upon the impact of National Security. Obviously the more highly classified information is and the more its protected and the more you can share and make use of it. The classification is a problem. I think for a variety of reasons, there a number of reasons there incentives to classify rather than not classify. It does not affect any desire to cover up problems. Its a series of bureaucratic incentives that push people to classify things. I guess the protections for privacy that exist are a different category from classified information. I think over the last year since the Edward Snowden disclosure first came out, its that there is a problem and a challenge i should say between the transparency you need to describe what it is you are doing and ways to make the American People feel good versus your concern about protecting how you do things. If you are too transparent, the bad guys know how to hide. If you are not, the parade will come up in peoples minds about how you are acting and can take over and prove tell us. I was there for part of it. A move by many was in the Intelligence Community to try to increase the amount of transparenty about what that community does. Thats running against the culture. There security reasons you dont blab about what you do. The lessons in two years are to a much greater extent than in the past, the Intelligence Community would benefit about what its doing and why. Thats easy to say and hard to do. Do any of the panelers have comments on the usa freedom act that is pending in congress and the differences between the house and the Senate Version of the bill . One of the questions related to the prostlagz is not in the house bill, but the senate bill regarding special advocate to be present before the court . There was a provision in the house bill that is different in the senate bill. The house bill also had its not and there differences, but the concept is the same. So bob is speaking and expressing a preference for the senate bill . No. I would not favor one house over another. I think that either of the two there probably will be in the near future9jr7y a statemenm the administration about what the view is on the legislation. I will probably let that come. I wanted to go back to the question raised about ane issu that we havent have with the interconnectedness of databases. Just as one example that is not from the surveillance context, the nofly list. There was a recent ruling out of california in which there was a woman placed on the nofly list by mistake. The box that was checked, the wrong box was checked. According to the courts review, that was discovered after that and it took time before the relevant databases, all the information was cleared from the databases. Thats one of the underlying concerns and issues that motivates some of this debate and discomfort among the the people about collection and about the sufficiency of even the best use protocols with the best instances of mistake and the consequences for real people. In the fisa context, we actually have very stringent and effective rules in that regard. For example, under one particular provision of fisa, we are not allowed to target either the u. S. Concerns or persons who are located within the united states. Sometimes it happens that we think somebody is not a u. S. Person and we discover oh, my gosh, this person has a green card. We didnt know that before. You have to report it to the fisa court and durnlg downstream reporting. All of this is overseen within the government and reported to the court and reported in summary fashion each year to congress. It is possible to get rules and procedures that do protect against these mistakes. I want to thank our panel for sharing their thoughts and wisdom and thanks to the audience for participation. I understand we now are going to break for lunch and bring our lunch back here. Be ready for the next presentation. Thank you very much. In the next panel with the security forum, the director of George Washington universitys Homeland Security policy institute talks about the status of current and emerging Homeland Security threats around the globe. Ladies and gentlemen, im going to get us back under way. Many of you are finishing your lunch. Please continue and we hope that people in the hall way can rejoin us. Be as quiet as you can. Let me reconvene our program at 1 10. We are fortunate to have the next speaker as the post lunch speaker to discuss current and emerging threats to meet the challenge. One only has to read the newspaper or watch television to appreciate how important this support has become again. Americas memory is short, but hopefully people that work with the director and the homeless institute have long memories at the George Washington university where the tell us institute is located. Frank is the speaker and frank is the associate Vice President at the George Washington university. Im sure he is a leader in many other regards with George Washington. Frank is routinely called upon to advice senior officials and the executive branch of u. S. Armed services on a variety of national Homeland Security issues. No one has a Broader Vision of Homeland Security i remember frank from the early days of Homeland Security and he was one of the closest advisers to secretary tom ridge as the department was being stood up. He served in office at the white house called the office of Homeland Security which was a really small shop. It grew into a 40 billion enterprise. Before the white house was involved, literally i could go on and on about his background and resume, but let me now introduce the next speaker. Frank . Thank you for that overly kind introduction. If i were to introduce myself, it would be a bumper sticker. He who displays varying degrees of ignorance. The environment we are facing today plays to one of my strengths. To a add. If you were to close your eyes and have a map in front of you and point to any place on the map, in all likelihood you are going to fall into a bullseye of a crisis that we are facing right now. Im going to spare the lawyer joke. I can tell you one thing. I like lawyers behind me to be in front of all of you. Thats threatening, but i have the greatest respect and association for what the Bar Association does and what joe does and jim turner and what all of you do to advance the security. Many others. We have done great work and you continue to do great work. Our country needs it. What i thought i would do, close your eyes and point to anywhere on the map. Whether its the ukraine or crimea or pyongyang or whether its whats unfolding in syria and iraq, whether its where you see vaflt, vast territory under the control of islamists and foreign terrorist organizations. Whether its the Ebola Outbreak in africa and whether its cyber threats. The reality is unfolding and feels like its unfolding quicker, faster and more dangerously than ever before. I dont know if you had an opportunity to read general flynns interview, it is well worth taking five minutes to read his views. It is the head of the Defense Intelligence agency and the take away. I ask to you read it. This is one of the most dangerous times in his lifetime in terms of an era and threats and compared it perhaps to World War Two where you had the most evil manifestations of what humanity has seen. It is worth looking at. Accelerating all this is the speed and the connection of technology. Whether its social media. If you see how effective social media has been for the adversaries to recruit individuals, look in syria and iraq. You have a surge. You have 13,000 foreign fighters joining the ranks of organizations in the area. These are big numbers. When you are talking about foreign fighter, at least 3,000 of which are westerners. That adds a new level of concern. These are individuals and they speak our language and they know the targets and know everything about us. Many of these people return. Perhaps we dont feel the full effect of what it means right now, but years from now, i think you will see it manifest if dangerous sores of ways. If you look at the environment and try to understand that terrorism environment, it does come in various shapes, sizes and forms. How effective of they . They have been eclipsed. That is the wrong set of questions. Its a conflation of many, Many Organizations that are going in an out source model and they are open source where they are working with, between, and among. They are seeing conflict zones. You cant fully straight them from al qaeda and what you are seeing unfold in syria and iraq. You are starting to see individuals who are being talent spotted who can be turned around. Sent back to the homelands because of the familiarity and because of their recognition of the region. We did a major study in 2007 i want to say. Maybe 2008 or 2009. Army exactly. Look looking at the trends and trajectories, at that time we started looking at that largely because of one particular case. Does anyone here remember that case . This was a naturalized american who went to afghanistan. His intend was to fight alongside taliban. He was intercepted and curned around and said you are a much greater value. He was behind the spot. A sinister plot to suicide and homicide bombings on the new york subway. This was the time our country was blinking really red. He got further along than any of us feel comfortable with. In part because we didnt have the sink ronization and integration we strive for in federal, state, and law enforcement. They materialized in denver and made it to new york. They were looking for the holes. We did analysis on this. The simple take away is they are nothing new if you go back to afghanistan. The first fight with the soviets, there were a number of westerners fighting alongside threats in that region as well. The numbers are growing in terms of scale and the speed is quicker and the demographic is changing and many are coming back to the west. When you look at even the al qaeda threat, i think everyone would have liked to say dingdong the witch is dead and lets worry about all of our challenges that are facing our country. Our Economic Situation and Everything Else we struggle with on a daily basis. The reality is the threat was not dead. I think part of that is getting to the recognition and understanding that its not about networks or organizations alone, but the ideology. To paraphrase bill clinton, its the economy and its the ideology stoop. Its propelling the organization and fueling the organizations and quicker and faster and resonates with the percentage of people around the world. I think that should warrant a lot of concern. We need to continue to push the envelope, but we need to recognize that until we address the ideological underpinnings of the threat, we will have tactics with the strategy. We will have to under mine and help facilitate and attacking it. That is being filled today. Why africa. These are un and under governed spaces. They are afforded the time and ability to maneuver and plot attacks. I think one of the challenging issues we have tried to address, taking drones. Probably not a good topic in front of a bunch of lawyers, but i would rather the enemies look over the shoulders than giving them more time to plot, execute and maneuver and recruit and engage in terrorist activity. Is it the panacea . Absolutely not. Is it an important instrument . Yes, but it has to be coupled and combined with other,o];q2z instruments that we are not that comfortable as a country or a world. Thats something we need to worry about. Isis. If you look at the tragic, tragic news in recent days in terms of the beheading of an american, this is part of their narrative. The narrative is to say we should be afraid and continue to engage in this sort of activity. I would va advice no one to watch that video. In a way we are giving them the oxygen they look for and seek for to be able to fulfill those objectives. That said, we cant ignore th