Everyone does not mean a 21yearold who just got assigned there, that it does mean a senior officer or someone who is trained in this sort of endeavor. The other issue is this issue of carrying personal firearms on base. We are seeing that debate in the Defense Authorization bill. This is a concern of a lot of folks. Military folks are a lot more chained trained than your average people. But there is still the concerned, do you have that level of opportunity experience the folks that are really pushing for allowing personal firearms are saying these are the best in america. These are people that we know have signed up, we know their motivation. We know that they have been trained and they are more responsible than another 23yearold. But there is still that concern. It was getting that weapon those weapons, do they know what to do . There was a report of something down in florida this weekend who took a personal firearm and accidentally discharged it. I dont remember if there were any injuries, but that is a concern. Do more guns make you more or less safe . Host our producer is looking into this, there have been 14 military shootings since 2000 in the last 20 years. Guest it just shows that these are not the hyper secure places a lot of people think they will be. It is a military facility but it is still a vulnerable target. Host lets go to alicia joining us from West Palm Beach florida. Caller good morning. This is lunacy in my up. In my opinion. They are in the military, they have been trained to carry arms. Of course they should be armed when they are at their post. It doesnt make any sense to me why we would have our military unarmed and vulnerable. It just drives me crazy. I dont mean to be flip or sarcastic. I truly think that there are way too many week, whiny effeminate, liberal men who are doing this to our country. We need to some George Pattons we need some Omar Bradleys and some mcarthurs. We need men with the willingness to do the right thing. Thank you. Host thank you alicia. We appreciate it. Fundamentally guest fundamentally distal come down to a question of, do you believe more guns make you safer. There are going to be a lot of people saying that military personnel are not properly trained, dont have proper respect for weaponry. That there will be a lot of people who say adding more guns to the equation do not make able more safe. There is a difference between hot handling eight firearm in a battle situation in a war zone and handling one in a Public Relations situation. There is also a Public Relation aspect. The point of this is to have people come in, welcomed the community, convince people that they want to join. What is having a heavily armed military official there what kind of message is i going to send . What is that going to look like . These are things that lawmakers are going to have to look at. Host our guest is a journalist for the military times. James is next, from alabama. Caller my comment is, the shooting. I know they havent entirely investigated the entire reason for it, but i think the American Public is not really looking at this in a logical way. America has really changed over the last 20 or 30 years. The first thing is, the u. S. Military has been operating in the middle east, in war, since i dont know, the last 10 or 15 years. The last few years they have been bombing those different countries. They have been droning. We dont see it in the news, all of the other people. The killing. What they do is show these pictures of these drones going in, bombing these different communities. You say that the sandman man, his parents are up in palestine. We know what happened this young man, his parents are back in palestine. They have been bombed back to the stone age. He also visited jordan. They have relatives in the bay area. Relative in these areas. They dont see the military like we do. Those people from that areata the middle east is really big. People dont realize that because the media does not really show. If you look at some of the pictures from syria, from yemen from palestine, from gaza, you will see the damage of iraq, iran. You see the damage, and the only people from the air yet relates to is the military. They dont look at the military like we do. Host thank you for making that point. We will get a response. Leo shane . Guest we obviously dont know what the motivations were here whether this was caused by some foreign policy. But the collar brings up a good point, which is we dont necessarily see our military facilities as targets. As you said, with that number of shootings they certainly are for a number of folks who are either biased against the military or have some view that the military is to blame. Thats why the issue of securing these facilities comes with background. What are we going to do, how are we going to make sure that someone who is bent out of shape does not have access and cant do these kinds of massacres. These kind of multiple casual casualty events. Host that is our topic. Especially if you are listening on cspan radio, the security of military facilities after shootings at military facilities, the latest in chattanooga, tennessee resulting in five deaths. This is leo shane. Jack is joining us from chattanooga, tennessee. Caller im a retired reservist. Im very familiar with that facility. The barricade did its job. Up until 9 11, there were no barricades at that facility. Over the years the facility, barricades have been installed. You have to realize, that facility sits in a public park. It is right away. Anybody almost has access to that. Area. Host its called an Operational Support facility. What is that purpose . Caller during the week, it is operated by active duty personnel. That is the facility that we go to as reservist for our weekend duty. We go there for the weekend, we have our records there, we do paperwork. It is not if we get deployed, where all of our records go. That is what that facility does. On the weekend, one weekend out of a month, you might have 200 or 300 people there. During the week it is just a skeleton crew. Caller host and your take on whether the people at the these facilities should be armed . Caller you have to take into consideration, that particular facility is at a public park. You have playgrounds, fisherman. You could arm somebody, but somebody out there cursory. I dont know how you would stop somebody from driving on the property. Host thank you very much for adding your perspective to the conversation. Guest i mean a lot of these facilities, especially recruiting facilities, security becomes near impossible. You want to be integrated, you want to be part of the community. Its that balance. Howdy figure out what security needs to be provided, what concessions you can make. What you have to do in order to make sure that that personnel is not in danger. Host walter from new orleans good morning. Caller good morning. My question is, this is a continuation of the prolific proliferation of guns in america. You can arm everybody to the teeth. You cant protect military personnel when they going to public. If they are dressed in their uniform than they are liable to be attacked. I dont know how youre going to protect them other than throw more guns. We have men out there with guns. I believe that the nra has not come to the last couple of discussions. They have sat back, and we the people continually carry their methods about more guns, more guns, more guns. More guns are going to meet more people dead. Guest thats the key argument here. The different difference with these population is these are military personnel, they do have some familiarity, some training with firearms. These are not necessarily undisciplined, were talking up people who understand, have possibly more respect than the average civilian for these weapons. But this is where we are going to head, the you believe more guns will make you safer or do you believe there is another alternative that can help protect these facilities and these people . Host if you are active military the number to call is 202 7488002. Bill from reading, pennsylvania. Good morning. Caller good morning. I would like to say in my heart that 9 11 should open our eyes and we should be prepared, because that is what is going to happen. I was in europe last year and looked look what happens to the country, greece. I believe more guns are going to keep the place safer. I tell you why. I have been with guns all my life. We dont go around shooting people ok . You have a soldier that got killed, four of them. If they had a gun they couldve killed the scumbag. Guest you know, the military does not like to get involved with these social issues political discussions, but this is clearly going to draw them right into that guncontrol discussion now. We will see how it plays out, we will see what the decisions are. This puts them front and center in the debate. Host next on the debate over Donald Trumps comments and the veteran organizations responding. This is the headline from the washington post, gop leaders, candidates fire on trump. Carol old streets, mccain not only was tortured, but could have been released earlier but chose to stay until others were released. Guest Donald John Mccain is obviously a controversial figure. There are people on the left and right who have critique and praised him. But i have never heard anyone critique his military record. This is someone who obviously terrifies a lot of his body, a lot of his spirit or the country. Veterans groups are appalled that someone with attack would attack that and say that pows are failures for being captured and tortured. This is an airy out where i have never seen a successful political candidate make that kind of claim or make that kind of argument. We will see where it goes from here. Host yesterday in a q a with frank luntz in ames iowa. We carry the entire event live yesterday. He was asked this question, he spoke with reporters courtesy of the des moines register. Heres what donald trump had to say. [video clip] when i supposed to say, i like the people who dont get captured. What about in the context of john mccain . Excuse me. I like the people who dont get captured. I respect them greatly. You have people that did get captured, i respect them also. You said the veterans in this cap you disrespected john mccain. John mccain has not done enough for the veterans of this country. When it john mccain says, he is not doing a Great Service to our veterans. Host how is this going to go . Guest that clip shows him trying to get away from what the problem comments are. He is taking a lot of praise for his immigration policies his military policies. That seems like fair game. Again, attacking his military record, attacking his time as a pow is a whole different problem and an interesting thing. We have already seen, i think just about all of the president ial candidates condemn his remarks. I think senator cruz has referred to things with senator john mccain. This is going to be an issue that democrats will hammer, that veterans groups will be livid about. Republicans will be forced to deal with it. Host what about the shooter in chattanooga tennessee, saying that he was not a devout muslim. That he had struggled with his own faith, and also with drugs. James, fort worth texas. Good morning. Caller good morning. I just want to clear up a misconception. I served 10 years in the United States navy during the vietnam wars. I spent years on the ground and it never fired a weapon for almost my entire career. Thats true for most people in the military. Most military personnel are not trained, they never see a weapon after boot camp. I think it would be a lot safer if you want to arm recruitment centers, where most of those people are clerical, if you want to protect those put military bulletproof glass. Dont assume that just because you are in the military you are some kind of weapons expert. It doesnt happen. Host thank you. Guest one of the proposals out there is, do we need to arm the spokes or do we need to put security personnel who are more familiar. Even the folks who are highly trained, there is a big difference between rules of compat combat and public rules. What would be considered proper handling, stuff like that. Even folks who do have some kind of familiarity with firearms some kind of higherlevel training, that does not always mean that they are experts in what to do to diffuse the situation like that. Host on that topic, we saw the number 40,000. The army troop reduction, over what time. . Guest we are looking over the next few years. We have seen a reduction since the iraq war in the number of army officials. We have known that the personnel was going to be drawn down in the incoming years. The president and the pentagon has both said, we are not in a time of war. We need to cut some personnel costs. What we thought recently what the specifics of that. What is going to need mean for specific bases, 4000 troops here, 5000 troops there. Really getting into the nittygritty impact. A lot of people are saying, when it was a theoretical conversation its one thing but now youre talking about taking 5000 troops out of my district out of my town. You are also hearing from military officials saying, this is tough for us, this is going to put pressure on us. But if sequestration is not rude healed repeals, repeals we are going to have to go down even further. Host we are dealing with a lot of different issues involving the military going back to security and military facilities, here is a tweet that says, as a former military veteran who was patient at fort hood, i would not let soldiers walk around the base of weapons. We were immature. Guest that will be the key of the issue here. I think what they talked about in the Defense Authorization bill is not blanket, let everybody carry their personal firearms and do whatever they want. What they talked about is giving commanders more discretion. If they decide that there are a serious areas where they need more firearms, commanders can have a little bit more leeway and say weve done our recruiting here. We want to have some folks. We just need to have a security person here that has a firearm. But yes this is a subset of america. There are 22yearold who have never handled a gun before, and there are folks that have are weapons experts and would probably be highly trained and know what to do in that situation. How do you apply that, what is going to be the safe middle ground for everyone . Host edward is tweeting edwin, responding to a caller from earlier. The color is right, only 10 of the military are combat troops. The rest are for the support of combat troops. Caller from indiana, good morning. Caller i just wanted to say we cant secure the white house how can we even secure military bases and recruiting centers. I just wanted to say about senator mccain, wasnt he facing a firing squad for treason and president nixon had to pardon him . Thats all i have to say. Thank you. Host thank you jack. The second point . Guest im not sure what he is referring to with senator mccain. Im not familiar. With the first point, there is the perception that folks in the military go overseas, has been in iraq, has been in a firefight. We are talking a small subset. But again, they do have some familiarity with firearms. Everyone goes through base camp and gets a base level instruction on how to operate. But that is not to say that these are all the same as your local Law Enforcement, or even stateside security personnel. Some of these folks might make a situation worse. We just dont know, and this is what military officials and congressional officials are going to have to struggle with. Host cnn is reporting this morning that one of the firearms that the suspect had obtained by ordering it online. Guest again, this is going to be a guncontrol conversation that the military probably does not want but they are now going to find themselves in. Host harry, joining us from militant michigan. Good morning. Caller hey, how are you guys . I was listening to the last caller when he was talking about how you have no ability to secure the white house. Thats a true fact. We have to understand that a lot of the u. S. Military installations, host of them are open posts. Thats relationships that the military has with civilians where they have access to the base to shop. Some of them have relatives on the base. Some of them are former military. President obama had the address where he was talking about all the Mass Shootings that were happening in different states. No one wanted to talk about this. But how many incidents have to happen right here in the United States before congress has a real discussion about gun control . Host thank you very. We will get a response. Guest the military wants it that way. The military wants to be part of the community. They dont want to be a separate work fortress that is somehow moved off from the rest of society. They wants to have sections on the base. They want to have military family. But that brings real risk. The caller brings up an important point, as is not the only mass shooting we have had. We had the South Carolina shooting. Weve had plenty of incidents. This is why this is going to be a broader discussion. Some things are going to be done on military facilities would military personnel, but it comes to the larger issue of how do we secure anywhere . Host part of that debate on the issue of depression and suicide which is a tweet from another viewer saying, with high depression and suicide rate in a military i think arming them on a base will make things worse. Guest there certainly is a lot of concern about the availability of firearms to anyone who has this suffered from depression or a suicidal. Thats one of the things that comes up in debates about veterans and the military. Again, another aspect of this competition issue. Host russell, midway florida. Good morning. Caller thanks for taking my call. How are you . Host we are fine. Thank you. Caller i am a 30 year police officer, and i felt like there were two guys guys on the job who were just a step away from using it for personal problems. Thinking that anything might happen where these guys come with their personal problems and using them against one another. I was stationed in fort bennett, i was stationed in fort hood, i was stationed in fort jackson. Im a vietnam veteran. Even an india not i can remember that we had to lock our weapons up because there were guys on the job going off the deep end. They were running out of the base camp when the guys the military police were coming in. Youve got all these drugs around like that. That can easily happen, where people in the war. That happened in vietnam. Sometimes in base camp, even a night we got overrun we could not get our weapons. That happens to me there. We got overrun and could not get our weapons because they were locked up, because guys were going off on one another. Host we will get a response. Thanks for the call. Guest we are talking more background checks, more psychological investigation. A whole host of issues if they do decide to go to some wider distribution of either personal firearms, or professional ones. Host quick follow up. This is a tweet from a viewer, he says, if a shooter passed a back on check. Doesnt that prove back on check stonework . Guest that is another issue. It does not appear that this is someone who was flagged someone who is known. He was able to kill five service members. What is going to be the solution, what is the Silver Bullet to make a terrible cliche , what is going to make it so you can provide security not just two basis but to Larger Society . Host our last call from roseburg, oregon. Good morning. Caller good morning. I think the military has the right idea. You disarm your people on basis and you probably eliminate a lot of the potential for shooting people up. I think what we ought to do is disarm the civilian police except for very Exceptional People and maybe we would stop these Police Shootings of innocent civilians. It happens all the time and nobody wants to talk about that bigger issue. They want to control civilians access to guns first, but the way you do that is it you control the Police Access to weapons. Guest i dont think disarming police is going to go too far as a policy issue. Its worth noting and the 2009 fort hood shooter in, and this shooting two, it was planes close Plainclothes Police officers who ended up stopping the shooting. In 2009 it was Police Officers on base, in this case it was Police Officers in chattanooga who stepped in and ultimately killed the shooter. There are highly trained professionals who know what theyre doing and serve a very Important Role in protecting the public. The question is whether that is enough and where we can go from there . Host secretary of state Ashton Carter taking a look at transgender in the military. What can you tell us . Guest this is going to be a big issue in the next year. Individuals into the military. We saw the dont ask dont tell debate if you years ago and by most accounts, had very a little effect on morale, on Mission Operation if anything was beneficial. So he looked at the issues and said this is another population that right now is prohibited facing discrimination within the ranks, and we need to bring them into the fold. A lot of outside debate about the military being an agent of social change and what this will mean for mission effectiveness. Host and the issue of recruitment facilities and military carrying weapons congressman among those advocating the idea. You can read the report online. As lawmakers want to let amex washington journal with quote anna homer on the lobbying effort in washington and across the country concerning the iran nuclear agreement. And the Woodrow Wilson is to 4 institute for scholars and the impact on mexican crime. And the latest round of contribution reports filed by the president ial campaigns. As always, we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Cspan gives you the best access to congress. Live coverage of the u. S. House congressional hearings and news conferences, bringing you events that shape public policy. Every morning, washington journal is life with elected officials, policymakers and journalists. Cspan created by americas Cable Companies and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan created by americas Cable Companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Peter Gordon Crovitz, what do you write about in your wall street journal . Gordon i try my best to support the wall street journal position in the areas of technology and particularly around the internet and innovation. Peter how did you get that assignment . Gordon i have been with the wall street journal for many years. I spent quite some time overseeing the Digital Businesses of the journal. I consider myself maybe the oldest possible digital native. I oversaw businesses based on what were then called electronic publishing, even before the internet, in the 1990s. I lived in a time before the internet before Technology Policy was a at encouraging innovation back in the 80s and 90s and before government was heavily involved in regulating communications telephones, other technologies, the internet was different in the 1990s. It was liberating, permissionle ss, there was very little government regulation, and we are all beneficiaries of that. My column tries to identify areas where we may be backsliding or not making the most of this extraordinary opportunity. Peter you have written that washington is a disaster area for innovation. Why do you write that check mark gordon if you go back to earlier technologies like railroads and the mop held telephone monopoly the ma be lle telephone monopoly regulators said prices, terms rules and we all know what happened. There was very little innovation in railroads and trucking and telephones until they were all deregulated and all of those undone by congress when it was so clear innovation was being suppressed and the u. S. Was falling. That was the backdrop for the bipartisan consensus in the 1990s that the internet was going to be different. This is during the clinton administration. A clear consensus, democrats and republicans, that unlike those earlier technologies, the internet was going to be largely unregulated. Anybody could launch a website the government would not get in to deciding places were reasonable or not reasonable, what innovations could be used for not used. Fair use regulation of content unlike Traditional Television broadcasting, for example, none of those rules were going to apply to the internet. In the last couple of years, we have seen a significant erosion of that bipartisan consensus that is undermining the internet as a source of innovation. That is why i often write about washington. Which is a bit ironic. In the 90s, Silicon Valley was culturally rooted to trying tuesday as far away from washington as regulation as it could, having seen what happened to earlier technology. Sometimes people in Silicon Valley forget how lucky they are to be operating largely in an area where innovation is allowed to happen without, in most cases, government involvement. Peter lets talk about those issues and the big one on the table, Net Neutrality. You say this will and the internet as we know it. Gordon since the beginning of the internet, people have been allowed to do what they like without government involvement. What we now have is the fcc is treating the internet, large areas of the internet, as if it were a railroad probably. The fcc, with rules that just went into effect, will be asked to decide if practices are fair and reasonable. This is under the rubric of Net Neutrality but it is about enabling companies to lobby regulators for special treatment to intervene in the market, to have regulators secondguess what our standard is this actresses. I look back at the beginning of the internet and if the internet had been regulated as a utility under what is called title to at the beginning of the internet, newspapers would have objected to the idea of news publishers making their news available for free on the internet. News was not a free service. How could the startups not charge for access . There are many areas of business where the fact that there are no regulations and the past has allowed for innovation and for consumers, all of us to benefit. Lets take google. Google is essentially a disrupt your to the oldfashioned yellow pages search business. To find a local plumber or product, they all use google. If the fcc had the rules that are now in effect, they could complain about the pricing and practices of google at the beginning were on fair and unreasonable and they certainly disrupt the elevator business. All of us benefited from that, but the history of regulation is if there are Regulations Companies will do their best to give themselves the competitive advantage and we are just at the beginning of seeing how this will play out with the fcc. The rules only recently went into effect and we see places being prepared and filed and we will see if the fcc decides to set rates or regulations. President obama and tom wheeler the head of the fcc has said it is not about regulation but a lot requires them to consider complaints with issues having to do with those factors. Peter you have written about one case where the litigant said the regulation rate should be zero. Gordon one of the big issues on the internet this is like netflix or youtube which transmit the oh on the internet at times counts for more than half of the traffic on broadband. That involves another provider of video video to be delivered essentially for free. In that case, it will wend its way through the system. For the first time, the doors are open to companies to lobby at the fcc, to have business terms reconsidered. There was a company that was quite active in supporting this what netflix thought at the beginning of its lobbying process, that this would only affect isps, verizon and others of this world. That is not necessarily true. A competitor to netflix could complain netflix self has vastly has preferred institutions on the internet because it has told its own vastly. Its a good thing netflix and youtube did build their own fast lane, otherwise it would slow down traffic for the rest of us. But Net Neutrality was lobbied for and advocated by lobbying groups in washington that there should not be a vastly. The internet did not function properly without a fast lane. We are at a point where we have to see which fast lane regulars read later think are ok. Peter are we approaching internet 3. 0 or 4. 0 with the building of these fast lane . Gordon the demand for broadband to grow enormously. I dont know if we are in 3. 0 or 4. 0, it is early days. The technology is less than a generation before finding new uses for or broadband alltime. New Business Models, new service, every day there are new innovations that require more broadband and more access by more people. The need to have investments in broadband provisions continues to grow. This is not a mature industry. This is not railroad in the 19th century. The question is how much should people be charged to use them . This is a highly dynamic industry with a lot of innovation left to be done so long as the innovators are allowed to do it. Peter or use surprised by tom wheelers decision to put Net Neutrality rules into effect . Gordon he had said he was looking for a way to ensure basic concept of that neutrality, which everyone agrees with. No discrimination based on content. Everyone agrees with that. There were almost no cases of that happening, a broadband provider, if it is cremated a particular kind of content would find consumers getting that in somewhere else. President obama lali very hard for the most extreme form of regulation, title ii regulation, treating the internet as if it were a 19thcentury railroad. Tom wheeler had an email uncovered by Congressional Committee indicating he felt pressure, pressure to adopt the most extreme form of regulation. Tom wheeler is a student of history and im sure is aware of the history of regulatory agencies and what has happened. At every opportunity, he says it is not about regulation. But the rules among the five fcc commissioners, they would require the fcc to consider rate complaints and other compliance. So, i was surprised tom wheeler was not able to find a less intrusive way to accomplish what everyone agrees are strong open internet principles. There was a page one report in the wall street journal in great depth on the political pressure from the white house on the fcc, which is supposed to be an independent regulatory agency. I believe that reporting was quite sound. Peter that was a front page story on the wall street journal. One of your favorite targets is icann. What is your take on the administration of the internet . Gordon it is part of the same theme of the internet eating an extraordinary innovation and one that has been largely self regulated. What happened in the 1990s when the internet first he came open for commercial use, it had previously been for academics and scientists. During the clinton administration, it was opened up for commercial use and the issue was who is going to ensure the integrity of the underlying comment of the internet . If someone goes to cspan. Org, how are they sure theyve got cspan and not someone else . There was a strong view that the internet should reflect American Values of free speech and innovation. At that time in the 1990s, the contract to oversee the coming of the internet was handled by and continues to be handled by the u. S. Commerce department. In that way, the u. S. Is a backstop, the ultimate protector of the open internet. Other companies have resented the role of the internet, tied china, russia iran and others. They have argued it is unfair the government has the ultimate control over the underlying content of the internet and have been trying for years to move that protection away and give Regulatory Oversight to the u. N. Or another agency. The reason they have been unable to censor the Global Internet and can censor their internet in their own countries as china and russia do, they devote enormous resources to censoring the internet in their own countries. The reason they have never been able to do it outside of their countries is because of this ultimate u. S. Control over internet addresses and numbers. The Obama Administration announced that it planned to give up sanctions on the internet ending ending the contract with icann to handle that access of the internet. When that happened, there was a lot of opposition to it. There were a lot of countries that have long wanted control over the internet and the u. S. Had done a Great Service by keeping the internet free. Congress through budgeting laws has postponed handing off the contract of the Commerce Department to any other group or to icann as an independent group. Republicans largely and independence are skeptical we can have a protect internet without ultimate protection by the u. S. Government. One of the challenges is if its not going to be overseen by the u. S. Government, who is going to oversee it . Will it he a series of other governments . The Obama Administration says it should be done some other way. But the Multistakeholder Community around the internet has been trying hard to find some other way to make sure icann is accountable and to keep it out of the hands of other governments and so far it is been very difficult to find any other way to protect the internet other than the system currently in place. I think people around the world who value the free speech culture of the internet, a lot of us would say the internet aint rogue, dont try to fix it. Peter the significance of [indiscernible] leaving icann is that important . Gordon i think it is. The Obama Administration was counting on icann running itself. I dont think the Administration Fully thought through how they could be held accountable and doesnt have its own plan to do it in the hands of ultimate u. S. Control. He announced he was going to step down three months early from the position and its another wrinkle, but it is not the key issue. The key issue is how do we protect the integrity of the internet and make sure the countries that spend in enormous resources trying to censor the internet in their countries are not able to censor the internet in the u. S. Or outside their own countries . How can that be done without government control . It has been a long time since the Obama Administration asked for ideas about how that could be done and there are no proposals that would ensure the integrity of the internet that we have enjoyed the 1990s. Peter Gordon Crovitz, when it comes to the internet and technology, what do you think the effect of Edward Snowden has been . Gordon people who followed National Security agency closely probably were not terribly surprised by the disclosures snowden made. I think in retrospect, it probably would have an wiser for the nsa and executive branch of government generally to have disclosed more about how it operated so it would not have an culture shock. On the other hand, many of the claims Edward Snowden made and some of the early Media Coverage that was quite misleading and not an accurate representation of what actually goes on. This all does go back to the Fourth Amendment of the constitution, reasonable searches and seizures. Over the years, that has been interpreted in different ways but it essentially says the government does have the government should have the ability to make reasonable searches in order to prevent crime and terrorist activities. The nsa is involved with activities outside the u. S. , where for many years, it was not even a concept or principle even apply. The question is, even in the digital your digital in europe, what is the balance between peoples privacy and National Security . Are there ways where the nsa can use anonymous information not personalized information in order to identify and prevent terror acts . To do that in a way that leaves americans feeling as if their privacy interests are protected. Some of the reporting early on was inaccurate. They got the impression the government was eavesdropping and thats really not the case. The issue before us now with groups like isis and others are quite adept at using technology as isis looks for recruits, it may use facebook or twitter but quickly tells its recruits to go on to system where there is no possibility of the nsa or other agencies having access to Communications Going dark, as it is called. That is quite easy for. This is a new era and we dont know the ultimate consequences of Law Enforcement and intelligence agencies no longer having access to that kind of information. But it is a real issue and there are clearly dangers involved and tradeoffs in made, whether or not we have an open debate about whether they are the right tradeoffs in many of my columns try to encourage people to think about these issues and at least acknowledge their are tradeoffs involved. Peter do you think our electronic medications should fall under the Fourth Amendment . Gordon i think in the very beginning of electronic Communications Going back to the Communications Act itself, the act set up the fcc, for example and identified National Defense as among the drive the prime purposes. Theres nothing new about the issues around National Security communication. What is at issue is the ability for criminals and potential terrorists to use encryption to go dark and make it difficult for perhaps impossible for Law Enforcement or National Security agencies to identify that before is carried out. That is very new. The fbi has given speeches pointing out that this is something quite new after decades of courts being able to issue warrants for telephonic negation, using telephones and eavesdropping under court order or identifying records under court order that even when there is a court order now Companies Like apple and google and others are not able to comply with court orders because of encryption. They are increasingly making the default on cell phones for example. In the very early days of understanding with the consequences of this may be, it is a quite new circumstance for Law Enforcement and National Security agencies. Peter in your bio on the wall street journal website, it says you are an angel investor. What is that . Gordon after many years at the wall street journal and being publisher, i became extremely interested in how Business Models for news and the funding of news had and disrupted largely by the internet. And norm opportunity for new ways to publish and all of us to communicate without the old the without the old gatekeepers. Certain kinds of journalism its becoming more and more difficult to find coverage of local government and Investigative Journalism in general, it has led to some investment in some Early Stage Companies trying to solve some of these problems around how to define journalism so that we dont lose some forms of journalism even as the internet makes other forms of journalism possible. Peter has the internet balkanized journalism . Gordon i think it has balkanized our journalism to some degree. On the other hand, it has driven it to enormous new places. I dont think anybody wants to go back to the days of three Network Broadcasting tv operations being such a gatekeeper for so much of the news. That was not an ideal arrangement. People now can start her own blogs, people can use twitter to identify stories they think are of interest. There are so many ways to practice journalism. In some regards, this is a journalism golden age. There are quite radical forms of journalism particularly Investigative Journalism where you have to stand up to governments around the world. You have to invest in journalistic enterprise and reporting tools. That is the kind of journalism that is finding less and less funding. So much journalism is supported by advertising revenue particularly newspaper and magazine. They have found other ways to reach their audiences that have come down quite dramatically. There is a search now for new Business Models and i spent what bit of my time with companies trying to address that problem. Peter Gordon Crovitz is the Information Age columnist for the wall street journal. Thank you for being on the communicators. Cspan, created by americas Cable Companies 30 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. The road to the white house coverage continues with two profiles. We start with the South Carolina senator lindsey graham, who announced that he is running for the white house. See those remarks at 6 30 p. M. Eastern. Then an interview with john kasich. He is expected to announce his attention to join the republican field this tuesday after serving as governor for the last four years. That interview starts at 7 20 p. M. Also here on cspan. This week on newsmakers u. S. Labor secretary thomas perez. Then Homeland Security secretary jeh johnson at a house hearing thank you for being here. We also have melanie trottman, labor reporter with the wall street journal, and Lydia Depillis of the washington post. Lydia will go first. Lydia a lot of the news is on the minimum wage and there is a strong push for 15 to be the base. In places that are not coastal cities like new york or los angeles, do you think is appropriate for them or do they do themselves damage by the going to that level
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.