tv Capital News Today CSPAN April 4, 2012 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
not to give you an idea how big a change is, just consider the rules that exist now. so you can fly easily model aircraft on one or another, provided that you do it for the noncommercial purposes and provided that you do this under 400 feet, which is to say you can putter around with increasingly powerful technology , but you can't sell services doing it, and you can't get in the way of the big boys.
with the military has shown abroad when he is there is just an enormous amount we can do with this stuff if the regulatory levity is there to do and the most famous applications involve surveillance and targeting, but that's not the only applications, and so i can give you a little bit of an idea how far in principal this thing can go a stalking the every day to a journalist, not peter david a few weeks ago to a journalist named shane harris who spent a lot of time reporting on this and was reflecting as a -- part of this technology was and how soon it was going to get there and had basically come to the conclusion that there was no good reason any more for their
to be pilots in the domestic air flights that we take and doesn't think that is going to persist very long for the barrier and the phasing out its psychological of technological. so to think about the range of domestic applications to journalism and an amazing little episode that happened and ran across randomly recently flying his uav down in texas one and start taking pictures of what appears to be a plant and find a river of blood flowing out and that turns to be a grotesque animal cruelty situation going on in this facility. see you can imagine a lot of journalistic applications to this. you can imagine a lot of
malicious applications as well by individuals and governments, by corporations coming and you can imagine revolutionary effect some on people's day-to-day lives one so that constellation of the privacy concerns and the promise, the broad range of potential affects what we are here to talk about today the fear none of your here to listen to name going to keep my own role to a minimum, going to the conversation flow. speaking first is the john who is a non-resident senior fellow in the government studies at brookings but is also a professor of electrical engineering at the university of california and l.a. and has written very extensively about this set of issues across a
broad range of topics the we are going to be discussing today. speaking next will be to his right paul who is the founder of brad branch consulting and served in the policy shot at the dhs and the last administration. next will be catherine, sitting to my right as a staff attorney at the aclu and finally, ken anderson who is also a nonresident senior for what brookings and a professor of the washington college law at american university and who has written i think about robotics and the law mostly in the international context including a very important paper that he wrote for the brookings institution. with that i'm going to turn it over to john and thank you all
for coming. >> thank you. cementer microphone is not on. test, test. am i okay? thank you. i'm going to focus my opening comments on a particular class of aircraft called first-person view, or fpv come it has a camera that transmits video in all reader on the ground. the operator looks at the image on a computer screen and sees it as if he or she were sitting in the cockpit accordingly. when the aircraft isn't visible to its operator this is called not line of sight operation. in fact, an aircraft can be flown by a pilot many miles or even many thousands of miles away. the use of the of fpv aircraft and domestic air space raises some significant twinges that touches on all three topics of tace forum, safety, privacy and national security. first, in terms of safety common
on the line of flight operations will recognize concerns. for example, if the communications between pilots and aircraft failed, then there are the challenges involved bringing the aircraft back to the ground without endangering other aircraft in the ground as they go to the process of implementing the steps in the recently enacted aviation bill it will be important to be extremely conservative when it comes to the rules regarding dimond site operations. with respect to privacy, the fpv aircraft to make it easier to spy a person standing in a street in front of your house and operating an unmanned aircraft over your backyard is likely to get caught. but its pilot in the block will be harder to find. it possible to fly into the fenced in europe and lower it down to hoover directly over the yard and take pictures of the interior of the house to read would be in violation of various aviation rules but despite the rules there are tens of
thousands of aviation systems other and tens of thousands of people fleeing then it will happen. robin privacy watch possibility and put an appropriate sanction to address it. the last area of national security, it would be naive to deny that sufficiently large unmanned aircraft don't create a new dress. it would make no sense at all for a terrorist attack a shopping center or office building. as we saw in oklahoma city in 1995, the car filled with explosives would be easier and more deadly. however, since this government and military facilities are a different story because of the access restrictions and that sotheby's drones can be harder to detect and stop in a car, truck or small passenger bearing plant. an unclassified 2005 report issued by the federally funded institute for defense analysis explicitly recognized the types of concerns that the reports and data, and i'm quoting, quote, a small team could launch a uav
from hiding with a relatively small footprint and escape before impact on end of quote. the report also stated that come up with, there would be little danger to the convention of the escapes, end of quote command that a precision guided uav with a precision guided uav there is a high probability of successful execution. i don't believe the smaller unmanned aircraft pose a credible security threat. however, a larger platforms might. using today's commercial connections technologies and fpv aircraft large enough to carry sycophant explosive payload could be targeted could guide it to the site. gps guidance is another possibility. i don't think any of us would dispute the existence of the risk. the questions are how biggar the risk. of the many thousands of men that available to someone that intent on committing an act of violence does this rank as a legitimate concern? are there measures that can be effective while minimizing any negative impact on the
legitimate uses of the drums of course are the vast majority. to the last question are the measures that can be effective while minimizing the negative impact on the user's drones the best solutions are probably technological. particularly since it from the facilities can be equipped with systems that j.m. minnick communications and drones thwarting an attack. the same technologies can be used to defend the military facilities overseas against armed drones and the military calls standoff distance. i would expect there are people in the government working on solutions for this presumably we are not going to be hearing a lot of the details of the work. when we began indirectly help however is by recognizing the value of the technology solutions and giving some people in the government working on them in a better position to develop them. problems are more likely to get the resources and attention to solve them when they are recognized and this hasn't been recognized enough. of course the best sense of the attack here, speaking sure that it never happens in the first place.
it will involve the comes for communication and the government and with a broad community to identify and respond to potential threats. part of that is ensuring that the weapon iced drones don't fall into the wrong hands. in closing the presence the president's challenge in the national security don't mean that we should forgo the beneficial domestic uses of london and aviation systems that can provide life-saving imagery. company some of which represent the stevan are attending major innovation. people in the university research labs and the community are developing equally amazing innovations. these innovations in the jobs they create both now and in the future can help american competitiveness modeling of the droned industry but more broadly. thank you. >> first thanks for inviting me. it's a pleasure to come to brookings. i appreciate the opportunity. it's good that you put me right
after because i'm going to try to give you the butt end of it, where john has spoken of the threats that come from the technology and the national security threats in particular. i want to put that amount and ask a question about the utility of the drones especially in the homeland security and the law enforcement space which will be the principal government will use of those. and in doing that, i want to fight the premise of the introduction just a little bit. he says that the introduction is a revolution coming and i would say that it's more of an evolution than a revolution drones and in a utility might be more pervasive but are not so terribly different than the host of existing uses that law enforcement and border patrol homeland security use every day.
one thinks of helicopters as an example. but in doing so i also want to sound a question mary note, which is sometimes differences in the degree become differences in time and if history is a lesson if policymakers within the government pushed rapidly in the use of the technology for the governmental purposes, they will quickly i think lose the support of the public and from the risk of killing the goose that laid the golden egg of charging the technology over the public acceptance into a ditch of public dismay so let me talk about those briefly why do i think that drones are useful? just think of the border. the southwest border is essentially a 1500 miles long desert punctuated in a few
places by large cosmopolitan populations, but in between, there's nothing, there's nothing at all. that's why there was such a move in the last five to ten years to think about the ideas like the census across the border because it is virtually impossible to imagine is attrition in which one could successfully patrol the entire 1500-mile length of border with anything approaching that the uniformity. of course to give proven difficult and expensive to construct and relatively easy to evade and ineffective. there's a reason the department of homeland security is intent upon the building of the purchase for the southwest border and it's precisely because it gives a much broader scope of this ability to allow for the deployment of the response forces and debt so instead of having the border patrol at every 40 feet along
the border, you can have people in cars that can respond when an intrusion is observed. that is just of course one of many potential positive uses that technology can be put to. when one thinks about whether or not it is different in general i would submit it is unlikely in that context to prove different from the existing law and the existing use that we have from the classic case in the supreme court is a case involving the use of a helicopter to hover over a chemical plant and the supreme court there said right or wrong you can form your own judgments but said there is no constitutional limitation on the use of the technology to surveil the open seals inside the plant and will likely be held to apply at least in the context of law enforcement use is on the border or other open field doctrines.
i think that the hypothetical of the small uav that comes down and books inside the house is interesting and when i hadn't thought of before it will probably fall under a different set of rules because one maintains a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's house and what is happening inside the house. but, having said that they are both useful and under the current structure is probably lawful is not to say we should rush into their application, and to see that clearly a one to tell you a brief story from the very recent past involving something called the national applications office, something that i doubt anybody in the rule has hurt us because it came and went so quickly that it made barely a blip on america's policy screen of the national of petitions office was an attempt in the last administration to unify the use to which america
put its national technical means, that is the satellite that we have that take excellent pictures of what's happening on the ground. we of course use those in classified means ford spying on russia or china or wherever it is that they want to look and we also use them in every unclassified means to follow the tracking hurricanes and after it is hit to assess the damage that has happened to new orleans after katrina. there was historically a gap between the two, the gap for law enforcement in the border security come homeland security of the national technical means. the satellites also pass over the border between the united states and mexico for simple and one can readily imagine using those satellites as a means of surveying the traffic across the
border. the national applications office was going to be a cross government office the was going to unify all three of the purposes that clearly but humanitarian, the intelligence and law enforcement and by the time the resources based upon the need do a kind of stacking of requests for the use in times of obviously crisis we would use it for hurricane and in times of tension we would be focused on china, etc.. that to my mind was a totally sensible proposal to use the technology which had no legal limitations for the new and lawful purpose of examining the southwest border. it crashed and burned because of was rolled out with out any fought for the obvious privacy civil liberties concern that would use the national technical means for that sort of surveillance along the border and it crashed and burned because of the intelligence community and a kind of drove the entire development of the
proposal. it was presented in a way that was a fait accompli and was presented in a way that did not involve congress or the ngos have privacy concerns like the aclu. the history of that is instructive for what we need to think about in terms of the use going forward. it isn't in my mind that drone who use formal enforcement purposes should per say be prohibited to the contrary there's a great deal of utility to be found in that sort of exposition. but if those uses are justly on the table as a part of a rule making and the faa without thinking about alleged demint sense of privacy concerns people have about some of the scenarios john talked about or that i am quite sure katherine is going to dhaka in the next speech, without giving the concern and
it would be interested mechanism for presenting the misuse we want people to gain of the positive benefits to the 1% in homeland security don't come from the use of drones, and i think i did my seven minutes. >> thank you. >> well, is my microphone on? okay. thanks for having me here today. i want to pause for a moment at the outset and tell how unusual it is that we are having this conversation now. the reason that it is unusual is because when a new technology is a truce in the united states, it is generally the case that is introduced because will enforcement simply purchases and adopts that technology because it learns about it many years after the fact, and then there is potentially some debate about the issue, but because of the faa rules for now at least prohibiting the deployment of drones' particularly why law
enforcement but also commercial purposes we have the opportunity to have an engaged public debate about the role that the technology should play in the united states and i think that is a really nice change from how the issues normally play out. the aclu is an organization that focuses on a broad variety of issues and the drones pose particularly complex problems and opportunities. they raise privacy concerns of course. some are recognized and some have cameras. they could potentially become a new avenue for surveillance in the american life they also hold promise. for example, there is a tool to hold the government accountable in addition to working on a variety of surveillance issues i also litigate excessive use plans and one of the best things that can happen in the case is when we have furtherance of the incident that we can use because
it is helpful in determining what actually took place on law enforcement agents and private citizens. in addition, the are unique because they are tools for free speech, and so especially when it comes to the private uses the need to be regulated and more sensitively than your typical technology. i'm going to focus my remarks primarily to the of all enforcement use of drones and the privacy implications of those. one question that has been raised is what is the big deal about jones, how is this different from what has come before? as paul put it is it evolution or revelation? and i think there are reasons to think of it as a potentially more dramatic change in what americans experienced great it's true that there have been manned aerial surveillance in the united states for a long time purchasing the manned aircraft in operating and maintaining
that aircraft is in a expensive endeavor and that is a natural limit on the matter of the aerial surveillance that can be present in american life. a lot of police departments simply cannot afford to purchase an airplane or helicopter for surveillance purposes. drones will potentially sweep away that limitation and allow smaller law enforcement agencies that have never had this technology to adopt the surveillance and potentially raise a widespread availability of this type of surveillance. in addition, the debt to double the fees which i think it's a real impact on privacy that the real plans we are used to simply haven't had. fred symbol, as john has written about extensively, they could potentially still lost for long periods of time. we are not talking hours, we are talking when certain technologies get discussed which is the possibility of light aircraft that can float up in
the higher reaches of the sky potentially much longer months or years. unlike the traditional aircraft or helicopter which can be easily detected, the drones, depending on how the evil and are regulated could potentially engage in surveillance without being detected by the people who are potential targets. i think those changes combined with the rapid development of cameras and give devotee to analyze video in a way that hasn't previously been possible made these very powerful surveillance tools. cameras, everyone today has a smart phone and can snap photos, not everyone actually, but they can zoom into tremendous degree is that wasn't previously possible. they can be equipped with night vision and technology is developing to make it easier and easier to see through the paint
services, and all of these changes together with the possibility of facial recognition and analytical tools being used to analyze footage means it could be possible for example to simply fill man area for a long period of time and then go back and reconstruct the individual movement. i think there's a number of privacy risks associated with the government use of this form of surveillance, prolonged tracking of individuals is one of those. the supreme court by the way who argue this is with us today decided the case called the united states versus jones in which it held at least five justices seemed to reach the conclusion that prolonged surveillance is a movement in a public space can become a search under the fourth amendment, and so i think to the extent they engage in that kind of tracking they also raise privacy concerns. in addition they have a lot of the same privacy implications cameras have had, chilling
effects are once people talk about the simply the it differently when they know they are under surveillance van when the of the security of not thinking they are being observed. the aclu put out a report on this issue in december in which we issued some recommendations. we are not opposed to the use domestically. there is a broad range of ways in which the law enforcement can use the technology to meet legitimate law enforcement needs. at the same time, we are concerned that they not become tools of general or pervasive surveillance so that innocent americans have to worry about whether or not they are being subject to this kind of monitoring. in addition, it would be nice, and i think the conversations like this are the start of it for there to be a real space debate about the rules under which the drones are adopted which is different from how the surveillance technologies are
usually adopted. i think the are a bunch of complicated issues not just dealing with government surveillance but with the private use of drones. i know you are planning about talking about the private surveillance, so i won't touch much of that. i just want to mention one other issue that is of concern which is the potential organization of drones. the way the public has been involved in the last few months is almost startling. when i first started thinking about the possibility of the germans equipped non-lethal forms of use purchased by law enforcement agencies on almost fought a that was far fetched. but in fact dillinger enforcement has expressed serious interest in this because it would allow them for example to make the crowds without having to have any officers present. i personally find that to be a very scary example of potential use of drones' because i think
the potential for the abuses to great but it also gets you thinking about the fact is any private citizen with enough know-how can attest delete to attach a camera a little scandal attached to a draw and and what configurations are going to need to be put in place to make sure we are safe from this was nobody one of them that is available to the law enforcement to use them if they see another concern using the possibility becomes another tool of the government to control and monitor citizens of the citizens themselves don't take full of vintage of. >> thank you for this opportunity. i am going to focus on a private party uses of the drones and the privacy issues that arise out of this. and i would like to start with
my mother back in the mid-1960s where in the social welfare stuff at our church she took a gazillion telephone calls a day and this was in an era long before ordinary people like us have answering machines and the ability to screen calls and do all things we took for granted until my father simply stepped in and install the switch on the telephone the would turn off governor and you do not look sufficiently shocked us what that meant in 1965. my mother's reaction and the reaction of many of the people she worked with i think today sounds almost in imaginable. she had serious qualms that she was actually being dishonest and
was lying to people about whether in fact she was in the house by having simply turned off the wringer. i want to fast forward from the 1960's to the mid-1980s at a time i was on the aclu national free expression committee the time your -- before you were born. the pennsylvania aclu many of the state level aclu was trying to come to grips with the technology available including things like the call waiting but in particular the caller id. the aclu of pennsylvania took the position and this was never taken by the national aclu but took the position and was quite vigorously supported by important folks in the aclu at the time that caller id was an
intensely from way of denying people free expression because it essentially meant that somebody couldn't get to you, and the caller id was a first amendment violation that the state telephone regulators shut eliminate because it eliminated the first amendment right you had to reach somebody and communicate speech to them. ten naturally in telemarketing calls leader -- [laughter] this attitude is inconceivable to anybody in this room and any person listening. that is our notions of privacy have shifted in remarkable ways including the notions of privacy from person-to-person, private person to private person. let me bring this to the point of drones and how they fit into this.
one is on their own in relation to privacy, and second, as a sort of in a dollar to technology, and leveraging technology and combination with the sensors that catherine mentioned, the possibility of the facial recognition computer enhanced way of dealing with the material as it is gathered through the censors and finally, the ability to have something which is constantly of their and connected to the web. these technologies i believe, and i am echoing in part i think in that pushing our existing privacy structures to the breaking point in ways that go beyond simply the government but to go to hell we interact with each defeat with each other and with our expectations are and how we believe they should be embedded in the various forms of
law. and this obviously we have the aclu pointed out all those decades ago to do we have trade-offs and conflicts between the free expression, first amendment concerns, things like that, the notion of the public and private. the sentiment is also eve of the notion of privacy but in a really complicated way because on the one hand, we want to leave to wind up insisting we have to essentially turn the world away even at the electronic level, but at the same time we share so much. the point i am making starting with privacy is a don't think that we can talk about deutsch rollins in relation to their impact on other areas, particularly the legal regulation between private parties unless we talk instead of the premier expectations we have about privacy and the way that this socially constructed
and involved in many kinds of ways, as we have to contemplate and one could give a long list of scenarios that the easiest one for the private parties, a private party usages would be that they would allow you to put a drawn in the air on a continuous basis and have that looking into your neighbor's backyard and see everything that goes on which may be nothing and then a stream that to the web and attach the computer enhancement technology that enables at to pick out particular people and set up an entire gallery of everything they are up to and simply have restraint to the web plus enhanced collection of information stuff that's coming up there and none of this commercial and a man of even be particularly maliciously motivated but i would suggest that everybody in this room would believe there is something
profoundly wrong about that that violates some said that informal notions that we have about the notions of intimacy, privacy come home even though it's taking place out of doors behind the walls that are not visible to the street. so ultimately the question becomes in those cases are we going to wind up going beyond the assumption you could do things like build a global and put up the hedge and you didn't have all the stuff that makes it instantaneously available to everybody else across the plan that and are we going to essentially let the changing expectations kafta sedan with the existing set of rules. now, one of the answers to this is often given at the privacy level families actually serious about any of this stuff because if they did nobody would use facebook the way they do, nobody
would use twitter the way they do, none of these existing social technology's success in the fashion if we give people a actually cared about their privacy in the way that we've traditionally thought about. people do not think intimacy has been pried it anymore. there's a sort of weird switch would be the argument. now on the basis of no data except being the father of a teenager, i don't think that that is actually how it works. i have a strong sense that particularly the young regeneration has an amazingly sophisticated sense of what their notions of privacy are about and the way in which the expect the notions are socially constructed and are in fact fairly close to the bundle of the sticks approach to property that they have a view that what is appropriate in one setting for the use of the photo is not
appropriate another, the ways and places in which one could collect information images a procrit for one use are not appropriate for another, and i think actually we've increasingly younger generations that are extremely sophisticated in their views in the way which one unbundles the notion of the private and public and separate it into a series of distinctly appropriate or inappropriate usages and they are profoundly minute on whether any of that is reflected and why do i think their expectation is that it ought to be in some way. that's how they ought to cds for other things. they're profoundly might even thinking that it actually is. where this comes back again as a leveraging technology for all the rest of this stuff and i
sent you are absolutely right in suggesting that we have a moment to people to address these things live alongside the technologies are being set in place and not waiting until they sort of hardened. when it comes to private to private interactions in these ways i think there will be a small or should be a small but very limited role for the criminal law. peeping tom that have to read that dated to take account of the technology and stopping laws the end of taking account of this stuff, but i think by and large most of it is going to fall first of all under the state will and most of this private party stuff will inevitably fall under some form of civil. nuisance law and the notion of what it means to have the plate in trinidad your property being the kind of classic example so we need to think about ways need
to update these things as a set of trade-offs but not all of them run in the direction of protecting privacy. the notion that there is being in public i think is a really powerful notion of the ways in which other people can look and see and take photographs and do various other kinds of things. but ultimately the best thing that could happen in the private interactions it would be the form of a model code and that the adoption that we had a discussion up front about what the trade-offs me to be between the exposure and privacy and finally as a close on this would be the worst in this area would be to allow balk to be driven by really bad cases in which we haven't fought the treetops but the public is driven by something that is particularly
ugly and then reaches to something that reflects that but nothing else cruce too thanks very much. so, i should have mentioned this at the outset of this event is being webcast so we have a group of people that are surveillant this not from a who drone although that thing over there which keeps turning is kind of nearly familiar with. first of all let me welcome to our virtual participants who will also be tweeting questions when i go to questions from the audience i'm going to alternate between the physical audience and the drone audience it gets worse and worse they're suggesting themselves to monitor and start of the few questions
for the panelists and then go to the questions from the audience. i wanted to start with you. you talk about the national security side of this and we had a lot of conversation about the privacy site. it seems to me the part that is going to guide almost all of that is the seat beside it which we actually have not talked about very much, that is to see if the faa on the safety grounds allows less rather than more useless capacity for the intrusion of privacy, the size of the vehicles will be arguably probably smaller as a result the concerns that he articulated slider wondering if you dhaka the seat decided it as, you know, how plausible is that the aircraft, how large and how far from the people who are flying
them what are going to be flying high - how soon. >> we can have a whole week on that. i think i will leave my answer to say i can't agree more that this is a complex problem almost unimaginably complex to think about how in the world we are going to successfully navigate the safety challenges of having literally potentially tens of thousands of these unmanned aviation systems operated by potentially on conventional and unconventional locations used for all these different tasks. one consolation i think the best minds in the business are on this problem and that is what the faa who insure are working very hard, and i think that they will come up with a very reasonable approach but the sheer mass of evidence of the numbers means they will have some hiccups along the way, and let's hope that they are not too much. the other thing i would say is that, you know, the dialogue that we can turn it is true that if we reduced to a very little,
the amount of drone activities and privacy and national cancer key concerns but said the economic opportunities and innovation that accompany them so it's very important to have that prospect in the balance to open the skies with drones and obviously they prevent all right towards a very complex safety issue as well as the national security privacy issue we talked about. >> as you think about when you describe the opportunities and when you were thinking about the opportunity that it's important to open the sky to presumably you're not thinking about a set of things that catherine and canada are actually bringing their hands about, what is peeping toms or different crowds of of having to the personnel. what are the things we should be excited about? >> i will give a couple of taxable spirit and enormous amount of commercial for the need for surveying and
monitoring the pipelines. there's also, in the law enforcement field i think it is very important there are many small police departments in the country that wouldn't necessarily be able to afford to have their own helicopter but it can use the drones to monitor something like the situation that can provide a truly life-saving information, so there is a long list of these very beneficial commercial banks. the other thing i diluted to in my opening remarks is a spinoff factor. there's a stunning amount of innovation that has gone on in the drone be hit with formal companies some of which i mentioned before are attending this a university research labs, and that innovation is the way it always worked and check back in the 60's was a space program and i would argue that for the 2010 they are the equivalent of the space program and will generate innovation that will span out into the ways that are beneficial we can hardly imagine here so for all those reasons i think it's important to
encourage them. >> i was struck when you were talking -- it is arguably not a contradiction but it's an anomaly you are describing the great promise of drones for purposes of government oversight and a great terror of drones in the hands of government, and i was trying to think of with the analogy to that is we have done in the past and what a wonderful technology to use to spy on the government and we are really excited about it as long as the government doesn't use it to spy on us and i am curious whether there are analogs to that where we've said we love this technology in the hands of private parties and we don't like it in the hands of government, and whether in any other area that's been a sort of sustainable line for us to take.
>> i think that if you're right it is a conundrum to do about that and would be if there were a way to promote all of the good and positive uses of the technology with none of the abusive once but of course it is difficult to do that right think in some ways this echoes the battle you've essentially lost about the surveillance cameras doesn't like the fact is difficult to walk on the street in many major to the metropolitan areas without having your image taken by tens of of hundreds of thousands of surveillance of pending whether you live in manhattan or somewhere else and that is an example to take photography particularly in the police and public that worries about the capacity of technology is a difficult issue because if you
and in a situation where every real estate agent is flying a drone for a commercial purpose it is going to be extremely difficult to argue that the police who are investigating potentially serious crimes can't to give vantage of the same technology, and i'd the argument in the civil libertarians make is that the police are simply different because they have power over us that others do not have but no one's saying it's an easy question. estimate for those of you don't know there was a real-estate agent in los angeles who was i'm not sure prosecuted but disciplined for using a drone to shake off areas of he was trying to sell but the thing that comes to mind is the anger people felt towards the restrictions on the
fbi using the googled search is under the old version of the guidelines after line 11 which is the sort of fbi is the one group of people or was under some interpretations the one group of people in the country who cannot do goal your name and see what comes up, and i wonder if you end up in a situation which to go to something said that you have a very sort of restrictive set of rules until the day something really bad happens and then you really cannot sustain them because you're actually preventing them from doing what all of us can now do, go to braxton and by a 300 dollar -- i almost bought one for this event, little 300-dollar think you can control what your iphone and i just wondered about the stability of it in long run. >> the next time should be
beaming. >> of the book and your expense report. >> i'm not sure whether to direct this to tenet or paul so i will direct to both. you start to remarks of the cautionary tale to the exactly opposite direction. the cautionary tale is how fantastically weird my mother's reaction to the caller id was 30 or 40 years ago and the aclu reaction to the caller id was 20 years after that it's just crazy to think we are going to anticipate the way that we feel about this stuff once it is integrated into the society we can't really anticipate and paul's cautionary tale is the program that didn't try to anticipate it or think this through in advance in the crashes and burns, so my
question to you both is coming and can get sort of comes around to the view by the end of the remark so we've got to think of this through in advance, and i'm just wondering is it realistic to think it through, is it would ever judgment we come to today sitting here in an faa rule making and congress we are going to be your mother for 30 years from now people are going to be saying what they thought the drones xy and z. >> i guess there are no new questions over and over again. the concept of government abuse of the new technology is as old as the dispute in london about arming the police and probably
has antecedents i go back to the first time that anybody put somebody in charge of hurting the tribe or something like that when. it seems to me that you can and should anticipate the potential for abuse, but instead of relying on the efficiency that is to protecting against these abuses you have to turn that around to the harder stuff which is training, hiring, oversight con regulation, it's not easy it changes over time as the technology changes but we don't disarm the police because of the potential abuse of the use of which to hire the right guys and
give them training and have internal affairs bureau is that examine every shooting in every discipline the guys that do it and fire the guy is the did badly more than once and we prosecute the guys that do it vastly, and that mall will apply to the use of jones at least in the government sector. the private sector stuff that canada is talking about, you have to figure out a different one but in terms of the government what activity, that model addresses the problem and you have to invest the resources to figure out. it's that no police force can look in a window without a warrant and fly a 200 feet only and maybe that's the rule you
don't know the technology and no change next week or next year. >> it's going to be incremental, and so it's going to the question i think the responses need to be incremental as well but they don't need to be in every case reacted meaning something happens that basically since people's notions of either when he put. public spaces on the other. they wouldn't want to see how a sort of regime developed that develops entirely reactive the on account of the court case is sort of addressing these sort of things. on the front end, and think about questions that are already starting to rise on an incremental basis.
the private parties really existed the state level one. particularly things to mention such as news and some for software or things like that. there's some terrific thing me that happens that involves drone's together with some young person in despair and then there's a reaction that enact the sort of criminal side of the sanctions and all sorts of things like that that would be a bad approach to this at least to that extent we can anticipate some of the situations on an evil thing basis and try to have the discussion up front about the trade-off has to be included
>> i'm going to start with a twittered question but one might call on you start by saying who you are. >> we have a first question from matthew in the urbana illinois and he has a question about using drones as a tool of free speech and how will the argument in journalism has prior restraint versus regulations in privacy play out. >> okay. let me what to take a crack at that and others here who do a lot of first amendment and have other thoughts on at it would have to be that the judge there are just a lot of aspects of journalism there have to be legal limitations on how certain of risch and its collective including how you would use
drones' including certain information it would be very hard to argue once you have obtained certain information barring certain extreme cases it would be proper to obtain somehow a legally within drone that you would enjoy the publication of it will. do people generally agree with that? >> the press can't be information out of someone and they can't engage breaking and entering its still a crime if they are the precedent we still have large body of law that says if the press received information is collecting in the legal manner if it is a violation of classification rules we are not going to restrain the press, and of the seem to me this gives the rematch and to my mantra which is nothing new and not in
evolution. and i would assume the same rules go to the drones. stomachs to magnuson and the national defence magazine. can you address the deadline of september 30 of, 2015 deadline that may be first in terms of technology. a lot of issues there to be worked out and you mentioned the issue that what mabey requires autonomy aboard the aircraft returned safely and also the sense of the technology and then also and the rigor that report there's a lot of associations of their that pilots association, air-traffic controllers association is going to take a
lot of free riding of the way we do things and a lot of consideration in the congressional mandate real-estate. >> i can't answer all those things. the would be a very long answer, but for the benefit of those that may be less familiar with the legislation when you came in their room, and for those of you on the webcast that will be making a two page sheet but was prepared by harley at the center for democracy and technology, and he has done me a favor of going into the legislation and doing the computations of 270 days after enactment what does that mean? in some, there are broad classes of drones that are addressed in the legislation, there is what are called civil on may and aviation systems operated by the commercial enterprise and the republican and aviation systems which are operated by police
departments, for your departments, state governments and so on, so the unmanned aviation systems or government drones as some people have referred to that may 14th of this year is the date after which there's going to be expedited licenser for the use of the government drones. with respect to the civil unmanned aviation systems, it is november 10th of 2012 where there's going to be a comprehensive plan developed and it will call for the integration of the international aerospace by september 30 of the 2015 and there's also an early is gave august 12th the early integration of save drones which provide the options not necessarily the requirement for the faa to allow certain types of drones. ..
within the u.s.. for instance to do some major spying? will that give them an advantage over overhead assets, or to track and kill? >> you have given the subject in a slightly different context, a lot of thought. for those of you who don't know, ken has written a great deal about the law of u.s. targeted killings, including but not limited to buy drones. so what happens when the technology is cheap enough and the airspace is open enough that other governments want to get in on the action here? >> i think when it comes to other governments, everything that i said about private party to private parties stealth essentially needing to evolve incrementally and the state laws are civil and court liability, none of that applies to foreign
governments acting in the united states. i think it's a perfectly appropriate area for the u.s. government simply to come down and say, either nobody does this at all or if you do you have to come and have a long conversation about what you are doing it for and wide and surveillance of individuals would fall under whole series of national security concerns. and all of that, and obviously killing somebody is completely off the map. we regard that as a hostile act and possibly leading to war. so indoor sort of settings, the question is really about surveillance in the sort of practical sense, and i don't think that the united states government has any reason to put up with surveillance using high-tech means by foreign governments of their citizens are ours. i don't think any of the things we have raced here about the use of these things by various folks
apply to foreign governments at all. >> anybody have -- we have another twitter question. spierer question from amy who is in washington d.c. an attorney with epic privacy. she wants to know, should there be limitations to prevent drums badr licensed for the narrow purpose to be used widely? >> oh what an interesting question. so, this stuff collects on platforms, the more sophisticated ones are incredible intelligence collection platforms and let's say you are a weather channel that acquires something for meteorological purposes or a traffic reporter. these are great for figuring out what happens to the volume of data that you collect?
does it them then have potential other applications? whoever wants to jump in on that, it's a great question. >> this is come up and to some degree in the customs and border patrol use of drones. congress authorized expenditures for customs and border patrols to buy a certain drones to patrol the sorbonne and the northern borders and a reporter named brian bennett came out with this fantastic article discussing how cbp was essentially, not exactly lending, but using its drums, putting its drone technology at the assistance of local law enforcement agencies. many members -- some members of congress expressed consternation that this technology is authorized for one purpose, securing the borders, is now being used for law-enforcement purposes by a think they local
north dakota law enforcement agency and that they certainly didn't anticipate when they authorize the program. so i think in that case, some members of congress think of that limiting principle would not be appropriate. >> i imagine you have a different point of view on this. [laughter] on the general, going back to your earlier point, there are no real issues. this is a classic example of this. like paul when he was in government, dealt a lot with issues of data collected for one purpose. you know the department of homeland security would find out that it would be really good to use a passenger manifest data that people give to airlines to find out they use for counterterrorism purposes and it would be good to know who is on airplanes, right? you have dealt a lot with this question of when can you reprogram data collected for one person? is a just one purpose or a different purpose? is it different if it's a
private party with a drone, or is there just nothing new under the sun? >> i hate being predictable. nonetheless, you have correctly predicted where i would come down on that. i mean, to my mind, there is the right way to address this and the consequences at the end. when you think of what we are talking about, we have the cbp. it has a uav, right? it's not being useful time. it's a valuable asset and they are cheaper than helicopters. they aren't free. it's a very valuable asset. it can be used for another purpose glee lawful purpose. if the north dakota police want to use it to surveilled their wives on their shopping trips, that's a different thing but the north dakota police force wants to use it in a hostage situation or to follow a suspected drug dealer, that is obviously a good
and lawful purpose in pursuit of a legitimate public and. you know, why would we begin from a premise of purposely making ourselves and inefficient, purposely making ourselves limited? i can certainly see in the end, saying that evidence might not be used in court or something like that if you feel really strongly about its use, but to my mind the right answer is to find what are the lawful uses and no cbp cannot loan this to north dakota to go and look in on a political meeting of the north dakota tea party or the note the kharga alc you. no, they can't use it to surveilled in ways and means and for purposes that would be outside the zone of their legitimate law enforcement
concern. but at the end is legitimate, it seems to me that we make a mistake in healing to the purposeful institution, to the right method. how that is used, whether not we -- that evidence shouldn't be used unless it needs an efficient standard or some limitation or some gain of some sort, a date to be determined obviously as time goes on and technology gets developed. but i don't believe in and enforced self inefficiencies in government. >> you have a refrigerator on >> i will try to keep it brief because i think we could probably go around on the panel but we take limitations on technology like this all the time. the wiretap on people in all circumstances, specific crimes for which we can use that
technology, so i think there is a place for these restrictions. cannot just mention one other thing? on the aclu caller i.d. question, it's a side view but we actually still don't have caller i.d. honored main switchboard line and the reason for that is people can call us and tell us stuff anonymously and know that they can be secure in doing that. >> sometimes the aclu gets described as outside the mainstream on a friday of issues. i can imagine there is a single issue on which that is true -- truer. [laughter] yes, sir? >> hi, mike and i'm a private lawyer in a private practice here in washington. what we do have this deadline coming up in august where they have to decide what to allow in the national airspace system. if you have concerns about safety, national security and
privacy. my question is, what do you want the faa to do in august of this year about opening up the system for safe drums and let me give you three choices to choose from. one is, do nothing and have them put off the deadline until 2015. the second choice, to allow commercial drums with with the light of side on their 400 feet restrictions and i'm sure the california real estate agent can take pictures of a few houses or sort of adopt the regime of the only approving operators on a case-by-case basis. showing that it's in the public interest what do you want them to do? >> i'm not going to answer that and fall and i don't have all the answers and fall but i think it would be mistaken to rushing to allow people to operate drones over a populated area
without due attention to the dangers. i will just give an example. the academy model aeronautics which is the national community-based organization that deals with model aircraft in the country has long recognized the importance of not operating platforms in that general size range over a populated area and i think that is a point of view and experience that needs to be respected and i frankly don't trust the real estate agent and august even if he had the best in 10 so i think we need to be very careful not to rush headlong into that. >> what is the size cut off? everybody you know, you can literally go to a hobbyist store and buy a model aircraft below a certain size that you can fly at reasonably impressive distance, that you now doesn't raise anybody's alarm bells.
realistically, what is the difference between the sort of thing that nobody is worried about and the sort of thing that raises those concerns? one answer to that is that the academy of model aeronautics has extremely good safety guidelines and anything that is operating in accordance with their rules i'm not worried about at all. so for example, their rules don't allow the first-person view remote unmanned aviation systems that are under 10 pounds, so again, anything that complies with the ama's rules which in the language of the faa bill is a national and i want to make sure i get this right, the national community-based organization i believe is the phrase. that nationwide organization can operate in accordance with that and that's absolutely fine. once we get into the heavier metal, something that weighs
200 pounds or 500 pounds or potentially 50 pounds under certain circumstances could create concerns and that is obviously a potential cause for discussion. >> does anybody have thoughts on what they faa should and should not do by august? >> i don't think that it should actually touch any of the issues that i raised, meaning that i think the private parties and private party stuff isn't really the faa's area. they are not a privacy agency. they have got a different set of concerns, and those concerns very clearly from what is said here are going to be far and away hugely difficult. i also think that there is a sizable concern among the existing hobbyist community, the model airplane community. these folks are actually very concerned about what happens if you sort of tossed aside those informal standards that have been raised by these folks, and
sort of open things up, sort of a wild west out there. it wouldn't take very many safety incidents of a serious kind that could potentially sort of shoved the whole thing back down the other way. >> yes? >> i am a japanese scholar at, working at johns hopkins university. i would like to ask you about the battlefield. you have used drone technology in the history of the war in afghanistan, so what is the achievement of the drone technology in afghanistan?
i think it has lots of positive sides but also a negative side, such as the drone technology simulated the anti-american emotions of peoples in the war or the taliban. >> okay. so, the focus of this event is on the domestic side, not on military applications abroad. you know, that said, this is a subject that you know, when people hear the word drones, they don't think of domestic law enforcement or newsgathering. they think about predators, and very briefly,, and all of you, how do you assess it, and how
does, bring it back to the subject that is actually -- how does that legacy in origin affect affects the domestic discussion? >> i am going to summarize to really reduce it. what i actually suggest is to look at my name in the program and sent me a direct e-mail about that and i would be happy to sort of talk about this at length. i think that it actually does drag us away from the domestic side a lot, so i'm going to punt in part but i guess one thing i would say about this is that, there is an enormous technological ceding back and forthwith the development of the technologies in ways that the requirements of the battlefield and particularly the use of drones as, not simply another air platform, weapons platform
and conventional war, but the use of drones as being a mechanism both for gathering intelligence and then using force on the intelligence gathered, puts an enormous amount of pressure on the development, but not so much of weapons. the weapons themselves are shrinking and getting smaller, but the real developments that are underway here are in the sensor arrays and the ability to have software that will wind up processing what is coming through an increasingly sophisticated and various kinds of sensors. back into the domestic sphere and all sorts of ways, particularly all the stuff that drives innovation in the commercial sector and all the good things we are going to wind up seeing in the way of innovation but also you raised the ability to look inside buildings. well, in afghanistan, and pakistan, we would like to be able ideally to use drones to be
able to get some idea of how many civilians are inside the building. we would like to be able to use drone sensors to be able to get some notion of what the loadbearing impact of those particular walls in relation to hitting it with a particular kind of weapon and the kind of collateral damage that is likely to cause. all of which has enormously important and beneficial commercial application in the domestic sphere, all of which have to contend your fears about what government agencies can do with that kind of ability, domestic ability as well. so i think it has to be sort of seen as ceding in ways that is both positive and negative. >> we have another trader question, and then in the back. >> we actually have two questions that are really good. the first one is from harley gregor, who is the center for democracy and technology. his question is, to what extent does the faa mandate in good
privacy and where should congress step in? and then a related question is from jason kober who is a higher education reporter for u.s. news, and he asks, is there a need for the government to be able to detect and track joan -- drones at will and do you think they should be licensed by the faa, referring to private or commercial drones? >> who wants to take either of those? >> the one line answer i have for private subtractions won't surprise anybody right now. i don't think that the faa should be getting involved in sort of private, private privacy issues in this. i think it's got it's hands full and everything else that it is correctly trying to do with all of the stuff. >> do you have a sense of what to extent the faa's mandates -- c. i actually don't including the privacy issues you are
concerned about her krusbe i think that is a hard question. the faa's mandate includes protecting people and property on the ground. that has been interpreted as a safety mandate by and large. they are old cases dating back to the 70s in which the faa attributed that mandate are broadly. for example, to include things like dealing with the environmental impacts of air traffic. if the mandate can encompass environmentalism than perhaps it could also encompass other concerns and arguably impact people on the ground. i'm skeptical that the faa would want to interpret its mandate in that direction, and so, i imagine this is an area where congress may need to do something. cbg has said it least they should be conducting a privacy impact assessment to look at privacy questions, and i think it is unfortunate that the u.s.
is anomalous and not in not having a federal level, you know, privacy conditioner who systematically evaluates the impact of government actions on privacy. >> paul? >> well surprisingly i agree with catherine. but i would put it a different way which is i can imagine no worse forum for discussing privacy concerns than the faa. [laughter] no, i mean, it would be like asking the epa to think about national security concerns or the department of commerce to think about, to think about education even though they do a little bit but i mean it's apples and clouds. i mean, i do think that the privacy issues, as i said in my opening remarks, think of privacy issues are vital and if you don't think about them, you will get the wrong answer because you will wind up losing all public support for the program however they are formulated.
but you know, the faa is great at safety issues and it's great at you know, air traffic controls. although sorts of things, i would want us to have that privacy discussion somewhere else. and i will world being the privacy of the oversight board. congress authorizing in 2007 and still has not started. >> yes, in the back. the wrong back, but it's okay. >> i'm a technology analyst. sometimes we have a habit of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. here we are talking about privacy issues and those sorts of things, but there are times when there is a lot of confusion legitimately for rescue purposes and that sort of thing, harboring over with repeaters, so fire departments can speak to one another. in new orleans after katrina,
they were not allowed to fly drones with cameras which would have been ideal to sort of help control what was going on. instead, somebody got clever and tape them to the skids of the helicopters. is anything going on now to ensure that these valuable uses are not caught up and tossed overboard to other concerns? >> yes, i mean i agree completely. there is a huge -- john is talked about the commercial value and you are talking about public safety value. to my mind, the right answer is regulation. we should authorize the good uses and then be very cautious and careful about the bad uses in the fear that animate what happens. my fear is that in not acknowledging the legitimacy of catherine -- i'm sorry you are now personifying all privacy but by not acknowledging the
legitimacy of fears upfront will wind up in the same place that we are with nao which is the exact same thing. we would have had great uses for national technical means in katrina and we were not permitted those either precisely because of fears of big brother at. >> just zipping out of my role as moderator for a minute, there's one thing i would add to that which is there is something that we are doing to make sure that you know, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, which is the congress stepped in in order for the faa to have a set of rulemaking on the subject and that was a very deliberate effort to jumpstart what has been perceived as a sort of stalling set of processes. yes? >> my name is gloria and i'm a public schoolteacher. do you know of any -- are there any other countries grappling with how to regulate domestic use of drones that we could look
to for as an example or could direct us to? >> i don't have a full answer to that but there have been estimates that the drone industry will be a hundred million dollar industry in the next decade, by the end of this decade. dozens and countries involved. i've been told that australia has some very innovative rules with respect to allowing drone used. pretty much every country in the world with any kind of technology and the structure or industries getting into the action so we will see all sorts of flavors but i don't have the specifics. >> i am steve the car and i'm lawyer and private practice in d.c.. perhaps this is the best directed to the captain. i find the center for
technology -- but what is happening with congress? are they doing anything to implement this or have oversight hearings on this? >> privacy wasn't included really as a discussion topic i don't think in the most recent round of legislation that was passed. you know there has been interesting developments since then and my other panels here who actually spend more time in d.c. than i do may have more insight into this. i think there is an upsurge in concern about privacy. the trade organizations that are looking to promote the use of drones have gotten somewhat concerned about the development and the impact it may have on their industry. they have been approaching various privacy organizations and also congressional staffers to try to see whether there is something they can do preemptively to fund some
potential common ground here so that technology can move forward and not be completely stymied by the privacy concerns. i don't know if the others might no more. >> yes, in the very far back on the left. >> i am danielle with unmanned systems magazine. i was wondering, just because of the privacy issues and the biggest technological advancement in the last years has been the internet. what sort of lessons learned can we bring from that industry into our discussion about privacy? >> what a great question. we have party learned the lessons of caller i.d. and turning the ringer off. how does the internet play into this? >> i think one observation is who could have known back in
1995 that such a thing as social network would exist and the complex privacy issues that accompany them as has been suggested with drones. i think it would be presumptuous for anyone to sit here and no 50 years now we can sit here today knows ackley what those are going to be so i think humility with respect to it knowledge and what we can do is important. we have about two minutes left. why don't i just get each of our panelists a chance to wrap up. do you want to start? >> i guess the thing i would emphasize goes to the last question that was asked here is that when it comes to private person to private persons stuff, i mostly emphasize the sort of individual to individual ability, a whole different layer of the large-scale institutions and corporations, non-governmental but private, and we are going to have a whole series of other questions related to their use of drones
in this. and the other thing i would stress would be, although there are certain functions about drones in private to private settings that really just are about drones, where they go and what they watch, how long they are there in all of those kinds of questions. most of the questions that i think will actually drive the privacy concerns this way are going to be the ways in which drone technology is embedded with other tech allergies that essentially serve as a leveraging platform for other forms of surveillance and the dissemination of all of that so i think it is to leverage package that ultimately will concern us. >> i think i will just start where i began, and say you know, this is a unique opportunity for us to try to build privacy protections into the regulations that govern drones. we had to be taking advantage of that and again, not opposed to the technology. as others have mentioned there
are other uses and if we can think of this from the outset everyone would be better off. >> two points, the first on picking up on the very last question. i think the right answer here is developing the right systems. static rules about privacy or use will be overtaken by the technology as quickly as the rules about internet usage and we try to address internet usage with a concrete set of rules and all of a sudden it's flooding around the ramparts of privacy protections. i don't know what the answer is going to be in terms of drones because i don't know where the tech is going to go. i am humble come as john said so the right answer is the system to system, systems oversight in the second i would make is, if you fly your drone over my house, i am shooting it down. >> countermeasures. [laughter] >> acting just in closing, drones would like many other technologies.
with the senate on break for the next two weeks, c-span2 is featuring booktv in prime-time thursday, programs from booktv signature series, afterwards starting at 8:00 p.m.. maggie anderson on her book, one family's quest to buy black and america's racially divided economy. at 9:00 p.m., former lobbyist jack abramoff discussesism umar, capital punishment, the hard truth about washington corruption from america's most notorious lobbyist. at 9:55 p.m. "msnbc" host chris matthews on his book, check
kennedy, elusive hero. booktv in prime-time, all this week on c-span2. >> if you think of yourself as a family and if you think of yourself as a team, and she said when i get a raise at work she is proud of me. our family got a raise, but i've really felt as though she had redefined what her husband does and she had a lot of respect for what her husband was doing. >> the richer sex author monday on the changing role of women as the breadwinners of the family and how that impacts their lives.
the muslim brotherhood's freedom and justice party has the most seats in the egyptian parliament and was founded after the ouster of resident hosni mubarak last year. a senior adviser to the party said the ruling military council is to blame for the party's decision to reverse course and run a presidential candidate, hussein el-kazzaz has warned the
brotherhood against --'s remarks from georgetown university are an hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> let's get started as soon as we can. i would like to welcome you on behalf of georgetown university and the all would lead center for christian -- muslim understanding. to our program today, i had some opening comments but because we have a very limited amount of time i will skip the comments. if i feel really frustrated i will give a talk after they are done for 10 or 15 minutes. but what we plan to do is to have two of the speakers, each will speak for about seven minutes, so instead of having four. then we will go to the q&a in which all four will then respond, and that will give us a maximum amount of time.
could i ask you ahead of time to ask questions? if you want to give a speech, i will stop it, because we have a limited amount of time and everybody will want to get as many questions and as we can. our first speaker today will be sondos asem. she is the first speaker for the delegation that has come from the muslim brotherhood and the freedom and justice party. santos is a senior editor of the official english web site in his twitter account. she is the member of the foreign relations committee, holds a va and english from the university of cairo and mask and indications from aec. she also serves as a board member of an academic site.
[applause] >> thank you very much for having us. it's really our pleasure to join you today in the very first official justice party here, and we are here to start building bridges of understanding with the united states. we are doing this in several places in the world, but our visit to the united states is probably the most important, because we acknowledge the very important -- of the united states in the world and we would like our relations with united states to be better than before, and and we believe that a democratic vision will have positive relations with the united states and will have positive relations with all the
democratic work. we are coming with an islamic background so you'll find -- a lot. in the beginning, the corona covers is for us a very important principle and for our foreign policy and our relations with the world. allah says oh people we have created you out of male and female and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another or you may get to know one another. so we are here to get to know each other, if not just from our side, we would like to get to know you and we would like you to have a better understanding of us. we are here to start good and
positive relations with the united states. so let me first start with a brief history of egypt, or modern egypt and what has brought us here today. before the revolution, as you are aware, we have been under tremendous oppression and immense violation of human rights by the mubarak regime and lack of democracy. and a very suffocating dictatorship that has impacted both muslims and christians from different segments of society. we have all been victims of such a dictatorial regime. egypt has been suffering extreme
poverty. about 30% of egyptians are under the poverty line due to the corrupt policies of the regime and regimes over the past several decades. we have very high rates of illiteracy. we have seen lots of nepotism, and of course, deeply entrenched corruption almost in all states and non-governmental institutions. before the revolution, the future was bleak. personally, i had no hope for a better future under the mubarak regime. we have reached a point where we were all desperate. we have lost all hopes of a better future. for me, for example, i will tell
you the story of myself, which is applying to many egyptians who have suffered lots of oppression under the mubarak regime. before the revolution i was working in business entrepreneurship and -- was part of my job. my name was registered on the security check. for me, that was a tremendous violation of my freedom of movement. whenever i wanted to travel, whenever i decided to travel, i had been searched arbitrarily by the security police in the airports. they sedated me and they searched my bags. they confiscated any papers that i had, only because i was affiliated to an opposition movement. i found this tremendously
disturbing and i reached a point where i was really disappointed, and that was about a month before the revolution. i told the security police who used to interview me, i told them, i am tired. are you going to do this whenever i travel? am i going to encounter that throughout my entire life? whenever i travel, i am intimidated? i'm not sure whether i'm going to travel or not. i am not sure whether my belongings will be confiscated or not. it will be yes, you will be interrogated all your life, as long as your name is registered on this list. i told him, so i should have no hope, or i should have no legal
solution to that? and he told me, there is no legal solution. the only solution is for the mubarak regime to go. and that is not going to happen soon. that was just one month before the revolution and before what happened in tunisia in december. when he told me that, although i was really desperate, i had -- and the tunisia revolution brought back that hope in our revolution, it changed history. it just brought our hope back. i became optimistic again that i can resume my career. at least i have the freedom upon which i can decide what i want to do. so that was just a brief
example, and that happened to hundreds and probably thousands of egyptian families who have been treated unjustly by the mubarak regime because of their political opposition to the regime and then came the revolution and the four magic words, the people want to topple the regime. we wanted it, and we got it, and mubarak steps down. that is just the beginning. they demand of our revolution had been mainly freedom, dignity, justice and democracy. and they shipped to my -- these are also the objectives of our party, the freedom and justice party. we are hoping to fulfill the
demands of the young people who ever folded into rear square and these demands are our prioritied to achieving that, although it's a huge challenge. it's a very long-term goal, but we are going to do it. we are going to be up to the operations of the egyptian people and they trust they gave us in the election. i'm going to hand it over to dr. -- to continue. [applause] >> let me just give you a little background of the next week or. he's a member of the parliament of the freedom and justice party and serves on the foreign relations committee. holds a ph.d. in cultural studies from the university of pittsburgh and a va in english from the university of -- is an adjunct professor at metro manchester university in minnesota and has offered
several publications in bridging those rogue apps. i forgot to mention, i am john esposito. in the q&a, that is my name. >> thank you john for inviting us here. thank you all for being with us here, a little bit over a year now. millions of people had to go to the streets of cairo to stand against corruption, dictatorship and oppression. i remember those who sacrificed their lives, for us to be able to meet together today. if i may kindly, as we stand up for a moment in commemoration of those who sacrificed their lives in the peaceful revolutions in
egypt. thank you. the egyptian revolution and egypt itself, was unique in the way it presented itself, and the way it acted in cooperation against the dictatorship and corruption and the way that it is fulfilling its promises on the roadmap toward democracy, freedom and the road of law. it was not against one individual. it was against a regime.
that was the most common rule that the egyptians would feel very proud. i saw babies at the age of three, four or five repeats that statement in many different parts of each of. it was very fitting that the young egyptians, boy or girl, would stand up and declare that they are free now. that they are willing to work together to build a new country based on the principles of justice and freedom for all. the challenges are enormous. after the system collapsed, that is a unique moment in the egyptian history. it's very difficult to find the oppressors and the oppressed together. i cannot forget this moment, when --
was getting out of prison at the same time. the interior minister who put him in jail was -- that was an amazing moment and that is the difficult challenge in egypt now. you have the killer and the victim together and the challenge, the real challenge for us now is how can we create a determinative away from vengeance? how can we create an alternative that brings back the rise of the egyptians and to create a model that is unique? i always have this optimism, this optimism about creating and egypt for all. not only for all egyptians but for all citizens to come and visit and witness the great history of egypt. so now, after we as individuals
are becoming free, we would like to build and re-create institutions. egyptians are determined not to go back to the old regime by any means. neither in governance nor in attitudes. in egyptians are serious about building a new future for all. voices will no longer be silent. i iran as a member of parliament in luxor and you cannot imagine the difficult dialogues we have had with the people of egypt. the new egypt was welcoming. this agreement, welcoming. this process, willing to chart a new course for the future. there is a need for a value system based on freedom, justice, democracy and dignity.
we have a tradition and a culture that is for strong families ties as a basis for society. faith for us defines the system, encourages us to resist oppression and extremism. on the economic level, we would like to encourage the private enterprise for more opportunities that many young egyptians were not allowed to two follow. we would like also egypt to be part of the global economy. the state needs not to control, but it needs to empower the young egyptians. we would like to focus on the economic partnership. on the political front, we are very much interested in working for we know that egypt has a
unique place. geography, history and the stability and the security not only of egypt but of the whole region based on what happened in egypt in the coming years. free, uninterrupted trade and energy supplies, nuclear disarmament and comprehensive peace are important ingredients of the political regions. we have a dream and the dream is that all egyptians have clean water, food, schools and -- we have a dream that egyptians will not the fearful anymore in speaking truth to power. we would like not to have fear of any more torture for political opposition, for innocent human beings, just because we have a different
perspective. we have a dream of creating a civic society that is vibrant and strong. the stronger a society is this better for everyone. when you to create a balance between the strength of the society and the strength of the government. the big moment that the government is stronger than society, it can lead to oppression. we would like the people of egypt to have the power in their hands. we would like to make people living for so many years under oppression. it created a culture of oppression, and we have to replace the culture of oppression with a culture of democracy and freedom. we have a dream that visitors to egypt can see your ancient civilization and we are adding another monument in egypt.
please, any time you visit egypt, make sure you stop and see the square. we would like you to be able, and others, to walk in the shadow, whisper a prayer in the virgin mary church, which is across the street. this is the egypt we are having the dream for. we have a dream that egyptians, as others, will be able to feel connected to with 7000 years of human genius and creativity. that is the dream we have. we have a dream that is not limited to egypt, but that is open to the whole world, where we can honor the human dignity and respect our cultural differences that we consider as
invincible conditions for world peace. thank you, thank you. [applause] >> to just do a brief introduction to the other people who will be joining in and responding to questions. hussein el-kazzaz is a businessman and adviser to the muslim brotherhood and the freedom of justice party on issues of national development, economic and business development and organizational performance. he has a ph.d. in organization of behavior and from ohio state and was formerly a professor at alexandria. call it al-qazzaz is a coordinator of the freedom and justice party, mechanical engineer by training and serves as a consultant vice-chairman of the private international chain in cairo. he is a ph.d. candidate at walden university.
i would like to begin the questioning was just one observation, and that is in the aftermath of the uprising, as we have seen in egypt, as we have also seen in tunisia, though islamist did not initiate the uprising favor merges leading political force in elections. we see that with the ftap and its 47% of the book was the vote that went to the salafis. but, the question is whether that would demonstrate a willingness to pursue and build a democratic pluralistic political system and effectively address pressing economic issues. what world for example will religion play in egypt's government and its institutions? what impact will that have on citizenship, on non-loop muslims and women's rights and relations with the e.u. and the u.s.? those of you who are on the platform of the ftap which is on the internet, you will see some of that address but then the
question is how is that understood and how is that playing out today? so why don't we begin with the questions and i will try to remember to go back and forth. >> hello? i have a couple of questions. >> one question. look at the line. we are catholic but you cannot do trinity, three questions in one. [laughter] >> okay, so very quick way i will start with dr. mahmoud. i saw you in the conference in luxor when you said, the united states and israel are the biggest losers of the air of spring. i want you to explain to me more about this and also in november 2011, when you used the -- when you said that the
united states does not like the recent elections, we have tutsis and we have -- [inaudible] >> thank you. [laughter] >> the part of the question concerning -- >> your position on the issue? >> the biggest losers, yes. there is no doubt, in the minds of many egyptians, and in fact that statement was said by president george bush himself, that the united states administration supported the leadership in the arab world for the past six years, so to support it was a big mistake on the side of the american administration, and what has happened in the air for old is a shift towards the future and the
united states really has to change its policies and its relationship to the airport when asked to be working with the people of egypt, the people of tunisia and the people of libya, yemen and other places as well. the anti-american sentiments very high. we cannot forget the damage that happened because of a wrong decision, oil versus democracy. i think in the coming years, we shall see, building relationships based on freedom and justice for all, fixing our cultural differences and willing to work together on time and platforms we will be able to create and that is very treated egypt now is not the egypt of the president. any country should not accept any interference from any outside country in the choices
of its own people. thank you be and then there was a second part that had to do with the red sea. >> the second part, it was a question that was during this political -- people are still coming out to mubarak, what if the united states is not lying the election results? it is an egyptian decision and the united states likes it, we are happy with it and at the united states does not like it, we have a saying in egypt that you can drink from the red sea and -- and you have to make use of them. thank you. ..
possible, included liberal, what is interesting about the kennedy writing the constitution is it is criticized by both extremes. one extreme from another saying that we are underrepresented, and then the equilibrium party is saying we are underrepresented so let's continue the committee is trying to be in the middle and invite everyone now there is this addition interesting addition to the constitution writing committee that will be deeply committed to that will invite anyone the constitution belongs to the egyptians and all the egyptians who voices have to be heard and included and they have to be heard and in fact we are having the representatives from the egyptian diaspora living outside of egypt and is the first time in history we have represented the policies are writing the constitution is open
for every one. we welcome every place and we will have the constitution the egyptians will be proud of it. estimate with any of the other panelists like to address this otherwise i will go to the next question. >> two quick points, one is the process itself of selecting the assembly and one was a democratic loss in the first place in over 70% of egyptians voted for the parliament to choose the democratically decided, the parliament itself vote also of the procedures is select the assembly and this was also over 70% vote in parliament. finally, after the party proposed, the list came out the outcome actually was voted on by
84% within the parliament, which means not even if you have the party in the majority on its political still open to the suggestions and ideas and we want our constitution to be inclusive and at the end of the basically egyptians will vote on everything on the constitution. thank you petraeus too next question. >> thanks for coming. i'm at the washington near east policy. my question is of the trip here you were scheduled yesterday for the muslim public affairs committee was actually the only muslim organization on the agenda. they said that you canceled because you insist on seeing a list of the attendees and having your headquarters the this of in a public e-mail. can you comment on that who you were afraid might show up and why would you bet on listing the attendees at this event?
>> this is simply a miscommunication. we're from the muslim community to invite us on a social event, and we have since the past few weeks and flatted by the carnegie endowment for the peace conference which is scheduled tomorrow down university and since justin announced we receive so many of quest's through this week as much as we can of course social things got pushed out that was unfortunate impact decided to announce it before confirming with us this schedule and we apologize and hope to talk to everybody in the
americans as i become a muslim communities or other communities. >> i would just mention that we were not asked to submit any names so those of you in the audience don't have to worry. we have submitted them to the dhs on the other hand. [laughter] so if you are going to travel, good luck. okay. over here. >> my question is since the party is an offshoot of the muslim brotherhood, why does the muslim brotherhood change its position on the time? you will not have the presidential candidate and then you change that and now we have a presidential candidate. the second thing you said that you're for democracy, and when one of your members said at the beginning that he would like to run for presidency, you fired him from the party. at the same time, i don't think
this is democratic how're you going to adhere to your policy that you announce your is it going to be always changing positions from one to the other at the end. thank you. [applause] >> they give you the tough questions. [applause] i'd like to say that it doesn't matter anymore the party once you realize there has been evolution with a certain set of values and dynamics in the next election will be punished, so we know exactly what the come this looks like. our compass is not an offshoot of the movement that used to be secretive of the sword. our compass is not a movement that is internally inward
looking. our compass now is with the revolution and what reduces, which we happen to believe is going fundamental with our value systems we have no problem with that. on the nomination of the president, here's the situation. i think in all the openness what's happened is we engaged in very detailed discussion and we are now running like the president of egypt who gave a very specific message that you're read on the country stops with the parliament with the executive arm of the government with a party that won the elections and i can give you all the details but the message was this is it your taking too much. your role now is in the parliament and very symbolic of the government which would set
the whole thing to fail if you think about the nomination of the president of a presidential candidate and the staff refusing to allow the party to form a coalition government to other parties. the result of the country is going into a very dire economic situations with an interim government -- some answer to the people, some answer to the parliament, and i'm sure we follow the economic indicators and how bad they are. the muslim brotherhood, the standstill waiting for that to happen. so, our -- we still believe by the way the country cannot be run by their own sanction and one group is a very complicated situation in egypt now and no one wants to take the burden upon themselves. it doesn't make sense. our stance is the same. we would like to be party and partner to everyone who can contribute saving egypt if you
will taking on the new path but we will not stand still you don't have a right to be in the government. >> there was a second. was their second part that question? i want to make sure we understand that some of the group had three clear policy not to nominate someone for presidency for that reason, the result of we are not authorizing the positions of power and at that time he said i don't care. i'm going to run anyway said he made what you could call in any party a decision that is straight away in a very significant way as well. it's a jury, very distant -- i know how complex this looks but it's a very different reality now than it was ten months ago with the standard discussion.
>> the process itself of the setting is a space process consulting and advisory decision making body over to who hundred ten individuals who actually make the decision at the end of the day. he was attending the above discussion and the overwhelming majority voted so we attended the second time also he refused to come for and that is his right thumb and this is the right to practice at but if he decided to go outside the space decision of the party it is his right but it's also our right to continue on a different path. as a mix of these are two different decisions made on the frank democratic ways? the times have shifted.
>> perhaps in light since you haven't been aware some of the coverage in the american media one of the reports is one of the reasons you chose to run a candidate is because of the presidential candidates who is a solis the background in the recent poll seems to be really moving up and that also was one of the katulis so could you address that. >> and for interest really is looking at what is the best for the egyptian people. this is how we view things and based on what is good for egypt in the short term and on the long term. so what is good for egypt is basically finding a candidate or pushing or supporting a candidate now to from the democracy and make sure that egypt follows the respect of the damage to the institution, and
fortunately this might not be guaranteed in different. >> thank you for taking your questions. i'm from the british council. my question is in your presentation and discussions you talk about values and face and there were fairly broad strokes when it came to policy, but whether you see it rightly or wrongly that much of your platform is based on those volumes as attwell should be bowen curious what you think each of these to do to develop its policy analysis development implementation process use either within your party, within the government, we are starting to tackle those issues which you talked about of economic opportunity in education for the egyptian people come and oftentimes what many western countries have done is gone in and say this is where you need, this is what you should have, my question from you is what
concrete become of in terms of democracy, justice, freedom, etc. but what concrete policy things deutsch that he egyptian people need in your estimation. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> all policies, okay. >> domestic, i think you said domestic? >> thank you very much. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i will give you an example of something by the way the party is forming a think tank and it has already produced one document that's circulated in the discussions around the renaissance program for egypt and how we propose for it to be and providing devotee to contribute and so on. that's on general terms. jury specifically i think it is best to get in a sample into the economic area and how these values are translated in the economic area in the era of mubarak as i'm sure we all now, we have what we call extractive
if you are familiar with that term, extracted political and economic institutions we have a very few elite that used to extract from a very systematic means through all kinds of protection for the interest through the government contracts, very funny deals, tax breaks that are heard of so we head of the very few people are in it into the barriers to entry are behind but also politically, that is the reality. and that has created a very weak economy to the time sure you realize the contribution to the global economy is less than 30% of 1% for the population that's 1.2% of the population.
that is underperforming extremely. what we have proposed is to create versus the extra active political institution in other words we are taking the very specific measures to include much more people than the economy and the market economy increase the demand and hopefully improve social justice which is a long-term problem. one measure is to reverse the specific measures the mubarak regime has taken into the government allocation of contracts, tax breaks and so on and so forth of these are going to be subject to very strict controls and checks and balances from the civil society. and the second street is we are launching a free aggressive small and medium enterprise campaign. many small and medium enterprise
campaigns have been launched in the past and the did not succeed not because of financing issues but because of poor management. because it is also a public ogle issue. when you try to use in the grassroots to create a mechanism that will succeed and we are talking about one to stimulate the economy and the other is to create jobs. again, with this mentality of inclusion we hope that the broad base of the economy the next few years will translate these ideas of equality, justice, freedom and so on into economic and social reality. is that concrete enough? >> we will go to the next question if we can because we only have about 20 minutes and i want to get as many people as i can. >> thank you for coming today. >> i am a student at american
university. in washington. my question is you guys were talking about especially in the constitutional committee about a loud bar and the secular this who are pulling you in two different directions in both being upset. if pulled you in another direction and what exactly is the position of the freedom justice party on these issues because, as influenced by the overall and influenced by the actual value and foundations of the party itself. >> those values that you mentioned are a matter of consensus among the old and different political parties in egypt, whether liberal or the islamist party, and we have the signatories to the two different
documents explaining those principles and the main principles of the constitution that will be democratic and it will be modern and the first was the democratic alliance and the second was and we expressed our commitment to those principles together with the rest of the political party. so there's the matter of disagreement between us and the rest of the parties even between us or and christians but the difference we have to was the process itself but it had a political dimension but had nothing to do with this agreeing upon those values.
>> - q for characterizing the situation in egypt between the other side and this has been a struggle past 200 years. which traction the bill was to become europeanized and the other side remember a dejection thinker saying this is no way for the e egyptians unless it is europeanized. another treasure will has nothing to do that europe it has to come only from tradition the and justice party is taking a middle ground. this is where we started from, but we cannot ignore human civilization and the development of the human civilization. europe has great things to offer, the united states has great things to offer.
we can look at them as we choose would be like and leave what we don't. estimate from the conflict resolution problem, order the best ways to negotiate and solve the view within your coalition and with other parties. thank you. [applause] don't be shy. [laughter] >> it's jury tough, to be honest with you. remember that we had at least 30 years of political life is dry
what we don't have any serious debate or process in place in all of a sudden we are expected to decide, not the party but i'm talking about the country for the space process for which traditions and figureheads and history and so forth are being billed as we go. it's a very tough process. so what have we done about it? we try to do all the traditional things to get into meetings and have mediators come up with the crounse and so on. is it working? not 100%. i think if you follow the media and egypt in particular, we have such a high to become atmosphere around us on these issues very hard to discuss rationally. everything in egypt now is by the way is so hyped up.
i'm sure a lot of you are familiar top passionate the egyptian people are. if you have ever been to an egyptian wedding or funeral, we have in the egyptian wedding and funeral every day on the political scene to read i'm not exaggerating. it's what we have to deal with, and every issue that comes up you feel from the heat of the discussion this is it and they cannot break and then a couple of days later there is an issue that is going to break the whole thing. it is sort of reseeded, it's not trying to market. this is the characteristic of the post revolution era we need to maturity and i'm not talking about the as a party not to
respect the international private school teachers to the american curriculum and the beginning of the revolution when it was right and then one small groups that i agreed to that at least once a week so they can to answer this as the american teacher that just arrived and said it is not patriotic, part of the big international movement, so i think they were pushing me to fire the gun so it's interesting what can we do about it? so what should i do? i told them very simply people blame this teacher and whoever is convinced from the students then whoever has another opinion on the other side at the beach between both parties and it was a very interesting debate and i
asked -- i informed the teacher the data for the day before so that it is it fair competition between him and the other students pursue this group started preparing and for an entire week started practicing discussing the meeting with this teacher and it was a beautiful debate and i think somewhere in between the wanted good for egypt but it was a healthy discussions of the solution to this is it will take time but the solution starts with what goes with education. >> another challenge we face for the conflict resolution, conflict resolution is -- when you come out of oppression you can say nothing to anyone. there is only one vote and all of a sudden that voice
disappears. we have so many different places. so especially to have it to understand and then to be understood we used to have two years and 1 ton so let us listen twice. this is a very good study. >> thanks jury much and to the panel for their candor. my name is john anderson, an independent analyst, and my question involves the political party finance and the electoral campaign finance for the foreign sources said the current stuff government of both u.s. and egyptian democracy promoters. it's what appears to be a healthy debate in egypt about
that foreign financing. islamic democracy promotion on the one hand, and potentially campaigned in the party activities on the other no doubt a healthy debate. my question is particularly given what according to many sources is a long history of support the muslim brotherhood of the foreign sources particularly from the gulf and perhaps elsewhere not necessarily from the governmental services, but given this, what is the position of the fjp of the political parties coming electoral campaign, and the second part of the question what will be fpv due to ensure
that all the egyptians have accurate information transparency with regard to the political party activities and the sources of the campaign funding? thanks very much. >> party financing is a very interesting and actually there's lots of debate on the rules and regulation that regulate how the parties operate and there are different models and the idea is basically egyptians, the government proposed something before the parliament was done and shows the law to run to regulate how they are simply stick to this rule, this law and this is how we basically operate and indicate we cannot receive international funding and we don't receive international funding and people know that
even specifically with the gulf countries that it is in that smooth either so we actually want them to fund and invest in egypt entirely and still there's some resistance we are offering our brothers and neighbors will help egypt and general and the party financing we are not having problems and as we do not have a huge membership from within the muslim brotherhood and even from outside of the muslim brotherhood in one of the party governments actually the 80% of the party members are from outside the brotherhood, which means we have a good constituency and representation even outside of the muslim brotherhood and they all bimmer shipped fees and are allowed to contribute financially to the party and this is a culture that we were trained on and basically like to spend support our cause and this is the right of every
member within the organization. especially with party politics i don't think it is advisable or even practiced here that the party politics itself is financed internationally is quite scary and it involves a lot of intervention, but on the of her hand with ngos, we think international funding provided the accountability and the respect of the rule of law is acceptable because while we want to encourage members of the society sector. >> will the ftp also for -- that was the second part of the question, sorry. will it make public to the egyptians and others for their campaign funding? thank you. >> for sure they have to.
i would make clear their right to information to imagine making the transition i myself as a member of parliament initiated the discussion on introducing the right to information was being discussed in the parliament and it is likely to come in for mission has to be public for any democracy. >> if you are exceptions >> they're forced to convert to islam >> the example on that -- >> you've made your statement, they've heard it.
>> the point i want to make is this discussion has to do with the egyptian situation dealing with egypt now somebody would like to address but there are people speaking about the egyptian experience. >> the question is for us maybe you're talking about any other place other than egypt, and in egypt i come from 80% of the vote came to me on the freedom and justice party if they suffered from mubarak did muslims suffer, too? the activists and christians suffered and it is wrong for the past regime ought to allow them to have the churches ten years
ago i was in the meeting promising and was also supposed to be appointed to my surprise i found the president saying we cannot because i was so angry and said there are security reasons for that. i did not agree with that statement and i promised myself during my teaching period anyone would be treated the same as any other muslim and this is the experience of muslims. thank you. >> this is the history of egypt. people go to the church and the most it is alternative now and
another ornament of the world. similar to that of the spanish experience. we will do that both muslims and christians as equal citizens will be able to move forward and present an alternative that is good for egypt and the rest of the world and. >> the broad issue is an important issue and a number of places from nigeria over to indonesia there are issues we intend to run a major program on that one of the questions that summaries is in the platform about the civil society need to run by the military or the theocracy with islam the state
religion and recently was prior to becoming a candidate for the party if i remember correctly the number two person in the muslim brotherhood talked about the fact that while the squier the people want islam state, so this language is important for example they tend to talk about the civil government and neither secular or islamic state emphasized the political side but the government, and i think that we've got the number of words floating around in some clarification. estimate the muslim brotherhood or the justice the party is coming on the highest ranking decision making this is not a distinction this mcginn is
different the islamic state means states are christians, jews and muslims and others can live together and work together and have similarities the muslim state is an exclusive state and i think very important to make a distinction about it and there's also the discussion about do we put in the constitution the sharia ruling and the freedom and justice party is to focus more on the objectives of rather than those rulings because they are limited by time and space but the principles are universal like freedom, human rights, this is the priority of the freedom and justice for the time.
>> one follow-up on this would be that often in american literature the way you describe the muslim and a solid state is just the opposite in terms of the terminology so i would say that can also be true in european. let's go over here. >> a great deal of restrictions they don't have the same opportunity to build houses that is available petraeus baquet they are saying is their policy on us to see whether it happens there will be changed but one should note the policy you're referring to did not happen because islamic rule under mubarak and it also existed hundreds of years. >> can i put something on the record briefly.
if the -- i will participate so that someone can quote me later in this regard. [applause] >> excuse me, i just want to -- i'm trying to figure out how to do this. can we go an additional five minutes, is that okay? we have a problem with all the people. i'm suggesting we do this, three questions, cluster them and then take another three questions and then we will go question there and to the panel. >> i have a question about the legitimacy of the freedom and justice party specifically after the recent announcement of the presidential candidates. you've been getting a lot of support from people in the muslim brotherhood specifically the parliamentary elections. you can describe them as muslim brotherhood and now these people a lot of them are kind of rethinking their decisions after
you changed your opinion, so my question is also we heard about -- >> so the question is -- >> i'm getting to it. it was a close call between deciding to nominate him so my question is how are you going to reassure the rest the public inside and outside egypt more stable as a political party to leave egypt it's pretty obvious where egypt is going >> with your doing in general to promote female political participation in egypt. >> for in the egyptian political activist i was in the square protesters and i was there when the muslim brotherhood was not -- to my question, please. simic the asked mubarak in 2005 especially --
>> sorry, question. islamic i do have a question but i also have the right -- stat no you don't. >> yes i do. given that we are in this atmosphere and probably don't. spec that's right. >> he recently said that islamism and islamic rule works in several stages to stabilize. he gave this speech in egypt and i was wondering what state of stabilization of the sharia law for the islamic into realism in his words are we in right now? >> thank you. great question. you've got three questions. [applause] >> concerning female participation, i would just like
to contest that we are not happy about the situation of women we think the presentation of women in the parliament is the engagement in society needs improvement and of course it's part of our platform to engage women both in the civil society and politics in the next election we are intending to field more women candidates but also working to improve the situation in society getting to the root causes of the problems on the marginalization of women and into the skill of the problem of the violation of women's rights in any kind of marginalization of women coming
and we have a lot of solutions to that one of the prairies of the parliamentary agenda to estimate how many candidates did the ftp run in the last election? how many succeeded but how many ran? >> about 70. >> i just wanted to --. >> we have the largest number even a small number, we understand, but the largest number of the party. >> than to the other questions and answers. >> the party was simply running intensive dialogue with people around us and why we made the decision and other decisions and so on the field of the end of the day it would be stable as long as the stand makes sense to the majority of the people to
get my guess is i think people would start understanding the facts. >> and then the last question there was asked to this gimmick it means empowerment and we are for the empowerment of the egyptian people so i'm not clear on where the problem is. it's very interesting because they were very busy. islamic the question -- the question referred to this speech and plugged into the notion. this is empowerment of the different ways and the ways we see the development and the
meaning of the context of the union or the united states and the forums on the similar platforms raised on a particular different manifestations of the present countries and agreements together. islamic really have time for two questions i'm going to go here and here. sorry about that but they have an incredible schedule here and
here. >> from georgetown university thank you for being here on these kind of concept you've spoken of the right to speak truth to power to believe the freedom of justice party and the right, the legal right of the egyptian citizens to criticize or about islam. [applause] islamic [inaudible] islamist party that you are interested in delivering a specially are you trying to see it is the democracy of the market or do you balance between the universal principle and islamic value or just in case you fail and leaving the country
don't you think this would affect islam and others are based on wall you cannot force anyone to love a particular religion and faith with a specific first. >> whoever does not it is his or her decision and responsibility and that is very clear not only on the freedom of this party but in islam concerning and criticizing the others as being criticized right and left by so many people in egypt once you put yourself on the political you have to be able to accept the criticism.
we have to make it distinguished we are not islam. we are muslims and would like to present a muslim alternative that can succeed and kim change and muslims have to be prepared and others will as well that this is a human experience and in the human experience as you can succeed but if 58 chance you can also but we'd like to do the best we can to provide the alternative for egypt and the egyptians so that we all can live together in peace and justice and really determined to present an alternative only good for egypt or the muslims but for the rest of the world. excuse me. thank you all very much for
and she said when i get a raise at work she is proud of me and it's like we got a raise, our family got a raise but i felt as though she had redefined the providing to include what her husband does and had a lot of respect for what her husband was doing stannic the changing role of women as the breadwinners of the family and how that impacts their lives. also this weekend america the beautiful director
end of the money. mr. wolman and editor of wired magazine considers the possibility that cash will disappear when he takes on the quest to live without physical money. this event from the book store in cambridge massachusetts is a hour.r. >> thank you all for being herea to delve into this conversation about money and its future i thought it might be helpful to tell you about all of the people that are furious with me rightat now. furious about this idea that the cash might be gone someday and it's a helpful way to touch on some ofm the things i was touch on some of the themes that i was going to introduce in the book and then after a short reading we can do some q&a. okay, so the angry people.
what happened to me for five years ago is, i, like many people getting interested in the cost of manufacturing pennies and nickels, but some which some people might know right now cost 2.5 cents to make a penny, so it costs a lot more than the value stamped into the object itself. nichols right now are around 10 cents per nickel, which is, i mean it's almost like you have to say it again. 10 cents for a nickel. i was seeing this in the news and a lot of people in a group called citizens to retire the pennies were getting mocked on the colbert report in the wall street general so those of us have sort of irrational streak say it's crazy but on the other hand we understood while it's not necessarily going to get anywhere. then i started looking into the cost of cash or more broadly in society and i proposed to edit this idea that maybe we could put together a short essay saying let's get rid of cash altogether. so much of our lives are moving
to the digital round. movies, music, books sometimes for some of us. why not cash? this is a technology also and yet it is quite analog. so we published this little essay and people go bananas. so this is sort of peculiar inconsistency number one about our world, is that cash to this great extent, we have pushed it to the margins of our everyday lives already, unless you are a serial tax evader here. you are probably not paying your rent or your mortgage with a fistful of cash let alone your car payments or buying a sofa or a new sweater or even dinner tonight. it's also not really part of the modern economy in an enormous way. most transactions now in most of the money zipping around the globe is on computers anyway and yet a few pseudo-formally or
pseudo-officially or publicly suggest, well maybe it's time has come. people go crazy, so the haters. where they coming from? they're coming from every ideological and political position on the spectrum. so first is sort of the, you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands. this is kind of your militiamen set. they don't want to be connected to the government. they want transactions being anonymous and then you have this nco yuan hyperdrive. everyone has submitted to the idea that let tronic money in our lives is useful. we have a bank account of maybe the credit card, not alike tronie money in general but most of us have given us to this idea and if you say let's use cash from everyone says well, big brother might be watching down the banks in the credit card companies are going to be monitoring all of my transactions. you are deliberateness worlds they get this kind of recoil response. another group you have, less of
them, sort of impassioned, but i hear from a lot of people, i don't know, there's just something about the physical. there's just something about the physical. a lot of people who don't love e-books frankly. they love to hold something and you know i think embedded in that response is also a much more sincere concern that people seem to hang onto cash more tightly and we can talk about this a little bit more but the credit card effect catalyzes spending and that is a huge problem for a lot of people. americans right now or in the hook for about $800 billion in credit card debt, so not small numbers at all. some of the other haters. i assume a lot of mafioso and drug dealers out there don't like a very much because cash of course is the currency of crime. they are not letting me e-mail per se but i will let you know if they stop by my house or anything like that. so on the cost of cash a little
bit, before he tell you a little bit more about what is actually in this book, hugo from the penny in the nickel and then use them up to the 100-dollar bill and the 50-dollar bill, and right now, roughly speaking no one knows the exact numbers. cash management in the u.s. is about $150 billion a year. so that is three times the budget of the department of education, so what is cash management? that is making it available to you at the register, at the atm and even at the atm in some far long corner of the country. what that number doesn't include is anything to do with crime, so there were 10,000 bank robberies in 2009 in 2010. that is just people going after statistical stuff. of course there is electronic crimes and there is financial crime in cyberspace. that is not really in this conversation per se. that is a huge cost and you have to pay the cops to go after those folks who have to pay to prosecute the men incarcerate
them. we the taxpayers, we are funding the war on drugs. the drug lords, they love benjamins. that is how they transact, and so you see these cops circling back against us are on us. so these are one of the ideas i wanted to suggest in this book, cash. who doesn't love it to a certain extent? of course i want to make a pile of it and you want a big pile of it in a way, but when you scrutinize cash for the length of time that i did in 12,000 feet up you see it has as much wider cost that no one would ever really consider even as a vector for transmission. at this point i'm kind of the germ of pope and you have an unhealthy caches get but still it's an issue. so these are the ideas i wanted to presume an early on in this project i really thought, this is kind of going to be a cross
between a valentine for cash and a eulogy. is on its way out and that punchy wire tone, here we go. and i really started writing just about this wreck thank you or slips of paper and little mellow -- metal plugs and that would be the extent of it. but as soon as you start to wonder more about where cash comes from and what it means and what the places in our lives you can't help but touch on it. many of these are questions about why caches history, but the gold standard, about national currencies. when i was composing this project, one of my friends said you have to steer clear of central banks. you don't want to be the guy that is writing, great advice, great advice. you just have to shape your narrative and the reality is you cannot talk about cash in any intelligent way without talking about where it comes from, where it's born so this is another angle that i wanted to take. then of course there's the technology side to things too
and we'll talk a little bit more about mobile phone technology and what that means especially in poorer parts of the world. suddenly it's kind of going off in all these different directions. what i wanted to do as best i did was kind of keep the lens on wondering about, okay what is money, what is cash, what is value? how did things things work and trying to come back to the tactile stuff so what i mean by that is, i flew to iceland to do a postmortem on the financial collapse that they experienced a couple of years ago. so if this is unfamiliar to anyone here, i had what is today the biggest banking collapse in the history of humanity. overnight their stock lost 90% of its value and the icelandic currency lost two-thirds of its value overnight. so i went over there to explore this idea but again just wondering about the cash and the national currency. what does it mean to be a country and what is it mean to have your own money and at the me