Saturday evening post, places that dont even exist anymore. So the new yorker had to invent a way to get fiction in the magazine. They discovered new talent, and that became part of the soul of the new yorker. Rose we continue with Billy Eichner, the star of billy on the street. Strangely enough, like a lot of actors, im normal to shy offstage if i dont know you. But people loved the street act. They loved the energy. I think a real savvy new yorkl. A. Audience who i was performing for at the time, before youtube, appreciated getting insanely worked up about entertainment. Rose miller, recommend nicremnick andeichner when we rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by rose additional funding provided by and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose we begin this evening with continuing coverage of the paris attacks which killed 129 people. France has carried out airstrikes against i. S. I. S. Targets in syria for the third consecutive day. French Security Forces revealed today there might have been a ninth suspect to take part in the attacks. Questions have been raised about the ability of i. S. I. S. To commit similar attacks in the United States. Joining us is john miller, Deputy Commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism of the new york police department. Hes also a former colleague at cbs news and im always pleased to have him at any table and especially this table. Welcome. Good to be here, charlie. Rose lets start with your take on paris and could it happen here and how is paris or how is new york different . Well, it could happen here in new york simply because it could happen anywhere. What were talking about is redefining the common terrorist plot to be lowtech, lowcost and as we see now extraordinarily high impact. You dont need talented, sophisticated operators to walk into a crowded place with a rifle and start shooting people. On the other hand, the ability to launch that at multiple locations in a global city like paris is a significant external planning capability. Rose it also indicates this is a global struggle. Thats very significant, charlie, as i as it redefines wt i. S. I. S. Was two months ago to what i. S. I. S. Or i. S. I. L is today. How does it redefine it . I. S. I. L was a place running an infantry and taking land in syria and to some extent iraq. Rose to create a caliphate. To create the Islamic State take land, hold land, take more land. They put out calls with very slicklyproduced propaganda, stuff you would stack against madison avenue any day that had a promise of, you know, going from zero to hero if you were some person whose life didnt seem to amount to much. But what you see here is rather than kind of farming this out to anybody who was listening, it appears that a group was given an assignment to take down that plane and may have penetrated airport conventional Airport Security to compromise it. You see a complex attack in lebanon which is really interesting because who is the victim of terrorism there . Seems to be an arm of hezbollah so now you have one terrorist group attacking essentially another. Then you have the attacks in paris, multiple attackers, multiple locations, simultaneous. So that really speaks to an organization that went from being a selfpropelled prop tbanda arm propaganda arm globally to one that can launch a complex operation. Rose you said how they carried it out was simple but it was a complex operation. What do we know about i. S. I. S. intentions today . I think i. S. I. S. Is focused on taking and holding land and creating the caliphate and Islamic State. Rose and the president said that narrative is important for them to create the idea that they are creating a state. Thats right. Rose to recruit to it. The name is important to them. They could have called it a lot of things but they called Islamic State because, charlie, in the sophisticated marketing piece here, for you to go against i. S. I. S. , then you must be at war with the Islamic State, which translates in short to youre at war with islam, and i think that was constructed intentionally, when youre actually at war with a terrorist group called i. S. I. L. So there is some calculation. But the key is, to your question of where is i. S. I. S. Going with this, is they werent just concerned with the outside world when they were taking territory. Once the outside world outraged by beings and kidnappings and terrorist acts that were televised said were going to corporal a coalition and do an outside bombing campaign, i. S. I. S. Said, well, the outside world needs a dose of fear, and thats what theyre trying to do here. Rose how smart are they technologically . We hear about growing dark and the apps they now use. Explain that to me. Going dark is a catchall phrase for the fact that the aperture on the intelligence communities ability to collect on terrorist groups or the ability of Law Enforcement to collect against criminal groups is slowly closing. In the old days, there was the cell phone which you could put a wiretap on if you had a court order. There was email which was held on a server by a provider that if you came with a search warrant or a subpoena had to be turned over. Now theyre designing apps, telegram, a russian company, wicker a San Francisco company, a number of them that are specifically designed so that you can send messages that are coded and encrypted in a way that they cant reasonably be broken even by pros, that they selfdistrict at a time that you the sender send, so when i send it to you, i can program it so that a minute after you read it, it disappears forever. That means you can show up with your subpoena and court order to the provider and say, we found this cell phone on the dead terrorist and one of the apps seems to be the communications platform, we need to see what went over that leading up to this attack and where are they now, and the provider can say not only i wont turn it over but they can say i cant turn it over because i dont have it and i cant get it. Rose do you have a position on the idea of encryption and how much encryption and who should be allowed to have access to the encryption . So i think thats a question that we have to decide as a country, which is what do we expect in terms of privacy and what do we expect in terms of the governments ability to solve crimes, save lives, present terrorist attacks . I dont pretend to know the answer. I do know this, that the law is having trouble keeping up with the technology. There is a law called kalia phonetic really invented to keep up with the cell phone when it started and the idea if there is a communications device, the provider has to provide a way that they can assist Law Enforcement with a legal court order to get information. The interesting thing is as technology is excelled forward, Law Enforcement can get a subpoena but its not really a phone and these apps are for a computer and its not covered under kalia. Rose and also we dont know how to get access to it, right . Right. Apple is in a very interesting place now. Apple says we have a lock on the phone that you the owner of the phone controls and if its al capones iphone and you hand it to us and say we have a court order, crack it open, we can say we dont have the key. There is a case going on in brooklyn involving drugs where its the old iphone and apple says, in fact, we can open it but we dont feel like it because it mayer road the trust of our customers so were going to say no. So thats where we are. You can get into the debate about privacy, terrorism and national security, but what it comes down to, my guys are out on a kidnapping, there is a ransom drop, a child held and i grab the guy who picks up the ransom and he doesnt have the kid but i get his phone and say to the provider we need this phone opened, we need to know where this is going, and they say we dont know how. Rose you need to know where the kid. So this is an important debate and one that wont be decided by the police, wont be decided by the courts. This debate is going to have to be decided in congress. Rose tell me what john miller thinks is the wise choice. I think we have to be reasonable people, which is we have laws, we have search and seizure laws, search and seizure constitutional protections, and if entire criminal networks are going to be thriving on these devices i have a tape of a telephone call from the manhattan d. A. s office of a prisoner in Rikers Island saying to his compatriots on the outside which cell phone do you have, youve got to get the 8 because even the cops cant crack it. Rose the actual tape from a Rikers Island inmate. On the telephone to one of his compatriots on the outside about illegal activity. Rose right. So the bad guys have figured this out. The terrorists have figured this out. The question is how as a people do we want to resolve this . Do we want the law to cover this and rely on the courts and rely on people under oath or do we just say, look, there are some things in terms of our personal papers, devices, emails, that we just expect nobody ever to be able to open no matter what. Rose no matter what bothers you . No matter what bothers me depending on the scenario. But when you get down to the kidnapped child, to the child exploitation, to the person who is planning and executing gang murders in a Housing Project using these things and you can see them using them, you can watch them communicate and you say, we cant get into that, even with judicial intervention, again, its a question of people need to learn enough about to decide where to go. Frankly, charlie, not mincing words here, the companies are in it for the money. You know, you can rose the companies who make the smartphones . Who make the applications. When apple rose they dont care what the consequences of their app is or who benefits from it is what youre saying. Theyre in it for the money so they dont care what the consequences are. If i were them, i would say its not we dont care. Providing information to the police is not our business. Were in the business of making devising and ensuring privacy including from all the hackers. If youre looking at it from the Law Enforcement, intelligence and counterterrorism side, you need to say, we need a builtin solution. These companies will look you in the eye and say, you know what they want . Those spies and those intelligence guys, they want a back door into our system so they can paw through your stuff. Not asking for that. I think what everybody from the f. B. I. Director to my boss the Police Commissioner wants is they want an order and a way they can provide the material the way we would go into the trunk of a drug dealers car. If you have judicial process based on proper legal procedure, they have created an entire world of information that cannot be accessed. Rose a couple of other questions about things like this we know that, in paris, that these people who do this both with exear Charlie Hebdod this case, there were people who had contact and known by Law Enforcement for one reason or the other, some kind of contact. Is our capacity to monitor that sufficient and can it be sufficient . I think our capacity is sufficient to the extent that ill take it from the new york optic, which is where i sit in the nypd. There have been 20 plots against new york roughly since 9 11 that have been prevented or stopped and a couple were carried out. Four of those have been in the last two years on my watch, and they were prevented through good intelligence work, some undercover cases involving very dedicated officers, and this new wrinkle makes it more challenging because i can tell you this, in the last few cases that unfolded in june, we had information about who was being asked to do what in new york, but when it came down to communication on the players, we knew what they were communicating on but couldnt intercept those and thats the problem because it hampers your ability to stop it. Rose the question is if they are prepared to provide these kinds of glitches to cops and these belts that will destruct and destroy them, do we have any reason to believe that as smart as they are about technology and the apps we have been talking about will also not be equally smart about gaining the knowledge about how to make much more powerful bombs . The bombmaking recipes are on the internet. Theyre in inspire magazine. Rose we saw that in the boston marathon. We saw a recipe right out of al quaidas magazine. Rose and as they spread and these people begin to be global, whether they will have access to bittery bombs and things like that that are much more powerful in taking down a city . Charlie, i think they have decoded your question in the opposite direction. I think in the 14 years following 9 11, terrorist groups challenge themselves. This is the failure of al quaida. They challenge themselves to say how can you t you to you top th . In paris, a lack of sophistication. When using dirty bombs, et cetera, you can paralyze with fear and cause tremendous carnage and have an extraordinary impact with minimal preoperational sur saints and cost. 9 11 cost a couple million and year and a half of planning. The idea of turning over a plot in a short time with little money is a light bulb that came on in the terrorist world where theyre saying keep it simple and you will have more success. Rose your answer seems to be theyre not going to try to build bigger bombs and weapons, they want to keep it simple because they can make it happen in your likelihood of success and if not you dont get the same kind of attention, you get an approximate amount of attention for a smaller act and especially against soft targets. Especially. If terrorism is theater, which is to create drama where the plot line is fear, you want that theodore to unfold on a public stage with some regulator. That what sews the real fear it happened again. I think what were watching is the dumbing down of the defer to operation to something that can be replicated. Rose can you tell me anything about the ninth suspect . I know you guys are keyed in to the paris police and the paris justice department. So we have two detectives on the ground in paris, one is assigned there permanently. We sent backup when it started just because of the volume of work. But i want to be very careful to let the french authorities run their investigation. The intelligence is important to us but i certainly dont want to speak for it or from it. Rose can you tell me anything about the phone that they found . No. Weve gotten a good, steady flow of information, some of it in the form of questions heres a piece of data, what do you have on that and weve done our best to fill those in. But its still at a very early stage. And as time goes on, the volume of information theyre collecting is getting greater. Rose what worries you the most . Its a journalistic question. Sure. So i dont spend time worrying, and i dont mean to be glib by saying that. I find that if we take that time and we invest it in planning, which is whats the next tabletop operation going to look like that we bring the command staff for, how do we replicate that in a field exercise, what are we missing . What did we learn from Charlie Hebdo and the supermarket in january . What will we learn from this attack here . When the bartle museum in tunisia was attacked by a group of terrorists we believed were e world to tunisia and i saida walk through the museum, count the bullet holes, get the videotapes from the cameras and we took it back here and said what if this happened in new york. So this week we unleashed a force of 200 speciallyTrained Counterterrorism officers as part of a new program. There will be another 200 joining them next month and another hundred and something after that, you know, to build together a force of over 500 dedicated uniform counterterrorism officers who will be equipped with the heavy body armor, the long rifles, with the kind of equipment you would need to surge into a multilocation, active shooter attack as we saw in paris. It didnt happen this week accidentally because paris happened. We started planning this a year ago when we saw the shift in the paradigm and tactics of the teorists and thought object how to best meet that. Heres the only thing that i would add to, you know, what makes new york different from all other places is, if you take 500 Police Officers who are Trained Counterterrorism officers and you add a flying squad, a Citywide Task force called the Strategic Response group and you add the Emergency Service unit or s. W. A. T. Team, suddenly youre looking at 1500 officers who will be able to meet a terrorist attack, an active shooter incident with the proper protection, the proper weapons, the proper active shooter training, the proper tactics in very large numbers at as many locations as you could probably think of. And faster is the key, charlie. Its about time on target. The difference between three onemen going into a crowded place and having 15 or 20 minutes to go through there and kill people versus having five minutes because properlyarmed, properlyprotected Police Arrive within minutes and their instruction is to go forth and engage that target, thats going to be the critical difference. Can it happen here . It can happen anywhere. If it happens here, it should pe a much shorter duration if thats the model. Rose do you have powers you need that you dont have . I would say today in new york city, the relationship between the f. B. I. , the Intelligence Community and the nypd is as close as it has ever, ever been. Were coming up in a couple of weeks on the 35th anniversary of the joint Terrorism Task force. So thats saying a lot. Rose finally, youve taught me one thing about these kind of events and that is you need to wait and find all the facts, but do you have any sense, feeling, instinct that paris changes something . I accept the