So it is important to keep that comparison in mind. Something more extensive on the National Security side than on the criminal side. I want to make that clear theres nothing special. You took a lot of my time. A brief question but a good question. Let me raise one last issue. The solicitor general, donald borrelia, assured the Supreme Court any criminal defendant who was being prosecuted losing evidence directly or indirectly through surveillance authorized by section 702 of the fisa amendment would receive notification of that fact. That kind of notice is essential, and the lawfulness of surveillance. And after mister borrelia made that representation. Is not informing, the defendants when surveillance was used to build a case against them. They have changed since then. Hope it is an easy one for you. The department of justice always in forms, the defendants in the case against them build on evidence gained through 702 surveillance. The standard in the statute is evident, obtained or derived from use of 702 against an aggrieved person in a criminal case and will provide notice to a defendant in the context so all those elements have to be met. It has to be an aggrieved person, the information used by the person in which case we would have no obligation to notify the person and have an interest and ability standing to suppress that information. We have to meet those requirements but we are seeing not being surveilled. Communications of other people could be relevant in that case, i would not give notice to them but other things could be relevant in their case if you are following me. Let me ask about section 205, department of justice we are two minutes over here. He took two minutes of my time but i will submit my questions. Section 215 did not have a notice provision. There is no event, no suppression remedy under 215 so it is a different thing so theres a notice mechanism. That is what congress is prescribed unlike other provisions. Thank you, mister chairman and thanks to all of you for being here. I have listened carefully. I know you have difficult jobs and i know your colleagues do as well and i thank you for the jobs you do. By and large you kept us safe and i appreciate that. I am not sure how much progress we are making today. I understand there is little you can tell us in a public setting. You will probably should be somewhat reluctant in a private setting. I understand that. This place leaks like the titanic, usually for political advantage. I really regret that. It would seem to me when we do this again, mister chairman, we could invite our very friends back but also the policymakers. Put yourself in our shoes for a second. We cant see what you see. So we have to assume the worst, that doesnt mean it is an accurate assumption. Senator lee made the point well. Government has been known to abuse its power. None of us want to look around one day and see that america has a social Credit System like china. We dont want you to become as powerful as facebook. For all i know facebook has our dna, but that is a separate topic. Let me give you an example. It was back in the late 60s president johnson had decided not to run for reelection. He was in the middle of the paris peace talks. He received information that then candidate and later president Richard Nixon allegedly was interfering with the paris peace talks for political reasons. I dont know if it is true or not, but there was credible information. But president johnson couldnt say anything, because he got his information to illegal wiretaps. We dont want to end up there again. I dont understand and in the little time left i hope you will help me. On our call detail records system, was it shutdown because of technical difficulties or because of costbenefit analysis . It was shutdown. It was suspended. We did a costbenefit analysis but couldnt do that in isolation, taking into consideration other factors like compliance concerns we faced. We dont operate in a vacuum so we would lay all the different factors to come up with a comprehensive and thoughtful position on how to proceed with the program. You are not a policymaker. I have been very impressed with your testimony and your candor given the circumstances. If you were a policymaker and perhaps you should be, would you renew the program . What i will say to that is that i support the administrations position because i believe it is the best position to have with respect to this program. Why is that . The reason that i believe that is as i mentioned before, the way terrorists communicate and the Way Technology evolves, it is not out of the realm of possibility to say we might find a new technology out there that we have never even considered or thought of. Terrorists might be using that technology and perhaps the way we could get insight into their context with metadata would be to leverage this particular authority and i want to have the ability to move as dynamically as possible in trying to get at those communications once a decision is made to say yes. We think the potential value of that authority and how we would apply leverages would outweigh the resource costs. We are confident in our ability to execute that authority in compliance with laws, regulations and policies. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you each for your patience and for being as candid as you feel that you can be in this setting. I will say i think most people looked at what transpired or what we know transpired with the 2016 elections and the abuses with the fisa Court Process and communications injections between stzrok and lisa page. Something needs to be done because we value our privacy and we probably should have years ago put in place some Online Privacy guidelines but congress has not done that. People are just now becoming aware of much of this. It is imperative that as we do these reviews the, we do them right and miss morgan, you just spoke to evolving technologies and we know terrorists pick up the phone and call somebody and say this is what im going to do. They are using signal, whats apps, they are using snap, snap maps. Things of that nature, to move. I do think it is important that you all be able to work and to evolve as these new technologies come into the marketplace and come into play. I would like for you as much as you can now, and then when we go to a quantify hearing, be able to expand on how you are evil thing and working with these new technologies and tracking the way adverse actors are using these technologies. Just a little snippet. Thank you for your insightful question and i will do my best in an open setting. What i would say as i mentioned before, the laws that Congress Passed and the authorities you give us give us different tools and options. Over time we apply those authorities in different ways in the confines of the law in accordance to law and regulations as the technology changes. The way we might have applied a law or authority when it was first passed is an evolutionary process. We need to make the appropriate changes, we need to give you the tools that will be useful. If there are changes that need to be made, we need your insight on that because we do not, as senator kennedy said, we dont know what you know so we are putting a platform in place, a guideline in place. The statute is in place and you are trying to come back in and plug what you are doing into those various holes and put those policies in place and then you all are taking your actions based on that so we need your help and insight on that. I do have one other question and we have lots of questions about section 215. I want to come i tell you what. Im going to wait and do that when we are in a classified setting with the question that i forgot on that. One thing i do want to hear from you when we go to a classified setting, mister chairman, the safeguards on the data that you are collecting and that you are retaining and the disposal of that, we need a little more information on that. It would be inappropriate at this point, i realize that, so we will look at that and apply the setting and i yield back. Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. Can any of you compare the amount of data, volume, type of data using these tools with the amount, volume of data private companies, specifically facebook, google, what are we looking at . Are they comparable . Has the government collected or will they collect more . Do you have a sense of that . Depends on the type of information you are talking about. If you are talking electronic information we can only get the information with Legal Process that is targeted in a particular case. It depends on the companies that a lot of Companies Maintain the data and full access for their own commercial purposes, access to much larger quantities of data than the government can get for Legal Process. Not least because you have to go through some sort of process depending on what you are collecting but google and facebook and ticktock and whoever else dont have to go through. Once they get users consent nominally which they usually dont ask for they have access to geolocation data, search data, phonebooks, messages. That is correct. Switching gears slightly let me ask about the Business Records position of section 215, how has the fbi used this authority the last couple years . Can you give me a sense and what would it mean for the bureaus ability to Counter Terrorism and other threats, give some perspective on that. Use it in a variety of ways, mostly as a building block. I said earlier today in the terrorism case often times, mobilized for violence, to secure weapons with a knife or rent a vehicle or bomb making material. To determine he is doing that we can disrupt him. We oftentimes use the Business Records for trying transactional records, who are you communicating with but not the content that has been helpful in counterintelligence as we try to build up the networks the Intelligence Officers we use that the same way. As far as this provision, what we are able to acquire would be limited to four areas, we would not have the totality, and in addition to counterintelligence cases we were able to get that communication transactional records through Business Records. They often times, a crime has not been committed, we would not be a to declassify that and go to grand jury for that. The standard for the Business Record would increase from relevancy investigation to something higher that this pertains to an agent and foreign power. The biggest change with the usa freedom act was the end of bulk collection of data and i wonder what difference was made operationally over the last four years and what if any changes need to me made to the Current System of requesting detailed call records. If i could level the programs, under both programs the providers, telecommunication providers give metadata limited to metadata and they give it to us in what characterizes and indiscriminate fashion. To nsa, and approval process to have a phone number and look into that data so that was the bulk program. Under the program that we are talking about today the process is different. The providers hold onto the records in bulk, our process is more targeted and an analyst might say i have a phone number and a reasonable articulable suspicion that the user of the phone number, International Terrorist activity, we would coordinate that with the fbi and the doj and application with the fisa court. Of the fisa court agreed we met the appropriate standard we may compel the telling munication providers to give us records, metadata records only associated with that particular phone number. When we look at the two programs there are some differences, one being that now we have a Court Approval process in place and that doesnt have approval processes in place especially one particular distinction in terms of compliance concerns, related to the underlying data we were getting from the providers we assess we have similar kinds of problems in the program as well so that is a mechanism by which you are getting that data. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you to the witnesses here. In 2015 when Congress Passed the usa freedom act we were endeavoring to strike the appropriate balance between competing interests. The legislation was bipartisan legislation. Senator lee took the lead in passing it. I was proud to work alongside doing so. And to protect the civil rights of american citizens and to prevent the bulk collection with american citizens who had committed no wrongdoing and there is no evidence they were engaged in wrongdoing. The usa freedom act took a significant step back in terms of the authority for government to survey a innocent american citizens, to enhance the tools to go after terrorists, to go after criminals, to go after those who pose a real threat to the health and safety of americans. That is the right balance, we want Law Enforcement, focused on the bad guys and not focused on lawabiding citizens. That distinction is at the heart of the usa freedom act and the right distinction to have. I am not one who is interested in d thanking our Law Enforcement ability to go after terrorists and surveilled them effectively when theres evidence of wrongdoing. At the same time we should not sanction the widespread violation of privacy rights of american citizens. My question to the panel is a general one which is we now have several Years Experience under the statute, bipartisan support passed into law, how is it working if Congress Strikes the right balance . Are there number one sufficient protections, privacy rights and number 2, sufficient tools to go after people who pose a genuine terrorist threat . I open that to anyone who cares to respond. Let me address ordinary Business Records of lone wolf and roving authority. The authorities are appropriate, they have been reviewed by the ig multiple times, the committee has full access to all the different uses of the authority. If anything novel is done that is reported to the committee so we had strong mechanisms in place to ensure they are used appropriately. They are not used all that often either. The authorities are used selectively in these negotiations so we have a lot of process to authorize these tools. One could quarrel whether there is too much process but we are comfortable with what we have. Dont know if that answers your question. When i look at the provisions we havent used a lone wolf but the other traditional Business Records, 215 a solid track record, there are enough checks and balances most agents would complain it is easier to get a grand jury subpoena if you could do that in that case. The most recent ig report, the main complaint from agents is it takes too long so they would use other authorities, those are easier to use. Thank you for your question. From our perspective it did strike the right balance and we have had challenges implementing the program, took steps for those challenges and selfreported to all 3 branches of government for our overseers. I would like to think it struck the right balance. A solid record of results, Something Like that, can you elaborate in terms of the benefits . We had solid compliance and there have been beneficial to us, given how Intelligence Services train Intelligence Officers it has given us the ability to keep pace when they switch vehicles, switch phones, switch hotels in regards to the Business Records, a valuable tool in helping us build our cases, gives us the ability to get ahead of those things earlier than if we didnt have the tool, especially when there is classified information. It gives us the ability to protect americans. Thank you, you have gotten a good job in forming the committee, some tough questions and we will do a classified hearing to dig into the information and what we should authorize and what we shouldnt. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] thank you all. We have adam klein, chairman and member of the privacy and Civil Liberties oversight board, jamal jeffers, founder and executive director of National Security institute. Anthony Scalia School of law at george mason university, codirector of liberty interNational Security program and the center for justice and mister klein. Thank you, happy to be here to testify today. Keep it a couple minutes and it would be great. Im chairman of the privacy and Civil Liberties privacy board which is an independent bipartisan agency dedicated to ensuring efforts to protect against terrorism are balanced with the need to protect privacy and Civil Liberties. I want to mention my remarks are in individual capacities as chairman and do not reflect the views of my four other bipartisan colleagues. We talked about the contours and origins of the cdr program so i will skip those things which i think are wellknown and talk about what our board has been doing and what information we can provide the committee. The upcoming reauthorization deadline our board received records under the usa freedom act, that involves months of factfinding by expert staff and Bipartisan Group of board members. We held a public forum to receive outside views, we submitted a draft report for accuracy and classification review. That draft contains a comprehensive account of the technical and operational that occurred during the programs life. I think staff are hard work on the report. At document remains classified but we are prepared to brief any senators and staff at any time including immediately after the hearing in a cured setting on details which are factual questions today and we understand the committees desire to receive t