a huge hard disk and it. i think the cloud, it has the shoes. has in securities. they're are multiple different cloud services. we have to -- you have to kind of figure out what you want to do, but that is an enormous thing. >> host: all these devices use spectrum. >> guest: well, everything uses spectrum. i think that is a real washington way of looking at it

there's only so much. we get that. i'm not disputing that. the way the government defeated a up stems from radio, stems from a very old thing, the notion, at the spectrum was too close to each other it would interfere. a million policies that are to a beverly have their roots in an era that bears no resemblance to the air today. that is one thing. spectrum policy in washington is enormously, even more than some other policies and laws by lobbying. fcc universe

device issues, but the traditional deep-rooted telecom and dress, is out their favorite guy. is going to come out of the world.

these less thousand people are adopting, not on all broadcast lists. >> host: one final question from eliza krigman of political, will at&t and arises dominance -- dominance, going to slow down innovation in the tax base?

have anything to say about the far and the same is true today, whether it's horizon, sprint, or at&t or any of the ones overseas apple controls that. it is like a pc or mac. they basically -- let's say you have adelle it didn't help design a computer. he did not buy from them. they don't get to see what browser is on it, none of that

stuff. apple's approach with the iphone was much more like the mac or pc approach than the traditional phone approach which was carried decided what phones you could use on their network. carriers dictated to the phone makers outage of look, with the software should be, that stuff. carriers have had colossal power . and what we have had is a concentration of wireless carriers as the questioner mentioned. at&t and horizon roughly the same size. so much bigger than sprint and t-mobile. the thing that i worry the most about when we talk about innovation is that at&t and verizon are now, first of all, bringing out, particularly

communicators." >> guest: thank you for having me. >> your look at surveillance across the united states during this week's spotlight on magazine's washington journal.

>> thank you for coming. the subjects to my testimony not only to the subject matter, but the stature of our speaker. nevertheless, and those me for just a couple of minutes to provide what i think is some useful historical context and to think back to the beginning, not of this century, but of the last one. the world today to what you might say, is transfixed by the phenomenon of rapid economic growth and a number of countries that is not -- rapidly creating new major policies in the world.

of course the biggest of china and india, but some others that would look fairly large a comparison to great powers of the past such as vietnam, russia, indonesia, brazil kamal growing rapidly and become a much bigger players in the world

which led to a catastrophic defeat in a matter of four weeks or so, the british and french together feel that as many think when they appear already and

members that led to german victory but rather superiority and understanding how the new technology could be exploited for military advantage. when you think about a technology with a similar multiplier effect in our time, solar technology stands out as an obvious perhaps the most obvious candidate. and unfortunately it's not only the potentially dangerous patrol in the hands of states but in the hands of monte directors as well and david sanger's other famous notorious much discussed recent book conceal he describes an incident for senators invited by the white house and just this march 1 files into a secure briefing room on capitol hill for a demonstration designed as he puts it to scare the hell out of him he got a vivid demonstration might look like if a dedicated hacker or any state

decided to turn off the lights in new york city. among those that can to make the case was general keith alexander who runs the national security agency and the u.s. cyber command. singer goes on to say that alexander is one of the kunkel, most important figures in washington that no one ever heard of. i guess that isn't true anymore judging from this room. he also says in rare moments when he talks in public general alexander is pretty soft-spoken about america's vulnerability such attacks but said one senator and a classified setting like the one the other day, it's very different. i don't know what that means exactly about what to expect from the speaker today, but i do know we couldn't have a better speaker to address the subject. general alexander enrolled in the u.s. military academy in the class of 1974.

it was maybe the post vietnam class of members by which an institution whose feature was very much in doubt they make jokes sometimes about themselves the general david petraeus is one of the distinguished graduates of the class said they also called himself class of '74 and that has produced general petraeus and general alexander and general dempsey which isn't bad for people entering an institution whose people they were not sure of. actually, general alexander thought he was only when for five years but came to see a career and military intelligence. it's been an outstanding career including a tour for the 1st armored division in desert storm. i knew him and worked closely with him and i was deputy secretary defense, first when he headed the army intelligence and security command from 2001 to 2003, and then when he was deputy chief of staff of the army for intelligence from 2003

to 2005. and the marshall and as many of you know or heard of told me even before i met john alexander that this was an exceptional officer and a real innovator and after working with him for four years, i can certainly confirm that description. of course he has since gone on to become the director of the national security agency serving in that position since august august 1st of 2005. that is a record. you can do the arithmetic. seven years of almost sound like a large sentence. we are very lucky that he served that long and that the different have seen enormous value that he brings to the job frear it would last two years he's given additional duties the commander in the united states cyber command. to both of those positions he brings some uniquely suitable qualities. he's an innovator and leader but not a self promoter. he is intensely focused but also susceptible low-key.

he's a risk taker but he's also very careful that details and i might add he's very smart. one other thing, he doesn't like publicity. i'm not sure what we should expect today but i know we are lucky to have him with us, please join me in welcoming general keith alexander. [applause] part of the reason i don't like the publicity is my mother used to say i had a pacemaker radio i'm sure you all have heard that before and other comment you could probably add to it is behind every successful army officer is a stunned father-in-law we have that as well there's a few things i would like to talk about today

and i know we are going to have a small group of about 25 to 30 people to do that with and that's gone slightly. i'm not a mathematician. there are some things for us to discuss and i know we are going to have a panel that will talk about what we talk about your leader in more detail. first with the secretary wolfowitz brought out i think is absolutely important for the nation, cyber legislation. i think it's important that we talk about this. i'm not here to talk about any specific piece of legislation, but i do think that it's important we as a nation like this and say what we need for our country and how do we do that? and let's put all the facts on the table as we talk about this from civil liberties and privacy i think it's important we talk about that to protect in this country from cyberattack how we are going to do that.

we just finished the fourth of july, and i had the privilege and honor of hosting 14 young children at my house and when you look at these kids between the age of 110 come the average age i guess you could use the distribution about three they all have ipod, they are all tremendously smart. they are connected to the web when they start. they can run these on battery and plug it in and i can keep on going. it's amazing what is going on in this world. think about the opportunities that we have. in the year 2000 there were 360 million people on the internet. today, first quarter 2012,

2.3 billion come and there's today over 200 million u.s. e-mail users come in 2011 there were about 107 trillion e-mails sent that averages a little over 293 billion a day a large portion of that is spam. it's also interesting the united states coasts 43% of the top 1 million web sites in the world, 43%, that's a little over 440 some thousand of the top websites and the world and by august of this year, facebook is expected to go over a billion users that would make the third largest of medicine in the world the united states would have 184 facebook users to come and 24%

of the web sites have facebook integrated into it, and in one year this last yr 461 more devices were sold. traffic will evolve and grow 18 times between now and 2016. u.s. cell phone users, 165,000,090,000,000 check their e-mail every day. my daughter's check their e-mail every half hour. and many of you do the same. how many did in a conversation. there are 500,000 apps for the iphone and about 280,000 for andro by 26 to the population is expected to be at 7.3 billion come and the world's mobile device population 10 billion s

some of you already know who you are and have those devices and in ipad and mobile public it is growing but we aren't able to this technology. think of what we can do for madison for gene research what resources are going to be able to do by 2015 the we couldn't do a decade ago this is incredible opportunities and stuff we have to now take the next step we are the next country that made much of this technology. and we ought to be the first ones to secure it. so let's talk about the vulnerabilities and those are coming in because that's the real problem. louder? i thought we would move this too far away. can you hear me in the back. >> don't worry, you didn't miss anything.

>> if you need some quotes, get some good ones from somebody if there are any good ones. with the pieces, mcafee has great statistics on this and all these statistics i'm getting are publicly available. you can go out on the network and pulled down some of these from pingdom.com, znet, they have some great statistics where we are today and if you go to war softpediacom too if you will tell you they have 75 million unique pieces of malware in inventory, 75 million pieces. botnet since 85 billion unsolicited e-mail today comes of that is roughly one-third of the e-mail that is going out on the network today are sent by

botnet. and over 100 countries have not worked exploitation capabilities in 2011, the number of cyber attacks rose 43%. malware increased by 16% in the the number of attacks on u.s. critical infrastructure went from nine in 2009 to over 160 in 2011 and from january of 2011 to june of 2011, 19,000 malicious addresses appear a day. eda% of the web sites have been hacked or are compromised. it is interesting when you go out to companies in the fortune 500 of 168 companies that were in this, 160 had been hacked. and i want to give you some insights of some of those that have been hacked. some unique statistics on this when you start to look at what is going on.

do was sacked in july 2011, in august, diginotar. mytishchi, heavy industry since september, sony in october at&t in november, the chamber of commerce in december, symantec in january, nissan in april of 2012, visa and mastercard in april and when you look at this you look at the company's the first thing you to say is these are really good companies. as these are some of the destination. why are they being hacked? they're the ones that know they are being hacked. our experience is when we look into that, when fbi and others look into it, they find out that there are more than 100 companies for every one that

knows they've been hacked. that's significant. in fact, in my opinion, it is the greatest transfer of wealth in history. semantic placed the cost of the ip affect to the united states companies that tutored $50 billion a year. global cybercrime at 114 billion annually, 388 billion manufactured in the down time and mcafee estimate estimates that 1 trillion was spent globally on remediation and that's the future disappearing in front of. with a tremendous opportunity with the devices the we are using. we are going mobile. but they are not secure. a tremendous former buddies. our companies use these we use these devices they are not

secured thing. look what happened in latvia, lithuania, georgia, azerbaijan comer kurdistan and other countries that have been hit with cyberattack some we are going from exploiting networks for intellectual property and they've been disrupted in nature and this is like the kids all screaming at once since suppertime. it happened every night. and there was the joke. i'm sorry. [laughter] it's the kids screaming every night and you are trying to talk and have the conversation you can't communicate as soon as they are quiet you can communicate. and disruptive for distributed

denial service attack as much like that. the conditions pipes are filled up with this spam e-mail that is distributed in the service command there are different versions of this that either block the communications channel for use at the computer capability of your system. either way, you can't communicate. but as soon as that stops and it's clear out, you can go back to the communications. what i am concerned about coming and what i think we really need to be concerned about is when these transition from disruptive to disrupt the tax, and i think those are coming. and a disruptive attack which simply makes your computer not work anymore or have to be replaced. if the volumes or some other portion of the firm were destroyed, your system would have to be replaced to work again. so we have to consider that those are going to happen. those are coming up.

and we have to be ready for that. so what we talk about here? this makes it even more difficult in the nuclear deterrence strategies and furies that were talked about in the past. because when you think about cyber neckers, let's put them into five groups, you have nation states, cyber criminals, activists and terrorists. not all of those our nation states. so when you think that the deterrence theory, you are not talking about just nation on nation deterrence theory coming the other nomination steve factors you now have to consider. and in one of these attacks, and you may not know who is doing it. who is attacking your systems. either way, the outcome could be the same. you lose the financial sector were the power grid or your system capabilities for a period of time.

doesn't matter who did it come and you still lose that. see you have to come up with a defensive strategy the salts that. from our perspective. so, let's talk about that in a couple of different venues. first, a closer look at the international programs, and i want to use some quotes just to show you it is a team sport because i think one of the things that people look to us and say well, are you going to handle all of this? i come from the tom sawyer huckleberry finn approach. we want to get as many people as we can working together to solve this problem and that's what it takes. and i think the white house has led a great effort of bringing the team together both past and present. bringing in the dhs end of their role working with commercial industry private sector fbi and other law enforcement and the dod and the intel community

that's thus bringing us all into this team with our responsibility being the foreign intelligence in the nation from an attack there's a lot of and on this area with me give some quotes about secretary clinton has noted the united states growing concern about the threat to economic and national-security across the world posed by cyber intrusions of the theft of intellectual property and the commercial the dalai cyber means to the past month in june secretary panetta will testifying before the senate appropriations subcommittee on defense said america faces the potential threat for another pearl harbor and technologically the capably to paralyze the country is there now. the more the world is potentially used it increases. many countries on this issue

working with many countries on this issue to respond to these types of risks as we see today that the 2012 u.s.-china strategic and economic dialogue cicatrix clinton stated the world's largest soy director as it is vital to the united states and china to have a sustained, meaningful dialogue of cyberspace issues and work together to develop a shared understanding of acceptable norms of behavior establishing clear and acceptable practices. so what are we doing to address this? and let's set the initial framework. i'm not sure how familiar you all are with penetration tests and hacking. so, let me just give you a quick understanding of that first. some of you may -- how many of

you are familiar with pact track? one. okay. that's good. okay, please don't correct me. [laughter] actually, there is a great book out there on the basics of hacking and penetration testing. and the reason i bring this up is because we are looking at this time actually reading this book and when you look at me here's an army officer who has learned to read and is actually reading a book and there are pictures and that. the reason this is important is i think we have to understand the issue of what's going out us pervvijze we are training our people to words and how we share those. if you think about this, we should have a way of discussing

that with in the industry because we are going to ask them to do many of the things we are doing today. and if you look at this, with the book does is it refers you to a program called backtrack. backtrack and say penetration tool testing the light, it really is. you can get back track and a download of the internet free. the price is agreed and i felt okay you can get it for free and go to a virtual machine via mware capability in the download that. your system and the system you want to do penetration testing on all of your own computer. to train yourself and others on how to test your system to see if it is secure. because this is what people are doing to our systems today.

with the book teaches is how to do reconnaissance. if you think about 2.3 billion systems out there, it's not like hugh jack and drinking champagne typing on the computer launching the kube into. it's actually much -- i'm just kidding. it's much different. it is much more difficult than that. so, this book walks you through it and in these cases how to do reconnaissance how once you find a system that scans the system determined the vulnerabilities. so comfortable, one of the folks in our office actually uses this to test his system at home to see if he has got vulnerabilities others could be exploiting and detach those. just like you would do if you had mcafee or scientific capabilities on your home system. why do we go through this and why i bring this up?

my time on this, and i am not the elite computer operator that we have in our young folks today. but i was able to upload this and able to take one of my virtual machines against the other. and over the ten minute period, break into this other machine, download files, up loadie water system and to essentially take control of it and do with that machine anything that i want to do. but that does is it says what are the training requirements we have to defend against that? how do we help explain that? to the american people because if we can't explain that to the american people, then how do they know what we are talking about is true? my concern is what happens is we throw out these words without having any contact with them. and that context civil liberties

and privacy. the context is your goal to break the machines, you are doing something legal. and the reality is we can do the protection of civil liberties and privacy and cybersecurity as a nation. not only we can, but i believe that is something we must do. so this labour legislation that is coming up is going to be absolutely vital to the future of the country. so, what are we doing within dod? we have actually set up five key areas, and i went up a little bit about these. what does it take from the defense department perspective and i'm going to focus on the defense to put an initially and then we can use that as an analogy to look at what we have to do for the country. so the first thing is building a defense of architecture. we talked about that within the dod. when we talk about building the defense of architecture, there

are some things we can and i think must do. one of those is an opinion going to the cloud within a virtual i.t. infrastructure that is much more defendable than what we have today. many of you know from just reading the cloud is not perfectly secure either. we know that the system we are on today is not secure. 15,000 enclaves, you've seen that. each of the enclaves that can patch those of their frequency, which ensures that if humans are involved, the probability that somebody makes a mistake and enhances the flavor bloodies almost one we should reduce the vulnerability by giving to ten virtual clouds, what we can do is have the computer update those patches and mitigate the

vulnerabilities at network speed. that's a huge step from where we are today and something we should take on right away. we need to build a trained and ready sire force with the right number of that capacity. one of the reasons in writing that book is knowing what the national security agency does and what cyber command does and what our services are doing, what are the future standards that we have to have for our military and civilians to defend this country in cyberspace? how do we know we are training the might? the answer is leave the program have come and get the right people. we have one of -- over 100 universities doing cyber relation. take the best of that and put on the table and that's how we got the educate the country force and we need to do that and building one. we are taking that on. situational awareness. how do you see cyberspace?

think about that. if you got a group of folks together to see draw the picture of cyberspace, and what does that mean? show me where you are talking about. you're saying you can't this -- about this different type of former ability to read what does that mean? how do you see that? how does your system defend -- how do you know? how do we share information? between government departments held we share information between the government and industry and out of the do that in such a way that the american people know we are protecting the civil liberties and privacy? and this is a great case in point. when mcafee and semantic and others look at different types of now where that are potentially getting on your

system the of the number of ways of doing that. they are not reading your e-mail to see that. they are looking at the stream of data that is coming in in hex a ducks sell format looking for signatures or parts of different kinds of activity. and if they see that activity, the ellerbe off on that. jump forward to this labour legislation. one of the things we have to have is of the critical infrastructure community is being attacked, we need them to telesat network speed. it doesn't require the government to read their mail or your mail to do that. requires them, the internet service provider or that company to tell us what type of event is going on at this time, and it has to be of network speed if you are going to stop at. it's like a missile coming into

the united states. if you think about a missile coming into the united states there's two things you could do. we could take the snail mail approach and say i saw a missile going overhead of looks like it's headed your way put the letter in the mail and say how did that turn out? now, cyber is at the speed of light, we perhaps ought to go a little faster. probably don't want to use snail mail maybe we can do this in real time and come up with a construct that you can't the american people know we are not looking at several liberties and privacy we are actually trying to figure not win the nation is under attack and what we need to do about it. the nice part about cyber everything we do in cyber you cannot audit was 100% reliability to it seems to me there's a great approach. for situational awareness, we need to be able to see what is

going on. i don't mean the government has to be in the networks to see. i mean how do you see what is going on, and like the police force and the fire department, they don't sit around every building waiting for the fire, you call them and there's fire and they come down and help put it out. in cyberspace i see very much the same thing in our partnership as an approach. another part and secretary wolfowitz talked about the subtle but but transforming the way the government works especially within the dod what is our command and control some of the stuff that we are working on how we work with the other combatant commands and the department of homeland security, how we work with the fbi? what is the command and control relationship and how to be set of relationships up? first and foremost in my opinion it takes a team.

no one agency or department can do this by themselves. we have to have a command and control of leverage as the best but each of us can do. the fbi has tremendous capabilities in this area. dhs, the public space for our cyber with private history and states and other governments we provide them technical support of the nation is attacked and finding foreign intelligence and providing that that is our job. that is where nsa and cyber come and come in. finally, and perhaps most importantly, obtaining the authorities, policies, rules for how we are going to operate. and we are actually working through that and i think we are making great progress at the white house has taken the lead on that. you can see this in this labour legislation. you can see this on action the defense department and the intel community are doing it as we

move forward. so there is a lot going on in these areas. but i'd like to do is give you a few thoughts on this type of legislation and then open it up for questions because i want to take all the time. i know there's maybe one question out there. when we talk about cyber legislation there's a couple things i think we need. first, we talked about information sharing. if we know there are former abilities of their we have to have a way of sharing those vulnerabilities with the private sector or whoever is going to defend the critical infrastructure so that they know what the threat looks like. and we need to be told that when that threat it's that part of the industry what's going on so we can help stop it if it is our responsibility to do so. so, i think we have to get the information sharing and i think there's a lot on the information sharing going out there.

that key thing is information sharing that gets, i think, misunderstood. when we talk about information sharing, we are not talking about teaching our personal e-mails and giving those to the government. as a consequence, i believe where we can all help is by educating our people and what does it mean to share information and to tell the government when we have the problems of the we can respond to that. that is a straightforward thing and we need to do that. if we don't, my concern is what will happen we will argue about this and we will never get to a solution until something bad happens and then when something bad happens, we are going to jump way over here where we don't want to be. so while we have the time, the

patience and the understanding, let's get this right. let's do it now. the second part, and i am going to quote the sands institute. they have a great web site. and no i'm not on their payroll. i don't know if they have a payroll actually. i might find out later. [laughter] >> they have the top 20 things you ought to pick if you are an industry. what are the top 20 things than you would fix on your network and here they leave out the top 20. those are kind of rules of the road and we talk about the rules of the road when we think about if they're going to fix this right now. think about this like driving. if we had no rules of the road for driving you could drive down the left side, the right side of the highway, might be some problems, collisions from and

after a while we would say should be set up rules of the road like drive on the right side that's going to stop a lot of collusion to stop the right side. we got a right. we have to work with them. is this is the international problem can see right after that. but you can set up standards. what are those standards that we need now to protect our systems we have to set up some. how we are going to protect and ensure the systems are secure because those are the problems we are going to face in the future. so i think there's two things we need, we need the information sharing from my perspective we need to think about that in terms of that situational awareness that we talked about, can we get it on time at network speed? we can do this and protect civil liberties from privacy, and what are the set of standards that we need out there for operating in

cyberspace? so, a couple things. as we look at what is going on in this area, it is the greatest growth in our nation cyber. it's tremendous what is going on. tremendous opportunities for the country, and tremendous ball are the buddies. and we are seeing that other countries are using this space, that the conflict is growing, the probabilities are mounting. while we have the time, we should think about and enact those things need to ensure our security in this area, and do it now before a crisis so that we don't have to jump to this after a crisis and so that you don't have me hold down there and explaining why it happened and why we didn't stop it if i would prefer not to do that. those things are just not fun. so that is coming our way. you can see this statistic the

the number of attacks on growing. you can see that they are growing from disruptive to destructive, and that our country is the bulk of the most of the network. it is the process started at, and it is a consequence i think that we are the most vulnerable and we need to do something about it. and now is the time to that. we're going to sort of open it up for questions. [applause] the >> waiting for a microphone. will someone bring me one? i'm going to pass on the privilege to ask questions because there are so many out here that want to ask. just have three rules to the state your name from state your affiliation and we get a

question, not a long speech. we will try to get in as many as we can. wait for the microphone. someone will bring it. someone over here for the next microphone. >> i write for the times. my question is could you please talk about the cyber threat that china poses to the united states? >> yes. [laughter] >> did you want a longer answer? [laughter] why think if you just look at the topology of the networks, the hardest part in any environment is to go into the details of your question. but if you look at it statistically, the united states and china, as secretary clinton pointed out, we have the two biggest numbers of computers and

related devices. from my perspective, there's two issues we have with that. one, there's the greatest probability that the devices are guinn to be used for disruptive, destructive and other forms. so we have to forget to get in and figured a way forward. and i believe this has been quoted in many things the best of intellectual property is astounding. we have to figure out how to stop that. my perspective of that is by having a viable defense. and that defense is something we can't put together and that's where the cyber legislation i think comes and he really can't go into the details of the threat in an unclassified and you and keep my job. [laughter] >> said me friedberg, aol defense. abilities' get a lot of

attention in general. discussed our vulnerability but there's a lot of folks in the united states in the position of being the most skilled rock thrower in a city full of glass houses and we are the biggest glass house. so it is a very to edge sword. what bonner devotees do we create for ourselves when we talk about offensive and when we work on the offensive cyber? >> that is a great question we are to sidestep and moonwalking the latter would be better. >> the issues that we face in cyberspace. if you think about the two come in cyberspace this is an area where we have to look at, and i think other countries are looking at what are the alternatives, what are the means

of potentially getting other countries to do something that they may or may not want to do. in the physical domain that would have been a war. secretary wolfowitz talked about world war ii as an example. what are things you can do that are short of a war and what should we do better diplomatic, economic informational and not just military and how deep those on the table? those are policy decisions, those are not power decisions and the consequence i believe my experience has been people way those considerations very deliberately and the policies they come up with. i can't get any more details in that statement.

>> with bloomberg news to what extent have al qaeda or any non-state actors acquired the expertise to move into destructive cyberattack against the united states were the west general or the close at all and what would be some of the ingredients. they are a viable threat in that realm and qualify that with the reason the book is so important to get to and it's with a? schaenman if you look at that and say this was pretty easy to back to the conduct some of these exploits, the ability to get on the machine and exploit it if it is that easy we look at the bar of entrants into our networks, so we have this really tough thing we look at the

critical infrastructure and others they are all different and if you look at the capabilities that are not there publicly to do this those would be available to anyone with access to the web, and who is semi literate. from my perspective that means that the gap because of the internet itself is decreased you look at some of those and say you get somebody that has a computer science background may be just at the bachelor's level they could probably conduct it. so i am concerned that while i don't see it today that they could very quickly get to that. they and others that does concern me.

>> general alexander [inaudible] the automatic digital network controlled the internet before you might say. but i have seen in recent times -- >> please state your name. >> to cybersecurity events there doesn't seem to be in this legislation that there's a lot of people talking about it, but nothing is being done. in the meantime, putin is now a president of russia again and he is not sitting by and letting the cyberattack skill buy and china of course. when are they going to get serious about and does a president have to have a summer

summit to say look past this it's still. >> there are so many things we can say. i try not to get in trouble. i think this time of year politically very difficult to move things to congress, but my experience in working with both sides, both are republicans and democrats and see this as a key issue. the part that i see is how do we help articulate what is in that legislation? i am getting a lot of calls from both sides and from my perspective they do want to push this. i do think it is hard because there are some fundamental disagreements and i think resolving those in helping people understand those disagreements and getting to the right middle ground fuel is a step in the right direction. we may not get everything that i would personally want, but i

think we are headed and i feel the legislation and the different forms of it generally speaking, the of the key issues and the understand those. and as the secretary pletka, which had a chance to talk to a lot of members in an unclassified unclassified setting. they take this very seriously. there is no doubt in my mind. but it's also difficult piece of legislation because there are different views and you see those in the different from versions of the bills out there. what we are trying to do is one, what i can do is help educate people on what it means. we can help educate everyone on the civil liberties and privacy, and i think we need to do that. i think we need to address that had on and show the american people know we can do both to bigot and i think we do a good job at protecting the civil liberties and privacy. i think the information sharing

is one that everybody agrees we have to get that set up. i think the hard part is going to be what do you mean by setting standards and how do you do that and how do you get the right because that is a tough part because industry in devotee has got some thoughts on that and that is right to be the part i think we are quinta have to work our way through. on see any for that and that is why i point to the institute and i think it is worth looking at so that is the next starting point. does that make sense? >> will listen to hold the data of american citizens? >> no. i can't go into all the details of the datacenter we don't hold a data on the u.s. citizens.

i think one of the things from my perspective that is grossly misreported it is what you're going to drop all the e-mails and stick them down and put them down in some place in the united states. one, we don't do that. if you think about just the volume of u.s. e-mails, just think statistically for one minute we are talking about probably 30 trillion e-mails a year or more. anybody need 30 trillion -- think about how that is. let me go back to the mission. foreign intelligence. we have to focus on counterterrorism. that is our mission is to protect the country from things like 9/11. look at what happened in world war ii as you mentioned it. in a too, red and purple. that is what the nsa does.

it has been the greatest privilege and honor of my career to work with the people there at nsa. they take protecting your civil liberties and privacy as the most important thing that the deutsch securing this nation. when people show they are going to have all this stuff that the data center. we knew the american people to know that isn't true. secretary wolfowitz said try not to go out publicly sometime everybody says something bad about me were the agency. but for my perspective that is just ludicrous. we aren't going to say here's what we are giving in utah would be ridiculous, too because of the khator adversaries to come into the cup tremendous disadvantage. we are not going to do that. >> right here.

>> according to the american newspapers there are six airmen and specially trained in slier warfare ridgely from the school, so it is a kind of and other evidence showing that the priority. what is your comment? and another question -- okay. thank you. >> i think defending the country in cyberspace is one of our most important missions to ensure that we are secure. and i think the president and the secretary of state has laid out in the 2009 speech that the white house -- i won't accurately quoted but the comment was we will respond to those attacks in different

forms. so from our perspective, we need a trained and ready force in this country. and we are doing that coming and it's not just military, its military and civilian. we have some great technical capabilities here, and i think we have to set those and we have to stop the intellectual property going on. part of that is setting the defense. we can do that and part of the discuss fiber of legislation we just talked about. and i think we can fix that people i have time for one more question. >> you look familiar. >> to give you the opportunity to educate, you say that you're not interested in reading e-mails of americans from so what type of data would you want to be getting from the private

sector to the attack or that prevented the attack and do you have the authority to you need to do so right now? in the interest of making this understandable in light years signature eight, b and c which could be pieces of malware. the machinists went to see this in a format that this is malware that could be ports that come into the system and could be the ip address that it comes from were the website that it comes from or a combination thereof. with the anti-virus does is maps that dhaka and creates what is called the signature. let's call that signature a and say you are the power grid. if the signature were to hit or try to get into the power grid, we need to know that signature

to a was trying to get into the power grid and came from the ip address going to the ip address my. we don't need to know the was put in nettie e-mail we need to know that it contains signature a come came from there, went there at this time coming and the answer is yes. if we know it at network speed we can respond to it and those are the authorities and rules that we are working our way through. so you have a tremendous ability to help them and form the american people in this area. i would offer that many of you could get rich companies like mcafee and say how do you do that? and then what is it that we should do if for the power grid you could be the financial sector or the government that works if they were attacked what do we do? we are not sitting in the power grid we are not in the financial sector we do have parts of the government covered. so i don't see the dhs doesn't

see that the fbi doesn't see what is sitting there. somebody has to tell us so that information sharing portion of the legislation is what the internet service providers and of those companies would be off a nice to share back and forth with costs at network speed and it only says signature and a ip address so that is far different than that e-mail that was on the. it's interesting to note, you could almost see it's interesting to note that a bad guy said that attacked. the issue is what about all the good people that we are sending information in there are you reading all of those? the answer is we don't need to see any of those. only the ones that had the malware. anything else and only the fact that it was there. so you don't have to see any of the original e-mail and only the ones that had did you need to

know that something's going on, does that make sense? >> now the question is what is the actual event is occurring so if it is the isp were others. there when the financial sector, we got, general alexandre it's time for you to go to work. the only work is going down to the help to explain why we didn't stop at. that will be full-time job after that. the reality is defend the country in this area to the it's going to take real-time capabilities and sharing and fpi, dod working together to make that happen and if the intent would be if that occurs with that occurring and that now we have a problem that the defense department has to act to

read the fbi has a part. the dot has a part in not coming and i think those are the things, those are the rules and the authorities and stuff working their way through but i think the key part of that is the legislation. and so, from my perspective, helping people understand technically exactly what we are going to do is absolutely vital to our future and ones that you can help us get the right. thanks for taking the time today. thank you very much. [applause] during this week's spotlight on magazines

>> we have great threats to our existence today as a nation. and i would think in my opinion greater than any threat we have ever faced, whether it has been our civil war or revolutionary, whether it's been world war ii, but it's been the depression,

and that threat comes to us because we have spent the last 30 years in this country spending money that we did not have on things the we did not absolutely need and the bill is to. >> an expert said according to the exit polls mexico voters were highly involved during the recent presidential election but the balanced didn't brief to victory. here is a discussion on the results from earlier today where the panelists analyzed the parties and the impact of social media on the election. it's about two hours.

>> my name is eric olson and ideas as the director of the mexican institute, and i want to give a special welcome to the woodrow wilson center ljungqvist jul nine. i see that some of the fourth of july vacations are slow to arrive this morning, so i'm sure we will be joined by a number of other people, but we do want to get started. we want to welcome folks who are viewing this online on the web feed, and also folks from c-span who joined us this morning put them a special welcome. as all of you know, mexico held a historic election on july 1st, historical in many ways that we will discuss this morning. but one of them is that it appears to have resulted in the

election as the president of mexico has now been confirmed by the federal electoral institute, and while there still remain some controversy about the results and how those are going to be interpreted, we feel like this has been very positive, good exercise in democracy in the by-elections in mexico, and we have assembled this morning an excellent panel to help us discuss the results probably more important with the mean, what they tell us about the thinking that pervades and mexican, among the mexican electorate and what they mean effect for the future of mexico and to some extent the u.s. mexican elections. our first panelist has been delayed as i said. he will come at some plants and will probably end up with him rather than begin with him.

so, i wanted to turn now to our colleagues and friends that have joined us this morning. i will briefly introduce them. then they will come and speak briefly and we will have some time for questions at the end of that. we are going to begin with jorge buendia, the director of buendia and laredo one of the top 20 opinion consulting firms in new mexico, well known for the pooling and public opinion in mexico. he was the lead pollster for the universal newspaper come and also did some really interesting pulling for the dallas morning news about public attitudes towards the issue of public security, the role of the exit in the luxury of a number of things. we have asked him to dive into the question of pulling and

public opinion and what these tell us. pulling as you may know in mexico has been itself a subject of great debate. questions about the reliability of it and the neutrality of it and so what better opportunity than to hear from one of mexico's leading pollsters and public opinion survey years. so thank you for being with us. then we will also hear from john a. langston, professor you'll hear it come up many times. one of the leading to public universities in mexico, mexico city, the center for research and economic teaching and the wilson center and the mexican institute in particular has had a very close relationship. joy is an expert on pos to expand democracy and has been

working lately most recently on the issue of the pri party of the institutional revolution that's been now in a 12 year hiatus so very appropriate research and very timely research to hear from a meeting of this election. then we will hear from a very good friend and colleague, from the university of mexican who divides his time between washington, d.c. and mexico. we appear to get her just last week on the diane ream show, and you will see that he is a very dynamic and insightful speaker he spent a week or ten days in mexico are around the time of the election and has a lot to tell us first hand and from his own academic research.

and last but not least we have divided our new willson senator scholar who has been a longtime friend of the mexico institute also a professor at mexico city but on a yearlong sabbatical spending some of his time here in washington, d.c. working on a book on accountability which has been one of his main themes on academic research and professional work over the years he has been traveling to many parts of the world to look at how the governments and countries deal with the issue of accountability in government so we are very lucky to have him and excited to have him here. i should point out also he was a counsel in the 2000 election and a member of the federal electoral institute that was a

historic moment for mexico when they held their first presidential election under the guidelines of an independent federal institute for the first time he was a part of that historic group of people that oversaw the election and solve the pri long ruling governing party lose that the election for the first time and now 12 years later they are winning again. and so, we are delighted to have morelos with us as well. with that introduction i'm going to invite jorge who has a presentation to come forward.

>> thanks for the introduction and the invitation to attend the conference. i'm going to start speaking of what has been a major scandal to describe what what went wrong. in general, public opinion pri this is something that affected the majority and we try to give an explanation of what has really happened to read we are at your earliest stages of research but i think that at least half of the hypothesis that is more plausible but there is evidence to support what went on. it cannot look that way.

but this is part that was published in the campaign to read these parts are adjusted by the actual resource that you can see. they gave the pri and advantage about four, five, six advantage point higher than i got on election day. let me first point out that as you can see in the service there wasn't a single part that had another outcome of this accept to have the two percentage points but no one knew who did research. second, as you can see, the polls show how he got into

second place. he began to improved and is very clear that he was in second place, so the polls reflected these pretty well. third, if you look at with the left conspiracy if you look two weeks before the election there was not even a single public opinion poll that was different from the others and even the reform had 12 percentage points advantage. the polls there for speed to they were not publishing the report and they were also in the ed vintage by the tenorio 11

percentage points. so all of the major ports have more or less a good advantage. so, it's one -- there was a divergence on the final measure made so the question is what happened, what went wrong

i don't think that anyone was able to measure this accurately, and this, no part that i know what was able for was telling us that this would happen. this actually reflects a very complex voting pattern. we haven't seen it before. in 2009 it applies in to the same electoral law applies bedizened midterm election and we don't see these multiple voting but this was really, really important, and obviously in measurement terms is affected very much.

what does this mean in terms of measurement was more important was to measure candidate strength and not to use in a very orthodox way dialogue that has the same infrastructure as the official dialogue because we wouldn't be able to capture these because this is probably due to the fact that this in different parties nominated the same candidate to follow the mexican campion's you could see them asking for the vote for the green party and you could see also the workers party asking the vote and the same thing for the prd. so it is clear that seem candidate was asking to vote for different parties, and this obviously found a reflection on the election date.

but this tells you about a very complex voting pattern that i think it is taken place on election day. in that sense this requires a lot of attention to the dialogue which candidate, which part is nominated for the same candidate and all that stuff. and to give you an idea of the measurement issues, if you compare the official results are highly accurate on election day, and i want to stress these, this is the actual result of the exit poll and the official results. if you look about the candidates , the difference between each candidate is less than one percentage point well within the sampling error. but if you look at the exit poll results separated by party, i only have 8% that multiple

parties vote. i underestimate the multiple party but boat. and i want to show you this was a measurement taken in a few seconds or minutes after the people came to the vote. it was the same dialogue measured accurately but we were able to measure accurately the candidate strength. to summarize what happened, i think that what had happened is that those that were able to better measure were those that were asking about candidates are not those that use the approach

which was to use an identical dialogue with. you're probably going to ask only for four candidates. among all of these candidates you would for whom would you vote for? and not hand a assimilated dialogue. i think that many of the firm's that deviated from the official result was reducing the dialogue. so, this is a problem and i think that what we have to do in the industry in mexico is to get rid of the dialogue because it is not actually measuring in a good way what is going on in terms of the string of the candidates. and you use telephone to try to actually reflect the dialogue

that takes place from the same identical because the voting and other kind of stuff. ..

>> we signed the same proposal. what this tells us is that unlike other elections come and this is our hypothesis of what we would have to wait for their official results, it does not abstain as they have in the past. they have done so at the same rate as the other groups. this is a profile for each of the major candidates. and there are very important

patterns. the first one is as well as josefina vazquez mota. still the lead of nine percentage points. the main voters were the ones who were not -- who were more productive, rather than female voters and this was a pattern that we have registered for many years. male voters have more left side than female voters. female voters are more conservative. they the less than male voters. look also at the young people. it is almost a tie. this is in the very important result category come in people between the ages of 18 and 29

committee represent one third of the electorate, 30% of the electorate. the fact that these do quite well within this group, and also the fact that this segment -- both are at a very good rate, it is very important to explain why they are closer than expected. look at, you know, their age groups. nine percentage points among 30 to 44 andres manuel obrador and nine percentage points. what you can see, is that he has done better with people of primary and secondary education. he laughed among those with high school or college education.

this is also very important as a pattern. another thing is that this group, college and younger people, tend to be the more volatile and independent. what we suggest is that the independent vote open for tennessee -- the candidacy. when i was thinking about the title of his presentation, i was thinking about male voters, the mexican voters. this is the same pattern that they have when they were in power several years ago. the people that are supporting the pri, are the more educated people. we have gone back to the spirit of a pattern.

it was people who are less educated to support the pri. this is a pattern coming back with a vengeance. okay. i would show you some other graphs. this is partisan approval. as you can see, 80% of voters tend to vote more for [inaudible name]. what is really important is that you can see is that he was

identified more with the position candidate than bonito. this also explains one very important dynamic of his campaign. how can he be a candidate of establishment? mexican voters even proceed the [inaudible] of unofficial candidate. in some cases, it seemed that he was an incumbent, you may want to look at the tbs -- sometimes there was a lot of criticism about his record while in the state of mexico. everyone was talking about dr. jorge buendia's record. it was one of the very strange things of this election -- [inaudible] for him, this allowed him to

gain the support of the people who were more unsatisfied with the presidential performance. and also, if you look at the people who felt that the country was going in the wrong track, also, as things get -- as things worsen, [inaudible] so dr. jorge buendia, -- he didn't necessarily work out that way for him, but we don't see it in terms of priorities, either economically insecurity, an

advantage for many of the candidates rather than changing the percentage of the priority. people -- we don't see any evidence of voting in general. the percentage for both of the candidates, depending on the recent data, it was a sincere vote or both coming here to win their arguments on major difference. i'm going to close on the social networks. the most important thing that happened with the selection was the bombardment of young people on facebook and twitter. as you can see, dr. jorge buendia lost among users of social media. facebook users, and in general,

among the people that use more heavily these kinds of instruments. the young people in the college-educated people. thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> okay. i am trying to get the presentation appear, give me one second.

okay. >> hello, everyone. thank you for coming. i'm currently finishing a book that explains how they have been able to adapt to the new realities electoral competition and show all of a sudden in 2000 the presidential mansion was lost, people started joking with me that i was no longer a political scientist and i would have to be a historian. twelve years later, i can again be a political scientist. eric asked me to present to you all something that explained why why p.r.e. won these elections. there are structural factors and contextual factors. they spoke clearly about some of the contextual factors. i will try to concentrate more on the structure of power that the p.r.e. had from 2,022,012 that help explain why was able to come back and come back with a bang.

so why did the pri when? first of all, it is strong in all region. the prv is a part of democratic revolution. they are regional parties. they have a regional basis of electoral power. the pri come on the other hand is a national party. it has electoral power in all regions of the nation. second, there were no major inter partes legitimation. they do not fracture over the function of the candidate. as they almost did in 2006. third, and this is much more of a contractual factor, they had a very strong candidate. you know, you can complain and make fun of him, but he is an extraordinarily strong candidate. it wasn't just because of this, there were other reasons that explain. two people i have up here,

mrs. the next pre-leader in the lower house. he is a powerful politician. you're going to talk about that at the end. and this is the head of -- i had a good picture of her, i did not make fun of her -- she is the head of an extremely powerful march national teachers union -- the national teachers union. she was somewhat connected to the pri. most people expect her party to be able to be very easily convinced to support pri bills in congress. let's talk about why that pri is so strong. as i will show you, there is tremendous power of the pri

governors. those governors are the basis, one of those important bases of the parties today and have been since the loss in 2000. as i will argue, even before 2000, the governors were the base of the party. why are governors so powerful? they win elections. second, pri avoided confrontation, which is very important. in the 2000 presidential election, the northern governors had no, who was the priest who was on the presidential candidates. in saying the answer no, they helped him lose by a large margin that did not happen in 2012. finally, i think this is really important. nobody has really spoken about, within the pri come they're always great to be extremely ambitious people who want the president candidacy. one way that you can avoid splits is to have one candidates candidate that is so popular and so -- everyone had this idea that he is going to win, but it does not make sense for other ambitious leaders to split, and

this is, again, the case for the internal nomination for the presidency. he was so far behind that he knew he could not beat his competition in the process, not possibly win the presidency. therefore it made no sense to split off any statements in the parties will come and now he's about to be rewarded with another excellent job which is being head of the pri in the congress. here is the pre-governorships the pri is in the dark red. this is right before the elections. this is the worst moment of the elections, roughly between 2000 and 2003 -- they held 18 of the 32 governorships. in 2011 they held roughly 20 to 21. most of those reasons why the pri, and if you see here, here

is a very important state because the pri lost it for the first time? wide? a split in the pri party. why did the pri lose this? a split within the pri. mostly one can say that except for certain states with the traditional stronghold, they lose elections because of internal splits. unless you have a split, they're probably going to continue to govern. if they manage to overcome internal division, many times it can retake the governorship which is certainly the case in many states, including many years ago. what you have here is powerful, national support for the party. why do you care about having governors? why should the pan and pde be

worried? governments can use a wide range of ways to help their coparties. other at the federal or state level. this is important when you talk about federal elections. it depends on how many seats you would have in the house. this is really important, not on that, that would help determine the kind of power that you have in the legislature. even if you don't have the executives, you don't control the executive branch. if you had a strong, centrist caucus in the lower house from when sending? that means you can always make the executive negotiate with you. that is how they sit stay politically important during your set of power from 2000 intel 2012. this is going to make the pri a

central part of the legislative branch in the 21,222,018. to help with federal suits and other suits. mexico has a mixed system that you have 300 single member districts and 200 proportional representation and keats. the seats are one through five are regional districts. this is a nice way -- these are single member districts by region, these are the single member districts and the pri green party. this is the northwest.

they managed when 13 seats -- in the entire region of the northwest, they did not remember a single member district. this speaks to a terrible weakness. look at the pri. this is out of 5050 was 61. here we have the northeast. this is something interesting that someone saw and the vote

the candidate did extremely well northeast. again, look at the prd. and then the pan wins six out of 60. that is 10%. prd continues to do better, and then pri does very well. now see the weaknesses of the pan. in the cesar gaviria and other states, this is the federal district, mexico city. the prd has done well in the 27 districts in mexico city. here you see the pri does not do very well, but it is a strong showing. this is the state of mexico, the

pri comes roaring back. they are a national party, the pan is a national action party, and the prd is not a national party. it is no surprise that the pri, with a good candidate would be able to come back to power. okay. here are the electoral results for state and municipal elections. what you see your company started in 1980. they used to win -- in terms of percentage of votes, almost 90% in a hegemonic party. this is not a dominant party in india or japan. then it drops, it really drops dramatically the support at that municipal and governor level, it does not drop.

this is why the pri is extremely popular at this level. you'd think in the 1980s they would still be a popular party. this is how many percentage of the voting population that identifies with the party that is over 30% or then it goes down, it's still 30%. look at the pan, this is going to be that tragedy for them. look at this. even after the pri debacle in the 2006 a luncheon, 2006 election, the pri still had a higher percentage of the voting population that identified with them.

people like the pri. this is during felipe calderon's presidency. people like him. even during his presidency, the pan did not manage to communicate with voters and the pri dead. that, i think, let me just of accurate -- what ended up in this talk is that the pri has enormous power because voters always liked the pri. they never gave up on the pri and switch to the pan or prd. they have very good governors, the governors -- once they get in office they can stay there. the party does remember because there is no consecutive reelection in any area of government. this is a party that knows how to govern, and thanks to these governors, is able to win elections at the federal level.

what is so good for the pri in the cases that have been extremely good candidate and ran a very good campaign. there were no splits among the different forces faced enormous popularity. in 2007, i went to one of these pri luncheons, and it was hosted by the state of mexico. it was sort of brought in the governor, and even then, it was obvious to everyone he was going to be the pri candidate and he was going to win. they literally carried him a lot like a roman emperor through the street. what that tells you is, the pri had been planning this for you in era. and he kept the split to a minimum. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. dr. francsisco gonzalez? >> good morning everyone. thank you to the people putting this on for the kind of medication. i would like to share with you the reflections regarding the elections last week. and i have divided them into three issues. first, some surprises in what the new political configuration in mexico will look like and what the dynamics might look like. then, some of the challenges. it is very easy to say that things were meant to be all right -- things were meant to be peaceful. in fact, up until a few days before, there was significant uncertainty throughout society

in regards to the potential for violence to the elections. many of you have seen not only increasing amounts of intensity of violence, we see it as targeted -- we see it among state officials and also in public places, schools, this is where polling stations -- where they were located. that was a positive surprise on that sunday, sunday the first, after the presidential election institute, it was declared after a physically mythic in situation that dr. francsisco dr. jorge bd

by seven percentage points, many people breathed a sigh of relief that we are now back in 2006 when less than a quarter of a million votes, .5 percentage of the total votes had been separated, from today's attitude, which is on the right. that was good. again, uncertainty -- how could we call it? a wave of scrutiny that have been taking place since january and february and particularly of the prd and also the pan had been calling wolf. they had been -- the pri has strategic alliance. before he became governor of the mexico portion, he had a

strategic alliance with the largest media conglomerate. it has been exposed with original documents. you have the pri steamroller, they are a very pragmatic party. they see a strong person they can rally around, we will act like a very effective hack, it pragmatic pack of political animals, much more so than the pan and prd. much of us made the mistake after the president of the electoral institute came out and said don't worry, it's not as close as last time. immediately you get the national

party congratulating him. and then you get minutes later -- you get basically an acceptance speech. a week after the election. president obama, everyone congratulates them -- i understand that probably there was a strong conscience but the potential for conflict, given what had happened in 2003. i think these shows of the enthusiasm was were premature. i myself was writing little blog for my students at johns hopkins, real-time telling them what i saw.

and i said yes, july 1, this yielded credibility and legitimacy. three days later i was biting my tongue, big mouth strikes again. i have spoken too soon. because, i think, even the pri now admits, this was not a close collection. evidence of systemic vote buying is out there. it continues to rage in mexico. some things have been uncovered, they come onyx, one of the latest supermarkets. in some states, observers were asked not to go condition themselves with the war on drugs -- they have [inaudible] , [inaudible] there were no observers, we don't know what happened there. he might've been coerced.

we don't know. i retracted my great ability on legitimacy. and resorted to what has become the legal elections -- they have become legal because it is impossible to distinguish the bond votes. sincere or nonsense there. you just can't do it. legitimacy is an issue, it is a matter of public opinion. today, probably 1.5 in every three or four mexicans think that these elections were not equal and think, as we were told, this was from the very beginning the candidates of the establishment. and i like that perspective of

being seen and her perceived and scrutinized as an incumbent. there was going to be more of a referendum when the fact conclusions should have been the opposition. that was the other surprise. legal but not legitimate. it only means that the pri will have to concede more in negotiations. some of the usual suspects -- 11 deputies will become pivotal to pass many, many reforms, and therefore, this is someone who remains at the core of today's power block. my sense is that the big light

in the aftermath of the very question of 1988 elections, probably could say those were neither legal nor legitimate. because there was never a vote count. mysteriously in the chamber of deputies. that is a long story. but the key point is that the pri and pan struck a deal, which allowed this modernizing agenda to take effect. can very well see part of pan. pan is a very cohesive party. as is now suffering internal fascism, people are -- the pri will be able to play with some of this and from that perspective, you have an

executive, for the next three years, which will probably be the strongest of the last three presidencies. another surprise quickly, i'm not going to go into it, because he gave his presentation, but my sense is that the polling industry suffered a crisis. the industry became politicized, the issue caused dependence of credibility. it depends on the people -- the majority of mexicans think that pollsters, a majority pollsters try to shape rather than to reflect reality. and this was done in a consistent manor in favor of the candidate of establishment. reality. you know, as much as the pri once, this is a return to the past, all the newspapers, here in spain and mexico and the uk

-- they are raising this question. there is no return to the past. there was no power play behind you. the position remains alive and kicking without some support, the upper and lower chambers of dr. jorge buendia's perform, they won't be as ambitious as you might want them to be. particularly labor, energy, fiscal reform and something regarding social security. the pri will have to keep wheeling and dealing. this time from a position of power. keep an eye on the questions of legitimacy, keep an eye on the social networks where there was a clear advantage, those who are members of the generational social media -- the generation

of social media, given the ripple effect that they have on real-time. and we will keep watching god because this is a new factor into society. i'm not saying that they're going to save democracy from the hands of them, but certainly i think there is a point that can be made. do they become absorbed into the political system and end up like many social movements -- do they remain out there trying to advance accountability, not only of the government, but with regards to opposition. the left, i think, strengthens its core power in the capital city, that was a 40 plus

percentage point victory by the prd. as dr. jorge buendia showed us was very important numbers as well, by far the largest votes in mexico city, with around 7 million votes. the problem for the left is that there is a great anomaly that controls the neuralgic center of the country. and also some parts of the south with little else. i wish there was a modern left in mexico. mexico, from my perspective, badly needs a progressive agenda and agenda that prioritizes social justice. mexico is now one of four most unique countries in latin america, just, you know, nikon neck with countries like some of the central american countries.

they badly need social justice. but thecountries. they badly need social justice. but the left, it is bad. i think the left can do too much. it remains too fractured. many of them came from the pri and so they have the same habits. vertical control, nationalism -- in reality, it is pragmatic much what often than not, self-serving challenges. the candidates were trying to outbid one another as they started climbing in the polls. they have gone had gone for a relatively conservative agenda regarding economic issues. as they started soaring in may and june, therefore they have talked about subsidies in electronics and gasoline, and cheaper credit, there are lots

of promises out there. this is going to be a process of how to manage the frustrated expectations. 90% plus of the federal budget already earmarked, there is little room for maneuvering. lots of promises, how are you going to do about? that is one thing. two more things, two minutes. and then i will finish. a second challenge is that the pri has been saying that they will continue the fight against organized crime. but at the same time that we bring down violence. that is a big one. that, i think, could make or break the legacy of this president. they come out with something which appears to be trying to bridge things and saying that well, we are going to base our new measure for measuring success, we are going to change the metric. it's not going to be a number of

kingpins that we catch and extradited to the u.s., it's not going to be the amount of narcotics that we confiscate them is going to be the number of citizens per hundred thousand that get killed. okay. you can read many things into that. i like it. i like that. family and friends and acquaintances who have been professional people, they're going about their lives, but they are terrified. the last one, of course, is the need to inject dynamism into things. you will know the stories about the monopolies, the economy, and of course, the great difficulty here is that the correlation that has enabled this concentrated economy to continue to thrive has been basically crafted by businessmen and pri

and pan politicians, when either of those were incumbent. my sense is that it is key for this, you know, for them to really do something the first 100 days of his term. lay down roots of what would be strong or weak leadership. yes, he said it is a pragmatic party, the pri, he is an effective person who the people like and he is gaining resources and popularity. they are far from ideological. it is very pragmatic. this first phase will allow us to see -- you will see these extremely important challenge is challenges that i pointed out. thank you so much. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> we are going to take advantage of this gentleman

being here. we will ask him to differences in 10 -- give us some insight. >> thank you for giving me time to get some comments. i have to begin but really must say that i enjoy the analysis. [inaudible] they spoke about the pragmatic issues of the pri and the losing of the way of the mexican government, which is, in my opinion, the first point to say that the government lost the

election and among the struggle with the pri, then the prd, we are forgetting that the government -- the mexican government has lost the election. and as we have to see, why this problem is the problem of the last election. there are a lot of things to say about it, perhaps the mexican problem of the last election -- it is a strategy, a very close strategy, which was said before. close to 70,000 people were killed in the last six years.

perhaps the mexican government lost the election because the pan was into the governmental parity. there was a big conflict into the governmental purity before the campaign and during the campaign. perhaps the government we beat last election, because they witnessed for the candidates -- josefina vazquez mota, she was not a strong candidate. she was a very weak candidate. not only a great candidate in terms of [inaudible] , but also, in my opinion, fair and loyal to the present canada. he was absolutely loyal with president calderon.

all those that oppose the government went to the candidate of the governmental party. but anyway, one or three or four things come the coast of the social inequity, the coast of the organized crime, the coast of the weakness can be all according to the actual policies. there was a combination and a mixture that ran to the government that lost the election. this is something to say. the second common -- the second question, [inaudible] i do agree with that analysis.

not only because there is a strong way to govern in the mexican politics, but because the prd abandoned the political association. i think it was important that the prd in 2006, abandon the institution and try to go to build a new movement, a new social movement so named morena. [inaudible] to give him the personal power to go against these elections.

so the prd went to a new struggle inside the target, the prd lived a very, very tough struggle between the movement and chuchos. we are trying to with a party there is a real party into the negotiations with the government -- [inaudible] -- they gave the government a felipe calderon. it was a great addition into the

prd, and i think this is another reason to see the prd loosen this new election. i have to say as well that chuchos was -- yes, i think as well franciscus said before, [inaudible] [inaudible] i think it is not enough to say that the recent violence, i think there is another kind of technical or political reason that we have to find it out

because half of the people in mexico are thinking right now that the polls were working to make [inaudible] and this is the part of the problem. this is something to explain and we need to explain about it. [inaudible] i believe the last chance it has come to vote for this problem in mexico.

they could be back to the past of the consequence of this party. of course, i have not an answer to this question, but i have to think that there is a possibilit to stop the democratic process were to get into a big or huge problem of the democratic process in because of at least three reasons. the problem of legitimacy, i insist that half of the population, mexico, thinks that this was an unfair election. it is not easy to go on -- or a

lot of people that think that there was a fraud. i think there is a big risk with the democratic process because i have to say it is against their electoral institutions. you don't believe in electoral institutions and they don't believe there is enough rules to go with elections and we can be sure that we are going to have another reform process in the next year, we cannot be sure about the costs of these new electoral reforms. it is very linked with the political reform as a whole and would probably reforms that we need to grab it on in terms of economic growth only, but in

terms of social equity. in the next three years, we can see and be sure, i think we can be sure about it, trying to get everything in the same pot, and it can be very difficult to deal with. the second is the government and the political conflict -- there is a big political conflict and could be right at the end of the period. not only in the face of the new government, but the last phase of the previous government.

[inaudible] [inaudible] we could see the transition to a new government as a new opportunity to strengthen the actions. there is a problem, a real problem with the [inaudible] yes, we have a new and stronger civil society. we have a new and stronger public opinion. we have another political revolution of the free press as we have seen what people, in mexico, with a new agenda. [inaudible] naudible] we saw problems with human

rights, like public education, social inequity and the lack of accountability. this is not an electoral agenda, this is a new agenda, we are concerned with the weight of the government has to govern. of course, we have to go after the elections to get this the way that it was, i think, in the way it works. these are my comments. >> thank you. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i want to do a couple of days since we had to reorder things a little bit. i would like to give him a chance to respond. there is a public respect intent perception that the tv industry was biased in favor, there is a perception that the polling was biased in favor of [inaudible

name] and one of the other candidates. i want to give you the opportunity and take you to ask questions very briefly, and then we will call for everyone to wrap things up. >> thank you. >> i think that the criticism against poland and mexico, -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> political reasons and technical reasons. we are on the same page. obviously we have to look into what happened. of course, the easy explanation to say -- [inaudible]

[inaudible] we know that one out of five voters one week before the election, if they talk about whom they would support on election day -- secondly, as i showed you, the groups were the best -- they were better -- those that did better where the young people in college educated people. these are the political terms of groups of mexico. i want you to think about the political argument.

[inaudible] [inaudible] as i showed you, there are a lot of reasons we have a person's vote, and it shows that both have reacted to that. those who were unsatisfied with more likely to vote for [inaudible name]. i think that we have to put into perspective certainly there would be some people that we would take into account, but i can tell you that the people who are not clear about who was in

first place, basically, many people think that they are going to support a candidate who is going to win. there were 51% of the mexican population that say that [inaudible name] won first place. but the rest of the electorate says that andres manuel obrador or even tran-threes were in first place. even those who say that he was in first place, they said that josefina vazquez mota was in second place. i think that the impact, i think, has public opinion on both of behavior -- [inaudible] [inaudible] it is rather limited.

other leaders affect future behavior of mexican weeds. one of the criticisms is that many candidates josefina vazquez mota, were able to raise more money because the sorts of polls. that might be true and that is something -- although the funny thing is that -- [inaudible] [inaudible] if this happens, i mean, this can be the main impact of those sorts of polls, especially in the behavior of the present on

the way people perceive. going back to the technical reasons, they were in very close correspondent to the actual result. no response was either a factor. the more plausible explanation i have found -- it is really, really -- it is thinking that someone would -- especially asking voters to vote on a ballot which reflects five to 10 identities, [inaudible]

we have to focus more on candidates [inaudible] [inaudible] >> were going to take three questions come in and we're going to invite you up for it more. we have a question here and brighter and brighter as well, the young man. please identify yourselves and then keep the conversation going so we can get some answers my question is about vote buying. it has a history in mexico. by recalling 2000, there was outrageous vote buying. it seems to have some effect. there is a secret ballot in mexico. i wonder people just don't take the money or the card or the washing machine or whatever it is and vote for whoever they want to. does it really make a difference? ..