tv Cato Institute Hosts Forum on Privacy and Government Surveillance CSPAN December 14, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EST
act, a built the urban institute just said last week would likely raise the number of uninsured by 30 million people, this bill includes a provision to repeal the application of the medicare tax, the tax that goes right into the medicare hospital insurance trust fund on the investment income of very wealthy people here ca this provision if enacted will mean a worker making 30, 40, 50, 60,000 a year has to continue paying the medicare tax on all of their wages while somebody making $5 million a year in capital gains and dividends doesn't take any medicare tax. ..
they could've put on a together and localize it. >> steve sadler, i will ask you what they view as the million dollar question right now. a lot of progressives have been very reluctant to normalize traub because there is a view that by legitimizing his presidency that that carries risks and consequences that we don't want to be responsible for our partners. at the same time, i will confess great fear that if we continue to spend a lot of time paying attention to the sideshow, that it's going to leave a lot of
space-bar republicans to push through a major piece of legislation that would slash social security benefits. the legislation is introduced last week by the chairman of the social security said committee ways and means when impact americans and very serious ways. which side do you land on? do we normalize or do we not? >> it's up to us as to whether he normalizes. he's going to be president makeup of months. he will have incredible power and i think we have to deal with that. the way we deal with that is to call him out on both the latin studies told in the things he says he supports which are not in the interest of working people. i think it's both. things that he was honest about that are simply not good for people including the people he claims to be supporting.
so i completely agree we can't immediately get caught up in every tweet that he sent out, but we have to recognize that the different communication and mobilization that we are used to from high elected officials. on the communications question, part of the problem we have is in our research has shown that we need to be connected with people based on shared values and the starting point. we need an analysis of how proposals are going to benefit and her various people appeared to starting places what what are the shared values by fairness, opportunity. all of those things are things that most americans can connect to and when to make the connection you can start telling a story about what's going on
and help them think about it clearly. bob said this in an implicit way or may be explicit, which is the benefit of the policies the republicans and trump are talking about are going to go to reach people and corporations. they want tax cuts and block grants. it saves money and help safer taxes. i think there is a story we need to tell that has appeal across the board. the sanders campaign, which is there are corporate interests and wall street insurance who want my money, who want less regulation because that benefits them and it does not benefit working people. we need them to tell that story and the last thing in the most challenging is we can't shy away.
we have to talk about how that has harmed and continues to harm african-americans in this country, african-americans, poor communities. we need to have a frank conversation and deal with folks who don't share those views in nature )-right-paren talk about common values and shared values. it's 100 years of history. that's not going to get over come quickly or easily. this can't all be about the 1% and the 99%. it's got to be about who's been harmed by the structure since its founding in the prejudice that's now whipped out against immigrants and people of color generally. >> before i turn it over because they can fill you guys have questions. one last question to duane and michelle.
at a point where economic power is now controlled by an average smaller number of credit a rich reverberations, how do we build up our bases in our community and in a movement which is a huge part of what both of you are involved in in a way that can counterbalance where the power is held currently and whose only the decisions getting made and how can the national organizations based in washington connect with folks on the ground building does. >> we have to work closely together with the think tank folk and the intellectual elite in conversation with people on the ground and may need to listen to each other. it is not an issue and i think he talked about this earlier. the best policy makers in our country are not the people
sitting in towers, the people sitting in projects if you want to ask about what it would take, you have somebody living in poverty whether they would get out everything that's critical. there's got to be a close relationship with those that are the intellectual elite listening more and doing less talking and hearing deeply from the people struggling and understanding the issues. it's interesting as we sit here having this conversation and medicare and medicaid. but the day after the election, 300% in this presenter was going to use the misery both of african-americans and undocumented immigrants around the nation to basically build the economy in some communities because we will increase the president may lack of
undocumented families who came here for the very reason the majority of the white families came here to educate their children, who came here to get a better life. we will throw them in private prisons. we will make a lot of money off this right now. we will use policies coming from a city or personally thought again stop in first grade we understand a lot of lawyers and money of people being frisked unnecessarily. when we talk about normalization, we cannot allow donald trump to be normalized by any means because the thing he's trying to do will destroy this country and especially those communities and those experiencing some level of change. it's absolutely critical that we are all figuring out how to work together on how to be able to inform one another that we are out fighting together, marching together.
we have to help our progressive leadership in the house and senate to have in this moment and even sometimes when it appears they want to cut deals that took ideas because you are normalizing what ultimately is destructive for people all across this country and they have to hold the line. we can continue to lift up a moral message being made that they're only benefiting the few instead of benefiting the majority. >> everything that you just said. and education is so important. i'm listening and i understand it because of my own educational background. a lot of people won't know which are talking about and we talk about communication, i agree with you that is where the process.
how do we get out there for the community and translate data in a way that makes sense for people? yes we have to talk about racism. as the foundation of all of this and what a poor white person would deserve his stance in a poor black person as a miniature. i know they say you're not supposed to talk about racism, but i absolutely have to. when you ask me why all this way women vote for chart because of racism. that's a big part of it. it not necessarily about the economic insecurity and have been forever. the rust belt folks, this poverty and struggle is not new to them. not just in a promised name. it's been a generation since they were competing with slave labor. they want to put it and frame it in this way because they lack the education that teaches them how this came to be and how them and their families and that i've been in situations that they are.
they listened to their rhetoric, the facebook names because they are susceptible to it as they lack the education and knowledge they need to combat it. we have to prioritize on both side is education about as participate in an america as a citizen. when you have progressives voting for hillary and down ballot and may have heard the name of the people on the ballot that is just as bad as some bad as someone going of voting for chart. we have to make sure that when we are sending people to vote, we are sending people on jury duty. that is one of the scariest things that we have people judging other people's lives and they don't know anything about the law. all they're doing is going with a guy. we have to work on not. we are not going to be able to communicate until we start talking seriously about racism, sexism, everything that fuels
the preservation and resources. at the democratic party in many cases worse than what we see from the gop because it's insidious and they hide it and act like they are not racist. we start talking about that and educating people no-space. that is how this will continue to happen. the only people of access to nationalism in this country are white people. these are the educational conversations we need to have. >> i will turn it over to the audience but i would be romance if i didn't give you a chance to weigh in on what is the role of labor and unions in building days outside of where they exist today. >> i indicated before really one of the few institutions in america and all senses. we have a special obligation and
the fact of the matter is the republican has long appreciate just more than a democratic party. we've been a target of attacks because they recognize the power of working people coming together and there's no progressives and democrats who don't see the value of labor. it is the only institution where workers can exercise power on their own. >> we will leave the discussion at this point. you can see it in its entirety on the website c-span.org. the way in life to a daylong conference looking at government surveillance intelligence and privacy issues by the cato institute. live coverage on c-span2 just getting underway. >> 2016 is the case in point of the possibly impossible chinese curse me live in manchester and
times. for better or worse, the obama administration shines eight years as surprising continuity with its predecessor. that is civil libertarians can look back and count some victories and we can look back on the first real ammunition for attraction of the post-9/11 expansion of intelligence surveillance in the u.s.a. freedom act and policy directive 28 and the executive order and straining the ability of the intelligence community to collect mass information about persons abroad. and now at the same time, and entrenchment of really the bush era approach to the war in terror. those listening to candidate obama for example and the obama
administration with no more national security letters used to gather information suspected of any wrongdoing perhaps as point man neither did the expansion continue entirely on the basis and began to see the way it would roll back. now, the only thing we can be sure of is we cannot expect continuity. we have a rather extraordinary year and like many things in 2016 is essentially impossible to talk about this topic without talking about donald trump. someone who really comes to the highest executive office in the land without a clear sense of platforms on a whole range of issues outside the core concerns and has already created a great
deal of anxiety both in by the demonstrable distrust in the community and at the same time among civil libertarians he has demonstrated character and hold grudges a kind of nixonian increase and in particular for using private information with little home is. sometimes that this seemingly very broad idea of the powers of the presidency without any clear sign of regard for the constitution of limitations on the power of that office. we need to begin a discussion on policy issues by and asking what
the next four to eight years look like under a trump administration. but as the shape of the national security state under donald trump? why have so many national intelligence officials regarded his sentence to the white house and to discuss that, we assembled a really lamp panel of veterans, intelligence and national security community and introduce that pamela plant the best national security reporters working today. shane harris at "the wall street journal" who is the author of an exxon book called the waters and more recently and also excellent vote called at war, rice said the internet complex. i cannot think of a better panel to kick off the 2016 surveillance conference with
[inaudible] >> the title of the panel of intelligence of the trump administration. if only we had a more interesting topic. so i am going to dispense the lengthy introduction so we can get started. not all some on the left who was among other things director of the national counterterrorism center and general counsel. to my last the council of the attorney general national security among other things. kim actor who was the first director privacy for the national security at the white house and now the managing editor of the l'affaire.
clearly in the past five days there have been some extraordinary development if you are here at a cato conference i probably don't need to remind you what happened friday night with a "washington post" story to recap and set the stage for a discussion in the trump administration. obviously it was reported the breach to senators that there is a bit of a tweet on an earlier assessment they had made that russia had indeed direct attacks against the democratic national committee and hillary clinton's campaign and other political organizations for interfering with the nineveh's conclusion between the cia position and the fbi with the director of
national intelligence which are not necessarily too sure that they share that view. immediately after it came out on friday, donald trump put out a statement saying that of the cia essentially don't believe them. these are the same people who got it wrong about saddam hussein had weapons of mass distraction. it didn't take long to fire back with their own statements. it's fair to say that what we have now is possibly unprecedented at the very least extraordinary between the president-elect of the intelligence community that he is about to be direct and end that is fair to serve him and his policy and goals of people in his administration. so that is new and very interesting. i want to get the discussion go and were talking about the extraordinary development and i want to turn first to seize him and say a bit of reaction. you've been in the intelligence community. you are not out of it and follow these issues closely. what you are seeing and going
back and forth, but also what this is like for somebody inside the intelligence community watching this extraordinary drama play out. >> the first thing important to understand is they are having very marginal disagreements about whether or not there is sufficient evidence to say that there was a particular motive. there is broad unanimous agreement that there was russian interference, but that interference did in fact have face-to-face donald trump even if it didn't change the outcome of the election necessarily. the second thing is sort of important for context to understand we shouldn't want a president to take intelligence as gospel. that is a fact. it is a positive for the president-elect to have a little bit of skepticism. the intelligence community is not infallible. donald trump statements are
incredibly extraordinary and consequential. he is outright reject it without providing any evidence for why those unanimous assessments. he is not just he doesn't believe they be at china. maybe it's some guy on a bad. he has really sort of refusing to acknowledge that this might be true. and he's actually accusing the intelligence community had been political or partisan and that is a really, really consequential state and for a president to make. the intelligence community obviously engages in controversial action. sometimes they get things right. sometimes they get things wrong. they are not a political body. they do not do things for political purposes. they do things the senior leadership of the united states can make a decision based on fact. that is the area it becomes very challenging for someone's serving in the intelligence
community to say they are really been accused by their boss of violating one of the most important fundamental tenants of intelligence which is your duty to the nation and country and not political party. >> as someone who's obviously thinks senior policymakers, i assume has briefed the president before, what is the first meeting like with president donald trump where he sits down for the career grand slam say, people who he doesn't know, people who he's openly questioned the accuracy of their analysis, their intent is susan has laid out. what is the native mike and how does that begin to set the tone for your relationship? >> i would agree with susan said and take it even further in terms of the intelligence community not been political in how important it is to the community at-large. it's probably the single most significant norm among
intelligence officials is that their efforts, their intelligence collection and analysis is not informed by anything other than their effort to discern the truth. again, not infallible and i think it's right for the president and other policymakers to question the intelligence officials who briefed them. i've been in that position. i've been the subject of skeptical and probing questioning by the president and by cap numbers -- cabinet members. that number and nor could i imagine situation where the good illusions we've reached in the analysis we are providing us question raised on the motive of the people delivering that message that they are being political. so to answer your question and its consequential, alarming and dangerous to have that be the view of the president-elect of the intelligence that he is
receiving, that is being politicized. it's dangerous to national security. to your question on the first meeting out very much expect the first verse in their it's going to treat everything like they would every other briefing. there's not going to be any way for backward on a hot controversy. the information will be delivered just as you would expect and hope that would be delivered. the last thing i'll say on this question which is sure, the head of the cia is a political appointee, the fbi has been appointed and senate confirmed. everybody else in the intelligence community on the frontline collecting information and everyone preparing the analysis are not political. they are the ones preparing the information to be delivered to high-ranking government officials. it truly is a political enterprise.
i think it speaks of the lack of experience and perhaps worst of president-elect from that is. >> one of the things coming out in the reporting of the daylight i referred to between the fbi say we are not so sure and the cia saying we think it was they were involved around different standards for assessing information and the law enforcement context versus intelligence contacts or maybe law enforcement. looking for things you might prove in a court of law. as somebody who works in national security and the justice department and the first environment we are scoping out with evidence in more concrete, and curious what you make of these differences being reported and that russia was up to and do you think that matters? >> yeah, so my sense having been at the justice department is
that this fbi cia split that steve reported and emphasized in the reports over the last couple days is perhaps being a bit overplayed. an fbi narrative is sort of me that and i would argue a little bit lazy to where the reporter automatically goes. and intelligence assessments are based on information available in the cia obviously has come to whatever is its assassinate. the arguments for the fbi and various reports as the fbi had to adhere to a court ready level of evidence is not reflect to of what they do on the intelligence
side. the fbi as an organization that has dual role. it has a traditional bond function primarily carried out direct criminal investigative division and then it has a national security function and the national security branch functions are part of the intelligence community and particularly after september 11 the fbi has gone through a significant transformation to enhance its national security and intelligence capability and the professionalism of its intelligence related work for us. in other words the workforce that is working on documents looking at bigger picture issues and not simply gathering evidence for a crime. i view these recent emphasis on the fbi versus cia issue of as perhaps a little bit overplayed. but picking up also on what is susan and matt were describing.
they think it's worthwhile to step back and look at the role of the intelligence community and the role of the intelligence community is in short shrift to fold. one is to provide sort of tactical intelligence to war fighters, counterterrorism operators. intelligence analysts who are trying to generate sorted information that supports particular investigations or particular operations. the other function is to provide her picture assessments and assessment of various national security issues that are going on around the world to inform policy makers and to inform the president who is their number one policy making customer. so the challenge for the intelligence community and this current environment that they are finding themselves in with the president-elect is going to be to figure out how to reach him, how to communicate to have
the value of what they do and no way that will hopefully inform his decision making process going forward. [inaudible] >> -- saying twitter or cable news as a way to get to him. you see people in a circle trying to figure out how we convey information as an unconventional manner. to that relationship seems like it's been established. ..
>> my basic position which i thought about carefully is whether the actual briefing, they should get one. get a briefing, and the reason is that there is a plausible constitutional argument that they should exercise of independent judgment in making their choice. some people agree with that and some people don't. but it seems to me if there is such a plausible argument, then the intelligence community should treat the electrics just like they would any other elected official whether a mayor, a governor or a member of congress and his information to inform their decision. one thing we've heard today from susan, from to and from matt is there might be slight disagreement about the motive that the russians had an engaging in hacking but there's overwhelming agreement that this hacking actually did take place for the purpose of interfering in the election, that is quite solid, the information that
attributed this to the russians but your average member of the electoral college who was sitting there watching cable news like everybody else and reading various sources and hearing unnamed officials been quoted in stories, you could see, if the president-elect thinks it might be some guy in new jersey. i think they have a right frankly under the constitution to be informed directly about what is the intelligence communities of you on this matter and then they can make up their own mind as to whether it should matter in their vote. i also think they should only happen if it is requested. i don't think they should be into being and say you to come and get this briefing, because it may be electors who again don't you that as the constitutional role. it's unprecedented, no question it's a completely unprecedented position i'm taking but the situation is unprecedented. we've never had the american intelligence community make assessment like this between the time when the vote took place and the vote of the electoral
college took place and it seems to me that again, just as in any other situation in which the intelligence community needs to be elected officials this is no different. >> is part of this, the need to convey more broadly to the public going farther than that october statement? >> the intelligence community under the perimeter of the director of national intelligence from antiquity department put out this i think really extraordinary statement not only attributing the hacks to the seniormost level of the russian government that attributing an motive to interfere with elections, the intelligence community had a motive even privately in a briefing. do you think, one step beyond that and tried to convey to the public the gravity of this and maybe show leg on what the evidence -- >> i think so if it can be done without disrupting sources and methods. there's a lot of public information in some cases from cybersecurity companies about why they think these particular
hacks were done by particular hackers but basically yes, the public i think has the research questions about what happened before the election with the statements by jim comey and the fbi, the statement by the intelligence community and then you tell us this is sort of your average person saying wait a second, i understand there was this statement before the election but not after the election they're going further and think this was to help trump. trump. that's an explosive conclusion, no question. just like some of the statements made about the investigation of hillary clinton's e-mail server were explosive at the time. i think there's a lot of review that needs to happen, transparency needs to happen. and congress need to look at this and say what in the world is going on in the intelligence community and election? it's a complicated story. i don't think all the people involved are necessarily doing these things for the worst
reasons people think they might be, including jim comey and others but has some explaining to do and they should do that. >> do you think picking up on what tim said, is that awaited administration could without optimizing sources or methods? >> craft more of a revealing public statement that has already been put out. student i think definitely more could be said. i really defer to tim and other source that in this issue from a constitution perspective on how that could impact the electoral college but just putting that aside we have a remarkable set of circumstances where we have russians interference with our election and apparently russian effort to pick a candidate in our election. this is something that demands further inquiry and more transparency, whether that's congress, i commission.
there is going to be more to do to get to the bottom of this. to your question, i think what tim said is right about what the intelligence community is reluctant to make a statement, as definitive as they made back in october. that was pretty extraordinary to be that defendant at the time. they apparently have gone further now in deciding or reaching the conclusion that the russians were rooting for trump. i agree with you, carrie completely. too much is being made of an fbi, cia rift. that seems to me to be overblown in a convenient way to congress to pick sides in this debate. i suspect there is an opportunity for the intelligence community as a body under the dni leadership to put out more information without optimizing sources about what we know and to continue to be transparent. i think this is a situation where sort of our democracy demands that level of transparency.
>> i want to get at sort of what you make of this if you are, 15 years in the intelligence community employee or a recent addition to the intelligence community or the justice department or other parts of the national security community. not only watching all this but taking into account many of the things the president-elect and his soon-to-be adviser said about national security policy in the campaign which we will drill in a bit as would go along but take it at a broad level and recapping things like bring back waterboarding and worse, his views on surveillance, on privacy come on drones. and perhaps assumptions people make and will talk about whether those assumptions are correct that there is an authoritarian instinct in the national deposit of a trump administration. susan, you wrote powerfully and passionately about this question of whether you are a person who is anonymous to the rest of the world, is that somebody will be be necessary in the oval office briefing the president but has
to under daily basis carry out and represent the best of your abilities as policies and at the same time defend your oath to protect the constitution, what do you do? walk through a literature thinking about the thought process of that and what you advise people in that position. >> i'll even say i wrote obit on this but after the election, sort of really speaking to former colleagues in the public forum and say it is your duty to serve, to stand guard on these institutions and also help our president succeed. donald trump was elected and we should all wish for his success. our fortunes are all tied here. on month later i found that position sort of tested. it was my sort of sincere hope that the rhetoric would be toned down and we would see sort of more responsible discussions going on. since then i think almost every day has brought sort of a new
challenge to those people here and so look look, i think therea lot of people who are facing incredibly difficult situations and difficult decisions about whether or not they should stay and serve. both at the political level and for the career step. i don't think we should underestimate how consequential that is to our national security, not just 44 years or eight years, but for 30 years. we have sort of groups of people who are graduating law school and graduate schools and schools of foreign service that are not going to the government. we have people who are leaving the intelligence community to take much more highly paid to the prestigious positions in the private sector. the people who serve in the intelligence community, by and large do so out of a sense of duty and patriotism and wanted o be part of something larger than themselves. i don't think anyone on this stage has risked their lives for intelligence. maybe matt matt, i don't know wt that guy did.
but there are, it's not an overstatement to say their people to risk their lives for this information, and to do so because they think it matters, they think it makes a difference. this message coming from literally the president-elect of the united states saying what you do doesn't matter cap i don't believe it. i question your motives. i'm not going to listen to it. whenever we look at a group of people sitting in career positions i think a lot of people are thinking why am i doing this? this causes a mass exodus from the intelligence community, or sort of a large group of people who don't join the intelligence community we could miss out on a generation of talent, the consequences of that sort of overtime really could be almost immeasurable. >> go on spirit i have a little different take on this. appreciating sort of everything in the concern susan had. the first is that a know there's a lot of people particularly perhaps in the libertarian
community of people who might here at the cato surveillance conference who perhaps have very significant concerns that a trump administration is going to abuse surveillance authorities, and i know that that is a real concern of some people in this space. having worked at the justice department with the intelligence community, there were other reasons that i was not in favor of the trump candidacy throughout the campaign. his potential abuse of surveillance authorities was not one of them. that's because i do have a deep level of confidence in the institutional systems come into laws and institutional systems and the checks and balances and the oversight structures that exist in the fact as matt alluded to that are not the intelligence community is not made up primarily of political appointees that are very few only at the very senior levels. so the workforce really is a
workforce that is used to and trained in abiding by the law, abiding by the rules, abiding by policies as a very regulated environment. so those concerns i have a fairly significant degree of confidence in with respect to potential use of surveillance authorities, in particular. there's some other areas and maybe we can talk about later if folks are interested that if i was in the privacy or civil liberties community i was sort of pay more attention to, but the surveillance area is one that a think we can have a significant degree of confidence in the workforce. with respect to the workforce and though, so i guess i understand there's concerns and certainly perhaps people who are thinking about entering the workforce, there's some concern. but i would say having spent a
lot of time at the national security community, this is not a community of snowflakes. this is people who can take a little bit of heat. and so i guess i would say that i am not quite as concerned that people are going to flee the workforce, certainly if they have been there for a while. they've been through a lot of ups and downs, particularly in the last 15 years. they have felt political pressure, and so they've seen leaders, and go. there's a good chunk of the workforce that knows that sort of this too will pass. and so i'm confident that a significant part of the workforce is going to do what they've always done, which is to put her head down and do their job and let the senior leadership level sort of work through the political challenge. >> it is a job. there are options the private sector might not be as obvious we think they are.
>> go ahead. spirit lost to send this point. i think you are right to talk about them first talking about the policy. let me agree with you on i think under surveillance point to a certain degree. i think it will be tested on this under a trump administration whether or not the checks and balances that a been put in place are sufficient but i think that almost highlights the contrast with the rest of counterterrorism policy weather stop those checks and balances, with the potential for abuse is much greater. leading into the second question on the debate about whether to work for a trump administration. when the monitor is drain the swamp and you are coming out -- mantra -- coming out of graduate school, we had the pick of folks coming out to come work. they could've gone to wall street. they could've gone to silicon valley. they wanted to go fight al-qaeda. we had an incredible workforce. if i was advising somebody in
the position whether to choose the intelligence community or to choose one of his other jobs when the president talks about draining the swamp and talks about dismissing without evidence the considered abuse, you are working night and day, night and day to put out, i would be hard-pressed to advice on what to do that and that is extremely dangerous. that's at the working level. sort of my friends are trying to decide whether to work at a higher level, sort of a different set of questions but i think even more starkly put to somebody who is going to be in a position to actually implement the policies of registering muslims or killing terrorist families are bringing back torture. that i think requires a degree of sort of moral searching about whether you would be willing to put yourself in a position to implement those policy. in some ways the person coming out of graduate school to join the intelligence community doesn't have to face but i think across the board this is, i
don't want to be hyperbolic but i think it is a crisis for our country when you look at where the intelligence community goes from the workforce perspective speaker so your advice is reminder, even a bureaucracy as large with tens of thousands of people in the intelligence community, use, tones are set at the top? >> absolutely spirit i was just going to jump in. which is going to agree to some degree with carrie on this point on surveillance abuse. i came into the intelligence community from the aclu in the middle of the second bush term and it was a very difficult and wrenching decision for me to make. because my former colleagues really looked on this as going to the other side, the expansion of surveillance powers after 9/11 was very dramatic. but i never had that feeling, either on the inside certainly but even before that the question was always potential for abuse. i think that was the biggest concern we always had was these
were broad powers, very broad powers, and ways in which the checks and bounces have gotten out of whack before 9/11 were being shoved aside. -- checks and balances. real abuse. the reason i say that is two things. one is a lot of the powers and controls that trying to discuss our executive branch powers. talking about executive order 12333 residential policy directives. other kind of directives which can be changed. it's not so easy to change it bureaucratically but the power is still there in the oval office to change those as long as you're not talking about a statute even with the statute you saw in the bush admin station there could be created legal arguments to get around statutes, that can be done. i don't have any faith whatsoever in the trump justice department or the trump intelligence directors office not to take those powers to the darkest corner in the room.
even more so than under george w. bush i think. and then you put that together with what you might call the trump factor, the alt right, these people in series positions of power in the white house saying gosh darn it, i know that there is evidence that the muslim brotherhood is infiltrated these political groups. don't get it for me. don't tell me that there isn't any evidence. under our system even with these controls, i think, you know, when you listen those controls potentially and when you have that kind of pressure, there's a lot of discretion down there in the end intelligence community come in the fbi, in the nsa. and how you interpret those rules and whether you interpret them strictly the way that they are interpreted now or whether you stretch of them is very much something that we need to watch out for. i don't think that would happen overnight. it might take a precipitating event like a terrorist attack to make the worst abuses happen,
but i do think we have to be careful of assuming that because we have a system of checks and balances, that it's going to necessarily withstand this kind of test. i'm writing a book now called the on snowden. i was told i should mention that on this panel by the editor. so i'm writing a book called the on snowden. i'm literally writing another chapter to the book because it is another chapter of what's going to happen in the future. i don't necessarily predict we're facing this reality but it do think in a way there's a? at the end of this book which was very much suffering for transparency and checks and balances i fought very hard to help work on when i was in the government. but now i think there is a question mark. i was hoping we would get some additional reforms in the next figures and he think to strengthen those checks and balances, and now i am worried instead of the glass being half full which was my book is about, there should really, really some
position that perhaps the glass is, in fact, half empty. i'm concerned about those thin things. >> so i think for the reasons that tim and matt described the present elect leadership decisions in the national security space, who he puts into leadership positions, are of highly, highly significant consequence. and there are still some positions that we have not seen it yet. the director of national intelligence being one very important one. and that is an area, and so, some things that it would help the present elect would look for in terms of selecting the new dni would be first, suddenly with extraordinarily amount, and extorting an out of experience in the intelligence business. this is not a job for a novice, for somebody who's going to have a very high learning curve. summary with experience in the intelligence business, somebody with exceptional enterprise management skills.
the intelligence community budget is over 50,000,000,000 dollars, 17 different elements. you need an extraordinary manager and leader and also somebody knows how to bring consensus. there is sort of this web of different elements and players that are involved. so it's really important decision that he still has to make. and i think a position like that come if you select somebody who has leadership, that will hopefully lower the temperature a little bit on the concerns about some of the atrocious policies that he proposed on the campaign trail like creating a muslim registry or bringing back torture, whatever that means. if somebody who is a professional who is respected in the community is selected for that position i think that will give the workforce a significant breath of relief. >> i think it's important we be both sides can write but, the extreme, to be really, really
discipline and candid about what we're talking about. because of this is a perilous moment. so there is when we talk about the potential for surveillance. so there's this question things that are plainly illegal. they plainly violate statutes, plainly unconstitutional, they plainly wily the laws of war. there's some question about could that actually happen? i am personally relatively confident it couldn't happen. i think people would resign, refuse to do. there's enough bureaucratic safeguards. there is a separate question about sort of the existing policy. we are no longer at that chalk on the toes place. there is some space between the way the intelligence committee operates right now and what it could do theoretically within the laws that might nevertheless be either abusive or intrude on civil liberties are be a bad idea. this is one of the things people are missing when we talk about muslim registries for example.
we don't target muslim populations partly because it's contrary to our values and sort of abhorrent to the founding vision of this country. also don't do it because it's a bad idea that doesn't work. so these are sort of those policy questions but whenever tim talks about the potential for surveillance abuses, i outline for more with carrie sport of you. i don't think it is, it's not possible to violate the law or the constitution at the nsa, without lots and lots of people being aware of it. so that lots of people and the judicial branch, in the legislative branch of lots of people in the executive branch. i think we should be focusing on not on relate relitigating goink to our ideological commitments and having the same fights we were having sort of six months ago or three years ago, but instead a thing okay, what are
our, what is the pre-political commitments and how can we look for reforms that are going to meaningful respond to sort of this new threat? as someone who has been a strong defender of the intelligence community, against tim specifically as a credit and has a lot of space, i'll be candid, that trump has challenged some of my sort of core assumptions including that we would only elect a mentally fit individual who loves the constitution the way the rest of us ar to do. i'll be candid about that. i never think about okay, how does this shift mean? what does this mean i'm think about now, even under a jeb bush or john case according to republican/democrat. for me i think it's building in transparency mechanisms they can't be evaded.
that making sure that general councils offices of various agencies have to see those decisions. i have a lot of faith those general counsel offices will do the right thing, will use their inspector generals general scope their intelligence committees, , ensuring congressional committees of insight. i have a lot of faith those congressional committees if they see abuses will act to annex statutes or bring it to the floor. so those are the things, i just think it's critical to really sort of think about what is different here, because if we end up having kind of the same debate we've been having for the past, honestly 15 years, that's what i think it will be distracting and something really bad potentially could happen. >> so i think that i agree with the idea that things have changed and are different. and, in fact, one thing i i thought about is how the national security community in some ways which is on the other side of many of those debate in the bush years may step in and be an ally of civil liberties
committee on important issues even if they disagree a specifics when comes to things like section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act or other policy disagreement that they will continue to have, there may be an alliance on basic values. in fact that's one of the themes of my book, beyond snowden. [laughter] i agree with that. i agree without but i guess my point is that we did i think think about issues of presidential power with unlikelihood that would be different president, a different political parties and political philosophies, but not with the idea that the president is kind of going on with what we would see serving in the campaign as straight up abuses. i mean, we had richard nixon as a president but he didn't promise to engage in abuses openly in the campaign. we had to listen to the white house tapes to find out about what he really thought. now we just follow trump's
twitter feed and we got the same kind of rhetoric that we used to get listening to those tapes. i think what i'm worried about is not so much, you know, relitigating those fights, but fights, but just looking at just in a broader sense the large scope of presidential discretion when it comes to surveillance. and thinking about how that might be abused. and we don't know, it hasn't happened yet obviously, but we should be, when susan and try to say they will not do something a constitutional i think that's right. but what concerns me is the boundaries of what is legal and what is constitutional under these, just a couple of examples. most of what the nsa does overseas is not regulated by statute or by the fisa court. sharing of that information with more domestic agencies is primarily a function of
executive order, 12 triple city -- 12 triple three. what the fbi can do in terms of investigating a group, hypothetical i gave up then and demanding we need to go after these groups because they are all painted by muslim extremism, that's very discretionary. and there's good reason for that actually. we wanted to have fbi offices have a good deal of discretion in these threat assessment and lower-level investigations. we have one to loosen up some of that information sharing. high walls were a problem for counterterrorism. so we've done these things and we put in place civil liberties officers like i was, general counsel offices, inspectors general. we have had more transparency, so we have counterbalanced some of that with checks and balances, but what i worry about is what i call the trump factor. does that kind of civil liberties protections, which is based on a certain degree of,
you know, adhering to basic norms, does that function in a trump administration? i think it functions in the george w. bush administration and the barack obama administration. i don't think it necessarily does. when you've got civil liberties officers and general councils offices and maybe "the wall street journal" writing about this very broad surveillance program, let's say in a year that i'm hypothesizing, does trump, you know, say we have made some mistakes, let's scale this back and focus it and make it more effective, which is what we would help, or does the double down and declare war on his own overseers? ..
executive, with and so this is a time of soul searching to me what you said, that you know you have to sort of think about it now in a different paradigm an the way to think about it is if you want to put yourself to the test is not sitting here at cato institute on this panel but day after an attack like what we saw paris earlier this year in washington or new york or chicago or anywhere. 150 dead americans, that attack that has been cared out by people connected to isis, and how the trump administration responds when you have the statements that have been made by the leaders, but by president-elect trump about his view of what we should be doing with muslims in this country. whether that is surveillance or torture of terrorist or killing terrorist families, or national
security advisory saying that muslims is irrational and how does our country represented by our government respond in a rice sis to that scenario and i think that is unchartered territory for me. >> so just to sort of -- i do think it is worth with while actually sort of stating the i don't know the other sort of grounding here. especially when we talk about 702 specifically. so i don't report -- right so it is the section of the five authorization act that permits not bulk collection. but collection targeted at foreign communications, but based on the requirement of the certain warrant it's a split debate twon allowing the government to search whatever they want and then those particularized wants controversy by and large xeppedz to the communications of americans have incidentally collectioned° that
targeting. and so 702 there's a sunset provision and so either ampletively reauthorized by end of 2017 or is goes away so a forcing function we have to have this debate no matter what. previously i think there's been a broad asudges that we were headed for clean reauthorization as a current league assistant. maybe there were some, you know, minor sort of questions about marginal -- transparency and civil liberty changes. now there is a little bit more of a question about whether we'll see either 702 not reauthorized or whether or not we'll see really dramatic changes within that context wherever i think about does trump -- president trump change my view of 702, no, i didn't support 702 as it currently exist because i superlove executive branch an think that kiewl information they leak see but that information keeps americans safe
but people around the world safe. whatever had criticism the world about 215 and other program, this is i would argue one of the most important programs that the intelligence community has. and i think that president needs that information. whether or not he's donald trump or barack obama or george bush, and so the challenge here is going to be how do we preserve that functional core of information but i just think is absolutely critical. while at the same time building in safeguards to ensure that rules that exist are being followed and also that we have, you know, prudent, wise sort of policy that overlays you know basic and statutory. >> so it was a provision in the law that enables the government to target non-u.s. persons who are reasonably to be outside the united states for foreign
intelligence purposes and does so without requiring probable cause warrant but approval bit court how surveillance is conducted and what proceed yours the government has to follow, and picking up on tim's point where i think that there are potential areas of common interest among those of us who have historically been supportive of government efforts to conduct, have sort of robust surveillance authorities like 702 and those who are concerned about privacy, my perspective on that given where we are currently is that if the privacy community spends next year fighting about 702, my view is that is a complete waste of their time, and it goes to the point of section 702 is an area that is probably the most oversight laden surveillance authority that we have in the national security space. that's the statutory department
of justice oversight. officer of director national oversight. that's the most regulated area, and so i think that that is -- the area that folks should really be the least concerned about. if you want to talk about areas that i would find common ground on, and where i think there should be kept a watchful eye, it would be if the new attorney general decides to reopen fbi investigative tbliens for domestic operations and lower the standards for investigating americans. that's an area to keep an eye on. if you want to talk about an area that should be of concern or to civil libertarians, it's the proposal that i have not heard from the president-elect but that i have seen so i want to qualify that. but that i have seen in some reports about maybe things that are of interest to some of his advisors would be the proposal
to eliminate the director of national intelligence. director of national intelligence creation was the single most important recommendation of the 9/11 commission to improve the workings of the intelligence community, and in the post snowden environment on the forefront of increasing transparency assisting in the release of five is a court person that can be declassified and ensuring there's a voice in briefing congress. so those are areas that i think those of us who have perhaps been on different sides of issues would have monoground and that i think are far more consequential than fighting over section 702. >> susan do you want to make a comment on that? j quickly i agree with what carey just said and one of the things i've tried to do with my community is to kind of remind them that actually 702 does have a lot of safeguards and that you
know, if they want to look at nsa surveillance and important issue it's i agree that ag guidelines are equally if not more important they should be focused on 12 triple three with less oversight and that was part of my point is that you know, 702 is only about data inside the united states. and that's where you have to go to fisa court. data in the south side of the united states basically a fair game for nsa as long as they're not intentionally targeting a american citizen and there's a ton of data all over the world these days. so -- you know, it's still a little bit screwy yes, you know matt did jobs that modernize fisa in certain ways but screwy how presidents law treats databased on sensitivity of that da it or whether it is being, you know, what the purpose is. but based just on physical location of the data and globalized world that sort of
doesn't make a lot of sense. so -- >> susan you talked about 702 and intelligence community perspective rich repository of information that is useful that saves lives it also compromises a significant portion of the president's daily briefing we've been told. president-elect trump in a lengthy interview with chris wallace on fox news sunday if you haven't seen this worth going back to look at because he talked in great detail about a number of national security areas talked about the fact that he is only received the president the the daily briefing about three times and givers explanation for that. he said he doesn't need to be told the same facts over and over which had imply that there was some repetitive to element of the briefing found not useful for him. praise that people were giving him the briefing which was an interesting juxtaposition considering he was republicanly fighting cia but praising briefers and said that the important thing to remember from his perspective was the vice president and other people who
were coming into his cabinet are getting briefed and he's let them know there's something i need to know that you think is important. alert me i'm there in a mommy's notice so interesting to set up this framework where it seems to me where i don't need to brief every day. you tell me what i need to know if there's something new. let's be able to react to that. he is not the first fern to decline getting briefing every morning that is not unique to this president. but what do you make of that in terms of we're talking about intelligence programs that not only provide information if the community but do inform the president on the state of the world? what do you make had of the fact that he's laid out this reaction to getting the briefing? who would like to chime in on it? >> look, i think it sort of goes back to -- evidence based policy making. right? these are enormously complex decisions and it's really hard to get it right. this is a little bit like a doctor saying, you know what, i
don't care so much about x-ray or test, blood test a lot of math but that's boring. i think you have -- i don't know. and throws out whatever his gut instinct it sometimes testing are wrong but if your doctor was doing that you would fire that fern. you would say, that's not how good decisions are made. good decisions are made because you collect the available evidence. now sometimes it is -- it is tedious it is in the weeds, detail oriented. trust me i was as disappointed as anyone to discover that nsa was less like a borne movie and more paperwork but this is -- things that might sound repetitive to him and somebody versed in intelligence actually understands no, this is nuance this is detail, this is significant and have, i think this is going back to his initial statement of kind of the general hostility and so the
evidence or information that frankly is scary to me. you know, we have troops deployed around the world. the u.s. intelligence isn't just consequential to united states but our allies these are areas in which we really want someone to take it seriously, to try to be getting right. and to have someone say like, awe, you know not just you know pbb paired with this kind of general hostility intelligence community you got it wrong on wmg who cares what you think. that to me is the most, the most frankly frightening thing that we're hearing. >> to comfort you i want to hear carey ice point that he's delegated authorized however you want to look at it sort of the future analogy of other doctors on his teal to get x-rays an blood tests all of that kind of thing every day? >> so as long as those doctors are ones making the decision plaintiff's petition there's not a ton of clarity here.
there's some sort of speck speculation that vice president pence will be sort of the day-to-day president while donald trump focuses on making america great again. so there's a little bit of speculation there. at the same time donald trump appears to be making the populates. making the decisions and so -- yeah you want. you want that person to be informed. if he's -- if he's not beginning to be interested in putting the work in and really -- examining the evidence and doing, you know, taking in sort of the facts you would hope that he would also have the judgment to understand that he shouldn't be making those decisions then. right but there would be really sort of a clear delegation. >> kir carey. >> as this changes every single day cnn reported yesterday that the term team says that he's now receiving intelligence briefing three times week which from my perpghtive permit eve is really
positive development and big improvement from what was being, you know, what had he had relaid last weekend an i think part of that is because -- there's concern that he really doesn't have a good knowledge of world events and of security challenges. and so that he would really benefit from his national security and his intelligence briefings an one would he would take advantage of this time before inauguration to really develop a relationship with the intelligence community and become better informed and that's again speaks to this question of how -- does he get understand that the intelligence community is there to assist him in his decision nation process? and can tailer reports to areas that he wants to fox on, and
that's where we really need to see some improvement in term was him slashing out who his future team leader is and who is going to be giving him the briefings but if it is, in fact, true that he's receiving his briefings three times week versus just a couple of them since the election then that's an improvement. >> yeah, problem is this isn't about, you know, that's good but this isn't about how many times week you get the briefing or whether it's the ppb and reads an gets briefed or hearing briefing. president dos this differently. over in history and my experience, president bush and barack obama handled it differently. but it does come back to how the world actually work and how people make important decisions, and they don't make decisions with the idea that well something important happens, you know, come tell me. and that's absurd and that's not the way somebody in a leadership
position who is responsible for putting american lives at risk all of the time should be making decisions. so that the information that comes to the president if you think of this as a pyramid you have at the base of the pyramid vast amount of intelligence that is collected by the intelligence community and it works its way up this pyramid to the very top where senior level officials within the intelligence community with the best writers and analysts are making judgments about what their most important customer needs to know the president of the united states and that's at the very top whether that's in person briefing or pdb and if president is dismissive of receiving that information and is destainful of facts in making those decisions, as we've seen, then we are in a very careless moment when the decisions these are not -- these -- the decisions the president makes is accountable for making
not the vice president, not the national security advisor. we have elected a president to make these decisions is not decisions that he makes once a month or even, you know, once a week. they are decisions that the president is called upon to make multiple times a week. on counterterrorism operations, in particular. that involve the deployment of u.s. military forces. and putting americans lives at reask so the notion that we have sort of accept the -- chief executive of tell me if something important happened is alarming. >> a quick follow-up i think that's exactly right. and just to put a finer point on it, the deliberate rejection of briefing actually i think should be viewed not as sort of a benign i'm busy doing other things. but actually as an advocation of responsibility. so when had a senior executive and government doesn't want to
know what is in the briefings, that i think can be viewed through a lens of therefore, should something happen as a result of the information that is in that briefing, they are not accountable and we have seen, we have experienced, we have seen unfortunately some members of i can think of one in particular member of congress who has done this. and when they declined a briefing and then therefore can speak publicly at will because they don't know, that is not a benign thing. that is a deliberate strategy. >> okay. i agree entirely with what carey said about that. and there's a lot of -- we had a big debate about surveillance and privacy, and i've made a point that there can be about simultaneously be more on surveillance and there's voiles and data gathered by agencies that know what they're doing they probably know a lot of stuff. those two things make sense.
you know, i've actually gotten some you know some pushback or criticism saying oh, well now you guys like the intelligence community. i always like the intelligence community personally. but it's you know, yes, that's the point. right, they gather information and they have it available to the president. we can debate 702 and whether it has the right balance. but it is incredibly valuable that provides this for the presidential daily brief if president is not reading about it, what's the point? and carey has a point well taken that is not a lack of competence or wanting to be, you know, do other things that are less boring, it is a deliberate strategy. i agree with that. i think that people who push aside information are doing so because it's push aside the responsibility since i didn't know that information, i can do what i like, and that's very
worrying. >> we have some time now for audience question withs. so there's something you would look do ask please raise your question with i'll go over here to the gentleman in pink tie here. please wait for the microphone to reach you so online and everyone in the audience can hear you as well and please make it a comment and not a lecture how about a question -- >> i come to this from a great it shall >> your name and affiliation i'm sorry. >> woody of the civil liberties list. i come to this as the prize for the great fear of the imperial presidency this is not partisan. and i'm taken by the comments i love susan but might be naive but you know more about it than i do. the u.s. attorneys with whom i've spoken have told me they
can get away with virtually anything by creating probable cause and walking across the hall from nsa and t at any time and say we need this information. the whole idea having waters watch themselves because they're so full of good will i'm grately skeptical of that and i'm greatly skeptical of almost all of the internal oversight and i hope you guys would comment on that a little bit. am i paranoid? >> why should people believe people saying trust us rigorous mechanism of oversight that were put in police and they work. who would like to address that? >> so look, one -- want to be sort of candidate it is possible that i'm wrong. right, i have a particular
degree that boils down to i know those people and i don't think i think they would resign right and then understand that's not a formal institutional protection that i do think this goes to -- what ised strength of our face and sort of in the institutional protection and what those look like. so wherever i look back at this with a history of the nsa including things before i was there, trex, the president surveillance program. the thing that is particularly concerning the order of events is general counsel office wasn't told that -- the general counsel was told kind of as the very end of the event. that is a real problem. the way the agency is countrily countrily -- currently constructed i don't believe that could happen that these programs would exist without multiple members of the count of office and members of congress knowing. now i'm sure that that -- that is true only because the bad thing happened and then there was a response. there are probably lots of different pockets of the government in which that
potential hasn't occurred yet and so there hasn't been a response. i think the way to address this is not necessarily to tack sorts of the substantive, you know, is it -- does this invade civil liberty is there a privacy right so what is the sort of the substance of the authority? but instead really think about how u do we get multiple branches of government involved in that oversight process? how do we with build in technical compliance mechanism right do as much as possible to make sure we have multiple eyes that it is not just watchers watching themselves. >> anybody else want to briefly respond to that? >> just to say that i -- largely agree with that, but with the caveat that policy, of course, can be changed and that was the point was trying to make about the power of the executive branch. you know, the trerkt of nsa works and advisors the director, so if, you know, trump's attorney general says this is my opinion about what the law moans
and constitution means and there's no court decision that says that that attorney general opinion is wrong, you know, as a structural matter it doesn't matter what the general counsel of the nsa thinks about that. whether he disagrees or she disagrees with that. that we saw a rational for denying access. but you know there's a broader point here. yom, the president is a lot of power, and you know is in charge of the executive branch, and all of the these mechanisms are important and i believe in them not just because i, you know, i know a lot of those people and was one of those people but because, you know, i think that they were well designed in many cases but they are still nevertheless within an executive branch process. and they rely on types of control and this is my biggest concern is not so much the calibration of how much or little you do and how close to that chalk line you get but they
rely on a president of the united states taking that in as a control on his behavior even though they work for him. they rely on a kind of degree of -- of shame being required, and that's true, of course, even check and balances for congress in the court. so those are jack had a wonderful piece called libertarian panic, you know, criticizing people like me saying that we're involved in a libertarian panic and not so much criticizing by actually praising us in a odd way saying it's a good they think you're panicking buzz that's the reason these abuses won't happen but it still may be a bit of a panic and -- my part of my response was well, yeah, that was the american revolution. was a libertarian panic because you look at that list of grievances in declaration of independence and they're kind of out there. they're not, you know, they're not a fair distribution of what
the british were actually doing. they're sort of over the top. so in a way our country was founded on basis of libertarian panic, but also making the point that i think that all of the controls jack was describing which comes from his wonderful book power and constraint which i largely agree with, work for different political philosophy, different political party but to they work for trump? that's a very open question in my mind. >> next was the gentleman in the middle in the fourth row with his hand up. yeah. >> thank you. >> i'm with the freedom institute, you all seem agree that i don't to get back to question of the nc hacking by the russians you all seem to agree that the reason trump doesn't accept that is because of his disdain for the fact. but i have two questions and i'm not a trump supporter. but i can see why trump
supporters might feel a disconnect from the people in power. there are two questions about facts. you criticize trump for his -- attributing political motive to the cia, but don't address the precedents of the clinton supporters who attributed political motives to the fbi would you comment on that. the other question is -- the you might not want to accept julian assange saying that he got information not from russian has beeners but from dnc insider because you don't believe like julian assange but he met the dnc insider, and that that is where information came from not from russian hackers would you address that? >> like to address that this morning? briefly -- >> so this briefly people who -- people who allege that jim comey weighed in for plel reasons, i think were wrong. i think that was unfair assessment you can talk about whether or not it was the right or wrong decision and whether it
was a wise decision or a unwise one. but to the extent people accuse that activity of being political that's plainly true. that's false and some of the leaks that occurred after sort of in the final weeks of the election i did find deeply troubling and then do have concern that there were potential political motivations there. but that's -- just as sort of trump deserves criticism. people who took shots of the fbi on those grounds i think fairly deserve criticism as well. as for question whether or not we should take the words of julian assange and craig wright over the unanimous judgment of the u.s. intelligence comungts, that's a nonstarter of a question. we're talking about -- signals intercept forensic documents, even the weight of public evidence. the notion that there's not a direct connection between the hacking of the dnc, the passage of those documents to wikileaks in ultimate dissemination that i think even from the outside is
in the space, added with the sort of these very detailed intelligence assessment provided in october. i just dongt think there's any credibility to those claims at all. >> very brief. sh very brief. questions you with raise, though, demonstrate why there needs to be a bipartisan congressional and need to have confidence that actual investigation was conducted in a bipartisan way. >> one last right here very brief here on the end here. [inaudible] department justice i'm not as some of you that we can rely on for example the general counsel to protect us. key general counsel of political appointments we've heard floated for d.o.d. that doesn't give me great confidence but i agree with tim that greatest risk is not blatantly illegal conduct but conduct within the great discretion that has been allowed
by our expanded laws and it's -- a bit frustrating to hear matt say you know, when we worked on these laws we never thought about the potential of trump because libertarian advocates like myself were making that case ashearted as we could you know as much as you trust this administration what about the next one? lock at our history you know this is about potential for abuse but the question isn't if it is when. so i feel like there's, but anyway i actually do have a question -- what i said i have a lot of respect matt for your perspective and carey all of you, and you talked about the fact that you think the greatest threat to civil liberty abuses isn't from this surveillance. side but other counterterrorism policy and i know carey you mentioned guidelines what are some of the other counterterrorism areas where you e feel look the potential for abuse is greatest and where maybe some of us should be focusing maybe more than sort of later focus we've had on surveillance? >> you have to give us the
truncated version? >> a long question -- so mutual i think that i do think that the focus on, you know, we were engaged in you and i talking about 702 and trying to forget out where exactly to draw the line in searching for u.s. person information really highlighted that that -- that controversy, that debate had become focused on very specific kind of narrow but important issues. i think we are way beyond that now and in terms of things concerned to answer your question i do think that the greatest area of risk from liberty and privacy liberty perspective is domestic law enforcement. and again taking the seminar joe of the day after the week in attack of the united states that the -- the wide discretion which we rightly give to the fbi in particular to local police departments and law enforcement to investigate crime and to preserve our safety domestically
there's the potential when the leadership of our country makes a statement that we talk about right in terms of the muslim community. and how we should be reacting after a terrorist attack. i think the greatest fear and i'm not sure what your position is to think about how to constrain those afnghts. but the idea of greater surveillance, that doesn't rise to the level of going to a judge. of -- investigateive power that local police departments are going to have to basically be in a position to -- to i think intrusively be involved in neighborhood and communities in a way that is -- not american. >> please join me in thanking this great panel for a really simulating assessment. we have about is 15 minute brea- [applause] yeah. ten and -- [inaudible] here at 10:45. and ten minutes recap and hit
the bathroom. also outside on the table we have because we're trying to truncate our introduction to not be able to get right to discussion, we have extended panelist biography and pack it outside those watching at home can go to katoa.org and find bios there please swroin us in a few minutes. thank you.
bit later, watching the watchers, and encounter violent extremism among other panels live here all day on c-span2. and taking a quick look at other c-span networks join us at noon erin for discussion on immigration law website comes to us from national press club in washington you'll be able to watch that live on c-span, and later it is janet yellen expected to announce an interest rate hike today. this after the december federal are open market committee meeting and you can watch that live at 2:30 eastern, that will also be on c-span. and coming up tonight, it is an event on the future of the democratic party and regressive movement speak rs include congressman keith ellison minnesota democrat campaigning to be next chair of the democratic national committee expected here at some point senator bernie sanders, this is host by the american federation are of teachers, you can watch it live at 8 p.m. eastern also on c-span. and as democrats plan for the
readings from a "forbes" magazine article about that, the meeting with tech industry leaders expected to focus heavily on the creation of jobs in the united states. and issue that president-elect highlighted repeatedly during the campaign, conversations set for 2 p.m. eastern and trump tower will last for at least an hour. it will be attended from some of the nation largest companyies mooping those expected to be in attendance, apple ceo tim cook, tesla ceo elon muck, larry page, amazon jeff, and facebook chief operating officer sheryl sandberg. we will be watching for remarks from that event and a we'll of course keep an eye out for attendees from trump tower. j and once again a break in that fbi cato institute and when we wait for the program to resume, we'll look at some of the discussion is from earlier this morning.
>> five days have been e extraordinary developments and if you're here on katoa surveillance you don't have to know what happened to the washington post story coming out but to reare and set the stage a little bit for a discussion about intelligence in the coming trump administration, obviously, it was reported that the cia briefed to some senators that there was a little bit of a tweak on an earlier assessment that they had made that russia had indeed directed hacks against the democratic national committee and hillary clinton's campaign and some other political organizations for the purpose of interfering with u.s. elections which was the unanimous conclusion that intelligence agencies came to in october now that cia says yes and we think it was done in order to boost trump's chance was winning and to diminish hillary clinton's campaign. that is, obviously, since come out that there's a little bit of daylight between cia position and the fbi and director of national intention which had are not necessarily too sure that they share that view but after
that keam out on friday, donald trump as is his want to put out a statement saying that of the cia, essentially don't believe them. these are the same people who got it wrong about saddam hussein in weapon of mass destruction and didn't take long before they fire back with their own statements and fair to say that what we have right now i think is probably unprecedented at the very least extraordinary rupture between the intelligence community that he's about to be directing that is there to serve him and his policy interest and ghoals people in his administration. so that is new and very interesting and i want to get the discussion talking about that extraordinary development and i want to turn firsts to susan and say a bit of reaction. you know you've been in the intelligence community, you are now out of it and all of the issues very closely kind of what you're seeing in this initial sort of you know the going back and forth, and talk about this with everyone.
but also what this is like for somebody inside the intelligence community you think watching this exin extraordinary drama py out. >> marginal disagreement about whether or not there's sufficient evidence to say that there was a particular motive. there's -- there's broad unanimous agreement that there was russian interference that that interference did, in fact, at least assist donald trump or unnerve his benefits even if it didn't change the outcome of election necessarily. the second thing that is important for context is to understand that we shouldn't fire department a president to take intelligence as gospel right and intelligence that comes up, that is the fact. no, it is actually a positive thing to have president and presidents a president-elect, that have a little bit of skepticism right intelligence community is not infall infathomable so when he is --
outright rejecting without providing any kind of evidence or reason for why, those unanimous assessments right -- he's not saying that he doesn't believe it was russia but saying maybe it is china. maybe it is some guy on a bet but he is sort of just refusing to even acknowledge that this might be true, and then second he's actually accusing intelligence community of being political or partisan. and that is a really, really consequential statement for a president to make. the intelligence community, obviously, engages in controversial action, sometimes they get things right. sometimes they get things wrong. they are not a political body. they do not do things for political purposes and they do things for the purpose of so that senior leadership of the united states can make decisions based on facts. and so that's the area in which i think it becomes very, very challenging for serving in intelligence community to say you know they're really being
aby their boss of violating fun mental intelligence of your duty to the mission and country and not to a political party. >> ma'am let me turn yo tow of someone, obviously, briefed policymakers i'm sure briefed the president before. what's that first meeting look? with president donald trump where he sits down with his, you know, his from the career rank let's say people who he doesn't know. people who he's openly questioned, their inaccuracy of the analysis and what's the first meeting like and then how does that begin to set the tog for a relationship? >> well, i would agree with what susan said and take it maybe even further in terms of the intelligence community not being political and how important that is to the community at large. and, in fact, it's probably the single -- single most significant norm among intelligence officials is that their efforts, their intelligence collection and
analysis is not informed by anything other than their effort to addition certain the truth. again, not infallible an i think it's right for the president and other policymakers to question the intelligence official who is brief them and, in fact, i've been in that position right so i've been the subject of skeptical and probing questioning by the president an by cabinet members and members of the now city security counsed nor could i imagine a situation where the conclusions we've reached or analysis that we're providing questioned based on the motive of the people delivering that message that they're being political. so to answer your question shane, and in its consequential it's alarming and it's dangerous to have that be the view of the president elect of the intelligence that he's receiving that it is been politicized it is dangerous to our national security. but to your question shane on
the first meeting, i would very much expect that the first person who is there is going to be treated briefing like they would every other briefing but no whiff of ac la $controversy or information is delivered just as you would expect and hope. that it would be delivered, i mean and last they think i would say on this question which is sure, i mean the head of the cia is a political point the head of the fbi, has been appointed and senate confirmed. but you know, everybody else pretty much in the intelligence community everybody who is out on front line collecting information collecting intelligence and everyone who is preparing the analysis are not political. and they are preparing this information to be delivered to high ranking government officials in the president. so it's really not a political enterprise and speaks of the lack of experience and perhaps worse of the president-elect did that perspective.
>> carey one of the things that kill out in reporting days is that that daylight that i refer two between the fbi saying we're not so sure it will help trump an cia saying no we think it was may revolve around dirchts standards or methods for assessing information in the law enforcement context versus the intelligence context and intelligence you lock at context and maybe things with law enforcement, you're looking for things that you might be able to prove in a court of law. if someone who works in national security in the justice department, in that kind of -- that first environment that i'm sort of scoping out there in terms of facts more as evidence and more concrete i'm curious what you make of differences in assessment of what russia was up to and do you think that matters? >> yeah, so -- my sense having been at justice department and also worked in the intelligence community -- >> we'll leave this here and
return to live coverage of the state law conference looking at issues vownsding government surveillance and privacy this next panel on government hacking. >> our government increasingly finds it necessary in era when crimes may take place entirely in cyberspace to engage in computer network exploitation, hacking, as a mechanism of conducting searches ideally searches authorized by the fourth amendment but this raises welter of question withs. is searching via hack fundamentally different from conventional physical search or in decent wire tax? is the recent change to rule 41 of criminal procedure standing? the government's story use the hacking techniques. and appropriate mechanism or is this something that congress should develop its own framework for? what should posture be to vulnerable that is discovers for
example we recently found a leaked nsa hacking tool that have been afforded vulnerables not disclosed leaving routers and manufactured by many major companies vulnerable. so to address these, and the difficult questions of how to regulate hacking by the government for legitimate law enforcement or intelligence purposes you have a fantastic panel that will be introduced by really coming with the best national security borders out there. that you have no doubt if you follow surveillance and intelligence and national security issues at all relied on her excellent work over many years, ellen of the washington post. >> thank you very much joule general and thanks to katoa for sponsoring this conference and this panel. i am going to introduce the panelist now and to my immediate right is kevin bankson director of the open technology institute
at new america think tank for digital age to his right is amy a surveillance and cybersecurity expert at excess now our human rights group. so my left is matt blaze renown photographer and computer and information science at the university of pennsylvania. and to his left is richard downing deputy ?aght ag in charge of cybercrime investigations. so julianne gave a good and concise introduction to the issue so i think we'll just dive right in take notes as we're -- as we discuss, and because we'll be leaving some time at the end for your questions. so julian allows a judge in one district to approve a warrant for law enforcement to have computers outside the district.
it allows the government to conduct remote searches and access searches or to deposit malware on computers basically for two purposes. one to identify ip addresses of computers whose locations are unknown, and two, to identify the i. p. addresses of computers that have been enslaved. so richard start with you. why does the government need to rule change? and what kinds of investigations? [inaudible] >> rule change was brought about by the advance of technology. this foot rule is first promull ghaitd 1917 so almost 150e -- 100 years so basically to set the rules how the government obtains a warm the for the search of a location so a rule that governors business and homes when there's probable cause and laws that go along with our protection.
the problem in 1917 the rule makers thought rightfully at the time that -- the investigators know what to go to and if you want to search you go to a court in that district. but difficulty that has arisen is twofold and they are both problems created as technology has advanced. first one is that we have near perfect anonymity system bought that prevent from being able to identify what the loix of the computer is. so network such as a the tore network which creates a mechanism -- so that when a thunder say someone who is interested in exchanging image of child exploitation wants to communicate with others he can do so through the network and in fairly effectively prevent law enforcement from knowing where his home is in order to get a
warrant for it. and so the one primary mechanism value will change. all that will change is in those circumstances where the location of the computer is obscured to technology so a slim thing in those cases you can go to any court that has -- that relates to the crime that is under consideration. so it -- 1917, that was not an issue. today it is an issue, and so the only change that is made is to allow investigators to know which court they go to apply all of the same rules that would normally apply to warrants and apply in circumstances. >> amy, richard makes like this change he says it is narrow restricted, and only in these cases where, you know, the location of the computer is unknown. what do you say is do you think libertarians have raised
concerns about removal of the jurisdictional limit? why? >> so the rule was actually one of the few practical limitations we had in place to really broad government hacking. and one of the problems that government hacking is that congress is never considered this. and is never passed law explicitly allowing it and reason that is important is because hacking raises all sorts of increased risk from other type of searches wiretapping, stored communication searches, things that are more used for -- and so when you look back when the wiretap act a was passed it was passed because it was wiretapping considered particularly invasive and problem is hacking can be more invasive than wiretapping but we have no substantive authority which means we have no additional protection that we think we need in place for hacking to begin with. >> also how can it be more invasive? >> sure, so any number of ways and a i believe matt might know a little bit more about of the
technical pieces of this than i do. but it is very hard to determine when you put malware or the government says that this is not malware if they're using it but when you put something on to a computer it is very hard to figure out how that is beginning to imract with that computer even if you test it. even if you have some sort of understanding. i believe steven who is a colleague of matt has tacked about an update to ipad you know apple tested the update. they knew exactly what they were looking for, and it ended up breaking any number of devices when the update was actually pushed through so it ends up having unpretickettable impacts. >> did you want to add a quick word of there? >> so i think the important thing to keep in mind here is that all of the hacking or at least a large fraction of what we call you know government hacking and remote search has at its core taking advantage of some kind of flaw or software
bug in the systems that they're, that they're searching. and you know in some cases that might be a relatively simple thing like convincing somebody to click on e-mail link through something that's not sufficiently awe then the kaited in other cases it might be a much more subtle, much more -- technical of unintended behavior on computer platform and what that means is that -- first of all we can't predict with 100% certainty what if behavior is going to be, and what it -- scope is going to be. we can't, we can't be sure that it won't get out of control. we can't be sure that it won't overcollect, and you know, under the some circumstances, this may be an acceptable risk. but it's one that congress is
never explicitly addressed. judges almost certainly don't understand when they're issuing these warrants. and we're really on very muchen charted territory both it canically and legally. >> rick -- i want to -- >> i want to add to that. richard. >> i think there's a broad concern that this basically led to approval by congress of remote access searches which they've never done before and which we've never had a conference about and know little about even though we know thanks that government has been doing it for at least 15 years. but i also on the particular -- the particular risks there's also been in comparison to wiretaps is a difference between me wiretapping you for 30 days or 90 day with extension accident and access to your computer and everything on it and camera on it and microphone on it, and the accounts that
might be accessible from it. recognizing that government does have a problem how do we identify these people who are using proxy i would have been understanding putting aside that approval of tack tech that we've never really talked about and more comfortable with a rule that said if they're obscuring their location you can do a remote access search to obtain their location and nothing else. and then go to the appropriate court if it is even in the united states and get a warrant to see the computer but that's not what this did. >> you're saying that there aren't a sufficient restriction on the authority here. richard could you address that please, that point? >> sure, i think that important thing to understand here which i alluded to at the beginning is that there are many rules that already apply every time that the government wants to use a warrant. we still have to comply with the wiretap indeed that would be part of what was the execution would be.
but more importantly, the fourth amendment has many different layers of protection. first of all, you have to have a warrant that presents probable cause and particularity and what you have to be involved with and then go to an independent judge who gets to review it and evaluate facts that are presented and see if this is a justified search and then on top of that there's a fourth amendment requirement that the execution be reasonable that it can't be overreemping and overbroad. further, there's many layers of safeguards and review after the fact so if there is any overcollection that's the kind of thing that our system is very good at going out through the profit of discovery and criminal prosecution and fourth amendment have been violated, and the victims gets to sue the government if there is a problem or a constitutional violation. what i'm saying is there's a lot of rules that are involved here, and in our view, thoses are the
kind of protections that are important in protecting our constitutional rights. of course we're open to a discussion about whether additional rules might be useful but i think the important question to ask is what is about robust safeguards is it insuffer to address this kind of collection? >> what is safeguards you have in place to account for the technical issues that matt raised and also, you know, the potential of the collection, how do you notify victims who might -- [inaudible] >> right. ...