best job that we can do for the people of arizona and in the efforts to support the rule of law. paul? >> can we hear from you? >> sure. the court has heard the tape -- case and has taken it under submission. we are gratified by their throw consideration of this case. they kept both lawyers at the podium longer than scheduled which underscores the importance and seriousness of this issue. from a lawyer's perspective, this is about issues of federalism, in particular. in some respects, for the purposes of the justices committed federal statutes are every bit as important as the arizona statutes. what you saw here, i think, was a real understanding on the justices part that much of what arizona has done is to accept the invitation of the federal statutes themselves that really put a premium on trying to get communication between state and local law enforcement and state and federal officials. a lot have focus has been on the arizona front, but use of the justices equally focusing on what congress has done and on the federal government to show that there is a conflict between the federal government has done, the congressional branch, and what arizona has done in its own approach. i'm thankful for the opportunity to represent gov. brewer. it has been a great relationship. after the ninth circuit decided this, we're very gratified that the supreme court accepted the case and heard it today. we were granted some bonus time in argument. >> it was pointed out by several justices that nothing in day [inaudible] compels the federal government to do anything more than "check." >> it was very encouraging that all the justices poorly understood the way that these various laws operate. the understood what was at issue and what was not at issue very early on. in the federal argument, the chief justice started it off by making it clear that this is not a case about racial profiling or the fourth amendment. it is a case about the preemption in the relationship between the federal and state laws. one of the things that is a misconception for a lot of people is that the state law really does not authorize officers to do something they cannot do otherwise. it just makes it systematic and it has the effect of overriding some local policies that, contrary to federal statute, prohibited officers from communicating with the federal government. that is what makes the federal government's argument difficult because they have to argue that this interferes not with a federal statute but with their enforcement posture. a number of the justices' pointed out that they retain the decision about who to prosecute federal land to to remove it from this country. the principal provision discussed today really just puts the federal officials in the position to know who they have in the country and decide for themselves what to do as a matter of federal law. [inaudible] general verelli brought up an earlier case, hines. the kit -- they said that was something they cannot really take into account in this challenge. for the most part, the justices were really focused on this is the interaction between the federal statutes and the state law. >> i met attorney with the aclu. we are an amicus, and we, and others, including the national immigration law center have filed an action even before the department of justice did. there are storytelling things about today's argument. >> you can go there or wait. we're doing this year. okay? >> there are three telling things about the argument. right out of the box, several justices expressed concern about the civil liberty impact of state bill 1070. as a result of those serious civil liberty impact, the state of arizona has narrowed the bill substantially and is saying this is a provision for notification of the federal government, but that is not what state bill 1070 does and i think that is clear from the statute as well as everything that we heard today. it became clear in the course of today's argument that the justices are concerned about the system of mass incarceration that will catch u.s. citizens and immigrants lawfully in the united states. it became clear today that there is no federal system that would readily clear citizens stopped during a traffic violation and would be held on the side of the road for one hour or more while they are asked to prove their right to be in their own country. i'm the director of the aclu's immigrants' project. >> i the executive director the national immigration law center, also an amicus, and a broad coalition of civil rights organization. we are these co-lead counsel in the lawsuit which filed against sb 1070. we are also arguing that it violates the first and fourth amendment claims claiming equal protection and due process. these not before the supreme court today, however it was clear that the justices were concerned about the impact this would have on u.s. citizens whether, in fact, there were any government databases with the inaccuracies we have today would be but a clear if a u.s. citizen and they would be detained. the justices also concerned about the impact this would have on a citizen from new mexico using a new mexican driveers licence. they understood the complexity of what this means for a person who is brown to go outside without an identification and if they could be stopped and detained. we are very confident that the decision will ultimately come from the supreme court that will hopefully be narrowly focused and will allow us to go back to court and continue filing in litigating our case and eventually sb 1070 will be struck down as unconstitutional based on all of our other constitutional claims because it is on american. this is a statute resulting today in racial profiling. -- it isunamerican. thank you. >> i'm the secretary of state of kansas and helped cocauthor. this is a very bad decision by the justice department. when the decision was made to sue a result of passing a statute that tends to help the federal government enforce federal law, the federal government did an unprecedented thing. never before have the department of justice sued a state for trying to assist the federal government. never before. in making that ill-fated decision, the justice department ran into the wall today. general verrilli was on the ropes because he was asked multiple times, especially by scalia, to give an example. he had no answer to that question. there is no precedent. this is an unprecedented lawsuit and the justice department's answers today were very inadequate for the questions asked. that ultimately went back to the last-ditch argument where is mexico could cause this to be pre-empted. they took an action they never should have taken -- suing them. when we drafted this law, ran into the wall you saw today. conflict pre-emption asked if there was a conflict between federal and state law. he was asked by the justices can you give me an example of where the federal government can preempt a state merely by refusing to enforce federal law or by exercising prosecutorial discretion? the justice department's answers today were very inadequate to the questions asked. hopefully there will fall back to their last last-ditch argument that if the government of new mexico did not like this law, that is cause for it to be pre-empted. the justice department took an action they never should have taken. when we drafted this law, which drafted it so it mirror precisely the terms of a federal law. that is important. pre-emption asked if there is a conflict between federal law and state law. the state law uses the exact praises of federal law and merely mirrors federal law. there is no way the rest of the provisions of the areas of law -- it was a good day for arizona. it was a good day for the u.s. constitution and a very bad day for the administration. >> thank you. first of all, i want to applaud team arizona, led by our quarterback, jan brewer. this shows a team effort in regard to identify the problem and coming up with a solution. what we have to look at is we are tired of the fear tactic techniques. more than two out of every three americans actually endorse arizona's immigration law. we saw that today. we also see bad behavior from the department of justice. i hope america overseas and hold them accountable for all of that. today was a good day for arizona and a good day for the constitution. i would like to introduce two of my colleagues. >> having actually been in the state legislature, this is not a new battle par arizona. what is new is the absurdity of many of those opposing it and what they are willing to say. just a couple of moments ago, you have someone in opposition standing behind these microphones claiming to be a lawyer literally making up a scenario that could not happen under this law. it is one of my great frustrations that as you watch the political theater, desperately hoping the court looked at the facts and the reality that arizona is following the very lot given to it by congress. i believe the court will uphold arizona and, therefore, a poll the constitution and the citizen's rights of arizona. here is my friend, ben quayle. >> i know the supreme court will read the law before passing judgment. as we saw in the beginning of this process, governor eric holder came out against it. secretary napolitano came out against it. when asked if they actually read the law, they said no. there is been a lot of misinformation put forth on this law. it merely allows a state and local authorities to enforce federal law. the federal government in this administration should be embracing that cooperation. we should all be working in tandem to enforce federal law and that is what this law allows us to do. i believe the supreme court will uphold the law and by that the additional. thank you very much. >> 1070 is a quantification of states' rights and the u.s. constitution. i file this brief in support of 1070. i thought the justice is clearly had a handle on the issues and clearly understood that the obama justice administration was overreaching. arizona has a direct responsibility to its citizens to enforce the law with the pro- government likes it or not and i think they made that clear. >> [unintelligible] >> even justice sotomayor made it clear they thought the justice department was overreaching. some of the stories they used were very clever, i thought. again, i was very gratified i thought it was a clear victory. i think we will win a minimum 5-3. it is not true. it never was true. they know that. that is why they did not raise it. thank you. >> or i am the president of the judicial watch. judicial watch is a public institution. the second brief was signed by state legislatures of 20 states in support of sb1070. it is clear that the court hearing went very well. it looks like the majority of the court looked at the key provisions of sb1070. the obama administration has run away from its earlier rhetoric suggesting this was about racial profiling. it is clear to me that this was a political lawsuit. it conflicts with their political priorities and what it to be thrown out by the court, but that is not the way our constitution works, that is not the way our the federal system works. the court was clear and they will role in our favor on sb1070. thank you. >> this week on "newsmakers," our guest is the postmaster general. there are retirement sentence -- incentive suggested for workers and the suggestion that saturday delivery will be ended if they cannot cut costs in a few years. >> he is the only one to ever escaped from camp 14. >> his first memory from the age of four was going to his mother to a place near where he grew up in the camp to what somebody get shot. public executions in the camp were held every few weeks. they were a way of punishing people who violate the camp rules and of terrorizing the 40,000 people who live in the camp to obey the rules from then on. >> tonight, blaine harden on society and civilization at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q & a." and the passage of power, volume for in the year of lyndon johnson. the multi volume biography of the 36th president. >> british prime minister david cameron responded to questions surrounding his culture secretary, jeremy hunt. the opposition is calling for hot's resignation. what prime minister's questions tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. >> if the affluent can buy their way out of public services and publicly provided goods, don't they lose a stake in the public sphere and the quality of those goods? >> students can be paid to get good grades. you can pay to jump to the front of the line. tonight at 9:00 p.m., a harvard professor on what money cannot buy. the moral limits of markets. on c-span 2. >> beautiful downtown oklahoma city. i am ray captain rick. -- i am captain rick. >> oklahoma city and the works of galileo at oklahoma university. >> when this book was published in 1632, the pope was angry that galileo had broken his promise to treat it hypothetically. galileo's enemies joined together and the result was his trial. this is a copy that contains his own handwriting. this is like being able to look over his shoulder in the months leading up to this trial. >> local content vehicles in oklahoma city on american history tv on c-span 3. >> as of 2007, all communication traffic was on the internet. it makes it much more liquor tipped for people to want to go to the internet to find -- much more lucrative for people to want to go to the internet. people are looking at all kinds of different things that maybe part of everything from a cyber criminal action such as credit- card numbers all the way to industrial espionage and state- sponsored espionage. all of that is happening on the internet. you are seeing an increase in the number of hacking incidents, the number of fishing incidents, the placing of malware on computer systems. all of those are part and parcel of what they are working on in terms of cyber security legislation. it is a function of the traffic on the internet and the fact that hacking tools are much more readily available than they once were. host: we want to get your thoughts. if you have questions or comments give us a call on the republican line. is anybody doing well in regard to cyber attacks? >> it is difficult to assess that accurately. sometimes, there is the placement of malware on computer systems that is hard to detect. we are not sure what we do not know. the ones that come on best are the military domain is. t-gov domains have a lot of vulnerabilities associated with them. the military domains are still vulnerable to attacks. the chinese had hacked into the military computer domain. you have a lot of different aspects where you are looking at the part of homeland security being hacked into. the department of justice was packed into. all of these areas are vulnerable. guest: host: what is the scary as a tack that you know of? guest: there was an attack that resulted in a lot of the blue prints that were part of the f- 22 fighter being compromised to the chinese it. you have a situation where a lot and formation that is proprietary to such as encryption information when they encrypt networks. there was a huge breach of the security firm. rsa has a government contract to protect government i.t. networks. the breach of their network shows that even in print it -- in cryptic networks are vulnerable to attack. the basic monster right now is if you know you were hacked, that is one aspect rate if you don't know that you were hacked -- one aspect is that if you don't know that you were hacked, you probably were. host: there was a bill that was passed in the house. guest: it is the cyber security act. what they are calling it is the cyber security protection act. it is it cyber intelligent protection and sharing act. that is the short version of it. it is designed to bring together intelligence information and private sector information for the first time in the non-defense and never -- non-defense or arena. people shared direct information with the government and on the other side the government may also share information about vulnerabilities that they detect with those private companies. it is not a blanket sharing of information. they share information in ways that was not done before. the information becomes known by both sides of the equation whether it is the private sector or the government sector. from the security standpoint, you need both sides to talk to each other so you can find out what the vulnerabilities are and fight those vulnerabilities. you need to act fast in order to mitigate -- mitigate it. host: this relates to privacy issues. is that correct? guest: that is correct. there are groups that have worked the privacy issue and are boisterous defenders of america's rights to privacy. they have objected to this bill. they say this is an upgraded version of the stock online privacy act. that was a completely different issue. sopa was trying to work the intellectual property issue. this does that, but it as an intelligence sharing peace that has never been part and parcel of any legislation of this type since 1997. that what we are looking at. host: we are talking about the deputy trainer of the national security agency. he is the deputy director of the -- an adviser to the joint chiefs of staff. we will take some questions. good morning, caller. caller: does surveillance come into this to lessen the united ability to survey anyone on the internet. does he believe that the united states has a greater claim to sovereignty on the internet than other nations in the world. i am also wondering. it is hard to beat people who are good at classical logic. that is what goes into hacking. thank you so much. guest: when you look at the internet, you have to look at it as a comment. when you look at domains in the military realm such as iran and sea and land and space, the united states has a doctrine that -- such as land and sea and air and space. the internet is a comments just like space and the air and the sea. what we have historically done is we have protected those comments without being affected adversely by getting into that area. for example, the idea of the sea. we have a stance against piracy. the internet has the same kind of thing. it is not to say that the united states is the complete owner of the internet. what it does say is that everybody should be afforded access to the internet. the united states is in line with the idea that everybody should have a free and unfettered ability to access the internet in a way that allows them to connect to others in cyberspace without interference of a government or any other entity. host: on twitter, the question asks what are some measures to protect security? guest: it can go from the simple to the sublime. most institutions will protect their domain through a firewall. that is part and parcel of what they do to secure their domain. fire walls are not sufficient to protect everything that is out there. what you are getting is insider access to those domains. that becomes a real problem. when you have that, the basic way you can avoid it is several things. one of them is to increase the data as well as you possibly can. there are encryption systems that are always being looked at and attacked. the government did not in crypt a lot of its data. it should probably increase to more of its data than it currently does. you see it in the https of the domain name when you go into online banking. that is the beginning of the encryption process. for you, it looks like it is transparent. for somebody from the outside, the data is protected from their eyes. it is one of those areas where that is a part of the solution. the other part is to always be on guard for things like malware. you make sure your anti virus programs and the different scans that you should do for your computer systems and your i.t. networks are carried out on a regular basis. also do it on an ear regular basis. do it on the 12th of the month to see what is out there. everybody is on the front line in this particular situation. because everybody is on the front line, it means we are all part and parcel of trying to protect the internet. host: some numbers. cyber attacks are up 80%. that accounts for 42,000 cyber security incidents in 2011. 5500 in 2006. political activists were thought to be behind the attacks. you can read the entire report on gao.gov. in indiana charles on the independent line. caller: i have been using the internet for 20 years and i have seen a lot of evolution in the system. i am frightened by our privacy as american citizens to be able to use the internet regularly and not being monitored to the point where we can freely use it. we have always been able to do it. what comes to mind for me is the history of the country from 1870-1900 like the wild west. we did tame the wild west. the internet is kind of like the wild west right now. we were able to tame it. we did intrude into american's lives to the point where we are afraid to use it. i would like to see what the comments would be in that type of thinking. thank you. guest: a lot of people in addition to yourself have said that the internet is kind of like the wild west. there are a lot of good analogies that we are at the stage where the -- before the sheriff came to town or the cavalry came in to rescue us from the bandits in the west. the internet is somewhat like that. when you look at the privacy aspects that people are concerned about, there are relevant concerns. when you look at how we have adopted other communications systems, it is interesting to note. you started with the telephone and the telephone was deployed in rural areas in the early 1920's. it was around in bigger cities before then. some people had it before then. in the 1920's, you saw the growth of the telethon for rural communities. most people had party lines -- the telephone for rural communities. most people had a party line and everybody the cent on those party lines. they would offer advice to their neighbors. -- everybody listened to those party lines. as far as the privacy issues are concerned, when you are talking about cyber intelligence and information sharing, what they are trying to do it is they are trying to not go into the actual details of a person's e-mail. they are looking at what is happening to the network at large. for example, just to pick a company name, let's say apple was attacked by an outside source. apple could go to the government and say, we have information that our network is being attacked. it looks like this. what will happen is only the e- mails that are pertinent to that particular attack, the e-mail that the malware was embedded in our they were doing and fishing expedition -- that would mean they would take that information and analyze that and see what the threat is and the extent of the threats and where it comes from and how it is going to be activated and the technical parameters surrounding the virus or the piece of malware that is coming into the system or that wants to come into the system that is detected. that is like a disease, and inoculation for the body like smallpox. you have a back seat held that a fascination that help smallpox. the idea of these access to provide the inoculation for these kinds of things. that is what we are looking at. we are trying to inoculate all internet systems for computer viruses and malware and things like that. host: i want to read a column by michelle richardson, counsel for the american civil liberties union. she wrote about this legislation. she said supporters have made information sharing the cornerstone of our security policy. there is nothing wrong with sharing technical data. this legislation shares are beyond what is necessary and reasonable. we need to find out how much the government will know about the web sites -- websites we are using and being a e-mails to our loved ones. that to the phones. minnesota. bob is on the democratic line. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you for taking my call. i read an article talking about cyber wars. the biggest threat was coming from china. the main concern was national security and intellectual property. they have been hacking into our computer systems and stealing all of our business secrets. it is a threat to our economy. also, the national security secrets that should not be online. they need to find a better way to communicate -- to communicate secrets. i do not think they should be using computers for things like that. i wondered what your thoughts were as far as communicating national security secrets online and may be some way that we can keep our businesses from being hacked and stealing all of our intellectual properties. guest: those are great questions. when you look at the national security aspect of it, the way it works is that there are different levels of computer systems out there. for example, when i was active in operation iraqi freedom, i had them a different systems that i use. one was on classified. one was that the secret level and one was at different levels up top secret. the government does divide its information systems based on the classification of information that is supposed to be on them. it could make an argument that a lot more of the government's information should be on the secured versions of the two major networks that the government uses, at least for the military. there is a lot of the government that does not use secret communication. that should change from an information protection standpoint. as far as businesses are concerned the basic idea, the house was the only one to pass a bill. the senate will take this up. i am not sure how far it will get in the senate. there is also -- there are several competing measures. there is one that is sponsored by senator lieberman and senator collins. they are trying to put to the department of homeland security in charge of the aspect of it. there would be information sharing just like a -- like the cispa act. the government would not be as prominent a player. what is interesting about this is backed it is a voluntary measure -- is that it is a voluntary measure. businesses can choose whether or not they want to participate. they have one moment they share information in the next moment they can elect not to do that. that is how the act is designed to work. when it comes to be lieberman- collins approach, it is a more mandatory approach. it has drawn opposition from the business community because they do not want an extra regulatory burden put on businesses. host: which one are you more favor of -- more in favor of? guest: each one has weaknesses. cuso -- cispa brings the intelligence community into the process. i know what kind of safeguards there are within the intelligence community. i like the aspect that the intelligence committee comes in quickly. the lieberman-collins pieces good because it requires a degree of mandatory compliance for the most important businesses that deal with our infrastructure, for example utilities, banks, businesses of that nature where their failure can have a negative impact on national security. that becomes an area where there is a requirement for some mandatory measures to be in place. they become important. we want our water and our air to be protected. we need to do that for the internet. the new mail, the internet, needs to be secure just like we expected our old bill to be. host: peter is on the line. caller: i am listening to what has been said i had heard comments before about this. how can anyone say we do not want to protect the government and large institutions from attacks. the part about differentiating -- of course we want to protect it. what about the critics who say you are going to monitor how many web sites are clicked? private companies are going to grab some of that information. it goes beyond the government. there is a separate contractor doing it. now they are owning a lot of information. basically, could you answer those points? guest: i would be happy to, peter. you bring up an excellent point. within the government, at least with and be part of it that i work in, there are a lot of stringent controls on what you can do with information that came from a domestic source. when i was with the national security agency, it was impossible to do anything domestically unless you had a court order to do that or if there was legitimate proof that it had something to do with communication that emanated from overseas. once you had that, it had to be related to terrorism or some other eminent national threat. those stringent controls became important in our daily conduct. if anybody violated those, they were subject to termination. host: you talk about your experience. where are some of the other places you worked where you were involved in cyber security? guest: i was working at the national security agency. i was working at the air force component of the national security agency, for lack of a better term. it was a clear aspect to our mission, which was to work on the cyber peace. -- piece. this was in the early 2000's. the basic idea was -- our effort was designed to safeguard the internet and understand what possible threats were coming through the internet. there was that aspect. i did work some aspects of cyber security and had some knowledge of how that fits together. host: how many decades of work in cyber security? guest: anywhere between 1.5 and two. it has been pretty interesting. host: we have a question on the republican line. good morning. caller: could you let me know how much damage was done to our security when obama left that helicopter tail behind on the raid? did that help the chinese a lot? host: not exactly a cyber security question. guest: i will take it. there are a lot of aspects to that. the exact details of a compromise of that type are known to very few people. the chinese were after it and the pakistanis gave them the broder tail that went down. -- rotor tail. bay are looking for the ability to reverse engineer things like this. they are looking for things like how the brodeur was shaped and the paint scheme and what wasn't composed of. those kinds of things. what metals were used. all that becomes part and parcel of their engineering effort. in this case, it was a physical issue. there were devices and weapons of that type that were sensitive. that is the kind of intellectual property that is subject to cyber attack. that is one of the aspects of legislation designed to protect companies that are working on cutting edge technology whether it is paint or metals or things directly related to the internet. those are the kinds of intellectual property and national security ramifications that we seek to protect. that is what they are looking at. host: is there any possibility that hackers could activate the u.s. nuclear arsenal? is not, i am not concerned. guest: here is what i know about it. the system that governs our nuclear west -- nuclear weapons is a separate system. it is not connected to the internet. a direct attack is practically impossible. what is possible is the deliberate insertion of malware into the system that governs the nuclear command and control systems. if that happens, that could be a completely different issue. as far as i know, that has not happened. the requirements are stringent for the security that governs these types of things. any malware of any type that would be inserted manually could cause significant damage. from the internet, not a problem. otherwise, a problem. host: johnny on the democratic line. good morning, johnny. caller: bear with me. i need to point something out. our problem goes back to education. the reason i say this is we graduated something like 70,000 engineers in this country. 40,000 of them are foreigners. china graduates 50,000. you are talking about the helicopter tail and all of this. we have all of these companies in china making stuff. we are yelling about we all time all of this money. we are worried about getting our technology. you are talking about cutting student loans and things for people to get education. companies are making all of this stuff in china and you are worried about them taking our secrets. this is a joke. host: can you talk about folks going into cyber security as a field? this is a growing field that is hiring now. caller: it is one of the most sought after majors in government and the private sector. guest: it is one of the most sought after majors in government and the private sector. companies have made significant efforts in china. there are legions of stories out there. one involved a firm that was engaged in wind power. they went into the chinese markets. they brought their technology in. it was state of the art technology. they discovered as they deploy their system throughout the chinese countryside that they were getting less and less traction with their chinese counterparts. then they discovered that an exact replica of their windchill system and the motors that run the windmill was copied and put in place not to bank far from the existing installation that the company had built. the chinese at -- chinese are adept at reverse engineering. they are adept at topping the stuff that is out there. the comment about the educational efforts and we graduates your engineers and the proportion that we graduate is foreign born and will probably go back to their country of origin -- that is a significant cyber security issue. seven security is a growing field. a lot of universities and colleges in the d.c. area are pursuing the cyber education piece. there are other educational entities out there doing a pretty good job of bringing cyber security to the forefront. in the buyer beware department, a lot of these entities may not be up on the latest techniques and delayed his efforts. it is one of those things where you choose your program wisely. you have to be careful. buyer beware. host: you went to the joint and combined warfare fighting school at the national defense university. and the air command and staff college. angela is on the independent lines from longview, texas. caller: good morning. i am over 50. i am a female. i have trouble trying to learn all about the internet. i am new to it. during my years, i seldom -- i love popular mechanics. i watch science fiction. i understand everything you are saying. what i am curious about is when is america and the whole world going to get out from under the delusion that we are protected or we have privacy in any sector anywhere? there is no more privacy. you can put up all of these fire walls and recalls that you want or whatever walls that you want to. we are going to get hacked. we are hacking each other to death. i get more afraid of trying to use my computer on the internet because i am being constantly warned that somebody is after me. i am afraid to touch it now. host: a comment on twitter to go with angela's statement. do not give up your freedom for temporary security. just another way to waste money at taxpayer expense. your thoughts? guest: when you look at the whole cyber security issue -- the point that we are beginning to live in fear on the internet -- that is not really where we should be. we should be protecting what is out there. people who believe it is not happening or that this is an effort by the government to aggrandize its power -- if watched carefully, it does not have to be that way. we have to come up with rational cyber security policies. angelo's paul -- and the's point about trying to make sure everything we -- angela's point about everything that we do should be secure -- it does not have to be that way. our expectations of privacy are high than they were in the past. i gave the example about the telephone system when it was first deployed throughout the country. that becomes part and parcel of what we are doing now. some people do not consider it as being real. they are surprised we even had that kind of a system. we are going from the party line age to something better and hopefully more secure. we have to foster the technology that allows us to be secure. when you look at what the aclu has said and what others have said in their efforts to safeguard privacy, those arguments need to be taken into consideration. we do not want any abuses of our system and our privacy and our way of life. we also want to protect what we have and what we hope to have in the future. my basic view is that we need some concrete protections that evolves as technology evolves over time. it protections musk -- must think you safety on the internet, keeping people's financial information states. keeping people's personal information states. it is absolutely critical. from a national security standpoint, we cannot wait while people like the chinese, the russian, the iranians, even the north koreans go into our systems and had us blind. that is what we have to avoid -- and hack us blind. that is what we have to avoid. we have to make sure the legislation protect us in all those aspects. host: a couple more callers before we go to break. good morning, ben. caller: it all sign -- sounds nice, protecting the internet. the second -- the fourth amendment gives us the right to be protected from unusual search and seizure. we are letting them win and we are showing that we are going to change the rules to deal with them. host: thanks for the comment. we will get days in on the democratic line and get his thoughts. good morning, dave. a couple of -- caller: a couple of comments and a question. i am intrigued by the collar who tried to describe the situation in a simple term. this is complex. the way i see it is you have the merging of everything from free markets and libertarian produce -- libertarian views. i would hate to see this issue did demagogued. -- get demagogued. this is probably one of our highest threats. was it is no, it is an easy thing to do. we can break down a country. that is my comments. my question is, what are the other, larger democracies doing in other countries? it great question. let me start with dave first. the european union has a stringent series of privacy regulations that govern a lot of what goes on on the internet. the problem with a lot of the things that they do -- they are -- there are lots of problems but i will address one. information sharing from a cyber security standpoint is not as rapid as it needs to be to thwart internet attacks. that is something that we can certainly look at what the european union is doing from a privacy standpoint. the basic idea is that they try to ensure privacy rights in those areas, such as personal information, financial information. that is simple to do. where it gets more complicated is if somebody is implicated in a crime or a terrorist activity or terrorist-related activity and all the legal strictures need to be looked at. we need to work in a more rapid fashion than we have been used to in the past with the same degree of protection. getting to the comments from ben, the fourth amendment is part and parcel of what every person in the government is sworn to uphold -- the u.s. constitution. when you look at the provisions against unusual -- unreasonable searches and seizures, you are taking a piece of how we correspond with the world and whether or not that should be subjected to a look by a third- party or a third set of eyes. the things we look at within the cyber warfare noem re-- -- cyber realm is if it is going to affect the security of the united states. during world war ii, community -- communications traffic was far less than it was now. it was still part and parcel of the government's job. it was done in secret, but they looked at a lot of communications, specifically telegraph and radio traffic. they knew that was how the bad guys communicating with each other. the same kind of thing happens now magnified one millionfold because of the sheer ubiquity of the internet. but you have is a system where a lot of people and almost every but communicates on it. you have a system that is vulnerable to attacks. you are looking at a way in which -- you need to find a way to protect the freedom of the majority of people. you also need to find a way to protect this common utility. in essence, it is a utility. the internet is a public good. because of that, we need to find a way in which we can safeguard it. if we do nothing, instead of worrying about the fourth amendment, we will be worrying about our very existence. that is the key point. host: i want to get the last question. from brooklyn, new york. go ahead. caller: i want to know what the actual changes war from sopa. to me, they are exactly the same. why are they so fixated on controlling the internet. they only allow companies to handle private information just for the phony war on terror that does not exist? what happened to privacy and free markets? guest: privacy and free markets are being subject to a series of attacks from the outside. what we are looking at here is countries like china and russia, iran also has a cyber army. also not korea, which is developing a cadre of folks who are active in cyber activity. the government is seeking to protect itself from that. because we have a clear division in our country between the governmental sector and the private sector, they know the private sector is vulnerable to attacks. the wall street journal ran an interesting piece on nortel in canada. they were hacked into by the chinese. the chinese state resident within their network for over 10 years. they cite and off all of the intellectual property that was worth anything -- siphoned off all of the intellectual property that was wearing anything. because of that, the company almost went bankrupt. chinese companies were taking advantage of it. you have a two pronged effort. on the other hand, you want to protect privacy. sopa was designed to protect the internet from online privacy -- online privacy. the cispa is a completely different entity. it brings together the intelligence community and the private sector and allows them to cooperate in a way that i think is a model for the rest of the government and the rest of our economy. it allows both sides to work together so that both can prosper. host: thanks for coming in. guest: my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> born in a north korean work camp, it was the only world he had ever known. he was the only person to ever escape from camp 14. >> his first memory was going to his mother when he was four. going to a place to watch somebody getting shot. public executions in the camp were held every few weeks. they were a way of punishing people who violated camp rules and of terrorizing the 40,000 people live in the camp to obey the rules from then on. >> tonight, author blaine harden on the flight out of north korea. and on may 6, look for our interview with robert carcaro. >> during question time this week, david cameron responded to questions surrounding his culture secretary, jeremy hunter and his relationship with james murdoch. the opposition has called for funds's resignation. watch prime minister's questions at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> is the affluent can routinely and systematically by their way out of public services and publicly provided good, don't they lose a stake in the public sphere and the quality of those goods? >> students can be paid to get good grades. you can pay to jump to the front of the line. tonight at 9:00 p.m., what money cannot buy. the moral limits of markets. part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. >> he was featured in the kony 2012 video. he spoke about his life in the lord's resistance army. >> it is so hard to do its because somebody knows you are likely to escape. we tried it. unfortunately, the same group recaptured him after he tried to escape. they brought him back to where we were trying to escape from. to scare us who had been abducted, the 42 kids with us, they said, whoever tries to escape will suffer the example so that we know not to try to escape. when they brought him back, they knew that was my brother. theyil