homeland security secretary versus the aclu. here's what we can agree on -- terrorists are always looking for ways to attack the united states and our government must have the best information available to stop them. but reasonable people start to disagree when we're forced to figure out how to stop them. today president obama struck the right balance, between our privacy and our security. >> those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. the challenge is getting the details right, and that is not simple. >> it isn't simple, but we live in a data-driven world. private companies collect our data all the time. and what the president announced today is far more protective than how some companies are using our personal information. of course, our constitution holds the government to a higher standard. we need to have a conversation

about that, but we also need to ask ourselves how else are we going to protect this country if we can't use the best technology to find terrorists and protect ourselves? newt? >> i think the president today started a conversation that's really important. i think the congress is going to have to pick it up. i hope they will expand it to look also at privacy as it relates to giant corporations. i frankly feel that i'm in at least as grave a threat of having my privacy invaded by a number of corporations as i am by the government. i think it's an important topic. i think we have two really great guests tonight. in crossfire, laura from the alcu and tom ridge. i find a very complicated situation we're in. and i don't know if you'll agree with this analysis, but i think we live in a time, as the boston bombing reminded us, where we have people who genuinely hate us and we have people around the

world who would like to destroy us. and there's a growing danger that sooner or later they're going to get nuclear weapons. and you can deliver a nuclear weapon in a truck actually ea easier than you can fit it on a missile. i think there's a genuine danger that some day we could lose cincinnati -- i'm picking that at random. that's a bigger danger to me than the risk of the current government doing something with data that threatens me. it strikes me that the alcu position is that losing cincinnati is a lesser danger than the government having your personal data. how do you comport those two? >> that's ridiculous. i don't want to lose cincinnati. >> good. >> i want to be safe and security. but there's this false dichotomy with security and our compliance with the bill of rights and our constitution. we're living in an orwellian time where data from the private

sector, as you said, as well as data collected by the government is being collected on our every movement, location, text, internet searches and all of this is being stored by the government. and that is inappropriate. it's no problem if the government specifies in a warrant that they want to look into someone who may have ties to terrorism. and the government has full authority to act in emergencies, but they don't need to keep our data for seven years because the history is that the government, when it collects this data, it misuses it. >> let me ask you just one example. secretary chartov, tom's successor, wrote of two recent specific case, one involving a threat to new york subways and the other involving a threat to bomb wall street. both of which were picked up by scanning data and suddenly seeing connections that wouldn't exist. you could never have gotten an affidavit because you didn't know these connections existed

until you found the connections. >> the president's own review panel that included republicans and democrats said that this collection, this vault checked has not helped us solve a single terrorism threat. so the question is it costs billions of dollars, it's not effective, so why are we doing it? and it offends our values. >> governor, do you want to respond to that? >> i think it's a very important discussion. i think the president today initiated the discussion that i think this country is going to have for evermore. we live in an age that will be called digital forevermore. and digital with the multiple threats against the united states puts a unique and complex pressure on this country in order to keep it safe. the question becomes, as i saw the president today, asking the congress to try to build a consensus route, perhaps a new regimen. every single day technology changes, every single day there's more and more communication.

where i disagree with the friends from the aclu, i'm sure, is that i'm not comfortable with some of my colleagues in the intelligence community having the government, in spite of the investment in utah, having the cloud out there. i would just as soon there be retention by my service provider. he has my text, he has my e-mails, he has my phone records and if there's a dot that the intelligence community -- we like that euphemism. connect the dots. if there's a dot, an e-mail address, a telephone record that they want to go to my service provider and say, this is somebody we think is a terrorist or involved in a terrorist organization, ping your records. >> so are you not in favor of this metadata analysis we're talking about here? first of all, the president announced today that the government is getting out of data storage. it will go to a third party, whether telephone companies. >> will he do it by executive order? >> no, it will go to congress. >> i'm not sure that congress -- >> no, he didn't announce they'd get rid of storage. he announced a process by which

the government would access that information in storage. he didn't say he was going to get rid of it. >> it lot be stored by a third party. that's what they said. >> eventually. >> and nongovernment third parties. >> eventually. >> in a matter of months this decision is going to be made. but my question is about the metadata, because through that you can look at trends. you can look at number of phone calls coming in, do an analysis as newt mentioned series of phone calls going to one number in the united states from a suspected terrorist. that is what comes out of 9/11. that's where this program was initiated. are you still favor of this metadata analysis? >> yes, but there has to be a threshold. there has to be some causation, a starting point. you used that expression you need to connect the dots. i don't know how you go in without the starting point and you do have the fisa court that hs the capability, honorable men and women, jurists all, you show them that this is the reason we

need to do a call able lissy, i'm quite comfortable that it can be done but the whole notion that somehow the federal government needs to have all this information stored -- and by the way, i thought the guardian released the other day that the federal government has 200 million text messages. and i thought they weren't holding content. now maybe i misread the article, but the bottom line is that there's a retention -- you know, you collect data, and i don't think you want to collect it. i want the private sector to retain it and if the government can overcome a threshold to convince the fisa court, i'm perfectly comfortable. i don't want this automatically be swept into the cloud and we'll get around to it when we need it. we're data rich and knowledge poor. i still am trying to figure out how we can be a little more strategic. >> i think you're correct about data rich and knowledge poor. it didn't go all the other forms of collection. so we need the congress to step

in where the president started off, and i was at the speech. and i saw him grappling with the civil liberties issues and the need for security. and i felt he had a level of emotional investment in the speech that i haven't seen in a long time. i think he's hearing us. but i don't think he can go far enough as president because if he does anything that stops these programs, the next president can come along and reverse them. so congress has to change the law. >> one of the challenges i think we have associated with the notion that you're not going to retain the data, if we announce to nation states that are enemies, we announce to terrorist organizations, we announce to organized crime that after a very limited period of time, your phone records are going to evaporate, your text records will evaporate, e-mails will revoop rate, that opens a conduct of terrorism activity, communicate all around the world.

>> let's not get fixated on data detention. >> let me just say, one of the reasons the president had genuine intention in the speech is that a lot of his instincts as a civil libertarian as a senator and before that are now in conflict with what he's learned over five years with an every-morning briefing. i think he sees the world today as much more dangerous. i think he thinks the threats are much more real. let me give you an example of interfering with your personal life and in the interests of security. where are you on the whole idea that we scan you before you get on an airplane? >> we find some of those scans to be invasive and we find some of those scans to be ineffective. so the wrap-around scan doesn't show what's in your body cavity. the dhs has tsa and others have taken steps to make them less ve vealing. they cover up certain private parts of the adults being

scanned. but the question is we're spending billions of dollars on technologies that haven't proven to be effective. now, i'm not talking about scanners. i'm talking about these data mining issues. >> let's stick with scanners for a minute. there have been remarkably few airplanes blown up and remarkably few people seizing airplanes since -- i don't like the -- i travel all the time. i don't like the system, but i've concluded that it is a necessary evil in a world where people would really do us harm. >> but they're also -- there has been a limitation on the use of sharp weapons. there's been strengthening of cockpit doors. so just because you have an elephant gun doesn't mean you shot all the elephants in your m midst. just because you have scanners doesn't mean you stopped all the airplane terrorist attacks. >> don't you have to do everything you possibly can to do that? >> within reason. >> the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber. >> our unifying principle is the

constitution and the bill of rights. that's the law above all law. >> let me say the unifying principle is also survival. listening to this debate, we need to remember that the constitution is not a suicide pact. let me describe for you the real threats facing us today. this is interesting. it says here that a woman's sex drive increases at the age of 80. helps reduce the risk of heart disease. it seems that 80 is the new 18. grannies, bless your heart, you are bringing sexy back! eat up. keep heart-healthy. live long. for a healthy heart, eat the 100% natural whole grain goodness of post shredded wheat. doctors recommend it. open to innovation. open to ambition. open to bold ideas.

that's why new york has a new plan -- dozens of tax free zones all across the state. move here, expand here, or start a new business here and pay no taxes for ten years... we're new york. if there's something that creates more jobs, and grows more businesses... we're open to it. start a tax-free business at startup-ny.com.

we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness if you qualify, and new car replacement, standard with our auto policies. so call liberty mutual at... today. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?

[ chainsaw whirring ] humans -- sometimes life trips us up. sometimes we trip ourselves up. and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at... [ thump ] to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings. all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save.

liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? welcome back. in the "crossfire tonight, laura murphy and tom ridge. today president obama gave a speech about the dilemma of people trying to kill us while we try to preserve our privacy. in that context, i want to make two flat assertions. first, we have an absolute obligation to know what foreign governments are doing. i'm fine if we spy on german chancellor angela merkel, and i don't care if it makes her upset. her country cuts deals with russia, iran and many other countries. as an american, we should know whether or not it affects us. the second is that we do in fact

have americans engaged in war against the united states. think of the boston bombers, the u.s.-born imam who was killed in yemen and the american taliban who was picked up on the battlefield. all of this leads, i think, to the kind of challenges that are very different and that we're all going to have to wrestle with. in that sense, the president in starting this conversation, i hope the congress will take it very seriously, but let me give you an example. the boston bombers were caught by a variation of security cameras that were filming everybody who came within their reach. >> they weren't caught. they were -- >> identified. >> they were identified, okay? >> they were identified and would not have been caught without having been identified. >> but there was also a reliance on tips. we can always point to the most extreme examples but that does that mean that we have to subject over 300 million people to orwellian type searches of

their private information? we don't need to do that to catch the boston bombers. >> i want to stay first on cameras and see where you guys are on cameras. these are cameras that are taking lots of data into the camera. if you go to use your atm, if you do a variety of things, park your car in front of a hotel, lots of places now pick up data. >> right. >> and the data does turn out to be -- great britain, which is not moscow, not beijing, london, has the most security cameras in the world in response to terrorism. they caught the london subway bombers exmess itly because of the cameras. >> do we want to live in a society where we feel that our every digital movement and our every physical movement is being tracked and stored by the government, analyzed tracked and stored? that's the question. and our national security experts have told us that we don't need all this information. you can't find the needle in the

haystack if you increase the haystack exponentially. >> the national security experts and the president have all said they do need the data. >> first of all, i think i wore be the word "balance" because that's a tipping point where suddenly you start eroding a particular freedom, you erode a particular liberty. i think frankly there is a significant difference, i must tell you, although i'm somewhat troubled because there may be no tipping point unless the congress and the united states and americans rise up. i don't want a camera on every corner. i mean, i think that's one of the purposes of the discussion tonight on "crossfire" and one of the reasons we're going to have to have this discussion for evermore. at what point in time do we as a society accept a level of risk because we're concerned we've gone too far in terms of overseeing what we do as individuals and in the exercise of free will? do you as an american -- you

obviously -- we want you to be a law-abiding citizen, but because there are aberrant behavior and criminal behavior out there say we have to have cameras on every street corner. that's different than data collection. because the data collection, as we know today, i think is just the beginning of the kind of technology we're going to see down the road. there's going to be more and more information about us. most citizens have no idea the government has as much information they have about them. if they went through their week they'll see they leave a lot of digital dna along the way. if you put both sources together, you'd have a totally different environment. the president started a very important discussion. it won't end with this congress. we better have it in the forever more. >> the ft. hood shooting, all of these things were found to be investigated and resolved because of good old fashioned law enforcement.

it wasn't technology that got us to a resolution in those cases. it was law enforcement following up on tips. >> in fact, the killer at ft. hood was directly connected electronically to the american imam in yemen who is president's -- >> why didn't because they have too much information? >> no, the government didn't find it. it has a bias against interpreting those kind of -- >> no, they were overwhelmed with data. and they can't focus on the right people. >> you know, what's a case where -- i said before where we're data rich and knowledge poor. they were knowledge rich and they didn't act on it. that's separate and apart. but we still have to be -- >> you talk about law-abiding citizens. >> yes. >> how in this country are we going to function if every person who takes an oath of office and every person who swears that they will engage in secrecy then decides to arrogate

the right on their own to break the law? let me give you an example. your organization described snowden as a patriot. this is edward snowden as a patriot. snowden's a guy who went to china, which has a genuine dictatorship, is currently hiding in russia. >> that's only because the u.s. took away his passport and didn't allow him to seek asylum anywhere. >> then went to russia. so he's now sitting in russia where putin runs a virtual dictatorship where they actually do all the abuses you fear. >> but he's not engaging in espionage. he's done a public service by releasing information that even james sensenbrenner, the author of the patriot act -- you served with jim sensenbrenner. he didn't authorize all these metadata -- >> let me interrupt. this is really bothering me a great deal. the man betrayed trust to his country. the man was given the opportunity and, frankly i'm one

of the few people that think he has a hand or two, it's difficult for me to think that he acted on his own. but perhaps he did. look where he went. i could have taken him up to people on the left and on the right who would have been appalled by that revelation. i should have taken his hand and walked him into the aclu so you could have revealed it. but they're talking 1.7 to 2 million pieces of information and where does he go? he goes to china? and then to russia? >> i've not seen any acts of espionage engaged in by this individual. and you cannot deny that we would not be having this debate -- the president would not be -- well, wait a minute. the fact is the fact. the president would not be giving this speech if these revelations were not disclosed. >> that's right. that's absolutely correct. and you could have disclosed these matters in a more sensitive way, sensitive to his country's long-term best

interests and secure the ability to provide for the safety and security of the country. he could have gone over to your office -- he could have gone over to the aclu. >> why is the chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate, why is sensenbrenner saying we have to -- >> we have to take a quick break. i want you both to stay here. we'll pick this up in the next block. next, a final question for both of our guests. we want you at home to weigh in on today's fireback question.

welcome back. how is everything? there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order.

good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. he [ male announcer ] the new new york is open. open to innovation. open to ambition. open to bold ideas. that's why new york has a new plan -- dozens of tax free zones all across the state. move here, expand here, or start a new business here and pay no taxes for ten years... we're new york. if there's something that creates more jobs, and grows more businesses... we're open to it.

start a tax-free business at startup-ny.com. ♪emusic stopsal we're open to it. ♪music resumes music stops ♪music resumes [announcer] if your dog can dream it. purina pro plan can help him achieve it. nutrition that performs.

. we're back with laura murphy and tom ridge. now it's time for our final question. we're going to shake it up tonight. laura, you get the first final question. to newt. >> okay. pick up your phone and scroll through your text messages and read out loud all of the things that have been said in your texts. >> i can't do that. >> you can't do that. >> i'm holding stuff -- >> well, that -- >> it's a prop. >> it's a prop, but imagine if the government did the same thing. that's what they have the power to do now. >> this may shock you. i don't mind on behalf of stopping terrorists because i actually don't put anything on my texts that relate to terrorism. >> but there could be some embarrassing information. >> a lot of embarrassing information. i was worried about private hackers.

>> you're not worried about government bureaucrats with that information? >> no. >> you were when the irs leaked information. >> listen -- >> if they pick up -- >> that's different. >> no, it's not. >> if they pick up his e-mail address in yemen, i want them to check it out. >> exactly. >> you want president obama to know which calls you make, too? >> only if it's a national security issue related to the defense of the united states. >> well, then we're in agreement because we believe those things should be narrowed. >> we're in agreement so i'm going to switch topics for a second and if to a final question for you. you served under president bush. you know the bushes pretty well. you saw barbara bush's comment today -- >> yes. >> -- no more bushes, no more clintons should run for president. i loved it. as i said earlier, i have a similar mother who gives me her opinion of what i should do all the time, but do you agree, no more bushes and no more clintons? do we have additional candidates on the republican side and who are those candidates? >> well, i think, first of all, what you probably realize is

another strong-willed woman and she's never been afraid to voice her opinions. she realizes that they raised a strong-willed independent sons and daughters and he'll do whatever he thinks he should do. i think the bench is pretty deep, frankly, on my side of the aisle. i'm looking more toward governors because at the end of the day i do think it's not necessarily an indictment of the last five years. >> what about tom ridge. >> it's nice to have executive experience before you begin. >> we have to go. >> the debate continues on cross fire as well as facebook and twitter. >> from the left i'm stephanie cutter. >> from the right i'm newt gingrich. join us next time for another edition of "cross fire." erin burnett "out front" starts now. next, breaking news. a student allegedly opens fire in a high school gym. at least two other students are injured. police are still looking for suspects. plus, more breaking news. new details about the southwest flight that landed at the wrong airport. when did the