tv Washington This Week CSPAN November 7, 2015 6:00pm-7:01pm EST
look at going forward. tom: i am involved in litigation administrators. one of the areas of integration we do not cover this medicare,edicaid and that integration. personally i think until the federal government moves forward to allow states to fully make a package for the dual eligibles, all of these experience -- experiments are going to fail. >> there is not enough flexibility for the state to take advantage. i would like your reaction to that controversial statement. tom: i agree it is a topic we should have covered, given the population served and the complexity of the delivery
system to have to navigate medicare and medicaid. there is a promise in the fact that the state and federal government are trying to take this on, after 50 years, we have some demonstration in place for this issue that we have highlighted for decades and we really have had no progress. i appreciate the fact that many states are trying to do something. it is far from perfect, it is a struggle. it is a struggle for those states to go a different route where we mandate organizations. this is an important issue for many states, just trying to figure out what the right path forward is, but is clearly something we need to have a continued conversation around, what is the solution for duels and what will best serve their needs? judy: other questions? we definitely did not cover everything.
michael riley. a couple of things, vern, in agreeof provider taxes, i it is a sustainability issue, but it leads to questions whether the whole financing mechanism is a sustainable mechanism in terms of the state and an ever-growing program. the other thing, i don't want to sound too negative, but lots of good information, some of that i disagree with. but over the last few years, i , fromore and more about the political side, about how medicaid is a broken program, which i do not think it is. but there is some rhetoric out there. how do you all think we can get the message out in a way to the
public come outside of this room , about all the good things that medicaid does do and to the importance of the program and the health care system? good point. anybody? i wanted to pick up on the two parts. i agree, with respect to providers, i agree with what vernon and donna said, it is an essential part of the sustainability, i do think in some ways a lot of provider delivery system reform, because a lot of harderrs are generating -- they are harder to engage, because they feel they are a different kind of part of the
state and a half -- in some markets and situations. with respect to the comment , iut medicaid being broken quote, ied of the nobody goes there anymore because it is too crowded. when the unit has dramatically reduced the stigma, people in mainstream programs now, i do not think medicaid is broken. i think what that is a proxy for is a, about sustainability over time and i think that is a proxy for, can we sustain, whether it is federal funds or state funds, a coverage program like medicaid and that is playing out with a lot of waivers. to me, the way of dealing with medicaid being broken, --
comments is working on sustainability model, essentially. lends toso think it the complexity of medicaid. a lot of people still confuse medicaid and medicare. you have to explain this very intricate program and also be able to explain the value and the personal aspect associated with medicaid as well. to have a better feel for what it means in terms of the impact of medicaid. is a great question, right at the end, it reminds me of the medical director in utah, early in his career he knew a -- that is part of how the program has come. broken when is not
you look at what it does. it is the fiscal issues that are a challenge, is facing the gallows, whether these fiscal pressures facing the program -- this just reminds me of a conversation i had, there was a family with three children, one of them with needs that needed expensive medications, they asked me to help coach them. they encountered all the issues that everyone knows about in health care and then one day, when i walked into church and this lady came running over to joy inth -- to me with her eyes and she said, i have to tell you the news. we were approved for medicaid. and she started telling me what she had learned that week about what it covered and how her child was going to all the health care he needed and she was feeling so secure and she
said, vern, do you realize how good medicaid is? [laughter] and i thought in that moment, that describes what has happened to this program, it is mainstream, it makes a difference, it is not broken for people who are using it. deb: and the affordable care act, when there was a foundation before 2012,digm, i thought we were on our way to the end of medicaid is broken and it is a good health insurer. i think the aca create the foundation to move us forward and too often we hear that medicaid is broken as the excuse for someone who does not want to fact fordicaid, so the them is, it is broken and we do not have to expand it. judy: with that, we will end.
i want to thank you for your attention. [applause] [applause] nationsnited commissioner for refugees estimates that a record number of migrants from syria and other countries arrived in europe last month, and the largest migration world war ii. , and richard, talks about the situation and challenges. richard. >> this is where the bulk of our aid has gone, around syria and inside syria, to help those people who are displaced and trying to survive. we have been doing this for years. we are in some ways the best partners to these countries and trying to call attention to these needs, trying to mobilize resources, not just from the
u.s. -- we are the leader in providing assistance to these countries, but also diplomatically, we are reaching out to other countries, trying to convince them to join with us in providing assistance in those places where refugees have fled to, so that they can -- so that they don't have to be alone. what we have to do as an international community is ensure the lives of those people, keep them fed, warm and sheltered, but their lives are hurt -- tooibly many adults who are idle, they cannot get jobs. these are people who want to care for themselves and for families and so the more we can do to support refugees to have fuller lives, the more we can do to help the societies that are
hosting them, i think that will really help the ability of this region in syria -- >> you can watch the entire interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. c-span. p.m. eastern on learned that you can do -- want you want to pay to. i think that first ladies should get paid. you can do anything you want to pick it is so much. it is such a great opportunity. so i would advise any first lady to do what you want to do, because death and another thing, you will be criticized for anything you do. been criticized for
-- but i got a lot of criticism. but, you learn to live with it. you just live with it and expected and do not let influenced me. >> she was her husband's political partner from their first campaign. she attended jimmy carter's cabinet meetings, championed women's rights and even testified before congress. their partnership on health and peacekeeping stand for decades. night on the original series, first ladies, influence and image, examining the private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the first -- on the presidency. eastern on:00 c-span3. >> a signature feature of the tv
is our coverage of book festivals from across the country. with a nonfiction author talks and interviews, coming up, we will be live from the 32nd annual miami book fair. our coverage starts on saturday, november 21. others include representative john lewis, discussing his book, march, book two. onan.eggy newman -- no judith miller also joins us to discuss her book, the story. book,dd coppell, on his lights out. on sunday, speak with authors live. then joyj. o'rourke, lee will talk about her book,
fracture. this is starting november 21, be sure to follow us and tweet questions. in his weekly address, the president talks about the affordable care act and the current open enrollment. . and sam johnson of texas delivers his weekly address, explaining what veterans day means to him and his experience as a pow during the vietnam war. hi everybody.a: for decades, too many working americans went without the security of health insurance. their financial well-being suffered because of it. we have begun to change that. the reps -- affordable care act has taken a, we have covered 70.6 million americans since 2010, the uninsured rate has
decreased. and for the first time, more than 90% of americans are covered. if you are not covered yet, or if you care about somebody who has not uncovered yet, here is your chance. it is open a roman season and -- open a roman -- enrollment season. at healthcare.gov, you'll find companies competing for your business. you can compare plans and choose the one that is right for your family. most americans will find an option that costs less than $75 a month. even if you already have insurance, check it out, shopping around can save money. last year, consumers who shopped saved almost $400. take the story of a man who e-mail me earlier this year. phil was a software developer from chicago, last winter he had an idea for a new app and decided to start his own company.
that can be scary when you need your own health insurance. he went on to healthcare.gov, answer questions, picked a plan and even found out he was eligible for a tax credit that saved him money. here is what he wrote, i am still in shock about how great the experience of signing up for health care was. i will have a lot to worry about over the course of the year as a try to get my app released, but thankfully good health care will not be one of those worries. after he sent me that e-mail, he ended up getting a better job anyway, but that is the point of health insurance, piece of mind and under the importable -- affordable care act, if you want to go back to school or chase that new idea, you can go back without worrying. if you have pre-existing conditions, diabetes or cancer, or a heart attack, you can no longer be charged more or deny coverage. you can no longer be charged more as for being a woman.
event of care like immunizations -- preventative care like imitations comes no longer out-of-pocket. that cynicsthe myth have peddled, this is reality, health care in america. the bottom line, americans like it, they are happy with plans and premiums. so join them. give it a shot. check out, health care.gov. -- all, one 800 to find a plan that is right for you or somebody that you care about. if you live in one of the 20 cities participating in our healthy community challenge, i want to see how many neighbors you can get signed up. i will come to the city with the highest, who are not covered right now. that is a promise. our country is at its best when
we watch out for each other and together we can help more americans get the security they deserve. thank you everybody and have a great weekend. johnson: wednesday is veterans day and a has a special meaning for me. today i want to tell you why. i served in the air force for 29 inrs, i flew combat missions korea and vietnam and in 1966, when i was serving in vietnam i was shot down and taken prisoner. i spent nearly seven years in hilton, and when i got out i wade 140 pounds. i lives through those years by the grace of god and he gave me all the support i needed. , we were not allowed
to talk to us of the first night in my cell after i got out of the torture room, they taught me the cap -- tap code. the three of us did everything we could to fight against our captors, so we were blacklisted as hard-core resistors. placewe were moved to the we called alcatraz, a pow camp with eight others, the 11 of us becoming the alcatraz gain. -- gang. inre we spent 42 months solitary confinement with our legs shackled. there was no news from home and our captors did their best to make us feel forgotten. but my alcatraz buddies and i
were a family, we banded together and encouraged one another and teach others spirits up. i still remember one night in particular, i had spent 74 days in late iron -- leg irons, and it was a long time since i had seen the sky. i felt finished, but that night of the boot -- a typhoon winds through the city and myself filled with water and i huddled against the wall, as far away from the rain as i could. i began to pray as i had never paid before -- prayed before. and i felt a strange sense of peace in the darkness. the next morning, my soul was flooded -- cell was flooded with
the light of dawn, the storm had stopped. the windows were taken off and i had a sense of the presence of god at that moment. i knew i was going to be all right. camest a few hours, guards in and removed my legs from the telling that story reminds me of something a fellow captive etched on one of the walls. " freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know." freedom is not free, it has a firstnd that cost is paid by our veterans and their families, because when one member joins, it is the whole
family that serves. when our veterans come home, we should do all we can to make sure they get the care they need, when they need it. that is the least we can do, for now i just want to wish all servicemen and women a very happy veterans day. god bless you all and god bless america, i salute you. c-span has the best access to congress, watch live coverage of the house and the senate on c-span2, you can watch online or on your phone. listen live on our radio app. c-spaness by following on twitter. stay with c-span, c-span radio for your best.org
access to congress. this weekend on c-span cities tour, along with comcast partners, we will explore the oftory and literary life sacramento, california. on book tv, and author shares the story of her japanese-american family's survival of an internment camp and bigotry. in her book, the dandelion through the crack, she comments on the open resistance to prohibition and how sacramento earned the reputation as the wettest city in the nation. and we will also discuss the book, none wounded, none missing, all dead, a bagger fee of general custer. >> elizabeth was the first to
come to his defense and say, no, that is not what happened. i know george and another character of my george, he would not have done this. she stood up for him and championed his actions, so was elizabeth's voice that rose to the top. not only because she was a woman and people were paying attention to what she was saying because she was his wife, but because she outlived all of them. elizabeth does not die until 1933, so she is therefore the 50th anniversary of the battle of little big more. she is therefore -- big horn. foris therefore -- there all of history, so she can shape what is being said about her husband. >> on american history tv, we will tour the mention of governor and railroad tycoon, stanford. as a railroad executive,
stanford negotiated deals in the mansion that helped complete the transcontinental railroad. >> mr. stanford was our last two-year term governor, he was elected and served all of 1862 and all of 1863. and he was part of a group of men who were merchants and they were politically active and they had similar ideas and stanford was their first candidate that was successfully elected as a governor. he was our eighth governor and the first republican governor of california. >> then we will visit the ofanese american archivals sacramento university. it includes letters and artwork from japanese-american communities following the attack on pearl harbor. and sacramento city historians share artifacts related to the 1849 gold rush which brought
300,000 people to california. >> today we are in the center for sacramento history and we have the original records of the city and county and we go from the beginning of the city in 1850 although we up to the present. when you talk about the experience of coming to california, searching for gold, you will need supplies, you probably would have had your portrait taken in order to document yourself before your journey. one important thing you would have acquired is a map to figure out where to go. this is a great map of the gold fields. it would be folded, so it can fit into the pocket, it was lightweight, compact and easy to travel with. this would have been essential and it dates from 1849, showing miners where to go. you can see the business of producing all of these things, people were quickly making money off of the people who are looking for gold. >> this weekend, watch the
cities tour in sacramento. throughout the day on book tv. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with cable affiliates and visiting cities across the country. c-span, a look at the impact of legalized marijuana in colorado and other states around the country. --s debate between policy part of a forum hosted by the steamboat institute. at the beginning, we heard people say, well it cost too much in the stores and that will result in an underground market. but now it cost the same. when you think about it, now that there are stores, where do people want to go? get marijuana,to they want to access it like
people access alcohol. you want to find somebody who has it and hope they are actually going to give it to you and you will be safe, or do you want to stop at the store? what we are seeing, we are seeing sales have been going up, they started lower, but have gone higher, because people are trusting of the system and there is a reason why more and more people are buying marijuana from stores, because it is accessible in every way. >> if you are a producer in another place, whether it is mexico or some other place, and you want to lower your overhead by reducing the amount of security you need to operate underground, guess where you will go, you are coming to colorado and it is happening and we know it is happening because we know how much is exported out of the state. >> again you can see all of that debate on the legalization of marijuana tonight at 8:30 p.m.
eastern, before that, the communicators is next, with james lewis discussing cyber security and threats to the u.s.. that is followed by landmark cases, focusing on the supreme court's decision regarding freedom of speech. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local provider. >> james lewis of the center for strategic and international studies is regarded as one of the leading cyber security policy experts in washington, he is our guest this week. both the house and senate have passed cyber security legislation, what exactly what -- ifed that legislation
legislation is enacted? congress tried to pass a copperheads of cyber security bill, maybe it was not the best, but they could not passive. they felt that. they did the next best thing, which they decided they would work on information sharing, that is what this bill does, hopefully making it easier for companies to share information with each other and the government. it is the host: what kind of information will be shared go --? james: information on threat and risk. threat signatures and potential attackers that would help a company if it chose to do so, defend itself better. it is not privacy-related, i
know people have privacy concerns, but it will not be privacy related. host: what it enhance cybersecurity defense? james: that is the hope. probably not. good first up and i think if you talk to some of the sponsors, they would tell you, we know this is just a first step, and we have to do more, that you have an agreement on this, and it builds consensus on the hill to move forward on cybersecurity. host: let's bring in someone from "blago." >> you mentioned that there was a real deal waiting in congress, what would that look like? what are things that congress has not done that should be doing? even if they do not finish this bill? james: they have to think about dhs. what are its authorities and its role? right now they have this very grand mission to defend the nation with her guards to
cyberspace, but they do not have the authorities or the resources. they need to think about critical infrastructure. 2012 wouldbill and have dealt with critical infrastructure, probably not in the right way, and you saw the obama administration put out an executive order in 2013, that imposed very light requirements on critical info structure, to protect their network. congress is to go back and ask if that is enough. >> that would be the final question. what would the protection of critical info structure look like? james: it turns out that it is really hard. we were a bit naive when we first started working on these bills. you think what you want companies to do? will actually make them have harder networks that will be less prone to breaches? framework, i know i'm speaking in greek, but that is almost inevitable in the subject.
the executive order in 2013 called for us to come up with standards for cybersecurity that could be voluntarily implemented by companies. so the question became, if the companies are voluntarily implement in these standards, will they be harder to hack? if the answer is yes, we are better off. it is a process. some companies are doing them are refining them, what is neat about the executive order that was different from what congress made, is that the 12 bill dhs the regulator for cybersecurity. it turns out that everybody on the planet with possibly two exceptions, hates the dhs. it is not fair, but that is how it is. democrats and republicans stopped me in the hall and said, do you really think that we should go with the hs? i said that was the ministries in position. they which it their heads and walk away. the executive order is sector
specific. it gives each sector regulator responsibility to make sure that companies are moving ahead and implement it the frameworks. the banking regulators. the electrical regulators. all of the different regulatory agencies. it turned out to be a smarter approach. host: one thing that we have heard from demonstration risley that they do not want congress to do yet, is to deal with the issue of encrypted tech products , like a smartphone. and, creating any kind of backdoor for upon first meant -- law enforcement. is that wise that they have backed off of that? hashes that did they be answered, if it even can? james: i was the person who find the regulation releasing encryption and 2000. we have exactly the same debate.
it is true, if you let people have strong encryption, law enforcement and intelligence will be hurts. you do increase risk to the public. the flipside is that you also decrease risk. it will be easier for terrorists and criminals to keep their message a secret, but it will also be harder for cyber spies or cyber criminals to steal your data. it is a balance. what we decided back in 2000 was in general, the benefits outweigh the costs. that is the debate that we are having a. it is a different world, you have isis, and a much more energetic russia and china, but that is the fundamental question , if your data is more secure, are we better off as a nation? that is the position the administration took. i'm not a big fan of backdoors. one of the reasons we decided against it the last time, was that the believe that any backdoor that we built would be found by someone else and used by them -- you do kind of compromise security with it.
but, no doubt, there is a problem for fbi and there is a problem for law enforcement when you use strong encryption. it is just a heart issue. i would not see this as the end of the debate. host: when you think about cybersecurity and some of the threats that the government or private industries face, are we thinking about the right things? james: no. that is the good news. because, people are beginning to realize that there is still -- thate still sort of shaped i can defend my network. i can do whatever it takes to make my network hard to hack. you can make your network harder to have, but you cannot make it on hakuba. you cannot protect networks. particularly, determined opponents like russia and china. it will always get them. what we need to do is move from trying to protect the networks to trying to protect the data. trying to protect information.
that is where this link to the encryption debate comes up. if you know that some of our opponents are always going to be able to get in, the russians got into dod, state department, and the white house in the last year. it is kind of a hand. we need to refocus on making sure that since we cannot keep them out, we limit the damage that they can do when they get in. >> how to go about doing that? james: it involves around encryption. encryption is a pain in the neck. when we released in 2000, we thought industry, we are done. everyone will use it, but no one used it, because it was hard and expensive and slows your computer down. maybe places like apple and google can change that, he will make it so you can just click on a button and your step is encrypted. that would be good. for security. bad for law enforcement. some of what you need to think about is how you identify yourself on the internet. the password -- i always say this -- in 1995 there was a
movie called "hackers" and it started teenaged angelina jolie as a hacker. toward the end of the movie you can see her break a password in about 10 seconds. that was 1995. it has not gotten any better. you need to think about how people identify themselves. stillall i.t. people writer on on keyboards were entrenched. james: a lot of them do. i was just out in palo alto and a woman who is the ceo of a company shows up on her skateboard -- longboard, by the way. this is motorized. so, yes. still the same at silicon valley. in themuch should general, any u.s. citizen, be worried about cyberattacks? and what kind?
james: a few years ago, people were not that concerned, and they were probably right. we may have reached a point where you see a growing awareness, a growing public concern. things like target made people realize, it is not just big government agencies, it is not just spies spying on each other, it is the average citizen. so i think, you need to be relatively concerned if your password is your dog's name. you are not safe. and if your bank is not using dual factor authentication, where you have to do two things to be identified, you are at risk. how much risk, it depends on how much money you have. if you have a lot of money, you are going to be more attractive. if you work for an interesting place, you are going to be more attractive. if you are an average person, the question is, we get caught up when a big insurance company or a big bank or a big credit card company gets hacked? there is more risk than there is
more risk than it was two years ago or three years ago. what is thecture, worst case in error for any kind of attack and how likely would a situation like that be? james: we are having a contest to come up with a replacement for cyber-pearl harbor. it is about years old. we need a new catastrophe. cyber-9/11. cyber-katrina. we do not like that because there is no water involved. what is the worst that could happen? it would probably be some kind of attack on the electrical grid. you do not want to overstate that, so you can look for real-world examples. we have the 2003 northeast blackout. that sort of damage is what a cyber attack would look like. and the flash-crash a couple of years ago it in the stock market went kind of haywire. that is a separate attack would look like. it is not the end of the world, but it would be damaging. it would cost the economy some
money. probably no one would die, but you would notice. drip the collective, drip, , drip of all of these attacks more damaging than one or two big attacks? one of my roles that i've instituted in the last couple of years is that anything that runs like the plot of a crazy movie is probably not a good guide to policy. there is this notion that china has a 100 year strategy to undermine the u.s.. death by cyberspace. i think that is ridiculous. i don't think so. the things that have been the most damaging have been opm, target, and some of the breaches at the department of energy a while ago. they got nuclear weapons data. that was bad. but, overall, this probably will cost the economy about $100 billion a year which sounds like a lot, but in the scope of the american economy, which is $70
trillion, it is almost around -- it does not mean we should like it, you do not want to tolerate crime or spying, but i do not think it is the end of the world. on the flip side, has cyber defense become a big business? james: a big business and a huge source of investment. there are probably over 200 companies now in silicon valley, each try to come up with a different solution. if you look at the big i.t. companies, the googles and the intel, the facebook's, they are all buying cybersecurity companies. it is a growth industry. the reason for that is not because of the threat becoming so severe, it is because that we all depend on this, now. when i started working with this, it was kind of like a toy. here's the thing on your desk and you can go to a website and maybe play pac-man. that was pretty exciting. now, of course, it is built into the fabric of our economy.
everyone realizes that, and they are willing to spend -- the banks do the best job. they will spend huge sums of money to make their networks harder. that creates demand for companies, for products, and for people. host: you mentioned china just a moment ago. i do not want to mischaracterize your position, but if i understand crackly, you see some positive in the agreement that was reached by obama and their president in september. what you like about it, and what you think the shortcomings are for that deal? something -- i was in a meeting where people are criticizing the agreement and for a minute i felt like i was back in the reagan administration. it was all the stuff that you heard back then. they will cheat. they will not live up to the agreement. we were full to do this. we are not talking about helsinki, here. you have to start somewhere. you have to find agreement. you have to find a way to work with these people.
the chinese made a dramatic shift in their position, prior to the summit, we talked to them they said we do not need to talk about economic espionage, because of course, we do not do it. a huge change. it is the first step. how well it makes progress in reducing the problem will depend very much on how much the u.s. pushes on china to live up to its agreement. the biggest problem with it is that if you look, the language was carefully designed. this is in our interest, too. there is a line, on the side commercial espionage we agree not to do it. on the site, traditional espionage, nothing. of course, the chinese would say, we have not caught nsa. traditional espionage is still very much up in air. >> do you think that the u.s. is also conducting ever secure the attacks against state players? james: the chinese always
complain about it. of course, we have mr. snowden to think -- think for knowing now that the u.s. has been very active. i was at a dinner a couple of years ago with a senior nsa official, and he said that, the internet has created a golden age for intelligence. we benefit as much as anyone. speaking of edward snowden, did he do the country a service, the fact of getting this out here, to at least have the discussion? james: no. if you have limited himself to the domestic surveillance programs, you can make that case. host: what possible benefit to privacy does it do to reveal that we were monitoring russian nuclear launch facilities? james: that is directly related to national security. telling the russians that we were doing that does not make
anyone better off. what good does it do to tell the chinese that we were monitoring their nuclear facilities? that is not a privacy issue. he did not do a very good job of doing the things that might have been good to talk about. from the foreign intelligence side, he did real-time to national security. he will look great in orange. he started saying that he was willing to come back. i hear where he is it is nice, but that is ok. just kidding. i am not an edward snowden fan. host: back to china for one second, i'm sure that you have seen and heard the reports that they are still -- james: no. >> do you think then to be legitimate? there are questions about some of the reports of who did what and do we know yet how well they are honoring the deal and why or why they are not? james: a couple of issues.
the first, cybersecurity companies -- to earlier question -- have found that a nice source of free public sees to put out one of these flamboyant reports. the chinese are continuing to hack, then again the papers and the company name gets numb. >> the fbi put out something shortly after. james: the second thing is, the agreement is relatively new. switchot like there is a in the office where he can go and flip the switch to the opposition. i talked about this with chinese --icials, and they say that how much to believe them, i don't know -- we could use more information and people have to use their own judgment -- they actually said that the president said in the summit, look, we have 1.3 billion people on the idea that i control the mall is just nonsense. of course people are going to say that is not true, he control them all, but i do think there
are private actors in china that steel for commercial purposes. there are units that moonlight to hack companies in the united states. they may not be easy to control or under his control, so i think the so be something that will take months if not years for there to be improvement. the first step is getting the chinese to say, we will not support this. may not have as much control as we would like to think. >> we think of china's government as somewhat authoritarian at least. that they would be able to control their government. james: they have politics in china just like anywhere. some of the politics is that the president is centralizing his authority and his control. he needs to clean up the party, so that it does not lose more legitimacy. anticorruption, which tends to first go against people who are his allies.
to do that, he needs supporters. a key part of his support has been from the pla, the people's liberation army. if he turns on them, and says to them, basically, hey, i want you to start making money. they make money from hacking. that creates political problems for him. it will not be easy. i think you'll move in the right direction. but, it is not like this will happen overnight. -- one of be aware the things the ministration did that was good, action, was that they linked the negotiations to the chinese domestic political agenda. anticorruption campaign, the pla modernization effort. it is not an authoritative regime. now is gone. although, the jacket remains. host: how do you get started in this business? james: three things. first, in high school, in my
economics class, was a cross from the computer lab. this was the stone age. remember, they had this old printers and you could program it to print out mickey mouse's had? , and if i had been paying attention in economics class, i would be in a different line of work. second, and graduates go, which was one of the don of computing, they basically told me that you have to learn how to program will not let you graduate. that night i thought i would drop out. because of that graduate experience, i used to work for dick clark, a dynamic individual and the godfather of cybersecurity, and one day he saw me walking down the hall and he said, do not to program computers? i should have said no, but i said yes, why? he sent me up there to work with them on it. so, there you go. host: are there other state
players that we have not talked about or that should be talked about besides russia and china? we know about north korea. james: there are four countries that are the most threatening opponents for the u.s. in cyberspace. two, weion to those have to include iran and north korea. as aseems to have improved result of the nuclear deal. there are tensions and so people will say, why won't the iranians -- they hacked into a navy -- this are people who do not like the nuclear agreement who are trying to sabotage it. the level of iranian activity that is going down, hopefully it will stay that way. they have been doing quite a lot of work. -- thisthere are still very bue gulf. north korea, there is strong capabilities. i think the sony incident scare them off a little bit. because they realize that they were not invisible, that the
u.s. could figure out that it was them. that really helped. but iran and north korea are the countries that are most likely to miscalculate and launch some kind of damaging attack. >> is that really what stopped north korea? was there some sort of other action that we took that we just do not hear about in the public that often? james: people always talk about than i think the answer is no. that i do not know that for sure. no one in the government has ever told me, we did ask or why to north korea erie it they did tell me that they were able to able toe, they were think about sanctions, and they were able to get a message to the north korean leadership. as to other things, i do not know. i have a whole repertoire of jokes on that one. it's like turning off the power in north korea, who would notice? damaging a north korean film company, people would be grateful. there is not a lot that we can do to that country.
but, we were able to threaten them with our ability to say, we know that it is you, here are the people on here is their picture. host: speaking of, people we may or may not be able to scare, this week, the justice department was talking about a case last month. where they had a hacker collaborating with isis. this is the wave of the future, sort of. this is the threat that we are facing today. how realistic is the threat of cyber attacks from terror? james: i think it is still pretty low. terrorists, and for chile, are insane, and prefer actions that do physical damage and cause bloodshed. so, we have been hearing about the terrorist threat of cyber attacks for more than a decade. it has never happened. this guy was collecting information to help isis in planning attacks. they use it for espionage purposes, sure. i have not seen the attacks yet,
we keep wondering why have they not done it? i think it is the psychological need they have for violence. hopefully that will remain true, but, for me it is hard because every two years since 2002 i've had someone tell me that we will see a terrorist attack within two years. it has never happened. knock on wood, it will stay that way. host: does cybersecurity corporation stop at the country border, or is there international cooperation? james: there is a growing amount of international cooperation. job and has done a good this administration in building that cooperation. it starts, of course, with the long standing intelligence relationships that we have had. we have people called the five eyes. canada, u.s.,., new zealand. we have done work in nato, we have done work with other places
like japan. we have done important work in the regional form. a little bit of progress in the u.n.. one of the things that has changed, i would say in the last five years, is that now countries are on the world notice a problem and they are worried about it, and they may not understand it, but when you have a shared fear, is easy to get cooperation. host: the administration's focus on international arms, just a sort of informal, voluntary, we will agree to this, this is the thing we will not do in the cyber world. there are still people on capitol hill and elsewhere that say that we need stronger than that. we actual sybrina specific things. what would be in between that? what would come after norms? after the acceptance of those, what can you do? james: you have to think about it as norms as a confidence building measure in parallel. there is an initial set of
confidence building measures that came out of the organization for security cooperation in europe, and you can build on those to create transparency to create accountability to reinforce the norms. it is hard to get a treaty -- what you going to agree to? we are going to ban cyber weapons? does that mean you ban teenagers? what does that mean? we're going to declare cyberspace a zone of peace. we should demilitarize cyberspace, some countries say that. they'll be a really good trick, but impartially, it is 20 years too late. a treaty is on the cards. for the same reason that we do not have treaties on outer space for it -- outer space. you can get a treaty when the weapon is terrific. but, nuclear weapons, debbie indies, everyone fears them, nobody fears that this is legitimate. cyber does not fall in that category. it is part of warfare. it is part of espionage, i do not think that anyone will
agree. host: from a national security perspective, what is your biggest frustration that we have do y? e x, or we should james: i worry about critical of the structure. happen magically. it does not occur in a vacuum, it occurs in a political context. when tensions were very high with iran, the iranians were probing our critical infrastructure and found bone abilities that they could have exploited through something like that northeast blackout, or something like pipeline disruptions. we were defense of thing, you are still largely defenseless now. how do we harden critical and the structure? the other side of that is people always talk about cyber deterrence. it probably does not make any sense, but the north korea example is perhaps indicative. if you let the other side no that you can tell that it is
them, then you might do something back, maybe they will be a little more cautious. and we need to harden infrastructure, and we need to think about how do we warn potential attackers? host: has the availability and -- hasthe so-called added cyber security threats? james: no, actually, a lot of cloud providers do a better job than homebrew stuff. if opm had been using cloud services from one of the big commercial providers, the incident may not have happened. provider is not doing a good job on security, you are at much greater risk. but, overall, cloud seems to have made things a little bit better. kind of counterintuitive, but it basically takes things out of the equation. host: one more question. you mentioned the attribution issue, that we have been able to
say to north korea, we know that it is you. a couple of years ago they said that this is the biggest problem. we cannot figure out who is doing what, and every thing else builds from that. have we gotten that much better, and if so, how did we do that? james: i was at a meeting with the chinese dod, where the dod said, starting about eight years ago we put a huge amount of money and effort into improving attribution. back then we could do it one out of three cases, now we can do better than, let's say better than three out of four. host: can you tell us precisely how you do that? james: the answer is no. but, there was a line in the state of union address where the president said that as he learns with counterterrorism, it is the ability to combine different intelligence sources that gives us our ability to attribute. the dilemma is, we put so much effort into it, we are better than any other country in the world, we do not say that very
often anymore. we are better at attribution than anyone else, and they may grant was something like 70, it either magic or people do not believe you. like sony. mentally improved our capabilities. it is not perfect, but it should be a warning to opponents. host: one last thing, companies in the commercial space, that have the ability to attribute as well, you see this in the paper sometimes, five years now, at tradition will not be a big problem, and that will be a good thing. host: thank you for being on "the communicators". [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] a localn, brought to as service by your cable or satellite provider. >> on the next washington journal, political correspondent jim heath, author of "from the seat at the circus", talks about
his experience covering provincial campaign. mr. ginsberg will discuss president obama's middle east prophecy, and preview the meeting with israeli prime minister on monday. and usa today correspondent has details on a report that the pentagon has paid $9 million to sports teams for patriotic event. as always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on faith look and twitter. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here on c-span, original series landmark cases, is next. it will be a look at the supreme enckt's decision of sch versus the united states. meetingnd a townhall from today, with present candidate hillar