Then, Federal Reserve chair janet yellen testifying about the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. Likes this week, david medine, chairman of the privacy and Civil Liberties review board. They give for being here. What is the argosy and Civil Liberties review board . We decide what went wrong and what could be done better. We created the 9 11 commission to look at how we could he for intelligence gathering and connect the dots. Far downnot to go too that line to sacrifice our Civil Liberties. You are an independent board. Could you report to . Who do you report to . We inform congress and the president , but there is no review of our report. We issued a report recently about the Metadata Program and surveillance report. The board voted and issued our report. The president d before his speech with our recommendations. I think that is where alan ellen wants to pick up. Ask your board got constituted and mete at a very opportune time, right in the midst of the snowden, who put a huge spotlight on several important surveillance programs. , asof them is section 250 you mention. Your board came out with a 238 page report last month. Theuld say it is arguably most extensive analysis of the legal underpinnings and the ,tility of the 250 program which is, as most of the public now knows, a program where the msa collects metadata, data about phone calls of americans, and puts it in a database, to search through them when they have a suspected terrorists phone number, to search for links to that number and detect plots and networks. Your board came with the conclusion and recommendation that the program was illegal, did not meet the statute that it was based on. You also recommended it rightore and and out outright, should stop operating. President obama in his speech only met you halfway. He said, we find the program has utility. Use of to preserve the the data, but move it out of the hands of the government. What do you think of that . Do you think there is a feasible solution, such as putting the data in the hands of a third party . Is that feasible technologically or politically . President obama did track pretty closely what we recommended. We recommended an interim. We would have had more protections added. I hope that is considered. We both recommended the end of the 250 program, to move the information out of the nsa. We did it on constitutional and policy grounds. We do not believe that having a thirdparty handle the data is the right way to go. Shifting the data from one box to another does not solve the problem. The thirdparty what is their Legal Authority . . Re they subject to foia what safeguards do they have . How will they operate . We think that is not the way to go. It is far better to have the information accessed through other legal authorities been held by the providers. Providers. D by the how much of your concern has to do with the program itself, and how much has to do with the president the program sets . Once you have a program of that sort, why cant the government collect when i go to the supermarket and give them a loyalty card, they have the list of everything i have richest just in the last year. Can the government put that in the database as well . The implications are quite serious. The government could get all credit card transactions. Is that once the government starts gathering so much information about our everyday lives, it shifts the power between the citizens and the government. Will exercise their First Amendment rights to contact religious organizations, political organizations. If they know the government is monitoring every move, it might chill their exercise of those rights. We are concerned about broad policy issues. Has allelephone numbers those affects and lacks Legal Authority. , and lacks Legal Authority. Would it concern you if the government expanded requirements of what Telephone Companies are required to store . Do youtizen, how much care about what the government is Holding Versus private parties . Can interfere, perhaps not as hermetically as the government. They can cause problems. If the information is there, what is the practical difference . The government can audit your taxes, put you in jail. The government can do lots of things. There is a difference between data held by a private company and the government, which can impact your life in a more serious way. The Telephone Company is already required to keep its information 14 months. A calamity. Een some have suggested it might be necessary to keep it longer. Others have suggested that might be necessary, to have the providers hold the information. Directed theobama attorney general and director of National Intelligence to come up with options, alternatives to the Government Holding of data, on march 28. And to work with congress as well. Adoptions that congress can live with. That . Think they can do if not, what happens then . We have been in touch with that group and land on meeting with them to give our input on how to move forward. Are computer scientists, government officials, and others who think it is feasible to shift to others and be as feasible as it is today. We hope that will be a solution. Our program and the statute underlying it expires in june of next year. Does not act, the whole program will go away. Collects you do not think there is enough support in the congress . I cannot predict that. A lot of members of congress have raised concerns about this program. Be an approachll of stopping metadata collection of americans, shifting that to a more privacy protected, more focused approach. Keepingaid you think this data in the hands of the phone companies, either with the current retention requirement or something a little bit longer, would be as effective and efficient as the way the system works now. How effective and efficient is the system . There have been reports by ellen and others, saying the system may be is not that effective, and certainly not as comprehensive as many people have thought at the outset of this debate. The government has put together 12 instances where they said the program was particularly effective. Our board looked at both classified and unclassified information. We even had our write up. At the end of the day, we found no plots were supported. No terrorists were identified we did not know about earlier. On those big picture issues, not particularly effective. Knowing there was not a plot afoot in the United States is certainly a value. We felt other resources with bulk data would address that concern. One case which seemed to have unique value involve material support. Not an insignificant fact, but we felt that on balance that effect did not outweigh the concerns raised on the privacy and Civil Liberties side. The program is not comprehensive. You mentioned the peace of mind argument, which the government turned to after several months of trying to argue the program have been directly effective. How, they argue indirect benefit of ease of mind. If you had an alarm system on your home and it only operated on wednesdays and fridays, would you consider that a useful thing to have . Would you pay money for that, and would you keep it if it cost you other problems, like major lights flash . Like made your lights flash . That information remains classified, but the government has asserted the program is valuable and effective. Our conclusion, our majority, is that it is not enough to justify the program as it is. In a sense, you got lucky. The existence of this program was leaked by a document Edward Snowden shared with the guardian. , andhat program not leaked the government subsequently declassified it, how would you have handled the reporting of this program . Our board has the highest level security clearances. We have access to virtually every Government Program that relates to counterterrorism, which is our mission. In some cases, going forward, there may be programs that remain highly classified, where we do a report that only goes to the president and congress. If there is a version we can make public, we will. That was our goal in this report, which ended up being entirely unclassified. There is a program which still remains largely classified. We will try to speak to the American Public as much as we can about the constraints and what can be done about it. Can you do that now . Tell us a little bit about 702, for those who do not know. Program, which is sometimes misnamed prism, it is focused on contents. Metadata, we did not know who was calling or what they were saying. Is being sent on the phone calls or the contents of the emails. That program is focused on non u. S. Persons, and those outside of the United States. You have to be not a u. S. Person and outside the United States. Countries typically engage in on foreigners, particularly outside our borders. Is required. L i am not sure there is any other country in the world that requires for approval for surveillance outside the United States. To embark on at review of the program. It raises interesting issues. One is, at the end of that phone call, maybe an american on one and end. How should that day to be treated, particularly if the government wants to query it later on . And the effectiveness of the program. Absolutely. The program is reportedly extremely effective. Being an independent evaluation board, we want to take a hard look at that and find out what metrics were used. The onlyree that metric should not be thwarting plots. A lot of benefits to these programs. Connecting the dots. Providing valuable intelligence. Guiding the president in his actions. We are certainly going to question the government and test the proposition that this program is as effective as it is reported to be. Looking at the legality and constitutionality, two of your Board Members dissented. One of them i think said it was not the role of the board to assess legality. That is the role of the courts. What do you say to that . We are going to look at legality. The board member did not say we were not authorized to do that. It is a matter of allocating resources. If you look at our statute, Congress Told us to do two things evaluating programs related to enter terrorism. One is to balance Civil Liberties, and the other is to assess compliance with law. It is part of the congressional mandate. If it is an ongoing program, it is important to know whether it operates within the law. We will be looking at its operations, its legality, constitutional issues it may raise. And the balance between private ,ecurity and Civil Liberties how secure it is and what impact it has on americans. Little bitou are a lucky that the 205 program came up first. 702, the purposes are many. Counterterrorism is just one. There is counter weapons of mass destruction. Informationhering about what other governments are doing. There may be other areas the 702 program is used for. It is not limited by its terms to terrorism. The board mandate, as i understand it, the statute is limited to terrorism. How are you going to do this . Are you going to be assessing this in respect to these other metrics that you do not have the Statutory Authority to examine . We are going to be mindful of our statutory limits. To g at counterterror counterterrorism and other efforts it will be hard to separate those things out. Our focus will be on counterterrorism. Will it be useful for congress to tweak the language under which you are created, to expand a little bit, so it is not strictly counterterrorism . If Civil Liberties are being invaded, it may not matter that much with the reason is. Theare talking about other side of it is, we are a new agency with a tiny staff. We are just getting established. Expanding our mission right now certainly, we would do that if congress wanted us to do that. We are still scaling up the agency and getting started, staffing up. We have 20 within the Counterterrorism Program there are 16 intelligence agencies we oversee. We already have quite a big mandate as it is. What about other bulk collection programs . Will you be taking a look at those, perhaps financial many transfer programs minitransf programs, or the discontinued internet Metadata Program . We have not really established our agenda. Once we finish the 700 to report the president , as you know, asked john podesta to take a look more broadly. We are also meeting with his group and with him to discuss our perspective on that issue. Ofgeneral, the collection all committed data and its use does raise interesting concerns for us. You mentioned the legal analysis you did. There is one person on the board very qualified to do legal analysis, former judge patricia wald. Interactiont the inside the board. How did that work . Did some of you take more responsibility for some aspects of the study, and others look more at other issues . Tell us a bit more about the makeup of the board and who has what kinds of expertise. We are an independent bipartisan board, so no more than three members can be in the same political party. Circuitld was with edc the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. She was given the president ial medal of freedom a couple of months ago. She has also served on other missions. A valuable resource for us. I should add i am the only fulltime board member. The other four are parttime. Judge weld is a retired judge, in jim dempsey works technology. Rachel brand works for the chamber of commerce. We all bring our different perspectives. I think you can see from our work product that we are a collegial group. If you look at statements, they acknowledge how well we got along. These are tough issues. They are difficult issues. Seetol hill, you will different sides. The president advocates certain views. The question is how you strike the right balance. Intensesometimes discussions. Weof the 12 recommendations made were unanimous. All of the recommendations regarding reform of the Foreign Surveillance board, all but one involving transparency, and all but one involving the 215 program. How does your agency go about raising concerns . . S it just this report where do you go with them . We have an oversight function. We also have an advice program. We work with the agencies as they are developing their programs. One of the things we are doing right now in addition to our 702 report is meeting with agencies to give them feedback on programs. We are in negotiation with agencies to make sure, as they develop programs or change their guidelines regarding existing programs, that we put in those. We also have to meet with members of congress, congressional committees. We try to provide input in various ways. If these agencies do not listen to you . Enough, ourngly statute requires us to Tell Congress that we recommended the agency do something and they did not follow our advice. We are required by law to report when that happens. To anant to take you back earlier position about how you might have handled reporting on the section 215 program, had it not been declassified. One of your recommendations is that the government report publicly on the scope of surveillance activities that affect americans. How much could you have made public . Said there is a program that collects telephone metadata . What came out in testimony earlier this week is our board had been briefed on the 215 program, and the person who was briefing us was hit by a car on a bike and it had to be rescheduled. We operate in an area where there is a lot of classified information. Are able to push for declassification to help the American People understand a program. If we find aspects of the program or the entire program where we think there is a public going towe consider the Intelligence Community and saying, please declassify these programs so we can have a fuller. Ational debate we do not want a secret law where the American People cannot determine whether a program has been authorized. We also urge the government to report more on Information Collection activities. Moreo let customers know about the government requests they are achieving. Tech companies have reached an agreement to disclose more about what kinds of requests they get from the government. Are there any programs you are pushing for more declassification . We are embarking on the 702 program, and that could come up in the course of reporting on that program. You have been following these issues for some time. How do you see the countrys attitudes on this question of the balance between National Security and privacy changing . That has takene place in the last few months have taken place eight years ago, nine years ago . We are 12 years post 9 11. In the courts. S almost all decisions in this area i do not want to say rubberstamp. Time, in the last two months, we have seen in the 200 significantrogram a decision saying it was not constitutional. We have seen a few decisions describing how these Counterterrorism Programs have gone. Do you think there is greater maturity on these issues . You think there has been a shift in how the government feels about this now . 9 11, i the horror of think the first action was to beef up our efforts. On, i think wee have struck up more of a balance between National Security and privacy and Civil Liberties concerns. Poll where a substantial percentage of people said they would not give up their privacy and Civil Liberties, and that was after a horrific event. Our board sits in the middle of a debate. We are not an Advocacy Organization where we ignore the consequences to National Security. We have to strike the balance and say, how can we protect the country and benefit privacy and Civil Liberties . The 9 11 commission and the president have said the same thing. If we give up one, we have lost a lot. Time for a couple more questions. Order 12333, which is domestic, is not part of their mandate. Given this increasingly borderless world of the internet , and the fact that communications collected overseas include communications of americans, do you think your mandate ought to stretch to include that . We do not have jurisdiction matters, because they involve every Intelligence Agency is required whenve guidelines collecting information, particularly about americans. Some of those guidelines were decades old. Was not text messaging decades ago. Here has been help the debate we have encouraged those guidelines be updated. 12333 very much of a activity. Do you think it is time for a unified set of privacy . Is elected on u. S. Citizens, or overseas. There are different contexts and benefits of programs. Issues,e different whether it is u. S. Or nonu. S. Persons. Our system has to work properly. I think there are unique factors. It may not be same size fits all. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. We are back with our reporters, josh gerstein, ellen nakashima. What happens next with the nsa surveillance programs, whether capitol hill or the white house . In january, president obama ,ade a big speech at the forum and outlined reforms he wanted to see happen. One big one was, he wanted to see an end to the nsa collection of telephone metadata as it currently exists. He did not say outright. He said as it currently exists. He ordered his director of National Intelligence to come up with alternatives to the Government Holding of the phone metadata by march 28. They are going to have to come up with some options. Then, there are several other reforms that can be done curtail thevely to collection or the analysis, and some of them need congressional approval, like setting up a advocatesndependent who can provide a privacy or Civil Liberties viewpoint. That would require congressional approval. On the hill, you have a divided congress. There are those who believe section 215 should remain and stay as it is. They would like to see it put into statute and codified. There are others who are humanly believe it is illegal, and the statute does not authorize it. In his speech, he did not bring it up. The white house takes the position it is legal. They have been running the Program Since 2009. In an expanded fashion, at one point, it it got email information. The white house does take that position. On capitol hill, i have almost never seen an issue where lawmakers are so splintered. It is not one of these issues where they are divided between republicans and democrats, or divided between democrats and moderate republicans and then conservative republicans. People are all over the map. There are a lot of lawmakers in the senate and the house who degree to agree on a lot of issues who disagree on this issue. A lot of it is where you stand. People on the Intelligence Community are gung ho and in the detail of how these programs are carried out. People at both ends of the there arectrum other people at different random points along the line that have formed alliances along the reform legislation. There does not seem to be consensus. Those in favor of major reforms are setting it down are unlikely the fisavocates to court. Rand paul has decided he is going to sue and wants millions of americans to sign up. Where does it go from there . There are several cases pending in courts. At the u. S. District court level, we have two competing decisions. Washington, the judge said the section 215 program is constitutional. Another judge held that it is constitutional. The process can take months if not years. Lawsuits,tion to the we have criminal cases. A lot about them. If you broaden it to the 700 to program this panel is going to be looking into next, there are a lot of cases that came directly or indirectly from that program. In each of those cases, the voters, once they find out if happened, or filing a motion saying the program is not constitutional. This is something the court is not going to be able to dodge more than another year or two. It is almost guaranteed that several decisions, whether it be this isfendants going to be dropped in the laps of justices. Within a year or two, they are going to have to resolve this question. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Janet yellen, the new federal leehe context is that enjoys a reputation in the modern day as someone who counseled acceptance. T has always struck me as it is a sort of theory that does not add up, in a sense. We know lee was the most petite in the prestigious man cells. But we know the south did not submit to the political will of the north. Confederates began quickly to contest the northern understanding of the meaning of the war and the peace. They tested them through political means and extralegal means, violent means. What i found was that, in the eyes of confederates, lee was not a symbol of submission. He was a symbol of a kind of unbowed pride and a kind of measure of defiance. Lee atinking grant and appomattox, this morning at 11 00 eastern, part of a threeday president s day weekend on American History tv. Here they are, closing in. I am still thinking, when i went theygh survival school, taught us that the people who capture you are probably the ,east trained to capture pows so your best time to escape his right then. I thought, ok, these are rookies, so i have two rounds of tracer in three rounds of ball. I went like this. Get back. Ive fired a round of tracer over their head. They did not flinch. They just raised their rifles like this. One of them reaches in his pocket and pulled out a little it was like the comic book some carried in the pocket, with drawings on one side and be enemies fanatics on the other. The drawing showed been capturing an american pilot with the uniform and his hands up. Surrender. Said up. Up will stop hands i am facing about nine long guns staring at me, and i decided that was probably the best advice i was going to get that day. Hands up. A former air force pilot and vietnam pow, lee ellis, tonight on q a. Yellen testifying about the feds
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.