Transcripts For CSPAN Security Versus Privacy 20131104

Having their work examined by intelligence commissioners and insure they act under proper legal basis. I take those responsibilities very, very seriously but i believe we have a good system in this country and we can be proud of people that work in it and proud of the people that oversee it. David anderson. Mr. Speaker, we mentioned the Energy Companies have been outsourced to china, french, lights may go out, pensions will freeze this year and we have big six. Does the Prime Minister have any regrets by former tory movement and defamation of the in the world . What i would say, to the honorable gentleman in terms of Energy Security that he back ad government that in 13 years never built a single Nuclear Power station. Oh they talked about it, boy, did they talk about, but they never actually got it done. In terms of chinese and french investment, i think we should welcome Foreign Investment into our country, building these important utilities so we can use our fire power for the schools and the hospitals and roads and railways we need. Andrew percy. There are, in my constituency, sure to be over 100 Wind Turbines and 30 or 40 in the planning system. These turbines are paid for by my constituents but not restricteded to concreting jobsn my constituency. Can he assure changeses to green subsidies, that the jobs in that sector of energy are actually here in the United Kingdom . Well, i know how hard my honorable friend has worked with other mps on a crossparty basis across the region to try to attract investment into our country and we should continue to target that investment. Will the Prime Minister join me paying tribute to the positive role played by trade unions in the work of the Automotive Council which has brought the renaissance in the u. K. Car industry . I think the Automotive Council has been extremely successful. Where trade unions play a positive role i will be the first to praise them but where, where, frankly, where frankly we have a real problem with a rogue trade union that who nearly brought the petrochemical industry to its knees we need to have a proper inquiry, a labour inquiry of if they had any courage, any vision, any strength of decisionmaking they recognize they need to have the question time airs live on c every wednesday and sunday nights at 9 p. M. Eastern and pacific. You can watch it on www. C span. Org, were you will find video of other programs. Next, a discussion of security versus privacy. Seer that another chance to british Prime Minister David Cameron taking questions from the house of commons. Author Neil Degrasse tyson on americas call for engineers. As nasa goes, so does america. If nasa is healthy you dont need a program to convince people it is good to do. They will see it. We are going to dig through the and look for life. Look at the nasa portfolio. It has biology, geology, aerospace engineers, electrical the stem fields. Science, technology, engineering, and math. Nasa is a wheel that a Healthy Society cap. Book tv has aired 40,000 programs about nonfiction books and authors. Next, a discussion about privacy versus security. The Rand Corporation hosted this panel, which includes the special agent in charge of intelligence in the senior aclu attorney. This is just under an hour. Let me introduce the speakers. You are going to figure out who they are once they start to talk to they are not seated yet. Its a great topic and a great panel. Henry is one of the young stars. Analyst and senior a professor at the graduate school. That is him at the far end. He is an expert on risk analysis and decision techniques across a wide range of issues and recently testified before it toss, applying homeland issues. George, in charge of intelligence. We are glad george can represent the agency tonight. He has been in various capacities for the fbi, focusing on intelligence and weapons of mass instruction. To fort taken him hoover, and he also has been the on scene commander in iraq. Is next to him is the ambassador cameron. He is a retired career diplomat now. He was the ambassador to pakistan from 2010 until 2012. He will have hairraising stories about that relationship at a time when relations were not easy, including the capture. Nd killing of Osama Bin Laden before that he had an assignment in baghdad where he had responsibility for overseeing the planning of the drawdown of u. S. Troops. He had a mission in the Czech Republic and poland. He served in the security counsel under president clinton and bush. Is the senioreast staff attorney at the aclu Southern California office. The distinction of having one important cases against the lapd over searching entertaining , and theyskid row were raiding africanamerican barbershops without a warrant. And haseen a law clerk a distinguished career both outside and inside the aclu. Please join me and welcoming our distinguished panel. [applause] henry, over to you. Thank you, gred. Greg. We are here to talk about security and privacy. Events of the last two years have put these in the forefront. The boston bombing reminded us that terrorism is still an ex officio and existential threats. A month later, Edward Snowden began releasing revelations about massive surveillance that our government was doing. This kicked off a healthy public debate about how we balance privacy and security. As you heard from greg, it is our mission at rand to improve the quality of Public Policy decisionmaking. That is why we brought together this panel. People who have different views. Everyone here has deep expertise. We are hoping to have an open discussion. There will be some things and questions they will be unable to answer because of the situations. We will try to guide the discussion over a few topics. We will start with trying to understand what works with Intelligence Security and why we feel we need to put measures in place. We are then going to turn to what are the increased risks of mass collection of data on the public . Finally, what are the implications of this on how we implement Foreign Policy. It serves as an overarching of the things i would like to see us cover. I would like to start with the first question on the rent we face and why we need security. If there are no random no benefits, we do not need security. How has the threat of terrorism changed over the past decade and how have our methods adaptive . It has changed in relatively significant ways. It is a far more diffuse threat than it was 10 or 15 years ago. It is not necessarily align to buy group, but principally by ideology and other driving fact theres, driving factors. Secondly, the threat seems to progress at times very rapidly. What may appear to be a localized threat today could be on our doorstep tomorrow. Lastly, they do not necessarily appear based on their actions in recent actions are indicators of that. Big and complex attacks are their goal or their aim to accomplish their objectives. Relatively small in comparison attacks that are relatively simple to put together and execute seem to be a preference. They have the same tools we all have to communicate in a worldwide capacity, through the internet and other social media, which makes communicating plans and intentions relatively easy, and also to gain support and materials. These are some of the challenges weve inc. We are responding to. These are some of the challenges we think we are responding to. As someone who spent the last 10 years out of the United States, this is not something americans will seek to deal with on their own. This is going to take some sort of cooperation with foreigners, those who are friendly to us in understanding those foreign and understanding those foreign elements who are not really to us. It is not just an american task. You make a big mistake if we see it as only hours. From a security this, what types of steps is important for us to be able to take . From my organizations if, we have to show Due Diligence that we do not dismiss even what may be the smallest allegation. But to do that within the construct provided to us through congress and stemming from our constitution. Make sure that we leave no stone unturned and that we do that with the responsibility to protect the citizens. That aspect of our work is present every day. Even with predicated investigations and facts that can be substantiated, we must balance that with the responsibility to maintain Civil Liberties and privacy. We cannot do everything that may be available to us until we can demonstrate lesser intrusive methods have been effective. Every day, men and women with the fbi work toward accomplishing that mission recognizing they have that responsibility of policy Civil Liberties and privacy along the way. Let me jump in here. From an outsiders perspective looking at Law Enforcement practices, not only federal Law Enforcement, but also local enforcement like lapd or in way pd nypd, it seems that Law Enforcement has shifted from a traditional Law Enforcement model finding bad guys, investigating them, seeing if you can find their friends and invest gave them, to more of an intelligence and investigate them, to more of an intelligence model, collecting information and collecting dots, which might appear innocuous. And put together, it might reveal some sort of crime. Whether that is the nsa program gathering metadata or suspicious activity or porting programs and local programs suspicious activity or reporting programs. There has been a shift to collecting lots of data. There is a question as to whether that is an effective model. Look at william websters Community Report on the fort hood shooting. One of the conclusions is that intelligence analysts missed intelligence because of a relentless work load created by an explosion of data they have to process. There is a question about whether this is adding more hay to the haystack and an ineffective way to police. Thank you for bringing up those points. You also highlighted that Law Enforcement has a couple of rolls. They have the role of investigating crimes. In today Law Enforcement has a couple of roles. George, you mentioned there is an effort to try to do this within the realm of protecting Civil Liberties. There is a history of cases where some of those Civil Liberties have been abused so checks have been put in place. I would like to ask your view on where those checks are effective and where you might have some concerns. There are a lot of checks that have been put in place. Some are less effective than others. Within the nsa programs we are seeing, a lot of checks have proven ineffective. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment sets up a warrant requirement. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The shift to a more universal collection mechanism requires the bypassing of that. Whether that is true, the oak warrants issued bulk warrants issued through fisa courts or the data gathered outside any kind of warrant. But that model seems to be and in effect of way of overseeing ineffective way of overseeing. What is in effect it is the secrecy. One of the things that is stunning about the revelations and the scope of the programs is how far they have gone without any public discussion. Also, in the context of the fisa courts, we have seen fisa judges saying, we are not the most effective check on this. We cannot evaluate the information resented to us in onesided situations in a one sided preceding where there is no adversary. He cannot supervise what is being done with our orders, what is being acted on, because we are just a court. The secrecy and adversarial nature of the fisa court is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. That brings to the next brings us to the next part of this discussion. We have heard about the things we need to do to respond. I get asked a question, are we safer because of what we do . In many ways, that is the wrong question. The question we posed that is, what have we gained in terms of safety and what have we lost . I will turn back to peter to start with. What are some of the risks of mass surveillance . It is always difficult to articulate the value of privacy thomas but i will give it a shot. Value of privacy, but i will give it a shot. There are a few answers to that. Most people are doing something wrong. [laughter] it may be not what they think. Running red lights, sloppy reparation of your tax returns. Preparation of your tax returns. People do things wrong. Government does not always target bad guys or who they think are bad guys for exactly the reasons you might inc. All capone was reasons you might think. Al capone was gotten on tax evasion. A lot of times we see what seems to be contextual charges brought. An investigation that has a National Security agent on it results in an immigration charge or a the poor patient proceeding or a deportation proceeding. Somebody gets into their head the idea that you are doing something wrong. That can create a problem. Government is made up of people who are fallible. Individuals can abuse the power that has been given to them. That includes world actors. Rogue actors. Edward snowden did not do what the government expected. In los angeles there was the public disorder and Intelligence Division that compiled information and used it for political purposes. Information that is collected for Law Enforcement and security purposes is often used on political groups. If i could provide some perspective. The fbi operates through mandates that are codified in statute laws written by our congress and signed by the president into law. That process has produced, appropriately and necessarily, oversight, not just in the executive branch of government itself. The department of justice is obviously in the fbi as well. But also with the congress and through the court system and the judicial branch. That is to make sure that they and and day out, the work we are doing day in and day out, the work we are doing is representing the people of the United States and is what is required at that point in time. They have an expectation that we use those tools. They have an eagle expectation that we balance the use of those tools equal expectation that we balance the use of those tools in a predicated investigation for which we are allowed to use those tools to protect Civil Liberties and privacy. Just because we have the authority by law to use certain techniques, we have a responsibility and a requirement to do so in a manner that is least intrusive whenever possible. Sometimes, even an interview is to intrusive. If we think you have been involved in wrongdoing because we have received information and we cant corroborate aspects of it and we are authorized to open and we can corroborate aspects of it and we are authorized to open investigation, we can have a discussion with you at your work lace. The interview itself at your work place. The interview itself is less intrusive, but doing it at your work place is an intrusion on your privacy. This causes people to have concerns they should not have. We take care to measure the technique used and the manner it might be used before we do it. Oversight is provided by the leadership as well as those individuals responsible for conducting the investigation. That happens as a matter of practice every day. Some of the discussion highlights a couple of things that leads to the conflicts that we are talking about. Maybe because of this there might be intimidation. There might the First Amendment concerns or the possibility of an unwarranted search. Peter, can you expand on the way people have framed whether or not these constitutional concerns are at risk . That is certainly a concern. We have seen that. It goes back to the point i was making earlier about surveillance being targeted against political groups, whether it was surveillance of Martin Luther king during the 1960s by the fbi, or whether the fbi placed its own undercover agents inside the occupied sandy relief efforts. That has a real potential to chill peoples political activity, people who may want to go out and participate in occupied sandy relief efforts or the original occupied efforts. It may be chilled if people think their participation may be noted and that may have repercussions down the road. This is a good audience to convey that point. There are young people who might want jobs that rants or with the state department who might have second thoughts you might want jobs at rand or with the state department who might have second thoughts. To go back to the oversight, there is a legal issue with oversight by the courts, particularly surveillance. There is a doctrine that says you cannot challenge a program unless you can prove you have been harmed by it and your objective reaction to the existence of the program is not enough. You have to prove you have been targeted. Nobody can prove they have been targeted by secret surveillance programs. The aclu has brought the challenge of warrantless surveillance programs and they have been thrown out. The court says, we understand you may be a journalist and you let you may be chilled because you have a reasonable believe you may be monitored. You cannot prove you are being monitored. We are not going to take the case. That takes the court out of the oversight picture and that is a real problem. One aspect of some of that is the concerns you discussed about people being affected by awareness of surveillance not choosing to do something. Isnt that already happening . News stories about employers looking at facebook sites. I wrote an email on gmail the other day. Based on what i wrote, it asked me if i wanted to put something on my calendar. With changes in technology, what is the fuss about . This is an open question, if anybody would like to respond. [applause] these types of dialogs are very important. These discussions are the things our elected officials consider when they decide to make changes in our laws. Things that change the landscape of the laws that were enacted when those things did not exist. That is very important. To get back to the point on political groups, for example. A scenario where we have a situation where we have a predicated investigation, a violation of federal law has occurred or will occur. It is determined that the people involved are either a political candidate, a politician, or involved in a political organization. That steps up the oversight. We recognize the effect that might have in chilling peoples involvement in political activity. It gets even more oversight and scrutiny that it would if that identical situation existed and there was not a political entity or an individual involved in politics in that articular act. We respond differently than we would in other circumstances that do not have that dimension involved. I recognize that framework is there in the fbi. It is an internal guidance structure. I am not sure how widely it is applied with political leaders. Political activity is capable f broad definitions. Martin luther king is going to go through particular rocedures. With respect to the technology question, there are a couple of things. We are generating a lot more data in this digital age than we were before, whether it is emails or your cell phones sending out information about your location. There are some ramifications, some of which are small fixes and some of which are big fixes. There is the thirdparty doctrine and law that says if you are sharing of nation with a third party like a bank or your cell phone provider, you do not have an expectation of privacy with respect to the ourth amendment. That is a doctrine developed in he 1960s. Maybe then we felt we would not have an expectation of privacy and data we were sharing, but today, all of our communications and location every moment is being tracked. There is a question about whether we need to shift our view of what is private with respect to corporations. We cannot have a different standard for corporations than the federal government. We could not ask the police to get a warrant for information hey could buy. We need to think about the relationship we have to our data and whether there is some privacy we feel in our data even when it resides with a corporation and changing that framework as well. I have wondered why i am here. I have finally figured out what it is is to make sure these guys to not get too close to each other. Not that i am going to give you anything that is more trenchant on domestic affairs. Just a little bit about context, and i am not trying to say because the contextual boundaries my colleagues are speaking on our limited. Lets remember that the threat from 911 did not come from nside the United States. There is a very real threat outside the United States, one that is not always playing by the same rules that we do. While i am not critical of the need to have a debate on that level, i ask that we open up a dimension of taking into account the rules foreigners play by. The germans have a real problem ith secrecy. That makes them very concerned when they find out what we think is a sincere effort to sift through this data, you go hrough the material in germany similarly, the french. The french do lots of naughty things. Brazil has even talked about this. If you are going to have a means of coming to an agreement on this, we must not limit it to our domestic issues whether they are legal, moral, or practical. It has to have an International Dimension because it is not just about us. It is about other people thinking in other ways. Many of the ways caused the ttack. By the rules we play by, it is important that we make our situation clear, but not ignore the fact that there are different cultures and different historical backgrounds. We are not used to talking about things. We are talking about the denial of due process to american citizens. We are also talking about the denial of due process to people who are not americans. What does the constitution say about that . Not much. That does not mean our constitution is wrong. But it would be a mistake not to think about the impact these things have around the world. While that does not solve any of these problems, i wanted to throw that in. I would like to follow that up. You did nicely broaden the discussion a bit. There is a threat we face. Revelations about surveillance that started a discussion. Did they change anything about our ability to conduct Foreign Policy or to understand what the threats we face are . I think so, and one of the lessons of the last 10 or 15 years is we are not doing this in a vacuum. The intelligence work around the world and the Law Enforcement cooperation for all you read in the newspapers about the difficulties with other countries, it is extraordinary the cooperation we have with other countries in Law Enforcement and intelligence. I would like to see a better understanding of that in the public sphere. That likeminded people can agree on certain precepts. It is understood that there are certain rules we need to follow together. That cooperation is an untold story that is quite positive. On the other hand, if we simply rely on the uncritical use of data not taking into account the fact that the world is a complex place, we are going to make the mistakes you make when you do not understand a foreign culture and cannot apply the intelligence to the way people act. As we work to support our Law Enforcement officials in what they are doing, we also need to think about the way intelligence is organized and the way intelligence works. In certain parts of the world like pakistan, where our efforts to work against terrorism are poorly understood, we do ourselves a disservice if we rely too much n secrecy. Giving you a general account, we have a program known as the Drone Program in that part of the world. It is a secret program, but it is something you read about on the front page of the new york times. There are those of us who work in the government who think that is a program that can be a humane program. Drones are accurate weapons. If used judiciously, they can lead to a less savage way of ighting a very real war. If the public understand this correctly, if governments share this information in the right way, our chances of building a national and International Consensus based on the understanding of what this weapon can be used for is much greater. The secrecy has held us ack. We could go on discussing this among ourselves. The goal is to have a discussion. I would like to open it up to discussion from the floor. If you raise your hand, they will bring you a microphone. We will do our best to identify as many people as we can. We have about 25 minutes for q a, and we will start in the front. Thank you for a fascinating conversation. Mr. Ambassador, i have two questions for you. Focusing on foreign leaders and their communications, how has it impacted our ability to work with them in trying to get them to get more security taking care of . Is that the fault of Edward Snowden for releasing that information, or the fault of the u. S. . The other question i have let me start with that so i dont forget it. One thing my colleagues are talking about is where are the limits of trust and the limits of judgment . These are extraordinarily hard things to measure. You have powers that you can use. Should you use them . That question, is what has happened has that hurt us . Yes. When you are dealing with foreign governments and they are surprised by what you do, that is basic diplomacy 101. You try to build trust with countries. If you do not build trust, it is harder to do things. Does it mean you should not have surveillance . That is something for our friends to discuss. Believe me, they are not people who dont use surveillance, either. The question is how do you do that . How do likeminded people develop the judgment and trust to Work Together . A guy like Edward Snowden remember, there is an old saying. I hope none of you are journalists. The difference between a diplomat and a journalist is that a diplomat knows many things he does not say. A journalist says many things e does not know. Aside from trying to be cute, what we are trying to say is is it wrong not to say everything . If i am in a sensitive conversation overseas as a diplomat, and i am told something in confidence and that message was the persons life in danger and that has happened to me. When a guy like Bradley Manning or Edward Snowden decides he has to put that in public, they ave broken down trust. Talking about who is the good guys or the bad guys thing i will not come down one way or another. As a diplomat, i do not do that. I would urge you making someone a hero or a total villain is a difficult uestion. For them to blast out totally in public without any secrecy, that can be a violation of the privacy that people had in talking to them. It is an ambiguous problem. The only way you can deal with it is with a scale of judgment. Sorry to cut you off. Lets go to a question on this side. I would like a definition of privacy today from each of you. Given the data that floats around and given the notion that the government is collecting metadata, what is privacy as you see it today . O we have a right to it . Peter . Sure. I have a quick and totally useless definition. Privacy is information you reasonably expect not to be shared with some section of the opulation. It can be situational. You can have privacy visavis some individuals but not everybody. You may go to the gym and change in front of people in the locker room, but you do not expect a video of you changing to be posted on the nternet. There is a lot of the trouble is in the definition of what is reasonable to expect not to be shared with whom. That is a conversation we have to have as a society. It is all about societal expectation. In their troubling and descriptive aspects, what we do not share with others. And there are normative aspects. What the Technology Age has done is have millions of people go online and inadvertently shared data that they do not that they think they are not sharing with other people. But everybody is doing it. Is privacy what we are actually doing or what everybody thinks we should be doing . I will give panelists time to think on what they want to add. I will just add another aspect of our research here at rand. It was motivated by a seminal court case. A warrant was given for a drug bust based on monitoring of a house with an infrared camera that showed there was more energy coming out of that house than you would expect. There were grow lights. Should there be an expectation of privacy of not being able to see heat coming off of a house with a camera . It highlights that as technology advances, our expectation of that may change. Should we move to someone else . Privacy is defined from a Law Enforcement perspective by ase law. Decisions made by the courts, particularly the supreme court. We make adjustments. In a more practical sense, when we swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution, we do so with an acknowledgment that it contains Civil Liberties and a privacy responsibility. We have to apply the responsibility to maintain privacy strictly within keeping with applicable laws, but also an understanding that the main responsibility from a Law Enforcement perspective and the Domestic Intelligence responsibilities is that we do so in consideration of the individual that is being looked at. In the end, what we are looking at every day is simply the truth constrained by applicable laws that we are allowed to operate in and a recognition that we have responsibility to protect Civil Liberties and privacy. That constraint drives the Decision Making of our agents. The truth may be exoneration. This individual that we are looking at deserves not to be affected by this investigation. If we determine that the truth indicates that this individual has done nothing wrong. That is important. We see that as essential to our responsibility. That is why we conduct our investigations as we do making sure that if the truth took us to a different place, other people were not damaged by t. Yes, there seems to be a horrible cost associated with some of the revelations that have come out recently. The United States reputation has taken a huge beating. Whether it be in brazil where they are talking about changing their email system, or the European Union talking about not sending data to the United States. There is a downside to the revelations about everything that we have been doing by vacuuming up all this data. Did anyone ever consider that if this stuff became Public Knowledge that we would be in deep, deep, deep trouble with our allies . We are also enabling our enemies. Chinese telecommunications vendors are now saying you should consider using our equipment because it is not bugged by the nsa. This is happening now it is not being reported, but it is a field i am interested in. What about the costs to our reputation and the consideration that maybe if we can do some things, we should not do some things . Let me take a whack at this one. I think there is a tendency to think that because this has happened, and it has done damage i agree with you it was something people thought about and did not think it was important. There is a problem that when you are doing difficult analysis to find very bad people and you have masses of data, a lot of people put their head down and just work at it. That leads to the other question. Who is watching the people who are doing it . Who is making the policy decisions for those people . To assume we did not think about it there is something intrinsic about this operation that makes people put their nose to the grindstone and do t. We may be learning this the hard way. We recognize that this has to be discussed at a policy level with our friends around the world so that it is a question of, yes, this is hard work that does not lend itself to reflection because it is so massive. Yet it has to be one of the elements we get used to putting on the agenda for the asiapacific summits, for the larger meetings we have. I do not see that as a way to dupe the brazilians. It is a result of the massive problem that we have not caught up with. We have to talk with the brazilians and the french and everyone else about this. They are not going to not want o talk about this. May i just preface my remarks to you, cameron, when i visited pomona, i fell in love with this school, and ever since then i called it the amherst of the west. I am a covertocover reader of the wall street journal, and at least once a week, i read devastating reports that the drones are not doing what you suggested, incredibly accurate. The wall street journal is pointing out regularly the disastrous side effects of civilian killings. How do you reconcile these two points of view . Since i do not want to go to jail, i will not tell you everything you want to ear. Claims have been made about the use of drones in pakistan or yemen where they say there are numbers bandied about of civilians killed. My experience is that those numbers are grossly exaggerated, and i call for greater openness. The reason i call for greater openness is that we have a greater story to tell than we are allowed to tell because of the secretness of this program. I am not at liberty to talk to you about numbers. But the fact is, i believe, if we could figure out a way to be more forthcoming with the public in the United States and with the public in pakistan and with pesky british ngos, we could make the case that might ave a benefit, rather than having speculation that is ideologically motivated. Wildly proamerican reports saying there are zero people dying. It would be wise of us to have less secrecy so we could make hose points. There was a reference made to the difference between intelligence gathering and Law Enforcement. I understand the constitution protects us from a fishing xpedition. How can we draw a distinction between Law Enforcement activity and the fishing activity and then National Security interests in gathering information to prevent threats to National Security . I can start with the civil libertarian viewpoint and open it up. From my perspective, it is about particularized suspicion. If lawenforcement targets for investigation individuals because they have a reason to believe they are doing something wrong, that is a lawenforcement model, and it is a model that has worked well to address crime, even serious crime that causes lots of brutality throughout this country. That is the model that we used to address gangs or organized crime. What we have seen is that there has been a shift to that. And it is not to the broad collection, whether it is looking at the nsa or domestic programs, in Southern California, local jurisdictions are setting up license plate readers everywhere. It is to find stolen cars, but they also want to gather large amounts of information on everybody whether they have ommitted a crime or not. The fbi changed its internal regulations to allow a category of assessments that do not acquire a factual predicate. There has been a move to more bulk collection of data. That is true. Post 911 there was an acknowledgment that we cannot simply work on discrete matters that are the focus of predicated investigations alone. There is an expectation that in all matters of threat issues, we look forward. That is an expectation that the fbi and others prevent bad things from happening before they happen. The important question is, how is that done . We go back to ensuring we are protecting Civil Liberties and the privacy of the American People while moving forward to protect the American People not only from National Security threats but from criminal threats as well. The attorney general authorized the use of the assessment process. The assessment process is intentionally and deliberately limited. It must have an authorized purpose. An authorized purpose may not be, shall not be an assessment opened based on what is already protected by the First Amendment. To ensure we are not pursuing because of religion, because of national origin, because people are out assembling peacefully and freely as they are allowed to by the First Amendment and so forth. It makes it clear that you cannot conduct an assessment if that is your sole reason for doing it. There are many other appropriate reasons for doing assessments. We can talk about migrations of gangs. When we are looking at the evolution of the gang problem, and we recognize it is a problem we face today. What is it going to look like tomorrow and what can appropriately be done by Law Enforcement to address that problem tomorrow today so that we are not dealing with another big regional, national, or transnational gang tomorrow . That may mean that in that authorized purpose with clear objectives and trying to define what that gang, they might look at population data where it ight be logical based on historical examples where it might crop up tomorrow and then engage on explaining what the problem might be, then involving many parts of the community, not just the Law Enforcement dimension. Not only recognizing that potential but being proactive in our actions to take care of it. A lot of it has to do with Engaging Community leaders. What can we do together to prevent it . It is good for Law Enforcement nd good for communities. In short, we do not wait for the lead to come in, that we are mandated by our leaders to look forward at problems to do the best that we can to prevent courses and to do that every day. The question i have is the notion of sovereignty and threats and security have even all over the last 20 or 30 years. How does this impact the doctrine of the right to protect if we have already set a precedent with the u. N. Righttoprotect interventions beginning in the 1990s . General keith has said the nsa and the cyber threat commands with the u. S. Army are indistinguishable. What is the potential impact with the right to protect with domestic issues and foreign issues . A classic example would be with the mexican cartels and all instances across the Mexican Border and with syria. Want to start domestic and go foreign or start foreign and go domestic . One of the problems on overeignty is the actual definition of sovereignty. One of the problems we had in pakistan was that in questions when we were accused of violating the sovereignty of pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden, one of the counter arguments made from our side was that pakistan does not control the entire sovereignty of its country. The Pakistani Army does not extend its writ to the border f afghanistan. That is one of the reasons america has to take other measures. What i am getting at is be careful about the solidity of sovereignty. It is a spongy concept in a lot of the countries we are dealing with. Second, the idea of how this has changed over the last 18 years. This question was most clearly brought out with the National Security doctrine of 2002, the preemptive doctrine of defense. It has been debated ever since. I do not think we have sorted it out. We have not come up with a clear answer to that question. What happens now is casebycase, we evaluate whether these things violate some sort of sovereign principle. This is really messy, and it ill not get better soon. There is a moral discussion and there is a practical discussion, keeping america safe. These things mixed together in a way that is not quite as clear as the constitutional and personal debate in the United States. I would need some help in you framing the question to understand how you would want me to address it on the omestic front. Any of the cartels that operate along the lines of communication in and out of texas. A 45minute running gun battle in downtown nuevo laredo included hand grenades and automatic weapons. That type of information. We are connecting the dots. Data and information are intelligence. We are putting intelligence and security in the lead in terms of what is now the right to protect. The debate here is security over privacy. In my mind, we have bridged hat already. We work collaboratively and cooperatively with the United States, with state and locals every day. It is difficult by design, and hat is good. Our constitution necessitates that and we embrace it. Without state and local partners engaging, we would not be in a position to address it even remotely adequately. That extends to our international partners, which is why we have in position throughout the world fbi agents and analysts who are out there as fbi employees working with our partners in Law Enforcement to make sure we do everything we can to not arrive at the