Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On Whistleblowers Leaks And The Media 20141220

About William Wells brown . How many of you knew his work . Was seen no before tonight . The camera cant catch all of them. I counted four hands and maybe that is part of the justification for five years of hard but very devoted and rewarding work. Anyone else . Thank you very much. [applause] we have books for sale. As i said before we also have other ridings. Thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] watching booktv on cspan2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, booktv, television for serious readers. This weekend on booktv, are students getting value in their College Education . We look at how and why texas is a red states, should corporate criminals go to jail or pay fines . And the latest book on the and politicians and a literary visit to lafayette in indiana. 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. Booktv, television for serious readers. You are watching booktv, next the editors and contributor to the book whistleblowers, leaks and the media talk about legal and policy issues surrounding Media Coverage of National Security aegis. This is an hour and 10 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] all right. I will do a three count. 3, 2, good afternoon. I with the Museum Institute and i would like to welcome you tonight to the studio at the museum. Analyses of programs and issues that are of importance to our country and we find of interest to other nan rich, we are glad to have you here. Let me turn it over to todays moderator. My name is tim mcnulty and i teach at the school of journalism and i will do the moderating, and introduce the panel. And the codirector of the National Security Journalism Initiative and the head of the schools washington program. You have already met gene policinski, chief operating officer of the Museum Institute. Paul rosenzweig is principal and founder of red Branch Security and a former senior official of the department of homeland security. And Harvey Rishikof is cochairman of the American Bar Association National Task force on cyber and the law. You are here to talk obama new book, whistleblowers, leaks, and the media, the First Amendment and National Security. Want to give a moment of background to talk about this is the second book published by the American Bar Association in collaboration with northwestern at school. This, the National Security law in the news, a guide for journalism, scholars and policymakers. The three of us are coeditors of this book. It was written by lawyers who are experts in their fields. They were supporting the National Security for the last six years. If you indulge me for just one more minute, i want to give you some definition of what our panel is discussing today. Whistleblower exposes dishonest or illegal activity in government or private matters. That could be a violation of a law or rule, corruption or a threat to the Public Interest such as fraud or safety violations. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally to other people within the organization, or and externally to regulators to lawenforcement agencies, concerned about those issues. Whistleblowers are protected by some laws but can face reprisals under others. I want to be exact about the definitions. Leaks on made by employees of an organization who have access to information that they arent authorized to disclose publicly especially to the media. They believe doing so is in the Public Interest due to the need for speedy publication of because it otherwise would not have been able to be made public war simply as selfpromotion. There are many motivations. Leaks can be intentional or unintentional, political leaks for example often efforts to manipulate coverage and to test policy ideas without being identified with them. There is the third category we are not going to talk about today and that is buying. A spy is a person that can be used by one government to obtain secret information to the detriment or harm of another government or industry and that is beyond our brief here. This is whistleblowers, leaks and the american media. One other note, there will be these books available and the authors will stick around to sign them afterhours session today. We will also give time for your questions after we have some discussion. And now, gene policinski, Ellen Shearer was going to go first. I am going to take you on a dual track down memory line, we are going to start with 1970 one when one of the first moderately controversies occurred. This may be familiar to some of you. The pentagon papers. Daniel els bird was a researcher at the rand corp. And shared 43 volumes of a massive pentagon study about the vietnam war. He shared them with the New York Times which published stories starting on june 13th, 1971. The Justice Department requested that they stop but they didnt. The government found an injunction to stop Future Publishing because it was part of this year east. The District Court declined but the Appeals Court did impose prior restraint and sent the case to the lower court for further consideration. However the Supreme Court struck down that border and callorder unconstitutional prior restraint. Statute we will be talking about in some other cases. Those charges were dismissed by a federal judge after it became clear it that the white house had been gathering evidence illegally against belzberg. Pentagon papers is held up by the news media as a standard for the proposition that the government cannot restrain even classified material. And a lesson we can take is the news media can be prosecuted post publication. Now we move to 1985. And naval analyst, Samuel Morison was removed because of the espionage act. And the only Government Official convicted under that act for giving classified information to the press. He had been an analyst at the Naval Intelligence support center but was a free lancer for defence weekly, a british publication. He gave james defense weekly photos of a soviet Aircraft Carrier having removed the secret label from those photos. The magazine published the photos. He denied he had seen the photos but eventually was arrested when the fingerprints were on them. His conviction was upheld, making it clear the release of classified information to the news media could be punished to the same degree as the release of classified information to a foreign enemy government. President clinton hardened morrison at the end of his presidency. Moving into the 2,000s. Another kind of important case involved an iran analyst at the pentagon named lawrence franklin. As part of a plea deal on espionage charges helped the fbi with the investigation of two people thank you he provided information to employees of the American Israeli Public Affairs committee. Their names are Stephen Rosen and keefe y sman. They were the first civilians who did not work for the government to be charged under the espionage act. Some of the information that was released to them related to potential attacks by u. S. Troops on iraq, al qaeda, terrorism, central asia and other similar information. After getting the information from franklin, they would convey the information to members of the media and israeli officials. Rosen and why isman were accused of conspiring to obtain classified information and disseminated to the immediate and the israeli government. That was in 2005. The federal judge in the case had to examine to what extent individuals could be charged under the espionage act when they were not government employees. And have the information was potentially harmful to National Security. One of the more important cases that is ongoing is a case the started in 2006 with the publication of a book by New York Times reporter james risen. He published in his book the u. S. Intelligence planned to sabotage Irans Nuclear program. The federal government tried to find out who the source of his in information was. Reason to this day is publicly not disclosing, it is known that a u. S. C i a officer who gave him the information is jeffrey sterling. Sterling was arrested for leaking the information. Despite the fact that the information is now known, james risen is appealing his conviction for not revealing his source and that is an ongoing press controversy. Moving we kind of another case that involves another, james rosen of fox news and this really involves the prosecution of a state Department Contractor named stephen kim. And the defense information to james rosen. What can disclosed was information about u. S. Intelligence related to north korea. End to respond to a u. N. Security council by conducting a nuclear test. The case got a lot of attention in 2013 when it was revealed the Justice Department had told a judge that rose and might be liable to conspiring to violate the espionage back. The government didnt intend to prosecute rosen under the espionage pact but instead using the allegations that he was a conspiracy conspirator at a technical step to get his records when the law was clear that the government should not have been able to do so. Prosecutors realized they couldnt use various electronic privacy act so instead they set about creating a scenario in which rose and was waiting and abetting under the espionage act. One of the things that is interesting about this particular case is the fbi affidavit makes it clear the fbi has the ability to track and extensive amount of information about federal employees directly or about reporters who interact with the them. The prosecution clearly had overwhelming evidence that kim had released the information but wanted more, one might argue. The affidavit was submitted to justify a search of james rosens email, what seems clear was a fishing expedition. This information, 2013 is a big year. This information about james rosen came to light after a much bigger sweep of journalism phone records. And hunting for the source of that information. And the two month period, and 20 telephone numbers at 8 p bureaux up and down the east coast including ap reporters with cellphones. After an outcry from the news media, attorneygeneral eric holder error does not plan to prosecute them as coconspirators in leaks cases. And that brings us up to date in the travel through the worlds. We are familiar enough with the ed snowden case that i dont have to go over the history of it. I would be happy to it everybody wants a quick review. We are talking in cases of law and that. Most americans think of the people involved in this as either heroes, patriots, or villains and traders. I am sure you have your own opinions of these cases. I would like to go to jean and talk about the First Amendment as well. I am glad you didnt in the down to one of those. Let me take a slightly different tack and follows the history and definitions and this tension that i think has always existed our society between a free press and legitimate National Security concerns of the government and foremost, the American Public. We saw from the beginning of the republic, even before there was a republican terms of what was being disclosed about the operations of the colony. The reported incident in which there was a direct challenge to a reporter in disclosing the source of information was 1848 when a reporter for the New York Herald was questions on the source of information about the draft of a treaty circulated in the senate with the war with mexico and that is not an exact parallel because the senate trying to find out who among them leaked but it was that kind of tension back in 1848. I was prevented by the editors in my contribution from starting out my contribution which was a look at the free press and the history of trying to explain why no report was ever successfully prosecuted under the espionage act by quoting like Kindergarten Teacher miss francis, when presented with a complex question would say because. That is really the answer. In some way in what why nobody was brought to bear. There was a procedural or legal matters and Public Opinion. There is no exclusion for media. And the reporter who has firsthand knowledge or exclusion who is a tertiary. If you do this, this results. Part of the was given to the apex case comment and there was a play in the joints, and the ultimate intent to harm. And harm the interests of the United States and the press formally or informally relied on that. Frankly there is the presence to those who are ultimately responsible and that is the American Public. And the collisions over the disclosures of information was deemed classified or not known, Financial Security forces and the ultimate harm to the republic, and the greater good of the public not knowing the existence or the history, and the American Public would come down in the court of Public Opinion on the side of disclosure or free press. I am not mindful nor do i wish to be about the threat that can happen with the disclosure of information, and hard terms and very defined terms and true movements. And the near release making the codebreaking in world war ii, things were fairly easily recognized, and cant talk about that. But you find as we move into this great summary of contemporary issues is harder to get to that level both from the definition of the material and what we now call a free press. If we look at the current history, and our contrarian views by saying equations tilt in favor of disclosure as far as we know, has been in the judgment of the American People far better to have known much of what we know than not to have known on a policy level. And how far down the line you have to go. If you take judge rose ands case it was a real flap over this what is now called a technical procedure, to allow the process to records from the press side. One of the other defenses that has been a bulwark, it came out of a cellphone case, if you were not the instigator or a party to obtain these documents, you didnt hold the door open for the person to grab the law of the desk, you didnt offer many to get those. They come in for those over the transom, a small window but if it came over the transom you essentials the were not subject to prosecution for the obtaining of those documents. The espionage act again, the blackandwhite might allow prosecution simply by having them. Sort of a multi layered defense for a free press in terms of the court of law and court of Public Opinion. One of the more egregious to the press and much of the American Public in this hole recent careful is widely acknowledged as a fishing expedition on the records of the Associated Press in which these vast my definition that the amount of knowledge or information from a thirdparty tracking phones and records and other things were obtained and the government broke the rules. If there is the reason for skepticism throughout our history, the healthy skepticism, if not cynicism but skepticism, there is a cynicism. The Justice Department in the wake of watergate and the pentagon papers, set up with the knowledge of the oppressor and guidelines, not statutes but guidelines on how to proceed, they went ahead and violated those. They had this gathering storm in the sense of those who are advocates for free press saying we start to see this nudge toward prosecution for the unindicted coconspirator. Take away the defense. Lets grab some of that information without a warrant, without guidelines, you begin to feel this encirclement. It is harder to define the president i will stop there. Harder to find the press because it is not pretend order but there is a substantial land very brick and mortar free press that exists. I would simply those who dated on wiki leaks and such dont read my test of journalism although they might somehow under free press definition. Lets go to the other side about this fundamental tension that is evidence and as americans we want limited government but we all want defense of government. So Paul Rosenzweig might address that next. Thanks for the invite and thanks for having us here. It is great to bring a book like this to the museum. Theres a certain artificiality to the debate style of these. If you wanted good summary did give you all of the law and both sides of the argument this is the book for you and we are expressing the tension that underlies this problem in debate format which can be eliminating and enjoyable. We start on the two things that have already been discussed. The james rose in case first. James rose ands case involved the disclosure of the ability of the state department and Intelligence Community to know the intentions inside the politburo of north korea. A condemnation that north korea would respond by detonating another nuclear weapon. This is obviously very highquality information from a source or sources deeply inside the politburo. It has never been disclosed whether that was signals intelligence or human intelligence but what the Intelligence Community told us is since mr. Kim gave it to mr. Rosen and he had a value of publishing this, thus force has gone dead. We no longer have that insight into the actions of the north korean politburo. Has anybody died because of that . Maybe the solicitor was a cuban intelligence sources and concentration camp in north korea. Can you imagine any number of situations in which down the road we would welcome having such a source inside the north korean politburo, on the brink of a north korea invasion of south korea next year or the year after that. You can. We now know longer have that. That, i think, is a really great expression of the fundamental tension between the need for secrecy and the need for transparency. Is not resolvable one because except for very clear cases of troops invading, if you got of the press reporter got the we got after Osama Bin Laden and brought it back tomorrow, nobody would publish that. They would try to trade it for an exclusive but nobody would publish that. Those cases are few and far between very clear. What i do not understand very well is the collateral consequences of disclosing things like the existence of the north korean politburo and we cant because it is indefinite, it is proving counterfactual with what would have happened but for this disclosure. What would have happened but for ed snowdens disclosure of our capability to listen and into chinese computers. We dont know the answers to those so that brings me to the second point that is worth discussing and one that fundamentally the book is about which is who gets to make that decision . Who makes the judgment with the transparency plus value is greater than likely collateral consequences of disclosure adverse to National Security down the road . Is it the government or is it the press. For years we had this tension between the two, a tension played by a kind of firm set of rules for brick and mortar set of the press, traditional understandings and the government and secrecy. The journalism scholars we quote in the book and i forget the name, bought ten years ago the rules were really simple, the press would take this information, make an independent judgment whether or not it demonstrated malfeasance by the government and if it didnt, if it was just a secret to disclose, they would not print it. Today we have changed the paradigm and to a large degree that is a function not so much of brick and mortar press but of the democratization of information distribution function through the internet means and means like that. Now all of a sudden instead of the question who gets to decide, government or the New York Times where we have an interesting discussion and everybody reaches karen decision we are faced with the situation in which the person who gets to decide is individual actor. Ed snowden or Chelsea Manning or anybody else who feels aggrieved by whatever action is being undertaken and that is a very destabilizing kind of situation. I often think of this in the context of my own personal example. I write for unblocks, we have about 3,000 readers although it is not a big outlook but we are influential in washington and new york a bit. A couple of times people have given the information on condition that i not disclose that i got it from them and i am thinking what qualifies me to be a journalist . To be in a position to promise that sort of confidentiality. I did not sign up for Journalism School. I am a lawyer by training. The only thing, and i own the keys to a blog which means a password and user name and all of a sudden that gives me or at least appears to give me a panoply of power over the question of whether or not this information has been classified Court Challenging should be publicly disclosed or not. And when the dynamic of the situation changes in that way it really becomes very hard for us to take our traditional rules, the espionage act, traditional whistleblower laws, even the venerated First Amendment and apply it in a new context where freedom of the press that is so revered in this country and enshrined in the First Amendment and i hold as dealers anyone else is hard to understand when the question is, is, is above the law in news outlet . Who is a news outlet . How do we define what the press is . So i close by simply saying what i think the book best exemplifies its the destructiveness of the existing paradigm of government secrecy and traditional news gathering and in the intersection of a time when we dont know the answers as well as we would like any more. Some people would define a journalist as someone who engages in an act of journalism but i suppose you could qualify. If that is the qualifications and anybody with a blog is a journalist and we have reduced it to the entire population. Some would argue that. Besides the question of who is a journalist theres a question of technology, about big data and smart data and you were going to talk about that, Harvey Rishikof. I feel like a pair of grand shoes invited to a blacktie dinner. I am simple attorney surrounded by agusta north. I want to saying gene policinski and jim jim duffy. I want to thank paul and tim and alan, and each share of the Standing Committee on National Security for the American Bar Association. We are the oldest Standing Committee in the a be a started by someone some of you might remember, Justice Powell who turned out to be a justice, he was up member of military intelligence, was actually involved in the enigma of the secrets which would bring the information decoded to the officers in the field in world war ii and he was fond of making it clear, he will often quote from the constitution article i section v paragraph iii which states that the power of each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings and from time to time publish the same excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy. Dep in our constitution was the notion that the government would require secrecy. The founding fathers, washington was committed to the secrecy as was franklin and they had a lot of decoding the. The concept of a government having to be secretive, driving principles. One of the issues we found that the American Bar Association, there was a misconception and confusion coming on to what we are living through is an information data revolution. It is so transformed of that we are we writing and rethinking many of the original concepts even of what is a journalist because in the constitution is the press, not journalism but they had a strong sense of what the press was. We do not have a similar understanding of the press per se. And you may know vojvodina from npr, a terrorist correspondent. I came from the government side and she came from the journalists side and what we found was there was a great deal of agreement, the argument in that chapter is how you understand smart data, how you understand smart analytics and how we are redefining microtargeting. This phenomenon is transforming not only journalism. The example we give is during the olympics the chinese were very concerned about the air quality they were making public to assuage the world that they had this under control. What they did was took some sensors on the back of bicycles, 30 or 40 people, had them ride in Different Directions through july and got independent data separate from the government and produced their own stories predicate on that information. One of the logics we saw is certain people were able to control information. The government use to control information and journalism used to be able to control information. I think the New York Times everything that fits. It was only if it didnt make it in the times when i was growing up we didnt think it was really a bonafide big story. Didnt make it on cbs and walter cronkite, it wasnt a bonafide big story. There was an incredible amount of control of the press and government, our thesis is big data is changing that phenomena in and it is hard to control that information and you are giving that information up willingly every day. How many of you did a Google Search in the last week, raise your hand. The story has but she started receiving ads for pregnancy. And she went to google and said that this is inappropriate. And then about a week later this individual came back and said my daughter is pregnant. And one can tell so much about what you do on the web. Our position is that this debate about what is going on, it is actually changing in a different way, where we put on a small book with the director of national counterintelligence. And the title was no more secrets. You can get it at the website, our website. In our contention was it harder and harder for us to keep a secret. Because of Digital Signature being left on so much of our activity. Its hard for us to be able to hide things and we think that theyre sort of a timed all you want to. And we know that certain secrets lose their value after a certain amount of time. Some uk because they are embarrassing. The current debate over section 702 of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. If we say that im shocked, im shocked about this. Or the effect of the cumulation of what constitutes information. So large debate that we are engaged in with this issue is does the metadata have any information . It is defined by a number of cases on thirdparty information if you think of all the bills we receive of all of your activity and realize that these are all held by third parties. And with appropriate subpoena in the government we can gather that information and put together an exceedingly fascinating composite of not only the time and space motion but your interest. And so would you feel uncomfortable if i was able to go and look at how much time it took you to go from the past, section one to three and four and find that the only way to you can make that if you were exceeding the speed limit. How many think about be okay . And thankfully there is one honest citizen in the audience who believes that they broke the law and she paid for it. All the rest of you believe you can break the law and have a good time. You are americans. So this phenomenon of where we are going with the whistleblower leaks in the media, we think that we have help to put into context that theres actually a revolution going on and we need to rethink how we understand privacy and we have to rethink what we think the rules are. We also have to rethink who should be liable when they violate that privacy and in the span of our recent timeframe of the notion of it of Edward Snowden and julius and the first leaker had to go through an entity and that entity was then able to broker that information with the socalled press. And Edward Snowden brokered his own deal and the fear is that the next person is going to say here it is. And our concern, youre talking about hundreds of thousands of documents, which in and of itself it is hard to get the pentagon papers. New york times had to publish it and they have been printed in the book him you had to get the book. There was a physicality to that issue and now the ability for hundreds of thousands and when i was in the government, it was unprecedented with the actual nature of the crime. Because the volume that was involved come across so many sectors and so Many Industries that people forget that it was just dod. And these leaks have gone across the entire institution. The doj come in the date, the dod across the board. And so i will end with that for our sense of engaging in this conversation about the new brave world that we are living in and how it turns on this and how we will be able to resolve responsibly that data with the government and also for the rest of us. We are going to go write your russians. Please identify yourselves and who you would like to ask the question. Theres a microphone right over here to the left and over to your right. We have won over to the right. One thing that you mention was its interesting to me how snowden, when you have 450,000 documents, what the role of the Traditional Press is. I would suspect that maybe no one in this room red 100,000 of those documents or maybe two of them. So what we are speculating, we are speculating that there is so much data the what the press does is the data is searchable and when there is an event coming up they just type in this. And then when when they type in it in, they say okay, there are 45 documents, which is an interesting issue that they themselves cannot go through it. And so that is why this has been a slow leaking of information as every couple of months a new quote scoop was made because theyve actually found this. The Technology Advances all the time. And so sir, please go ahead. He did an excellent job of setting up what i think is one of the biggest problems. You have the constitution and then you have this 1917 document to quote shakespeare about this brave new world, which gives the government unlimited access and it gives anyone who has a cell phone to be a reporter. So my question is where do you start. You have done an excellent job of writing out the problem. What is the first step in understanding that the debate has gone on as you pointed out since the beginning of time. Where do you go with that remap. Its a twopronged approach. They said it is either the best of times or the worst of times. And i think you have to do that sort of gymnastics. And theres a lot of big data words easily transportable and you couldnt physically carry out the equivalent, but printed equivalent and you had trucks waiting and so forth. And so i think that we have to address this two ways. First the government has to do this and that one of the things that i think encourages all this is data that is incomprehensibly classified. And we are talking more whistleblower here. But if you look at certain other different kinds of disclosures, they were being purchased and then they discover that initiate them. And so it was just being done, there was no public debate over shipping them earlier. So we have to do that. You have to stop this and then frankly the institutions that have the data have to move out of this and its not the 21st. In terms of protection of the data one of the great revelations was the fact that somebody in that circumstance had access to that much information. So if you look at a contractor, but someone who apparently hadnt been to the level of an officer. And so im loathe ever to say you do this. But part of me says wait a minute. The problem is mounds and mounds of the conference will stop in and you dont even have a handle on it and how these extra people to take care of it or have access to it because they have to have that broad access. That is a great question. One of the chapters review is best and i think we all agree that we need new legislation. I think as you all know that congress has not been at the forefront in passing legislation , but that is their constitutional role. And i think we need and im a little bit byzantine. I think that i very much agree that now in the new world in silken valley in seattle, its the amount we can do by putting together an enormous amount of data and then with those enormous amounts of data find slight anomalies that we can exploit and for example i will give you sophisticated adversaries in the cyberarea, using mathematical numbers to orchestrate the attack so that the attack will only take place over an extended time for times. But if you only take a month or the data, you may not see this. But if you see this from the same internet protocol or just in the four of them were done in a way, it would give you unbelievable information. So the tagline here is that people use to hide the data and we are now using it to find more. So the overclassification is if you understood the travel records of a significant number of senior officials and you gave those records over an extended period of time, you would be stunned at what you could then discern. For instance under the Current Administration every time you go to the white house you have to sign in and that is public record. You would be amazed how many people are having meetings at starbucks because certain officials do not want to make it known that they are going to the white house. Its not important for them to do it or not. For a whole set of reasons. To your question is the other thing that is dramatic as when i look at the audience. How many of you are gamers . The difference of what my children and your children think, which is what you think is privacy is cold war driven. And there is a picture of an individual have just on top of a bar. [laughter] dont go there. You will be stunned. This is what is really changing. So we really need commission and all this stuff to advise if we rethink the boundaries on this issue. I take it that we have changed a great deal and that the facebook era has changed us. Meeting with officials outside of the white house has always been a source of us. Hello, i am travis. From my understanding im not qualified to give legal device, but will with the definition of privacy be as defined in the Fourth Amendment unless that amendment is amended later. Speaking with judge napolitano he said he asked hamm couldnt these devices be construed as a personal attack. And thus be covered by the Fourth Amendment. That is one question and one thing that i point out is that private Companies Getting metadata or whatever has a level of consent that i can opt out of that i cannot do pragmatically in relation to the United States government being a u. S. Citizen, i can just pick up and get citizenship somewhere else pretty easily or cheaply. And the last thing is issues where there might be a contradiction, there is a supremacy clause putting the First Amendment above that or am i misunderstanding the map. There can be several chapters involved here. [laughter] too many questions. But i will answer the last one which is where the Supreme Court decided that there wasnt an absolute journalist privilege and so the conflict that you perceive is not one that the courts have perceived with respect to the personal effects and the personal data, that one as well last year, a case called riley versus california thing that you did have this privacy in california in your pda and that it couldnt be examined without a warrant. But then i guess that the fundamental answer that i would give you is that the Fourth Amendment doesnt express an absolute privacy value. It expresses a contingent privacy value based upon the reasonableness, which is an appropriate way of balancing in the same context that they use different language than what we have talked about. Balancing the conflict between National Interests and individual privacy is an Civil Liberties and reports have spent 200 years trying to figure out the contours of what is and isnt reasonable. One of the things that we see now is that we have a rapidly changing technology that is kind of getting ahead of the courts keeping up with this and its an understanding of what a reasonable intrusion is. I would like to give the audience a chance to ask questions. Afterwards we will be around to talk more about this. Hello, i am andrew craig. Im the editor of the nonpartisan investigative justice integrity project in washington. I am also an attorney with the oldest newspaper still in business and i have two brief factual questions for most sides of the panel. But they imply the ironman with whistleblowers and the press, and forgive me for using your first name, simplicity, isnt it true that Edward Snowden was, in fact, a former cia and nsa employee that was working in this group . My second question for paul is here in this historical requirement that the press needs to go to Journalism School and be vetted, the publishers, some of them didnt go to Journalism School or college, thomas paine, for instance, and i think, but im interested in your response to those questions. Yes . Yes, i think we are talking about the function he was feeling at the time and the expectations of the function if you look at the vetting that was going on for contractors versus those of acting service and service personnel, the expectations were different. And in terms of my use of the phrase journalism, i think that the free press is something larger than what you are talking about. The definition youre under versus somebody who is as a profession and the craft of journalism. But its good to distinguish. But i think there is this larger ability of americans to perform that function. And thats never more true than in this time. I guess that is the point and i would agree completely that thomas paid didnt go to Journalism School. And that is not the beall and the endall. But on the other hand there were historically barriers to entry is into the function of journalism. Both physical barriers and access to information, capitalintensive barriers in terms of getting people and finding printers so that all of those are gone by now. And the way i would best express that is how many of you own an apple iphone five . Okay, everyone of you has more Computing Power in your hands than the supercomputer, the first supercomputer ever purchased by the United States of america. Thats 26 million come across a 199. That is a revolution in Data Processing capacity and ability and it is transitioning us into a world where not every can motivate a people publisher template that they can collect information from anywhere and distribute it appropriately. Do you think that the press is a profession . I dont know but i know that we need to have an need to discriminate against us. So what constitutes this . Is the military profession . What is their alleged expertise . And what the issue with what raises what you are saying, the subject is that we focus on the person that is the leaker who has a duty not to disclose this information and we signed documents saying they were not going to do that. So its a real interesting question about our focus on this versus the individual who makes the public. I would say that the whole point of this book is actually focusing on the recipient of the leak. This book is intended one of its main audiences is to make journalist is well aware of the laws that govern them and the leakers and the whistleblowers so that they dont put someone in a position they didnt mean to put them in. And so if i could just go back to the definition of journalist, i think its too easy and i think its a muddy definition these days and it may be true that as long as you have a cell phone you have the opportunity to be a journalist. The common sense tells you that not everybody wants to be. Just because you have a cell phone does not mean that you want to be a journalist or have any inclination to her that you dont understand that you are a consumer of news and would help someone else be the creator of news. So you dont need to go to Journalism School although we certainly might endorse that idea. But what i think is important to think about is if one takes on the responsibility of disseminating the information beyond family and friends and personal facebook information, if you are going to disseminate Edward Snowdens information, and he did go to respected media organizations who have not disclosed everything they were given by him, who make judgment calls. Regardless of whether you are the Washington Post or what have you, when you are taking on the responsibility of disseminating Important Information and National Security information, you might have become a journalist but youre also going to take on some of the responsibility and that is how i would define journalism today. If youre going to do this, you take on the responsibilities of a journalist. Thank you. I wanted to get to this lady over here. Im going to jump in on the definition of a journalist. I can tell you that people were all of a sudden left without jobs and i would say that a journalist understands accountability and they most likely know the journalism trade that shows that there is a sense of obligation with what you do. Bringing this point to mine our privacy. The loss or rd on the box and we dont need any more laws or commissions and we need the loss that we have actually in every state, even part of the convention, a significant person owns their own identity and that got lost in this thing called the internet, which has taken us and made us a product. My issue is in all of this being taken out of control of the government, put into control of the United Nations and i would love you to jump in on that, just explain to people. Not many people understand this means her feelings for a bunch of numbers and we become very attached to it. It is these numbers would have been coordinated to the government and that doesnt mean that we can push away towards foreign entities. In the absence of a question, going next. I would like to ask you to comment the map we are not commenting. Thank you, sir. My name is stephen and i own a cell phone. [laughter] the question is to the gentleman who we talked about in the european union, the people in brussels and the google of the world, they are engaged in a fight about the right to be forgotten and they usually prevail and it can have some profound implications in terms of National Security and how google may or may not cooperate with the government in regarding National Security. Some wondering if you could say how these ramifications can play out on that side of the aisle. Sure. First of all, we have a great question. One thing that we talked about is the first bucket that we focus on was being a central element of the cyberage and for lawyers as a profession. We know that we can have our license removed. The second is the infrastructure, the Critical Infrastructure that we believe is a major target in the wires a great deal of significant attention to how we will be able to secure our infrastructure. In the third is international. So we are going to be coming forward with a product called the call for norms. We need a convention because of the weight of this work. So the example of that question of who is going to be controlling the international cyberarena, there are a number of entities and they dont always share the values that we have. China and russia do not share the same values of the First Amendment. And they also dont share the same values of the Fourth Amendment and therefore we think its important that those values are enshrined in the system. One of the core issues of the internet is anonymity. And the people who founded this were committed to a number of concepts. In the real world you dont have much anonymity. You are citizens of the state and you have responsibilities to that state. And that state usually has the power to reach out and touch you when its appropriate. I assume that you all pay taxes and that is one of the marks of citizenship. This is the right to be forgotten, to remove data from the internet. Trying to put this forward. Because unlike us as we get older, the internet never forget. And so this is why we are saying that we need an International Convention to think through about how to control the data and monitor the data. And the last thought that i will give you is that you believe you understand where privacy is, but the Fourth Amendment actually says it is often misquoted. The right of the people agast