Transcripts For CSPAN2 Intelligence And National Security Conference Former CIA Directors And... 20171005

Thank you. [applause] how lucky are we . I think i may be the first moderator in this programs history who has the joy of saying that she has the joy of being on this panel. So im going to try to make you proud. Heres what we are going to do. We will take a walk through their history and perspective from the tenures to see if we cant bounce back and forth. First question for each of you. Can you look at us when you address us back yes sir. [laughter] i love that. The first question for each of you what i is the greatest threr issue that consumed your tenure and what do you see the greatest threat or issue facing the nation today from the security perspective . Its one of the challenges that i had when i was the director. It did not highlight just what the cia did for so many years to keep this country safe, so that consumed a lot of my time and i think there was a lot of partisanship that went into that. One of the challenges i faced in this administration is facing is there are so many issues of strategic consequence and importance. With china, russia, and going back down to the white house situation room to the meetings these are issues that have weighty issues attached to them and it takes a lot of time. It is the global power that has the role physically in every corner of the world. Became such that is difficult to deal not just with the wolves at the door to prevent the next terrorist or Cyber Attacks but also some of those issues that were on the back burner. They provided the knowledge and enlightenment to carry out the responsibilities. So, when i compare what is going on right now to 28 years ago or so i find a piece of information in a deluge of how quickly things happened in a technologically advanced world it just makes the intelligence profession so much more challenging and at the same time, so much more important. In the office i was the director from 06 and 09 and we were pretty much aimed the all hands on deck battle station for counterterrorism and a great deal of time that we had during the agency had come. They come to see me prior to the confirmation hearings and ask for the former and as we were leaving the house i sent david, onsaid todavid, one more thing. The cia never looked more like this than it does right now and thats a good thing. America is safer, but they cant be the only thing. Its the global Espionage Service to address the questions suggested. So it was a big chunk. I will be candid as to what it is about now. Us, not the cia but the United States. Ive been saying for the last several months, the disruptive element today is the United States and that doesnt mean aggressive. We have regions ready to cross the border and things like that, but we are in a massive transition globally. We have a particular role the last 75 years and the foundation was based in printed words and all that is eroding and simply looking at us saying where are you on 2. 0. Until that question is answered, i do think the globe is in a lot of white water unti whitewater r that question. In 2003 and 2004, it was radical islam and how to deal with it in the combat troops and how to support them and how to exploit the capabilities that we have in the Intelligence Community and how to deal with the new thing of a signature that warfare type weve never seen abstract in some ways and dealing with things that we really havent been set up for. Intelligence committee was called on very definitely. Mission one is to make sure that we stay safe and number two is to deal with the enemy as we see them out there and basically the battlefield is as described. All of this is going on incidentally at the same time that congress decides to impose its wisdom on the architecture of the committee and change it. This means the plane you were flying and when you took off may not be the plain when you land and youre supposed to redesign it when you land. This is a tough complication so i say. I started out as the cia and ended up as he cia and ended up retiring. I think the latter might have been the best choice. [laughter] it was interesting but im proud of the men and women in the agency and what they did to take up the slack that we have in our approach to enemies who are brandnew to us in a way that we have never seen him and experience before. Experienced before. A lot of innovation, able to challenge either for the defense or state or any place else, fbi, and suddenly we had to bring all that together and they had to be well informed with good information. That was job number one. Building and rebuilding would havthe building wouldhave been f Operational Intelligence agency and defense programs plus the others that were involved in that effort. I think that there were 15 agencies at the time. Today i couldnt agree more to go right through the litany we still have the terrorist problems and obviously theyve taken a slightly different turn and creates new problems as weve seen and continue to see everywhere. We have Nuclear Proliferation right on the front page, whether it is north korea or some other. Whether they are friendly or not friendly or how we treat than the word without our business with them is very important, but there is no question that those are areas that we have to Pay Attention to because if they are not on the front page today, they will be tomorrow. I think that those are critical. Cyber we have the greatest tendency and vulnerability in terms of our site and the basics on how we do business in this country and if we had some in depth took that system out i could think of several things. When you talk about the four things you will find that washington has failed this coming up with the rules of engagement on how to deal with so many things it isnt just jut graphical to resume we deal with cyber and publications. All these things are out there and as it is there is a deep divide in the country right now is causing us not to get at the solutions we need to be where we are in the continent and in the whole gold. Im not far off from my concer concerns. For the years that i was there, it fell within a pattern of intergovernmental relationships which presented an obstacle to doing our work effectively and was a problem on both sides of the aisle. When i came onboard, on board,n board because the congress had doubts about the credibility of what they were hearing from us about such things as the arms for hostages, deals with that kind and we decided to address that issue. Part of the problem is when we spoke to the congressional close hearings, they were concerned about the gargoyles baseball so the distrust was mutual so they danced around questions and did it in a way that was a considerable lack of trust and with the help of some others we took it on in a very simple greed. We said what, fro that, from nol of our testimony must be accompanied by four seats. It must be correct, candid, complete and consistent. Okay, there are some out there that we dont trust. If there is a question you dont feel answering because you dont know who is in there or what they are all about dont say that you dont have an answer but that you are not authorized to get it and they will work with the staff to satisfy their needs. It was amazing how that criticism ended in that period of time. Working for solutions. Later on it became more difficult because we got to the issues. When would we go to be a real attack to the ground attack of desert storm and president bush said when youve degraded 50 of their hardware. The problem was we were not seeing at the sam it the same we pilots were seeing it in we were relying on season entry. But we could see about what was true on the ground. If i mentioned, to show how these work, i mentioned to president bush during the hearing you want to know we are having some problems agreeing. I sent mr. President , those are your words and we had a tough time with that on credibility because the determined when we would launch their current war. We worked hard on it to try to get to that. A lot of people thought we had a policy interest and it was important that we were not making policy. We were providing the intelligence on which these policy positions should be madee and that should never be questioned. Well, we worked through about one. We were simply reporting so we were not getting there as fast as the pilots wished and thought he had. That affects the ability to serve the government leaders depends on the level of trust and how they feel we are being squared away with them and just as importantly that they are being squared away with the American People about where we were. So that will always be a recruiting challenge. But its a serious threat. I can attest to the fact that the community has the same view into the importance of the integrity and the confidence of the people with whom we are talking and it is exactly as difficult as you suggest to continue to maintain that. You mentioned china and north korea, russia, as issues vexing you then and are present now. Is there anything surprising about the threats or activities of those large persistent threats that you see today . Anything surprising about what russia and china is doing and the expansionism that we see from the move to manage the reputation anything surprising to you . It reminded me of this. This isnt new its been going on since recorded history that you have one group in power and another starts to spin out and then can they work out an accommodation to share the planet together or not. I think thats where we are with the hegemon of these other great aggressive powers because they are clearly aggressive, putin is a person that many people think about and many have forgotten we divided the ussr and worked hard to undermine the Confederate States after the war came down and all that. So, is it surprising that we have a side for observation putting on against the United States of america and the free open Democratic Society that is as exposed as anything anybody wants to put out there and it is in no way a sort of regulated or verified its just gossip so to speak. So are we surprised, it is the Intelligence Community forgotten us, no. It is on top of it. They have a limited amount of capability resources and thats one of the jobs all of us have as farmers is to make sure that the American People understand it is a great investment to have the Congress Give sufficient amount of money for the people to do their job. I think that its very important to keep your eye on that. China is moving. Many people feel it is a century of china. So these are things you have to worry about. What do i see a dust up tomorrow morning im putin saying the ultimatum is now obliteration . No, what i see is a long gradual working that is going to erode our influential provide alternative, which we may not like to other people can devote most of whom are controlled by the authoritative governments. So, i think that is a very important background item. But, as you sai said and im moe worried about the great going down this afternoon and all banking or Something Like that, that is something on the president s desk very quickly. Those are the kind of differences ive make and i obviously dont think that you want to say we only do one at a time. That is one of the challenges you cant do one at the time. The point is very well taken he serves at the time that it makes my job very easy. So, you described one of your greatest threats and im going to paraphrase the lack of Global Leadership or the certainty of where we are going. If its moving out aggressively, does the fact that theres a little more space for them to take that imperative, is that a concerning issue for you . I teach across the river at another university and occasionally they come over for one of my classes and he has written kind of the first draft of history for the Bush Administration Security Policy and then come front and conceal for the 75 minutes of laying out two sentences. What if president obama trying to do. And his answer was he is better, kind trying to better align the interests with the realities of american power. That is an unarguable proposition. I argue in getting the math wrong but now weve got another american president whos america first, all right, isnt away from entrenchment. Putting the link which today is different but there is continuity in th and the policyf america pulling back. As a military guy, i know that the most difficult is retrieved because it can turn into the route so that isnt the right word. But if we are recalibrating and balancing out our interest with the reality of the power, we need to do that very carefully. I think we are leaving a space that you suggested and there is a bit of a vacuum and push back to do certain things. We left a bag part of the stage they didnt have allowed them to go back into the region for the first time and in half a century so its like i get the balancing and im looking at john because most recently hes in government and its the things that he is delivering to the policymakers got you try to set the framework so they can get the balance right. And i dont think weve got the balance right but i do think we have created space and other states have pushed into this space. Thats different from saying you dont need to accommodate the growth and power of the peoples republic of china. Of course you do but i do think that we are getting the fine print from time to time. I didnt recount your buyout, but you as well as others in the panel served in the Intelligence Community and the process community. Even the Intelligence Community and porter in the legislative, fbi. Talk to me about the intersection between the intelligence and policy, then we can add intelligence into the other elements of the american system. I spent 25 years trying to learn but challenging one and then the opportunity and they must tell you the policy is really hard. Governance is really hard. All the issues that we pointed out here are all challenges and problems. Whether you go from north korea to ukraine, cyber, all of them defy easy solutions. And i think my time on the policy side appreciates just how difficult it is to try to strike that right policy balance that is going to protect and advance u. S. Interests without making some situations worse. And i think we have had experience in this overtime, where the u. S. Might and the hard power is exercised in different parts of the world and it didnt go that well. I dont want to defend the policies of the left administrations or the previous ones. But i found it really quite enlightening to be on the policy side of the table. And intelligence did a great job of pointing out all of the risks and challenges and the policymaker then just to be able to do what was necessary. I must tell you having worked as the White House Assistant for the first term, there are some decisions that fall on the president ial shoulders that entailed putting the u. S. Lives at risk. And i think that from all the president s ive served for from obama back to ronald reagan, all of them have their obligations to call me when it was necessary, and in order to protect the u. S. National interest. Getting back to the point now the world is very unsettling. Theres a lot of turmoil out there for a variety of reasons is. But the uncertainty about the role particularly in the places partners and allies remain there for so many years and now what does this mean in terms of the u. S. Support and under what conditions and scenarios in the obligations for the part of nato. So im not going to the game defend or criticize the policies, but i must say that trying to find out how to deal with these conundrums, that is what they are, they are not easy policy answers and thats why intelligence needs to do the best job it can and not just the pitfalls and other calamities but also the opportunities. What are things that the u. S. Can do that might in fact help mitigate some of the threats that are out there. People see the issues because they have looked at them in death. The policymakers that went to school on these issues read memos and papers and absorbed it and understood that there is effectiveness. Its what the United States does or says that is going to be important. The same question to talk about intelligence in the congress. Looking at it from the combinations and experience that i had from the executive branch, what i would come down to is a meeting either in or in the white house and i was asked by people sitting around a table in a skill room do you have the capabilities to get this, the answer is yes. Do you have the authority and the answer again was yes. Long pause. But i dont have the policy. And that was a huge problem back in 2004 and 2005 about the rules and engagement. Are these enemy combatants, take risks, what do we do with these people, we try them in a civil court. Everything was a new questions of the whole problem of trying to come down to the role. First you make the policy and then we will tell you what should be part of the response and what we can do as part of that response. That was hard to seem to get through because there were so many things happening. Daytoday taking your eye off the ball to have deal with whats happening in iran or someplace else. The other thing thats important, the way i express this is the Oxford English dictionary word for 2016 was posttruth. Thats where we are today. Posttruth. What happens when you dont have truth . You dont have a lot of trust and you dont get a lot of things done. You back it up a little further and say how does this damage the intelligence committees role to the policy and the answer is that its actually pretty clear because there is so much politicization of everything going on today that its hard to have to trust that gets you to the point that he has confiden confidence. Am i hearing the right thing and do i believe they asked all the right questions. The last three president s have said there is a crisis going on and its gotten worse and worse and worse. And i think that perhaps its important to say that there is a partner in that and that is one that gets me in trouble a lot called the media. Its strong and good and beneficial to america. I cant see the same thing about the media. And i used to be in the newspaper business. And i would simply say. I think that the gateway for accuracy to get the speed, gave way from speed and now we seem to not worry about whether it is true or not it is an important subject. Its an important subject we will put it on the front page. I have an example . Sure. How about duke lacrosse and the university of virginia system. Lets take it home to the Intelligence Community. How about the october surprise, that is a total scam. These are the things that have caused people to doubt the veracity of what they are seeing on television and hearing on television and reading in the media. That has created part of the problem because now when the intelligence guy gets up and says something in public, is it politicized right off the back or because he is a person of the intelligence . [applause] let me take that a little less political and say just the reality of the openness of the world. I am old. I talk about the soviet union. We were the first ones that knew about the launches of missiles that no one had ever known existed because it happened beyond the horizon. Now i know when north korea launches a missile first one sees it and report it. So, there is so much more information available. So many former intelligence officials that are now out in the public bringing the craft and the intelligence to the community and there are so many other not just to me that otherr opinions that sound a lot like the same truth. So, lets talk about the dialogue of the Intelligence Community with the American People. One of the reasons this event exists is because that is one of the things you were trying to create is to get our conversation out with the American People. So, there was more confidence in what we have to say so the craft could be represented so that perspective wasnt just more of someone commenting on it. So, how are we doing in that conversation with the American People. And i want to get to you but im going to start with john because he kind of started this thing. Lets talk among yourselves in terms of how we are doing. Hes the most articulate spokesperson so i take nothing away that hes gotten it right a lot. And he carried a lot of water when the community couldnt figure out how to get out there and speak in a way that we needed to survive a degree. Do you want to start . [inaudible] we are a very democratic town. [inaudible] all you are givin doing is your warmup act. I think we need to put this into two layers. There is number one, the portion of the craft that remains a government monopoly and the portion that is no longer a government monopoly. If it is a big chunk of the old craft. I think johns purpose of launching this is we need to better explain the portion of the monopoly to the broad American Society that they are no longer willing to outsource legitimizing what we do to the committees. They want to know more themselves. And that is part of a broad societal trend with no interest in pushing back against it. Thats happening. So we have to get back to our monopoly and explain it more fully. And i understand that its probably going to shave some points of effectiveness but they are not going to lea let us do y of it. It used to be a government monopoly and is no longer a government monopoly, so we have a much richer Information Age and here our challenge is how we create a membrane that is more permeable from our monopoly circle out to the no longer monopoly circle so that we can take advantage of the wisdom being created in the broader society. The officials would be a Strong Customer of the work except unambiguously the unanimous position of the Intelligence Community in terms of the russian interference but when that first customer denigrates that work into the work of the professionals in the community, how then can the American People embrace the work and the mission of the Intelligence Community said there is a real disconnect that has unfortunately undermined with the great women and men of the committee that their lives on the line and work 24 7 and their families sacrifice things. So if there was a greater acknowledgment of the professionalism and the work of those people, i think the American People might be a little bit more accepting of the importance of the value of the intelligence. Those two thoughts just got connected because you brought up the posttruth, which is decisionmaking upon the feelings and personal preference rather than the picture of reality which is what we deliver swiftly deliver the objective reality, it is one thing to argue the objective reality but it is quite another thing that i dont have to make a decision. I think one of the unfortunate realities in the current Intelligence Community is you are incredibly well articulated about when the first customer questions what we do and the matter in which we do it. We are used to having our work question, that is the nature of intelligence that makes it better questioning the integrity and the motivation is difficult to. I think the respect for the craft. The settings are very well recognized and understood with the coupling of public and private truth that i think we have to work on. [inaudible] [laughter] no, i did not. I didnt think so. This conversation with the American People. This conversation with the American People, how can we have a conversation with the American People about the need of intelligence and its credibili credibility . Another thing you have to take into account is the importance of the availability of secrecy to get the jo their e in the right way. Sometimes thats mistaken and that the purpose of intelligence to engage the capabilities of the adversaries but the important function thaimportedfg about today. We have to do that in a way that the American People can have confidence in the objectivity with which we approach the assignment. And i had some disappointing experiences on the political side and the policymaking fight for people who assume if you dont agree with me, you are cooking the books regardless of how accurate it might be. And i mentioned at the beginning whether to go to desert storm or not. They contacted this chief advisor charles cockroft. Its all for political people making policy judgments about the question of how far along and be gone and how fa far had a government gone in accomplishing special requirements. Its one of the worst meetings i have attended a space imagery in general officer who wouldnt know if he sold one and accusedd him of not wanting to go to war because obviously the reports didnt guide with what they knew was coming in the other direction. Not one, im talking about people i admire, colin powell, not one of them stepped in to speak for the general that im talking about whos still a very good friend of mine and i respected him completely. He was reporting accurately with the totality of the Intelligence Community did. He didnt understand what they were talking about and we have to be able to break through that kind of distrust and uncertainty before we can take the case to the American People by having a conversation in public. Fortunately, that history coming and i think that basically we are back to a better relationship particularly after some levels of the current if i can speak that way. The best example is when when President Trump said isnt it wonderful we can now go back to waterboarding and the general didnt do anything for me and President Trump took his advice wisely. That kind of relationship has to exist at all levels and until it does come i dont think of the conversation in the public is going to go very far. But i started off by saying credibility is our greatest threat and weve got to look at that seriously and dthis serious that make sense. Whether it involves bringing outside committees and were creating other avenues of presentation. I dont really know the answer to that. But we have to be realistic in understanding people tend to assume that if you dont agree with them you must have a different policy position. Not that you have facts that take you in another direction. Very good. We are going to ask one more question. You are going to respond in a tweet. [laughter] 144 characters. Then we are going to open up so get your questions ready. We have a bunch of emerging leaders in the world who may not even know it but they will one day be setting up talking about the world they have led. What is the most important lesson that youve learned in your tenure, the most important lesson and what advice would you give to these Young Leaders sitting in this room. Just saying. [laughter] this is how political i am. I didnt even realize i was walking in to that. Two things. One is humility. Professionals aspiring may be the greatest expert on the issue but if youre a real professional intelligence you understand how much you dont know, how much there is to know and how much there is to learn. For times i was amazed at how little i actually knew and how much knowledge and from knowledge comes wisdom and wisdom is something that is acquired over time. The second thing is teamwork. Mine is a great job with sports analogies. I played basketball and some teams had hotshots. Those that Work Together and relied upon one another, those are the ones that excel in our champions and the same is true in the Intelligence Community and the cia. When i was in the cia connection with the officers were able to work as much as possible because their responsibility is to make sure that their contribution is going to intel for the rest of the agency and the u. S. Government and that they need to understand how the rest of their Agency Community can empower them playing as a team. As bad as they are going to be the things that drive us, i think that we are destined for success. We go from the two near to my heart. Truth shall rise again. The eternal years whomever woundewho neverwounded. Fullsr empathized among his worshipers. Second, on the wall of the agency, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you fr free. If you are guided in those motivations you are entering a Significant Service to your country. Sorry, porter. You have to follow that. [laughter] i would say the most important thing i learned is something i learned a long time ago when i signed up for the agency in 1950s. And that was the folly of the people in the world a world of e have this absolutely exceptional. There are very few exceptions to that. You are always going to find a problem somewhere. But the dedication of people who go out without any promise of public reward or affirmation, something coming along, that to me is a remarkable thing. And i found that still when i went back to the agency as a director. I dont know how we have been fortunate enough that it is something we need to appreciate and nourish. The problem is as you do that coming you run the risk of exposing them to all of the Public Centers when some thing goes wrong. And that inevitably happens. But, i think that by and large i am so positive about our country and our ability to do things and leave and do the right stuff and be the force for good and i think a large part o of it is or Intelligence Community that is the most important thing ive learned and i still followed very closely every day and i am proud everyday. Mind would be take heart. Its not just compatible with our democracy, it is essential to our democracy. Small d. And small are. Its like when people begin to know their neighbors privacies and then they get scared and start their own. So it doesnt just keep america safe it keeps america free. Perfect. [applause] do you all have any questions for this Remarkable Group . Theres a lot of discussion about the need for secrecy in the Intelligence Community and theres also the need for transparency. How do you balance the two . Im the chairman of the Oversight Committee and the house for a long time and we had to wrestle with this. It was always whether our job was to overlook or to look over. And it came down to both building of trust. I wouldve put it this way there is a perception in the public that there is a right for everybody to know everything. Thats something that the First Amendment people put out. Everybody has a right to know. Except there are some laws that say some stuff is legitimately classified and you dont have the right to know that right now. Maybe 25 years or sometimes later but not right now. Just like the lawyer and client privilege, patient privilege, those are things we are aware of. This debate is buying and yang and transparency on the one side which the Intelligence Community is great we would like to have that information out there as much as we can give you but without doing damage to the operations capabilities over here and that is a judgment call and it isnt always right so the answer is you need both. The default towards transparency if i can but im also careful about mentioning names in the Intelligence Community because i dont want to blow anybodys cover. I agree it is a condition to be managed and problem to be solved to make individual decisions but i would suggest if it is moving in the direction that we are required to be a bit more transparent about as i described we exist in a Broad Society which we cannot insist to accommodate us. We have to somewhat accommodate to get so we have to probably be a little more transparent than wfamilyare comfortable with bein the past in order to get the legitimacy of the population that we serve. That has been the trend is certainly over the years. Right here someone is coming. The question is warfare, this information has been pivotal for many countries launching war but they didnt have social media back then. Now that we are seeing the reemergence in the form of fake news, what is the role of the cia specifically and the Intelligence Community at large in tackling that issue . I will try to translate to see if i get it right. Forever there has been propaganda. People can manage the message. We havent seen however the reach and volume and scope in the media so what is the role of the central Intelligence Agency . Helping to manage the perception of that fake news did i get that right . What the role of the Intelligence Community in countering disinformation . I want to jump into congratulate john. John. You wouldnt be here awake and grabbing them by their lapel and saying this is whats going on. We dont counter the news or argue back. We dont conduct public diplomacy. But to identify the foreign nation to manipulate the legitimate process is a classic intelligence function but i think the community performed very well in the past year. The last year cia, nsa, fbi the most important agencies that are going to help defend this country in terms of the assaults in the Digital Domain worked so closely together to try to understand, uncover and forth with the russians are doing. Theres different russian intelligence activities in that domain that we talked about and it came out but now as we see more things coming out in the press about the persona and other types of things that had a russian pedigree it just demonstrates how vulnerable that environment is a too those who want to do us harm and i must tell you a lot of the services around the globe either have the capabilities to do that or they are tapping into various entities that have the capability to quickly put things out on the social media platforms and purports to be u. S. Organizations. Its going to be a continual challenge and going back to some of the things said earlier, that is the challenge of the next decade is to do what we can to ensure the security of the environment thathatenvironment e privacy and Civil Liberties because the prosperity of future really depends on it. And unfortunately a lot of the adversaries are taking advantage of this is the openness of that medium. I think from my perspective, this issue demonstrates that move towards transparency because that report made public force a dialogue and recognition that it isnt just the government so you see now what facebook is doing in order to be a part of this solution. You see a awareness and the populace about this happening and you see the potential diminishing effect so this is one of those again i dont want it to be just a complimentary session but this decision to make things open and public so that the whole community particularly in a digital environment can be involved in making the report. Okay what else do we have. I see you all and the group over here will be upset with me. How about halfway down in the left. Retired air force. I worked for you back in 04. Two parts. Since you were able to be the director of nsa and the director of the cia where do you see the Agency Cooperation going in the future as far as being able to get the information out there because we were a need to know and then needs to share. Where are we going with everything thats happened and then my followon is can i get you to sign my book . [laughter] i will sign any book anybody dies. On the information sharing even in the dark days of september 10, 2001 if we were marking on the curve, we would be on a roll. Our Intelligence Command even before 9 11 was pretty integrated even to the best elsewhere. But neither god nor our citizenry mark this on the curve. Its on an absolute scale and therefore it was insufficient. I do think weve made remarkable progress. We have set in motion a couple things to get this better. We have Mike Mcconnell said Thee Initiative and that changes us over a long period of time, then jim clapper with the integration that will change over a long period of time so the trend lines are dry but here is the problem. It is an epistemological problem. This is my second cylinder knocked stovepipe. We are not hiding the ball from anybody. If i get my stuf give my stuff y here they are going to drown so there is a certain point at which information becomes relevant. The box come together but there is still those that dont come together here in my cylinder but if i could somehow expose them to the dots below the threshold i could have a eureka moment. So this is a forever problem we are struggling how do i get the points of light that are not ready for prime Time Available to the other customers without just overwhelming them . So thats the continuing process but i would retract the selfishness or power. Its an issue. I would go down to my cia units and talk with my people where did you start in the agency. And nsa officer . So that is what we have other counterintelligence, counterterrorism, other issues across the board. I think more of the integration of effort we can do it in those respective areas but we need to understand that the working level just the value and relevance of the other Intelligence Community agencies capabilities, collection assets because then there is that enlightenment you can see my goodness you can do that and between the Technical Intelligence it does great magic envies respects. Last question, front row. You have 30 seconds. They better be worth it. I work in the Information Technology industry and over the years weve helped the sector a great deal but theres always a suspicion that we are too close to the Intelligence Community. Any idea on how the computer industry and Network Industry can assure the customers that we are not too close to you . I will take that one. The foreign entities need to believe that to take advantage continuing on the path that the heavy u. S. Policy to be mindful of the propositions of the Industrial Base and recognize they will always be competitive imperatives forcing one to push towards the other. Ladies and gentlemen, what an amazing panel. [applause] thank you. I couldnt echo you more. Wow. That was incredibly insightful, thoughtful. The blood sweat and tears that this whole group puts through the fight is incredible so thank you for that and we are coming into the final throes. We are into the last panel and this will touch on the difficulties and this is one of the questions asked of conducting espionage and transparent connected world where the tradeoffs, benefits, opportunities and how do we do it. Moderating this is ambassador Reuben Brigety of the International School of affairs at gw. The Panel Includes alexander the chief of Civil Liberties privacy and transparency, the director of national intelligence. Benjamin at the central Intelligence Agency and the codirector of the liberty and National Security program at the Brennan Center for justice for please join me in welcoming the panel. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is ambassador Reuben Brigety, the dean of the school of International Affairs here at the George Washington universi university. We are delighted to have you for the last panel of the day entitled conducting espionage at a transparent and connected world. We have taken this time to explore the challenging and perpetual issues of how one balances the issue of transparency that is incumbent on a Democratic Society with wholesome secrecy that is necessary in the conduct of espionage and in particular to talk about the safeguards of the communities employed to protect information, privacy and Civil Liberties in what is an increasingly and it interconnected world. Over the course of the discussion we hope to discuss as well the sharing of intelligence information and how such protections apply in particular the context of section 702 which congress authorization expected to discuss and debate this fall. We have a stellar panel of experts to help do that today. To my left is mr. Alex joel is the chief of the Civil Liberties Privacy Office at the director of national intelligence. Next to alexs benjamin at Civil Liberties at the cia and finally, we have elizabeth goitein, the codirector of the Brennan Center for Justice Liberty and National Security. So did the panelist panelists, u for joining us today. Let me begin with you if i may. In the balance between secrecy and transparency this debate has been going on as long as the United States has had an intelligence function and its one that is arguably inherent in the free society that also has the need to conduct espionage is a component of National Security but i want to hear your perspective. Does this need or desire to balance secrecy on the one hand and transparency of the other put this United States at a competitive disadvantage in the practice of espionage with the adversaries and if so, why or why not . Thank you. Indirectly answering the question, i think that it is an advantage but has to be done properly and responsibly. I think that it is unplanned transparency whether it is an unauthorized disclosure of information in a mod of information goes out the door without the appropriate reviews and controls. From the kind of trans turns ts the efforts that we are implementing across the Intelligence Community where we very thoughtfully and carefully review the information to make sure that what we are making available response to enter the Public Interest and funds the information could compromise the sources and methods. When we talk about transparency in our workforce, we hear the questions and concerns regarding whether or not we are putting intelligence personnel in a difficult position of your telling them both we want to guard against them authorized disclosure but at the same time, promote responsible transparency. In our response is that it is the individual intelligence professionals duty to protect themselves and their methods to handle the classified information properly and carefully. And its our institutional obligation to respond to the kind of democratic accountability requirements you are referring to in the institutional obligation to find responsible ways to provide more information to the public so they can better understand who we are, what we do, what our authorities are and how we are implementing those. And that can be very challenging. Theres a lot of reasons why it is challenging and takes a painstaking process. As you pointed out, its been with the Intelligence Community as long as we have been in existence. We have to protect secrecy in order to be effective. We cant obtain the secrets of adversaries if we understand exactly how we are going about getting soaked. We cant put our sources at risk we have an obligation as well. And in order to continue to be effective, we have to maintain the secrecy of the sources and methods that the same time, in order to maintain and to obtain public trust, they have to have a greater confidence that they understand what it is we are doing and acting in a manner consistent with expectations and values that can be a very difficult balance to maintain. One of the things we have been doing for example speaking to the colleagues in the efficacy community about how we conduct our authorities and try to respond to the issues and questions that they raise as we can, it is a slow process. There is no magic answer that will cut through the line by line review that is needed to figure out what information can be put up properly. The people that are most expert at determining the information to damage National Security are the people that are doing the work itself who are the analysts. The program managers, the folks on the front line actually carrying out and using that authority they are the ones in the position to determine whether or not we are releasing information that could harm National Security. And so, when we pull them in and as we do and as we must ensure the related work we are pulling them away from their operational activity, so that is another thing that we have to carefully balance. I think that if we do not have the trust that th of the publice American People and gave our foreign partners to explain the activities in the ways that they have to. We risk losing public trust which in turn impacts the ability to conduct our activities and the flexibility that we feel we need is an Intelligence Community to carry out the mission. I dont know if you have something. I think youve given us the quote of the day that his unplanned transparency. I want to go to you because as we said this is a debate that has been going back and forth since the creation of a. Its how much is in the era of the disclosure. Its been pushed closer to the issue and i wonder from your perspective what is the debate regarding the reauthorization of those and of the broader debate about how we should be conducting the intelligence now. Recite one to been and put the thumb on the scale. There are other reporting this well, enhance enhanced public trust but also facilitate accountability when it comes to surveillance. I think the main issues which of course has the authority that allows the government to target foreigners overseas for surveillance without getting a warrant even if they communicate with americans and even if those communications are stored inside of the United States. You know this is an authority that has been used apparently very effectively as a counterterrorism tool to monitor overseas and to distract their plots. Theres actually no serious effort to disturb the core functionality affecting 702 which is again to be able to conduct more surveillance of known or suspected foreign threats but there is a lot of concern and not just among Civil Liberties advocates but among lawmakers on americans and more specifically the scope of incidental surveillance of americas vindications and whether the bachan protections for that incidental information of americans are sufficient and i think thats where you are likely to see Congress Take action on the front end issue of the scope of the incidental collection. The permissible target under section 702 is essentially any foreigner overseas as long as its a foreign intelligence purpose and for intelligence itself is defined broadly so this law could allow the targeting of an ordinary private citizen overseas who is not suspected of any connection to terrorism who has no connection with a foreign power. I dont know if thats how the laws actually being used. I certainly hope it isnt but its allowed under the statute and the problem with that is not just the privacy rights to foreigners. They do have privacy rights under the treaty the United States has signed but the impact on americans because the wire the pool of foreign targets the wider the pool of americans they will be incidentally surveilled and the greater the likelihood that those will be innocent conversations between americans and their friends and their relatives and people they do business with overseas. There is a question being asked about whether or not the scope of surveillance could be narrowed to people suspected of connections to foreign powers people suspected of having information about security threats consistent with the National Security benefits. And then the Biggest Issue and i will try to be brief is what is referred to as backdoor. Their procedures allow them look for the communication and particular americans they are interested in. If the government wants to read phonecalls they should have to go to court and get a warrant. If interested send a foreign target and yet immediately after getting the data go looking for particular known americans who have no designs on them so i have said it many times but i will say it again is a bait and switch. That is the real tension and restrictions on targeting american so i think we will likely see action in congress. As the head of office of privacy and Civil Liberties youre arguably at the epicenter at the fulcrum of the this balance . I wonder if you what is at stake as Congress Tries to debate on the issues that elizabeth mentions on the one hand it for example its reauthorized in a way that more nearly constricts the ability of the i. T. As a means of trying to protect americans better and what are the implications and conversely what are the implications to the private site if congress will be able to make these sorts of collections. Section 702 as i said earlier is a targeting of nonu. S. Persons located outside of United States to collect specific categories of foreign intelligence. Its a Large Program but it should probably be put into context the nsa has released last year in 2016 over 106,000 targets on 702 collections. That is a substantial program. There are also a lot more than 106 thousand. They are 7. 5 billion people there were last year approximately 250,000 people who were struck by lightning so one good way of picking up on the impact of an average of a person is to think the number of emails that you and 2016 sent to or from a person who is outside of United States and was also struck by lightning last year. Take that number from your head divided by 2. 5. Thats what we are talking about. Congress knew that and they acquired specific procedures regarding that targeting. Specific procedures regarding dissemination and procedures going to the information and when that query is for foreign intelligence purpose so theres going to be enacted debate and there should be an active debate that one of the things about this program though as i said it is anonymously effective soapy go back to 2014 the Civil Liberties Oversight Board did a very comprehensive review of this program and for those who know the members of the ward if you have rachel brand and you know you have the widest of spectrums. There were proper protections. Now those protections include the dissemination of information in terms of querying they do require a proper purpose. They require that they are the auditing of those foreign intelligence purposes and to date and all of those audits such as ours often by the department of justice the Civil Liberties Oversight Board there have been exactly zero incidents of intentional misuse of the queries or otherwise. Thats not to say its the impact that is to say we certainly dont have a problem. Specifically what would be the impact which was part of your question. There was a restriction to say probable cause. So for example its incredibly difficult to classify but we been able to do one. The cia has sent out a collection on a Foreign Network and based on that collection on the targeting of this person they saw that there were a little less than 200,000 worth of goods that were about to leave the United States in the shifts to a country of concern. So thats what we knew. What we didnt know is whether that u. S. Manufacture was part of the Foreign Network whether they were inside the network some gray area in between if they were probably having a probable stand cause we wouldnt know. What they were able to do as they were able to query identifiers associated with the manufacture of that 702 collection and able to look through the collection and ultimately able to determine it was unwitting of were these goods would ultimately go. Allow them in this imminent situation to reach out to u. S. Law enforcement and that did two things. One they protected our National Security to prevent those goods and to protect the company. We probably would not have been able to purchase it if we thought there was a likelihood they be part of this activity and the knowledge that we werent with the knowledge that allowed us to proceed. Asking a broader question about the individual responsibilities. Id like to give elizabeth the floor. I was reading your facial expressions. I was thinking about something else. Giving an example of being struck by lightning in understanding the liberty. Maybe 106,000 targets. Targets are just individuals. Targets are persons who are defined as organizations or people. We dont know how many people it is. We do know and 2011 there were 250 million Internet Connections under 702. The number of americans even the most conservative estimate you can imagine maybe hundreds of thousands American Communications are being picked up every year in the past five years of this is having an impact without a doubt and when it comes the privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report in fact rachel brand and judge wall agreed that section 702 came close to the line of constitutional development. So they did it with a pretty close call whether was constitutional or not. I think we can do better than that and treading that close to the line on americans Constitutional Rights and also along with the chair who dissented on whether the protections were in place on backdoor searches were sufficient. They recommended stronger protection so its not as as he made it seem. We need a warrant to look at American Communications and we dont have probable cause and you wont see them thats what the Fourth Amendment means. Can i just jump in for a second . I think what this discussion illustrates and i will go back to the Transparency Team here is how much progress has been made in transparency because lies and dan are able to part talk publicly about certain details that previously a few years ago we would not be in a position to discuss. We have released large volumes of information and for those of you who dont know where to find the information, its a tumblr site. Just google it and you will find it pretty quickly. We have been posting on that site not only information that we are proactively reviewing but also information that has been disclosed pursuant to the freedom of information act and even when they get a freedom of information act request or postures to lean forward and see what we can discretion earlier release to release that topic. One of the columns you will see is that it can be very complicated to sort through whats on there and what it means. We have been dealing with this challenge for quite a while and i dont know that we have the answer to it. If anyone has ideas id certainly be open to them but on the one hand we have to release the underlying legal documents so people can see for themselves what it is we are doing good on the other hand we also have to release some kind of a statement to better explain the context of the document. The statement is one that we are working to try to make more readily understandable to the average person who might be interested in the subject but at the same time we cant release an inaccurate statements on some cases we try to mirror the technical language that was the cause of the confusion to begin with for people with them part of the conversation for the last two years. We put together something which i have been promoted and had every opportunity called the guide to post the documents printed notes a very clever title. Its our attempt to take the document about these kinds of authorities discussed here and put them under categories so they can more easily be found. You go to the web site and the record which im sure you are looking at right now you will see a link to that particular document. The statistics that are being talked about are important and i just want to highlight another thing that we have put together. For two years would put together and no statistical transparency report where we tried it the other certain statistics amp present them including the kinds of numbers that have been discussed here. The usa freedom act was an act that Congress Pass alum of the things i did was codify that transparency report. We published two years of transparency report since then. If you look at the way the transparency report we tried to better explain what a was we were releasing statistics about them when i recently reread the report i thought my goodness we have a long way to go to make this more easy to understand but nonetheless if you go on that guide you can find some of these specifics statistics for yourself. Before we go to the floor for question mark he ask you one more if i may. So the title of this conference when i think about at those in professions i think about what members of the community should do beyond which that that its legally required to do and im wondering from your long experience in the Intelligence Community how should an individual analyst and an individual collector somewhere around the world be thinking about how she or he ought to be balancing transparency in secrecy in the conduct beyond that which may be legally required . So guess and that is the title of the conference. Its something we have on our minds quite a bit. Obviously we have to abide by the law but it goes beyond that. What is the ethos of an intelligence professional and interestingly enough we did tackle that a few years ago. We do have a set of principles of professional ethics where the intelligence professional, we call them dads buddies in you carry them around with you. I didnt bring enough copies to hand out. Thats really small. Illustrates the font size so its Mission Truth lawfulness integrity stewardship excellence and diversity. For example we serve the American People and understand that her mission requires dedication to the security of our nation. Truth is we seek the truth seek truth to power and obtain analyze and provide intelligence objectively etc. So lawfulness of course duty in support or defend the constitution which is another thing that i will mention is part of who it is to be an intelligence professional. When we start our work in fact we renew that oath on a yearly basis on constitution day. We all renewed to support and defend the constitution. So what we are trying to celebrate among the Intelligence Community is what is already there which is a commitment to perform our duties in the way that reflects the values of the nation. The way i think of the transparency work as well if theres one way to think about it. We are providing information as as the importance to defend the constitution part of the functioning of our democracy to make sure we have public accountability and the American People understand what it is that we are doing and can either supported or not supported. We can have a discussion like we are having right here. I cant undersell how important that is. The first day you go to our Memorial Wall and the four of those you swear that oath. Its not to the agency and is not to the president and its not to the director. It is to the constitution and i have had many officers tell me that first day in that first moment of the day was the point which they felt how it is to be an officer. Thats fundamentally different than Intelligence Officers and many other countries. To say that we are going to define how we practice intelligence within this constitutional framework and the constitutional framework that when i speak internally i remind folks is a set of laws but also a set of normative behavior. Their freespeech norms that extend beyond what is required and if you were not aware it is absolutely part of every aspect of what we do and it makes us somewhat different then certainly our adversaries and sometimes even from our allies but none of those would trade it it. If i could just add to that, part of your question, so thats a general highlevel principles situation. You have your statutes in your laws and executive orders, the legal requirements. Are there also requirements that the agencies oppose on impose on themselves to address different kinds of concerns and considerations in the answers to that is yes. There are internal policies and procedures that each agency puts in place that we also put in place at the Intelligence Community level with the Intelligence Community directives to govern the activities even in situations where the law might allow raider flexibility and expression. We are going to put in place a set of procedures that are more detailed and specific. Part of the receiver that is to make sure we dont get too close to the line that liza was talking about so we have in place a more careful approach to doing things then maybe a creative lawyer might interpret or an Intelligence Agency that there are issues that come up without and different kinds of reviews where people worry that we have too many rules and that the rules are two different across intelligence agencies and once you put in place a rule is difficult updated with changes in technology. We did experience that with the executive order 1203 the executive order that governs that lays out the framework for conducting intelligence. Obviously as we follow the constitution and the statutes in addition it establishes a set of requirements and for example to protect information about americans and lawful residents and u. S. Companies and u. S. Associations. Each agency has to have procedures under that executive order that detail how its going to do that in those procedures come each agency has a different environment and they have different procedures. He recently went through that with procedures in terms of the dating them. They havent been updated and i dont know how long. They havent been updated since the 1980s and we change them for two primary reasons. One if you are getting a sheet of paper they told you exactly what to do. When youre talking about the digital environment they were not terribly helpful. But the second and it ties in to the first question there was more transparency. Those guidelines are posted on the web site in their entirety, no reductions. We had to effectively blow them up and rewrite them but we thought it was critical. If you are talking about he cant always talk about the methods of collecting information but we can talk about are the protections in handling that information. That was critical for us to do and we are proud that we did. Elizabeth i would wonder if i might ask you the same question in reverse. As a Civil Society advocate for the qualities issues what is it that you expect as a citizen of our Intelligence Community and intelligence professionals beyond that but they lower choirs. You said we can be better than simply coming close to the standard of the constitution on wondering if you have a general response. I think the Intelligence Community needs to recognize that while it does have people like alex and ben mcadoo im glad they have the positions they have and im glad the positions exists and im glad people fill them and thats important but protecting Civil Liberties is always going to be secondary for intelligence agencies. Its never going to be the primary consideration. Thats not their mission. Thats not what they are at least on paper checks and balances to work selfpolicing is not Congress Needs to deal with its job and the courts need to be able to do their jobs and with the level of security that exists right now they cant. The question of what the constitution requires when it comes to americans giving occasions that are collected under executive order thats a question for the courts to decide. Marbury versus madison. Thats the role of the courts to make that decision. The court can review executive order because of the secrecy and the courts are facing some challenges to reviewing section 702. When it comes to the procedures in the rules and the protections for americans information policy decisions have enormous impacts on americans. Americans are the ones deciding what they are willing to accept a paid thats what a democracy is so for americans to do that they have to be able to have the information they have to be able to write letters, to write a mouse to their representatives in congress and become involved through the democratic process. The democratic process doesnt work well if there is not enough information out there. Think the Intelligence Community needs to understand, i applaud the Greater Transparency that we have seen from the Intelligence Community in the last two years and i think its extremely positive. Any positive features of the oversight structures put in place are not enough. We need checks and balances that we need the American People to govern themselves and as they do in a democracy and for that we need even Greater Transparency. Thank you very much for this go to the floor for questions. We have a little more than 10 minutes. I have a hard time seeing that this gentleman in the front. Yes sir, please. Hi thank you. I am retired u. S. Army. I think theres a difference between to have crystalclear information to the community and to the regular citizen. You can never have crystalclear information that you collect from a country to the regular citizen. In north korea with nuclear, it is a crisis. Many of the citizens dont know its happening. The u. S. Government intelligence intelligence, no one is going to do now but many times you have information. I think that may have been directed at me and if you dont mind i will address it. You are absolutely right. There is tension between the need to keep and tell sacred and the need for americans to have the information they need to engage in self governance. There is a tension there and we have to understand with that tension means pray anytime information is classified and withheld properly classified and withheld from the public the democratic process works a little less well. And it is the key question and we have come a long way and the of course, from that classification perspective or any information if you have an important source and if you draw the of circle around that source from what you black out you are well protected what that course secret is the more information that you read these the better the adversaries will be. That i have to be very quiet. So there is no question so the more we released information to and for what is redacted in that document. It is necessary we have to manage carefully because we are a democracy and people do need to be informed we have to have an informed discussion and the question of where to you draw the line is very difficult with careful work in a step by step responsible way and it is important to understand that it is very tangible this for the Intelligence Community that they could be instituting thousands of those so does that mean we dont have to get this right . But there are two parts to their right. One part with that plan transparency of those issues but the second part of that that day in and day out classifications where we put our resources. Stowe very much with the i turning to the of classification. But that could be problematic for the Intelligence Community. Sometimes it prevents us from sharing information. So getting back right is a benefit. But what i would add over classification can lead to unplanned transparency. That is another reason. Because people lose faith in the system. So people take it upon themselves when people deputize themselves what they decide the classification that with those cities that will get this problem for decades. Since that classification began and every time they would get the problem there is still massive over classification. To be a Bigger Picture classification through accountability. For over classification but i will let go into detail. I applaud everybody on the panel to defend their positions in a respectful manner and tavis of classified a lot of information even though i dont envy any of your jobs individuals that have not been held accountable with that leaking of information of what is classified to the general public does not help the of argument either way and lets get them as individuals that have betrayed the other side to expose xyz with that same period of time every Intelligence Officer will classified those markings just to protect from the shock wave from just using the internet. How you tackle the budget and not put their hands over their eyes. And to take unauthorized disclosures seriously and risen plea a string of criminal prosecutions certainly Civil Society and others going to far in either direction and i do think in my experience over criminal prosecution it is appropriate. Once it gets out you would recognize very well there in a difficult position because of the one hand it has not been publicly discussed because that would confer legitimacy of the information. We could not confirm nor deny but when discussing a particular topic we do take that into consideration to proactively through proper channels. With the prosecution i think he made the point they will take it upon them selves it is an act of civil conscience for pro. At all like the fact i dont of blake unauthorized disclosures information that is not a good way to handle what should not be classified of wrongdoing by the government. Is it better to have that with the government can act illegally . I would much prefer a third option that the law provides adequate protection within the Intelligence Community and i think if there is adequate protection for whistleblowers to have a reasonable belief they were in place but bill whole system would work much better to draw that line between disclosures and those that should be protected. There is a whole other category where Administration Officials are leaking in operation jude journalist in order to put the governments executive branches on issue. With that selective leaking and anon enforcement is very damaging to the system to underscore the issue of classification because if highlevel officials as they try to further the interest then clearly it never should have been classified. I hope you agree this has been a fascinating panel. [applause] speefive. The committee will come to order it as we hear testimony from a the ceo from equifax that held those positions until last week i understand you are now an unpaid advisor to the company that we appreciate your willingness to testify here about the events surrounding the breach and equifax response what you were leading the company. Given the severity congress will continue to examine the facts and what can be done to prevent