Good morning, everyone. We are delighted to have you here on friday the 13th. We are accommodating the director of National Intelligence, it gives me great honor to introduce him. Director of National Intelligence dan coats. He became the fifth dni this past march. In this role, he leads the u. S. Intelligence community and serves as the principal intelligence advisor to the president. He provides the intelligence briefing for the president virtually every morning in the oval office. Director coates previously served in the u. S. House of representatives and the u. S. Senate from 19811999, then returned to the senate again in service to our nation from 20112016. During that time, he was not sitting idly in indiana. In fact, having served on the Senate Armed Services committee, the Senate Select intelligence committee, he worked on ways to strengthen our National Defense and security, but that service was interrupted in washington by going to germany as our ambassador between 20012005. With his experience in the legislative and executive branches, director coates brings a unique perspective to todays very important topic for this audience, this audience online, and to our nation. We are pleased to welcome him to offer opening remarks providing an overview of section 702 of the foreign intelligence and surveillance act and its importance to the community. Without further ado, welcome. [applause] dir. Coats thank you. Friday the 13th is not a happy day for washington. I think probably the audience here this morning is impacted by the fact that a lot of people did not want to get out of bed this morning. What is unusual here and a little threatening for someone to speak before you is not only did david grow up in the chicago area, not only did admiral rogers grow up in the chicago area, i have been a lifelong cubs fan from indiana, married a chicago girl, and we are trying to play down our excitement this morning, particularly since we are sitting in front of a crowd of mets fans. We fully understand that. Just remember this, we have been suffering 108 years. [laughter] dir. Coats so we know a little bit of your pain. I do want to say i felt like i was in a winwin situation last night because spending all these years in washington, you have to a nats fan, also appeared also. We got our shot last year. That took the pressure off. I thought, i can make this switch over for the rest of the series. Anyway, it was a game that will go down in history as one of the craziest games i have ever seen. All the things you anticipated would happen went wrong, on both sides. One side barely snuck in and survived. I have an easy job this morning. With another engagement right on, but im going to try to stay a little bit for admiral rogers. 702, which is identified by the Intelligence Community as really the holy grail. It is the instrument which gives us access into the thinking in the minds and actions of adversaries, foreign adversaries, not u. S. Citizens, but foreign adversaries that have bad thoughts relative to the United States and want to do us harm. It has become an indispensable tool by which we can determine and gain information about threats to the United States, about threats to our troops, about weapons of mass destruction, proliferation, about cyber attacks, about any number of things that threaten the american way and the American People. And so, the reauthorization of this authority is extraordinarily critical as we move towards the end of this session. We are fully aware of the fact that there are those who think this is an overstep, that it invades their privacy, that it might not square up to the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, but we have taken such extraordinary steps to ensure that we respect and that we honor and that we do everything we can to provide americans their Constitutional Rights, their right to privacy, and at the same time have in place something that is not designed in any way, and has multiple protections to prevent us from impeding on that privacy, but is an incredible element of our ability to keep americans safe. Admiral rogers has lived with for his three years as director of National Security agency. He will explain to you in explicit detail just what it does do and what it doesnt do. He will talk to you about how the Intelligence Community values and respects the rights of americans and their Constitutional Rights to privacy, but also steps that have been put in place legislatively and procedurally to honor our commitment to that protection. He is going to talk to you about the successes we have had, the incidents we have unclassified for the purpose of letting the American People know the value of this particular authority that we have. And so, it not only affects those of us here in the United States trying to keep our family safe, trying to keep our country from harm, but it also affects our foreign partners and allies. As i have traveled throughout asia, europe, the middle east, virtually without exception my counterparts in the intelligence agencies of his various these various countries have said thank you, thank you for providing us the information that allowed us to stop a plot, intercept a plot, keep our people safe. Several have said not only hundreds, but perhaps thousands survived azens have potential attack on their lives because of the information you have derived 4702 and provided to us, your allies. So this is not just about america. It is about the civilized world trying to deal with the barbaric attempts of many throughout the world to undermine democracy wherever they lie. And those that are peacekeeping target of who are the those who want to target them, it has value beyond our shores. Know, thisou collection is not against americans, it is against the law. We also know that there are misunderstandings on what the law does and what the law does not do, what our procedures do and do not do. There is mischaracterization, some of it just a misunderstanding. They have not seen the facts or had the opportunity to dive into the program, to see what we have done to try to protect the privacy of americans. Others frankly i want to say, i think simply hold us to a simply hold to a different thought about the role of government and keeping americans safe. And about the breaches that they perceive. You need to know that the error rate, i want to emphasize the word unintended, the unintended error rate report was delivered a day late, unintended errors that have taken place throughout the program and we keep track of every one of these, we release all the information to the public, to the um, oversight committees. And the error rate is significantly below 1 . I cannot find another agency in government that has been ever rate of. 51 each year that comes in, unintended. Throughout the life of this authority that we have, we have not found one intentional breach. One intentional misuse of this authority. That is a record i think speaks to the care in which we impose , the people that work through these processes, and how much they care about doing this the right way. Admiral rogers will give you information as to how the procedure is executed. We have reached out to members of congress, in the senate and in the house, saying do not take the director of National Intelligences word for it, do not take admiral rogerss word for it, come to the agency, walk down the floor. Do not sit through a powerpoint. Go talk to the young men and women, Exceptional People that are working in this agency, and talk to them. What are you doing . How do you do this . What about this and that . We have brought members out there that have done a total 180, the misconception of what they have had based on narratives spun by those that want to take away this authority. It is totally contradicted by the facts. Unfortunately some members have turned down multiple requests to either escort them or provide Technical Information to them in their office, or take them out to fort meade, take them over to the fbi so they can not walk into the directors office, but walk on the floor where this is being executed, and be with the people who are exercising these authorities to keep us safe. So we are up against those who, frankly, have a mistrust in government. They simply refuse to think that government has any interest in keeping, or adhering to the Fourth Amendment, or keeping their privacy, their privacy. I think i now want to say, maybe close with this admiral rogers, the former director at the nsa, in a public hearing before the Senate Select committee on intelligence, talking about the authorities that we have and trying to determine who the bad guys are. And how we can prevent them from connecting with our operatives here, those from overseas, and having the information to intercept these types of attacks on the United States. To keithhe question alexander, to general alexander i said, if these authorities are removed, if they are not reauthorized, if they are compromised to the point where it compromises our ability to determine who is trying to do bad stuff on us, what is the ultimate result . In three words he said, the ultimate result is americans will die. That is the stark reality we are looking at. The last thing, the thing we absolutely cannot do is compromise this program to the point where we are back before 9 11. We learned a lot of lessons from 9 11, the 9 11 commission, bipartisan, gave us recommendations on what we need to do to prevent that day from ever happening again on american soil. We know it is a tall challenge, but unless we commit ourselves to do everything we legally can, supported by the courts, supported by every Court Decision that has been raised, supported by evidence of care and trust in doing it the right way, supported by all the transparency, all the information we provide to the American People in terms of what we are doing, we have to succeed this year. It is the agencies, all 17 of us, our number one priority. It is essential if we are going to do with the world, not as we would like it to be, but as it is. The world as it is is looking to provide great harm to the American People. With that, let me introduce admiral rogers, who is more steep in this issue than a whole combination of the rest of us. But he can bring very compelling reasoning and evidence of why this program is so critical. Admiral . [applause] delightedgers we are to have you here. You have had three plus distinguished years, building on existing West Building on a distinct career that takes us back a good 15 years, as i have watched you progress and lead different organizations from theific command to the j2, intelligence element of the department of defense, then at msa. And thank you for your service. Mr. Shedd his biography is obviously available online, so we would like to jump in really on the questions and issues of the day that we are here for. Give the audience, if you will, a sort of baseline of what 702 is, before we jump into some of the issues. Admiral rogers if i could, not only is today a good day for thatgo, but also for those are veterans of the navy, october 13 [indiscernible] admiral rogers so to my fellow veterans in the naval service, now with respect to 702. How did we come up with a number . It is the section of the foreign intelligence service, it provides the legal and Statutory Authority for collecting persons against nonus of a specific set of purposes. Law was first passed in 2008 by congress. Renewed again in 2010. Now we find ourselves five years later, the Statutory Authority 17. Ires december 31, 20 mr. Shedd you are not on. Admiral rogers ok. Mr. Shedd it is the high tech. Admiral rogers can you hear me now . So now we are in another statutory review process, Congress Considering legislation which is set to expire. [indiscernible] admiral rogers as you heard from the director of National Intelligence, we are arguing that there is a compelling case to continue the reauthorization of this Statutory Authority, which has been in place for almost a decade. That decades use of the authority has generated tremendous value for our nation. And we will talk about that. Some of the value in the course of almost 10 years of using this authority, we are very proud of the track record we have of our Legal Compliance with the lot and the fact we have been forthright as an organization, and we have made mistakes and publicly analyst publicly acknowledged the mistakes. We have informed the attorney general and our oversight committee. It is something that is very important. I very much welcome this discussion thought because i will be the first to acknowledge that it is important for us as a nation that we have a forthright dialogue about how we ensure that our government has the tools it needs to help ensure the security of our nation, while at the same time it does so under a very specified legal regime, and that legal regime includes explicit protections for the privacy and the observance of the rights of its citizens. It is not one or the other, we are committed to doing both. So i very much welcome opportunities like this to sit down and have a discussion about what is, why is it that we feel so strongly that renewing this again is in our nations best interest and i look forward to that discussion today. Mr. Shedd thank you for that introduction, it builds on remarks at the opening. Es uses phrases like sav american lives, quoting general alexander from several years ago. And the privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board placed in the percentage of intelligence that is collected at this over 25 , which we understand at a classified level it could be with greater precision on what that is, but when you weigh the importance of this program with in terms of keeping americans safe and the dependency of giving the decisionmaker that ability to prevent a terrorist attack, or transfer of weapons of mass distraction material, or whatever sort of threat that may come, can you talk a bit about the importance of the program from a standpoint of what nsa does on a daily basis by the men and women at fort meade . Admiral rogers there are two measures we look at that lead us to the conclusion that this program is so fundamentally valued. Valuable to us. The first is the uniqueness of the insights it generates. And the second is the quantity of the insights that it generates. So as you have heard, 702 generates of the total reporting, which is generated to provide policymakers with insights, and generate public policy, the help military commanders to be better informed and in a position to make better choices, to help inform the Cyber Security of our nation, this Statutory Authority, section 702 and the information it generates, is incredibly unique and significant in its volume. As you heard, david quoted a number, i will say it is a sin of an percentage of reporting credit which is another point reporting. Which is another point i try to make it if we lose this Statutory Authority, there is no alternative way. If we lose this Statutory Authority, there is no alternative way i am aware of, to account for it by other means. I cannot replace it. If we lose this Legal Authority, i cannot replace this information via other legal means, that is how unique in some cases is the data that we get. That data, that insight has enabled us to do things like understand movement on the battlefield in afghanistan, enable us to reroute convoy units, u. S. Troop concentrations, alert u. S. Service members serving in afghanistan of imminent threat against them, so it has saved lives in afghanistan. This same authority and information it generates has enabled us to generate unique insight on the transfer of weapons from certain nationstates around the world, to other parties that would do harm to our nation, as well as those of our friends and allies. With the information generated as a result of this Statutory Authority, it has enabled us to take key isis leaders off of the battlefield and we have been very public with one issue we have declassified. He was the number two commander between 20142016, we the u. S. Government writ large has spent almost two years trying to locate him. Posted aly as a nation multimillion dollar bounty, a reward for information leading to his arrest or death. Despite two years of that, we were unable to locate him. Because of we derived through hint, iot our first will not go into all the specifics, but we will try number 4 now . The light says it is on. [indiscernible] [laughter] admiral rogers ok. You guys keep trying. I apologize. Ok. Um, so this Statutory Authority enabled us to take hegemon off of the battlefield. The number two individual in isis, we were looking for him between 20142016, this was one smart adversary. He had a sense of how we worked and he knew the techniques collectively, he moved without a regular signature. He was a very intelligent adversary who constantly was adapting how he communicated and where he moved. Because of 702 we were able to gain insight to an individual associated with him. It led us to track this adversary and tie him to him. We then put him under surveillance. Through our u. S. Military forces on the battlefield, we attempted to actually capture him, but unfortunately he wanted to resist capture and he was killed in 2016. Had it not been for 702 after literally two years of trying to find him, after an extended period of a multimillion dollar bounty on his head, it was only because of 702 generated authority, or insight, that we were able to find him. It is because of the data generated under this Statutory Authority, that we have been able, if you look at europe in the last six months, i will not go into specifics, but we have been able to take data provided to aspire european counterparts to use the information that we generate under 702, to go back to them and say we have proof the individual who executed this has ties to isis. There are additional people involved. Here is who they are. And in at least one case, they are trying to mask the identity. And here is their strategy because they want to use them again in the future. They are hoping you want not catching them and they want to use them in the future to carry out attacks. It is in one particular country. The insight generated has also enabled us to achieve significant insight from a Cyber Security perspective. We would not be able to generate some of the insights we have been able to do, supporting the intelligence committee, from 2016 with regards to the russian activity, we have not been able without this authority, we would not have the same level of insight with respect to cyber actions around the world, both directed against our neighbors as well as u. S. Structure. So i hope one of the take aways when we talk about why this is so valuable, you get a sense of how unique this is, the fact it generates insight that has direct actionable impact. We are taking people off the battlefield. We are helping our partners take people off the battlefield in terms of arresting those terrorists and those who would do harm. We are able to stop nations from moving arms a legally to other parties, we are able to generate huge insight in terms of Cyber Security. So i try to highlight two people, this is why 702 is so valuable. It is the deep, unique information we cant get via other means. And its the volume of this information and global applicability that makes it such a powerful tool for us. Thats why we feel so strongly. Hey, we believe it is in our nations best interest to continue with the Statutory Authority currently 702, we think it is in our nations best interest. We would also argue, if you look over our track record for the past 10 years, i do not pretend for one minute we are perfect. Im proud to call myself the director of nsa and to be part of a team of incredibly motivated people that work diligently to defend this nation , but to also safeguard the privacy and rights of its citizens. If you had the chance to sit down and talk to some of those men and women it is amazing the selfdiscipline, the focus on mission and ensuring the security of our security. Citizens. It is not one or the other. It is, we have to do both. It is one of the reasons why, we routinely offer, and many members have taken us up on the offer, please come out the fort me,e and do not talk with do not sit through a powerpoint, sit and watch the men and women doing the work. Ask of them, how do you gain access to this information . Walk me through the protections. Help me understand your training. Can you help me understand the controls . Who can access this data . How do you use this data . Why should i feel comfortable this data is not not being misused, that in some way youre using this to undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens that is a dialogue we welcome. With that i apologize. ,mr. Shedd no, that is a great response to a followup question i have. If i read the trending, in terms of criticisms to the program its not so much at the front asnd of what you described being used for disruptive purposes in attacks overseas and the sort of thing, but iental or inadvertent think it would be hopeful if you would walk us through the oversight on that issue by first baselining why does it mean to collect on a u. S. Person inadvertently, and incidentally, because of the communications captured throughout the 702 program. That would be helpful. Admiral rogers we had knowledge in the course of executing 702, we will run into the u. S. Persons. It is the nature of it. Thats the nature of the Global Telecommunications backbone. We all use our personal hand held devices at home, if you are a landline user, it would be other to medications. We acknowledge that. One thing we have tried to build into this is a series of protections designed to say, if you do encounter a u. S. Person, what are you doing to make sure the information is not used inappropriately. So, the first thing we do is we are up front. The law does not allow broad unfiltered collections. It is very specific. It first tries to protect u. S. Persons by saying you can only collect overseas outside of the United States. Designed toehicle protect u. S. Persons, is the law is very explicit. You cannot knowingly target u. S. Persons, that is illegal. You cannot use this authority to knowingly target u. S. Persons. That is the second production. It is very explicit. The third protection in place within the law itself is the fact that the law, this part of it is actually classified, but the law is very specific, it defines a set of purposes we can collect against. What does that mean . The law does not allow us to indiscriminately against nonus persons, collect anything we want. It specifies you can only collect overseas against nonus persons, for three very specific stated purposes. It is classified, so i will not go into specifics. But the law is very specific. So there is a series of protections built in. It is designed to stop the Intelligence Community from being able to collect anywhere it wants, it cannot collect in the United States, against any individual, a u. S. Person cannot do that. And is designed to stop us from indiscriminately collecting anything overseas. Mr. Shedd let me ask for the audience, the word selective is used. What does that mean in the context of these three legal constraints on the collection . Admiral rogers that is one of the additional protections put in place, we collect by using the data under Legal Authority, by u. S. Service providers, we collect based on a specific criteria. As you have heard david say, you will hear the term selector from us. What is a selector . It can be an email address. It can be a name. Those are the most common. Another protection in place we , have to be able to show that those selectors, those search criteria, they must be outside the United States, not be a u. S. Person and be associated with , one of these three specific categories for every single search criteria we select. Another protection we put in place, no one single individual is authorized to make a collection request. We actually, first our analysts have to prove it is a nonu. S. Person and it is for one of the three stated purposes then we have that request reviewed by two other senior analysts so that theres three individuals internally who look before it even goes to outside to actually be met. If i could, let me finish the idea of some of the protections that are in place. Because i will tell you, 702 has the most oversight and the most checks and balances of any Legal Authority that nsa uses to execute its missions. Some of the other kinds of oversights and checks and balances that are in place. Every year, the u. S. Government, the department of justice and the office of director of National Intelligence has to put court,ting to the fisa how are you going to use this law in the next year . What are the controls you will put in place to ensure that youre collecting in accordance with the law . How are you protecting the data that you then collect, talk to me about what training youre doing for your people and what oversights and controls the you have in place to make sure that the law is being followed . We have to put that in writing every year. In addition to that once the , court is comfortable it then allows the u. S. Government to issue a series of directives , and they are very specific, that go to the providers and say, you will provide the u. S. Government the following information for the following purposes using the following criteria. It gives the companies the legal basis upon which to comply. In addition to all of that, we have oversight by both dni and the attorney generals team. We are spot checked every 60 days. Every collection request we make is independently reviewed by the dni team and the department of justice team. We have to inform our congressional oversight about what we are doing. We were reviewed by the privacy and Civil LibertiesOversight Board. They reviewed the program in 2014 and they said, you are fully compliant and in fact they were impressed by the mechanisms put in place. In addition to those things i have already talked about we use , our inspector general. We use our officer internally. Again, so one of the takeaways i hope is very structured, multiple checks and balances and multiple organizations in volved in independently checking what is going on. Its not just us acting as our own policeman so to speak. It is external organizations in addition of what we do. In addition, we have a series of protections in place, so once we get the information, who has access to it, how is it queried, how is it used or published in the form of reports . All of those additional controls are in place. It doesnt matter how junior you mostfrom the junior employee, to a fourstar general , including me that has access to 702 generated data, must take an annual written test. I have to take the test. There is a Training Program and you have to take a written test to certify that you understand Legal Framework and the processes we have put in place. And every person is required to do that. I take that test and i study for it, just like everybody else. Because i take my responsibility as do the men and women of nsa. There is a reason why we do this, we want our citizens to feel comfortable that they really seems to be a measure of oversight there seems to be a , measure of control. There is a regime in place to make sure this is not unilaterally used as a vehicle to generate information that might in anyway abuse the privacy or rights of our citizens. And then on top of all that, there is a statutory requirement for us when we find problems or errors we must report them. , that is in addition to all of the independent reviews. Us tois a requirement for make sure that we report. For example we had publicly , knowledged that we had stopped doing what we call upstream about collection why . ,because as we were walking through this process, as we do every year, one of the Technical Solutions we had put in place was not working with enough ak accuracy. We went to the court and we said, the technical solution is not working fully as compliant as we designed it to be. We want to court to be aware of we want the court to be aware of that. We physically notified them. And we have to notify them in writing. After a review i sat down and said im not comfortable. I do not think the technical solution, i do not have enough confidence in it. We will stop this and well recommend to the attorney general that we stop this collection cant because i dont want to do it. Even though i knowledge in acknowledge in stopping it we are going to lose intelligence value. There is an operational implication here that such is the importance to us of our ability to show to the outside world that we are not only compliant with the law but we understand its intent. It is to ensure the privacy and rights of our citizens are not violated. Therefore, because we had concerns we stopped. ,so i tried to highlight for people it is not just about grabbing all the information we can, that is not the way that we work. Do not get me wrong, our mission is to use this in a legal way to generate insight as to what those that would do harm to our nation, what they are doing out there. I do not pretend otherwise for one minute. That is what it is all about. But it is also ensuring we are doing it in an appropriate way. Mr. Shedd not to belabor the issue, but because some of us start our communications and then proceed to write or talk accordingly, i want to come back to the u. S. Person collection. With all those layers of bothight the nsa is under, inside the organization as well as under the server islands surveillance act court. The report, as you mentioned come back to the u. S. Person piece of it. What happens when either there is a presumed u. S. Person thats been collected on and whats the oversight . So this is more the other half of the equation of protecting you have the data, what happens with that presume or known u. S. Person data that you have . Admiral rogers if we become aware that we have come in contact with a u. S. Person and the data we collected, we do a couple of things. We ask ourselves is there a first threat to life here . Is there something that suggests this american person is under threat or harm . You might say what does that mean . It gets to things like kidnappings around the world, like hostage situations. Well look to say is there something i need to suggest that theres threat to life here . The second thing well ask is have we stumbled into anything that is potentially criminal. If that is the case, we notified Law Enforcement. We stumbled into something we believe may be criminal caught only are not a Law Enforcement organization, so we are not in the best position to make that determination. The final thing we will do is ask ourselves, is therefore an intelligence value here . Have we stumbled onto something that has foreign intelligence value. Let me tell you what we will do if the answer is yes or no. If the answer is no to all the questions, no threat to the persons life, no sense of criminal connection, we believe there is no foreign intelligence value, we purge the data. We get rid of it. It does not meet the lawful intent of the law. If the answer is yes, then we will retain the data and then we put a series of additional protections in place. If there is foreign intelligence value and we decided we are going to use it to report to generate knowledge that we will put in the form of a report, and share with our customers. The next protection we put in place is we use what we call masking. We do not use a name, it will say u. S. Person one. In the course of a conversation u. S. Person one was referred to, or involved in so we mask, we try to hide the identity. That identity can be a person. Because the definition of u. S. Person for us is broader than an american citizen, it is not just an american citizen, it is anybody lawfully in this nation, it is a u. S. Incorporated company, it is an association of individuals who are associated with United States, there is a whole set of categories. It is much broader than just, all we care about is u. S. Citizens. No, the protections are much broader. So we put this additional protection in place, masking. We hide the identity. We are not compromiseing. Compromising the identity of the u. S. Person. In some instances, where for example the u. S. Person is a widely known public figure and quite frankly it becomes obvious who they are talking about, we will use the name because part of it is if you are in a visible position, it is a little bit different. So we will do that. And then we have a series of processes that are in place. Thisome of you have heard as of late, the idea of unmasking. What is this unmasking thing . Masking and unmasking is associated with our reporting not with collection authority. ,702 is a collection of authority it enables us to , access information over seas against nonus persons for three specific purposes. Masking and unmasking are processes we put in place that it doesnt matter what the Statutory Authority is. Did i get the data under 702, did i get it under other lawful we have a series of laws that authorize what we do. Just as we mask to protect the identity of the u. S. Person, we also have what we call an unmasking process. Where an authorized individual, can request in writing the identity of the u. S. Person for several purposes. Number it has to be something one, associated with the execution of professional tunlt professional duties. It is not just, i am curious. I see this referred to u. S. Person one, u. S. Person two, u. S. Person three. It would be neat to know who these three individuals are. You cant do that. Its not enough. Our process is, it has to be on the basis of your job. You need this information because of the execution of your official duties. Secondly, the next criteria to put in place is in your written request you must also show us that you need this to understand this report. It is not just because it is interesting. Its not just because you have a valid need to know, but without this you cant understand the report. What are some examples where well unmask . Companies, Cyber Security. Well report that u. S. Company one was hacked by the following country. Here is how they got in. Here is where they are. Here is what they are doing. Part of our responsibility is the duty to warn. So how do you warn u. S. Company if you dont even know who u. S. One, company one is . So one of the reasons we do unmasking is for example we can take protective action to ensure this information is provided to appropriate individuals. We keep a written record of every one of those requests. They are done in writing. They require the individual making the request by name. We do not that is something thats changed over time as we continue to try to ask ourselves how do we keep improving . Said, thee things we request has to come from an individual, not an organization. It cannot just be the ci wants to know or nsa wants to know. It has got to be or National Security adviser wants to know. It has to be a specific named individual. We want a record of everything and we want to understand why. We have been able to reproduce and provide that information to our legal oversight when they ask, hey, walk us through this process. We are able to go back, here is how it is done. Here are the rules that are in place. Here is the written documentation. We can provide all of that. We can show you the report. We can show you whats provided. The last thing with respect to the unmasking process, when we unmask an identity we dont unmask it to every person who got that report. Only the entity that made the request that we validated. Finally, when we do unmask it and we reveal the identity we also remind that individual you a legal responsibility to ensure this information is appropriately protected the same way the original report was. Just because we are revealing this name to you because of the valid execution of your duties , and you need this to help understand the intelligence value of this product and potentially take action as a result, we are also adamant and we remind them that you can then share that information with anyone else. The same protections remain in place. You cannot share this with others that we havent approved. And you know, so that process to me is also from leaking, which is the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Mr. Shedd that is a crime. Admiral rogers that is a crime. Right. That is a crime. That is different from whistle blowing. Whistle blowing is legally defined. Theres a series of specific purposes and protections. But leaking the indiscriminate or providing of classification, classified information to others who do not have the need to know, and have not met any protection criteria, that is a crime. Debatedd i hope in the in suing on section 702, there is this distinction made of n masking and unmasking. There is talk out there that combines the two things. I think its erroneous. Admiral rogers do not get me wrong, both are very valid in the conversation. Mr. Shedd absolutely. In closing you talked about the , upstream collection and where the technology was with that. With this everchanging world in the area of technology and how it is moving at warped speed, can you project into the future where this is all going from a technological standpoint and how does section 702 fit into that as Technology Evolves . Dated fisa that was very at one point and it had to be renewed to fit the needs and requirements of the modern age, i might even say, from the 1970s. How do you see that and what goes with that question . Admiral rogers it is interesting. The current structure was amended over time, because of technology. In 1978, when it is first passed the state of technology at the time is largely a copper based phone, one of the primary communication needs. Mr. Shedd with a really long cord in the kitchen. Admiral rogers we put a legal activein place, thus the 1978 is born. 30 years later, 2008, it is post 9 11 and we are into the world of the World Wide Web mobile , communications. So the technology has changed. The target environment has changed significantly. So fisa, the current act is created almost 10 years ago to come to grips with that. How do we address the technology that has changed, and how do we adjust the changes in some of the target behaviors . We are in a terrorist fight on a global scale. And so the current law that we do with now. As i look to the future, how do i see this youve all the overtime . The first question is, i do not have a crystal ball answer for you. And i am often asked by the oversight committees, appropriately in congress, and the point i make to them is, i do not know what the future necessarily looks like. The commitment i make is as we see changes in technology, as we see changes in target behavior, as we see the relevance of 702 changing over time, i will provide that feedback to the oversight so they are aware of it. And we will work to ask what are the changes that we need to make over time . ,ecause i am the first to admit as i said, over the 30 plus years that the regime has been in place, it has adapted the Legal Framework and authorities granted have been changed over time. I expect that will be the case in the future, given the nature of the telecommunications environment. Mr. Shedd admiral rogers , happy birthday for the navy, of course. And thank you for being with us today. Educating the American People is issue, as ithis goes into this decision on its extension and renewal by the end of the calendar year. So thank you for the service that you provide and the men and women of nsa, in terms of this program and keeping americans and our friends and allies save, because this is used as director coats mentioned, in terms of his own engagements overseas as well, so from the bottom of our hearts, thank you for being with thisday and giving us opportunity to have this conversation with you. Admiral rogers thank you very much. It is an important conversation and as a nation we need to sit down and welcome these opportunities. As a member of the National Security agency, and the Intelligence Community, we are committed to ensuring safety for our nation, and ensuring the privacy of our citizens is wellrespected. And when wed make a mistake, sadly, no matter they will make mistakes. [indiscernible] admiral rogers when we make a mistake we will stand up and ensureedge it, so we can the safety of people. I thank you all very much. Mr. Shedd we will go on a 30 minute break before the director of the fbi arrives. Please provide questions you i think you and will, i think you are in here, and we will proceed from there. Thank you. [applause] [chatter] it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to the audits,