we want to, we want to do two things when the replacement that would answer your question. one is we want to reward what you do here. that is, we want to reward taking care of the patients rather than taking care of one of the symptoms of the patient, one of the diseases. so that if you can understand that that in taking care of a person's diabetes you're also dealing with their heart, you're also dealing with the other -- the blood pressure. so much of this is interrelated, and you're managing the full services rather than just taking a piecemeal and billing separately. that's a particular problem, by the way, with hospital care this our country. in our country. how do we manage a person in a way that can reduce hospital admission rates and can reduce the unnecessary duplication of tests that take place and also better care of the patient itself? so that's one of the issues that we're trying to deal with on the

sgr replacement, how do we deal with that. the other is how do you deal with the relative value of services particularly in pri hair care. we have seen there's been some studies go the way that we now, you know, we rely basically on physician groups to tell us how many hours it takes to give various services. but there was a washington post or new york times article, i forgot which -- i think it was a washington post -- that showed that for certain specialties the doctor would have had to work over 24 hours a day to equal the number of hours that they had, were charged with. so we've got to get a better handle. and the people who are being disadvantaged under the current system are primary care. and that's what we have to fix. and you're exactly right. if we're going to get the right mix, the right work force mix, then we have to have the right reimburse bement structure. and a lot of that means let's replace the sgr which was not part of the affordable care act. it's a separate issue that we clearly have to deal with.

i'm going to ask a question, if i might, jay, and that is -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> those of you that have to sort of figure out in advising people how to enroll in the exchanges, i don't know if you've had a chance yet to take a look at the type of plans that have been approved, the different levels of plans, the seven major companies that are involved, the different plans that they're offering, how they're handling pediatric dental in some cases differently, in some cases the same. have you figured out what we can do to make your job a little bit easier, or is it too early to make that calculation as to the information? they're not going to have it ready until close to october 1, so i know we're talking a little early here. but what keeps you up at night as you think about trying to enroll people many these plans? >> so the training for our trainers has not even happened yet. it's first scheduled to happen in september. >> okay.

[inaudible conversations] let me just raise that question. how are you going to get it done, ready for october 1? [laughter] jeff is in the same position as i am trying to roll out navigators and assisters who are going to be the ones who are on the streets. he deals with the mentally ill population for the be most part in his service area, so i'll let him talk, field that one. >> first off, it's delightful to be talking about expanding resources. let's just start with that premise. [laughter] for me, this has been exceptional. i'm the executive director of mosaic, we serve about 26,000 folks a year. and i can say the benefit package worries me that particularly in my specialty area, which is behavioral health -- >> right. >> that it's not sufficient. and i think one of the discussions when we talk about access, we can make -- we can enroll people, but we really need to make sure that we're

making the folks that sort of have been lost in the safety net before make these services accessible and available in a way that they will. i think jay, kevin, all of us have been talking about how do we reach people where they are, if it's under a bridge, but also how those services are delivered. and i was really, i really liked what you said earlier about sort of how do we manage the total health of the consumer in a way that's very important. particularly in behavioral health, coming in to see a psychiatrist for a treatment is only the tip of the iceberg. a range of services from housing to employment to community-based care that are essential to help that person be successful, maintain their whole health needs. all that really needs to be in play. and so to answer your question, first off, i really believe that all the plans, frankly, are not sufficient in terms of scope of coverage for mental health and addictions.

the is second issue for me which is particularly with mental health is that we aren't centrally qualified. community mental health centers are not. and one of the bills of the excellence in mental health act that i know is moving through the senate, we really would urge your support and anything you can do to help move that particular piece of legislation. because going back to what the doctor said, we think that there's going to be enormous numbers of people who have not had full medicaid before with, people with pac, people with addictions who haven't been able to access that total package of services. and really, really hope that we can move that forward. the other piece that's really exciting -- and i particularly want to thank all of sallyann and jay in particular, we're doing a lot of partnerships together to really reach a unique population out there. been -- but without the funding beyond simply improving the rates, but the capital, the ability to recruit and retain

professionals in mental health, while primary care's a challenge, behavioral health is a unique challenge in keeping good people who want to do this work in the community. >> well, thank you for that observation. be we have come a long way on mental health parity in this country. >> we have. >> and the affordable care act took another giant step forward on mental health parity. we're not there yet. we have to acknowledge part of it is we still don't quite understand how to bring about the type of parity that is necessary and how do we do it in a cost effective way. so i think this is an evolutionary process, and we'll need your observations as to how we should expand the services that are covered for mental health, addiction, counseling, those types of areas where we know that we have made strides, but we know we still have somewhere to go. we are proud about the expansion

of facilities for meantal health services. i mean, you take a look at the health centers. over the last decade or over the last five years, it's been an incredible expansion of services that are now available in communities that didn't have those services before. so it's been very cost effective. we're seeing hospital admission rates go down because we have community services that can do follow-up rather than having a person go to emergency rooms. a lot of this is to reduce the needs of emergency room care was it's so expensive, and it's not very effective if you have an ongoing issue. >> right. >> so we can get into the community centers, we can do a better job on that. as far as facilities for construction, that has been very difficult to get at the national level for health facilities. there's always been some money available but not a lot. the affordable care act did provide some p help for actual building and construction. it's an area that we understand we still don't have enough facilities out there, but we do

look for you to tell us what is the best way to expand capacity using a model that is working in the health centers. so we will look for ways to expand that. one of the nice things about the affordable care act was that the health centers had bipartisan support. it was not a controversial issue to provide more services in the community particularly in a cost effective setting where you can provide comprehensive care, taking the pressure off of emergency rooms. >> we'll see how long that lasts. [laughter] >> oh, i think so. you know, community centers, i must tell you, i think there's knowledge about the importance to continue that expansion. i think the expansion in mental health services, te f i know in oral health have been bipartisan, and we think that will continue. >> and collaboration really is the key to this because we can't operate in is silos anymore.

all the health care organizations are really needing to work together to kind of make this work. we've got to kind of create that seamless whole. we're working with jeff on a collaboration already that has some of his clinicians operating in baltimore medical system providing needed mental health and substance abuse services. we are working, we've been working with st. agnes hospital for a long time doing a lot of on-site collaboration, and we had an emergency room diversion program for a while. shirley sutton the is the vice chair of our board, she represents st. agnes hospital, and maybe i'll invite her to talk in a second. and then stuart bell, the cmo of union memorial hospital, and we are in conversation right now trying to create a collaboration with union memorial to do exactly the same thing. so, shirley, stuart, do you want to say a couple of words? >> i just want to say, first of

all, um, senator cardin, we are very proud of what you and the governor have done. it was a courageous act to just move forward irregardless of the outcome of supreme court. speaking for st. agnes, we certainly have worked very, very hard over the past three years trying to figure out a way to manage people in our emergency room. i will say we have some concerns that as more people get coverage, that some of that work will have to sort of either expand or look at how we can improve, because we expect that even more people with that concern over primary care access will actually flood our er rooms. so, you know, working with bms but also working with west baltimore care -- another organization that we work with, mosaic -- we think we're going to be able to manage people not just within the hospital door,

but outside in the community a lot were better. and that's one of the goal withs of st. agnes is saying once they leave, we still have ownership with those people that go out into the community. >> bms, st. ago necessary, mosaic and about 14 other organizations are involved -- >> good. >> so we're involved in that process as well as another partnership that we have going on. >> when uh-huh. and the concern that we have from a hospital is ob access as well as primary care. >> ob -- [inaudible] it's under primary. >> okay. and i'm just wondering if there's any look at how we can expand or keep providers within the community available and accessible to medicaid as we expand, because quite a few obs are beginning to exit that delivery system. and so we do have some concerns about that. >> you're raising very important questions. let me tell you why we have to get it right. it is better management of care,

because we have to bring down as we call it the growth rate of health care costs. we all understand that. for many reasons, from a governmental point of view the cost of medicare is a dominant factor in our budget. at the state level the cost of medicaid is a dominant factor in their budgets. you've got two choices to deal with those cost issues in the future for government. one is to shift the cost. everybody pay more, you know? that's going to hurt poor people, particularly medicaid. any shift in medicaid's going to hit our most vulnerable. and they medicare, seniors are already paying a large percentage of their income in health care costs, so your going to shift it to wrong people. or you have a more efficient system which is exactly what we need to do. cut down on hospital readmission rates. we know that we can do that. care first, in our state, has developed a plan where they're putting their own money on the

table and saying if we can get better follow-up care, we'll send nurses out, we'll pay for it. we're going to save money. and they do. so we know that we need to do a better job on readmissions from the point of view of people following up their care after they leave a hospital. but it's metropolitan that. it's more than that. how do you deal on the 40 to listic aspect of a person's health care. and it's not just what we do under the affordable care act, it's how we handle reimbursement rates, hospital rates. as you know in maryland, the governor's looking at a model that is more visionary from the point of view of overall health care results. these are ways that you save money, and you bring down the costs, and you get better quality care. so, yes, we want to reduce the people this your emergency rooms, be -- but you're right. if you don't have a health center, where are they going to go? >> back to the emergency room.

>> so you're absolutely right. that is a concern that we have. how do we make sure that doesn't happen. >> i think we're in the midst of a reinvention, really, and it's how we do care. and the way we have to do it has to be completely different from how we've done it in the past. these collaborations we're talking about are key. hospitals are reinventing themselves because we've now become or will become cost centers rather than profit centers, and we have to start reaching out into the community and that continuity of care. no siloing, but rather how do we provide that continuity of care. so that's our challenge. and i think one thing it's almost like you're riding a bike while you're trying to fix it at the same time, right? so we still have revenue needs, for example, speaking from the hospital point of view and the health system point of view to keep the wheels running 24/7, 365 that we have, and yet we're in the midst of this reinvention for the population management.

your point about bill health, you know, we're the only major behavioral health center in central baltimore, and we are packed to the gills every day with people waiting to get into our inpatient unit, our outpatient unit, our partial hospitalization. and we couldn't be busier really when you come down to it. so there's a lot of opportunity there, but the challenges, i think, largely are -- i see the manpower as the number one, honestly, just as emily was saying here. you know, having enough providers including extended providers to provide some of this care is just -- and we all talk about it, but i don't know how prominently we've spoken about it because i think when you look at the numbers of folks who are going to be caring for in this way -- and appropriately so -- we don't have the care providers to do that. >> and to emphasize your point, bms had to make a painful policy decision just a few weeks back

where we had two longstanding physician assistants on our staff, but the insurance companies didn't want to pay for physician assistants as primary care providers. we had to met them go. and at a point in time we need to access the capacity, we can't get paid for some of the staff under medicaid or under private insurance policy, commercial insurance. they will not pay for physician assistants. so we had to downsize. now, we've actually managed to hold on to those and put them into other rolings because we were creative to fig be out how -- figure out how to make that happen, but they are no longer providing access to primary care services that are absolutely needed in the community. >> just another point about access, i think the e.d. does represent one point of access that we haven't talked about much here. but so many of these folks either only use the e.d. as their primary source of health care or they use it frequently, and that's the readmissions and people bouncing back and forth.

and i think the more efforts we can put into getting people hooked into the system right at the e.d., i think that's ooh going to be a real value-added type of thing. >> well, i think work force is a huge issue, having the right work force. that's why we put a lot of attention on allied health professionals because we believe our nurses, our therapists, technicians can do a lot of the services here. the general rule is that if the state licensed the person to do the work, then the federal government participates. if be we're having any difficulty on that part of federalism, it should not be a part in maryland. but if we're having a problem, and we'll see if we can't help you on the reimbursement side. we have, i think, done a fairly good job in expanding the health centers from the point of view of there's a limit as to how fast you can expand the centers. and i acknowledge that we still

don't have enough, but we're on a trajectory to do an incredible increase in capacity in providing community services. so i think moving forward we are still in this period where we don't know exactly what's going to happen on october 1, let alone on january 1. and what i would sort of ask, and i know i speak also for senator mikulski, senator my mikulski's been one of leaders on some of the things we're talking about. her committee has done a lot of work on that, so we compare notes all the time, our two offices. so what i would ask as we get -- as you start looking at the materials that is coming through on the different plans, as you start talking to the people of the need to enroll and then when you start seeing whether there's community services -- facilities available to provide the services for the people that are enrolling, that feedback would be very, very important be to

your federal officials. so for senator mikulski, congressman sarbanes and myself, i know that would be very, very helpful. so if you would let us know that and if we could use you as a resource, you've been there all the time. jay knows that i've had a health advisory group for a long period of time that has made me look a lot stronger than i perhaps otherwise would be. [laughter] i'm very fortunate to live so close to washington, i can get back and talk to people all the time. so your expoorpses here -- experiences here will be very, very important. and the point you raise, this doesn't end january 1st. actually, next chapter begins on january 1st. so we need to know what adjustments we can make. the administration is committed to making whatever adjustments they need to make for this to work. it is their highest priority. they have a lot of administrative leeway. they've made some administrative decisions that i've disagreed with, i've tried to get them to

change. but we have influence on how those decisions will come out. so your input on that would be, i think, very, very helpful to me also. so if we could have you follow up, let us know how things are going, and we do everything we can to make sure, in fact, this is as seamless as we can make it and that as few people as possible fall through the cracks and that this service is available for those to enroll and that we continue to work to expand the capacity as well as those that are participating in the system. >> thank you. >> jay, thank you very much. thank you all very much. appreciate it. >> okay. [applause] >> and i want to separately from this round table and the round table is really over, i would like to call the attention of everyone in the room to something that we here at baltimore medical system have an

opportunity to celebrate today. clara delgallo has been a member of our board of trustees now for almost 30 years. she predates me which is -- [laughter] hard for me to imagine, but she was. as a matter of fact, she was associated with the first version of this center when it was on bank street a couple of blocks away called the albert witski center. ben remember that name pretty well. >> yeah. >> and by the way, barbara mikulski's parents, both of them received care there, so we have a connection to barbara as well going back which really lives in this center here. so clara was recently notified that she was a points of light winner. she is going to be recognized by the points of light foundation for her work here at baltimore medical system not only because she's been a board member continuously, almost continuously since that point in time, since we started in 1984,

but also because every day when patients get off at the elevators walking into the health center -- now, these may be people who are brand new not just to baltimore medical center, but brand new to the united states because we serve so many immigrants here, so many refugees here. the first person who they get to see generally is clara. as a volunteer. as a volunteer who spends hours and hours and hours at this center doing all the right things and making people feel at ease when they come in for the services. she's a smiling face, she's very energetic. she doesn't speak the 40 or 50 languages that come in here -- [laughter] but she speaks the most important human language which is a language of welcome, and she does that excellently and with style and with grace. clara's family just walked into the room so that they could celebrate with her, and clara, i think you had a couple of wards

that you wanted to say as well? and then senator cardin is going to present you with your -- >> [inaudible] >> in fact, why don't you take my seat. [background sounds] >> wow. [laughter] thank you. just a few words, i won't keep you long. thank you for the honor. it has been a privilege to be on the board of trustees of baltimore medical system. but i must thank my husband for his support all 29 years.

i don't drive, so he was my chauffer. [laughter] and i must -- and to the board and staff, always working to stay throw -- stay true to our mission statement. it has been a great experience for me to work at the front desk. i have been here two years on a voluntary -- [inaudible] as a volunteer, i should say, at the front desk and working side by side with our staff. this is a wonderful center, and it is a wonderful center because the people here work so hard to make it a wonderful center. it's about the people here. the staff here. and i share in this award with all of you who work at baltimore medical systems. again, thank you for this

presidential honor, but also thank you very much for the people who have worked so hard to make this happen a, and i didn't know until a week ago. [laughter] but thank you. >> well, clara -- [applause] clara, not often i get a chance to stand in for one of my real heroes, and that is former president george h.w. bush. i've had, i had a chance to work with him, incredible leader, an incredible human being who has given so much back to the community. as president of the united states, but as former president of the united states. so i am honored to stand in for him today. he apologizes, but -- [laughter] we've been talking a lot about work force and whether we have the right people in lace to provide the services -- in place to provide the services. you're the front line. you're the absolute front line.

and for people to be able to get quality, affordable health care, they have to be able to come through that door and be accepted and have confidence that they're going to be treated with the care that they expect. and you have provided that. and you have done that as a volunteer. which is just remarkable from the point of view of if we could clone you and have you throughout -- [laughter] it would make life a lot easier. we've talked a lot also about how do you get people into the system, and you personally have gotten people into the system because of the manner this which you saw that welcome language that jay referred to. so we really do thank you so much. the system can -- we can have all the doctors, it won't work unless we have more claras. so thank you very much. [laughter] [applause]

>> why don't we do this officially. >> thank you. >> there you go. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you so much. thank you. >> and, jay, this is yours. [laughter] >> thanks, everybody. thanks for everybody -- >> we're going to do a short tour. >> we're going to do a short tour if anybody wants to trail along, you're welcome to. and if not, then thank you for being with us here today and celebrating with us. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

..

hugely important to my television members. there are two ways that you pay for localism, local content. you pay for it through an advertising model which is the historic model of television broadcasting or now the growing screen as the transmission consent. now they find this level like any market.

right now cable pays itself far more for its content and it pays to broadcasters and the truth of the matter our content is the one people watch the most. to look up the 100 top shows in any given week and 94 of them are broadcast content. so it's worth something and it's important that we fight and win this battle on their reach transmission consent because candidly its vital if the congress wants us to continue trying to foster localism and provide all the things we do to earn our licenses every day. you have to have a way to finance it. the advertising and transmission we are standing inside a

two-story cabin from 1856. in her memoirs she lets us know she doesn't like it one bit. she found it crude but due to her nature as a married woman she didn't want to be the mistress of her own home. she thought he could have built something nice and her father talked brandt into building a log structure. julia would have brought with her a lot of things. she would have had a fine china and furniture that would have been comfortable chairs and a table because at this point she would have five people eating in this dining room. what is important for them even though they do not live -- this

represents their first home together. julia would gain great confidence as a wife and a mother. >> the encore presentation of the series' first lady's influence and image of looking at the public and private lives of the nation's first ladies. julia grant to caroline harrison. weeknights all this week at nine eastern on c-span. the aspen institute hold its annual security forum in july. next a discussion about intelligence and counterterrorism with the current and former directors of the national counterterrorism center. ryan lizza moderated the discussion about current terrorism threats come intelligence oversight come a data collection and surveillance and civil liberties. >> we are probably at the point of the day everything has been said that not everyone has said it. so we will try to move on to

topics we haven't covered and mix it up a little bit. very excited to moderate this discussion to the best in the business here. matt olsen is the current director of the nctc. he has the full gamut of national security jobs. he's been general counsel, adviser to attorney general eric holder, acting assistant attorney general for national security and special counsel to the fbi director. his predecessor at the nctc is mike leiter. mike was the second director of the national counterterrorism center from 2007 to 2011. and he is now senior counselor to the ceo of the data analytics company panentere technologies and is a anchor for cnbc news. why don't we begin with a very

broad question, and that is what is the current state of the threat of terrorism? where does it emanate from and how serious is it? matter why don't we start with you. >> thanks, ryan. it's daunting to talk about. you said we talked about a lot of the subjects today and talking about the threat is particularly daunting. but i will give it a shot and turn it over to you, mike. right off the top the threat is very different now from the counterterrorism perspective from what it was ten years ago and even four years ago. at a couple different levels, first come as it's been noted from the core al qaeda in pakistan and afghanistan is significantly degraded. we don't face the same threat of the type of attack we experienced on 9/11 and any measure.

the group is struggling to survive to recruit, train and operate the remains at the vanguard of the movement and it's still look to for leadership and guidance. to mention the most aqat to mens us the most aqat because they've retained the intent to carry out an attack against us here at home and we tried three times to take down airliners over the last few years. beyond that, beyond the affiliated groups and john and the prior panel talked about this. the whole expense of the unrest and the turmoil in north africa and parts of the middle east have led to the rise of the networks and temporary groups like sharia in benghazi and i was part of the group that carried out the individuals that carried out the attack against

our facility in benghazi last year. those types of groups definitely pose a threat to us in the region. the are less of a threat raton and then the final group to mengin in a very quick answer is the threat from homegrown extremists. and they're obviously the attack in boston is the most. the challenge for us is individuals like tsarnaev don't hit the radar. they don't travel to pakistan and yemen or communicate in the same way they learn what they need to know on the internet and become radicalized on the internet. from that perspective it was a challenge from the counterterrorism perspective. so i think overall it remains a persistent and its increasingly complex and diverse and that is why it is so challenging. >> always good to be here in astana. thank you for another great

event. i want to commend you for the job you've done making it something functional after i left. but also i think people should understand who are not in government it actually is a really big deal to sit next to each other and there is a lot about the confidence and the ability that he is willing to stand up next to the guy that can say anything he wants. >> it's always good to keep them close. >> i agree with matt's assessment entirely. i would add a couple of small items. first, we've been talking about the threat and all the places that are horrible in the world. we have to remember how unbelievably successful the counterterrorism efforts have been over the past 12 years. i do this a lot but a group like this on september 12th, 2001 how many americans do you think or how many people in the united states will be killed by al qaeda the next ten years, my

guess is i would get the answers of a thousand, 10,000. i am almost certain no one would say 18 of which is the total number of americans that have been killed by al qaeda and terrorists in the u.s. in the past 12 years. so we've done remarkably well. the threat that matt described i think is accurate we also have to look at this in the strategic sense and understand that we are never going to treat any of these threats entirely. we have to reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic attack and we are also going to be susceptible to some of these as tragic as they are the smaller attack like in boston. the only final piece that i would add are focused mostly on al qaeda and some extremism. i think certainly over the past two or three years people have become slightly more aware of the threat of the shia inspired

extremism manly the force and hezbollah and if we approach a greater conflict with iran or the west approached a greater conflict with iran in the next year we will face an invigorated shia inspired for it. we have seen that against the saudi ambassador in washington and other attacks overseas. this is something from the counterterrorism community especially defining the resources we have to make sure that we keep our eye on. >> if i could say in addition to what mike said because it encapsulates the complexity of the challenge and that is to focus on syria for a second. so in syria we have the opposition to the regime and was a middle position that we have a growing extremist group seeking to become the affiliate of al qaeda. it's probably the most capable fighting force in the

opposition. then on the other side as mike mentioned, we have the shia extremist group hezbollah joining forces with asad and within that, we have this existence of chemical weapons. and on that from the perspective the biggest concern is the flow of the fighters to syria. syria has become the predominant jihadi battlefield in the world. so we see foreign fighters coming from western europe and some cases a small number of cases from the united states to syria to fight in part of the opposition. so the concern going forward from the threat perspective is the individuals traveling and becoming radicalized, becoming trained and then returning as part of a global jihad movement to western europe and potentially to the united states. so it elucidates so many of the ways in which the threat is complicated and again persistent

>> i want to ask about the speech on terrorism. he noted we were at a crossroads we would ask ourselves hard questions on the threats and how we should confront them. what specifically did the speech change or what did it mean for the nctc and how did it change the mission? >> i think it was an important speech and i was lucky to be there. i took some analysts -- >> it was another important speech? >> say we are at a crossroads i think the president and some ways and this isn't just nctc, this is the intelligence community and almost all in this room challenged us to do two things come to think hard about the threat and to be precise and rigorous in how we define the threat and not fall into the

trap in some ways i think we fell into war we saw after benghazi. if this is al qaeda or it's not al qaeda and that isn't the reality of the threat we face. it's more complicated than that and we need to be careful how we define who is al qaeda and what the threat is because of course how we define the threat is then in developing the strategy and that was the second part i think of how the president challenged us how to think about the strategy as we look to keep up the pressure but also look to the time when we are not in a state of perpetual war and the was the way that we challenge everybody in this room was a part of this conversation. >> hauer important was that speech as a policy statement and what is the counterterrorism world post the speech? >> i think it is a critical speech and generally i align myself with almost everything the president said.

it was valuable 12 years later as the most comprehensive statement certainly by this president and arguably even giving back to the time immediately after line 11 how the government and the allies should approach terrorism. i can do this now because i'm no longer in the administration and i don't mean this as a political critique. i mean this as a national security professional critique i think there were some things that were not in the speech in part because of the president and he's not going to get into detail but the questions for nctc and the committee that are still key to name a few would be i think there really was a discussion of congress extremism. this is probably the threat that is most relevant to americans' lives and it may not be the greatest threat but the most frequent threat and i think we still have a long way to go. we have sharpened the spear more

on the domestic peace. second i was disappointed not to have any mention of the weapons of mass destruction. we have done a good job of reducing likely that tener was having access to chemical, biological, radiological were improvised devices. but when you talk about the game changer that terrorists who use the tools would be significant and we have to keep our law on that. the second point matt has to deal with is not be changed the way we look at the threat and how we address at what does that mean for programs and budgets and government organizations? and ash carter did a brilliant job this morning talking about those traces you have to make when you face the strategic traces. we now have the strategic planning field is better by the president. the question is now when you get 10%, 20%, 30% budget cut toward you going to allocate those

finite resources in a sensible way across the counterterrorism community, and nctc policy role has an enormous role in that process. and it is not one that the u.s. government has proven particularly effective at doing yet. >> i don't disagree with anything about what mike said on these issues. at the end of the day it was an hour-long speech and it covered a lot of ground. >> but it was for people thinking about these questions and on the one question, i would reiterate what mike said. of course the likelihood of the issue right now the consequences are extraordinarily high so for that reason we keep our eye on the threat closely. >> i want to ask about counterterrorism partnership. the last few years we have been told regularly that the two developments would damage the partnership abroad.

one, the leaking of classified data, the wikileaks was supposed to be damaging and now the revelations from edward snowden and the arab awakening that have been cooperative with us. from where you sit at nctc what is the fallout in terms of intelligence sharing and cooperation? >> let me take the second part first in the arab awakening. al qaeda didn't have anything to do with those but they are trying to take advantage of what is happening in the country and i think it is important also to say that it's not one dynamic in every country to the it in other words if you look at to nisha, egypt, mali, each one is quite different in how they change and in the turmoil in the region affecting those countries. the primary way for us that i think is affecting the counterterrorism efforts are

basically placing a greater degree of importance on developing the relationship with these emerging regimes in libya which we are seeing a decrease in the capabilities to carry out the counterterrorism efforts we need to try to figure out how to work with the emerging government there and the capabilities are really wanting in large part. we have an improving relationship with the president and so each case, each country we need to stay engaged and work with the legitimately elected government in those countries. but that is hard and benghazi really shows why it's hard because these are dangerous places in the housing the diplomats and the military and our intelligence officials in these locations carry inherent

risk. >> on the leaks is there any demonstrated reduction of intelligence sharing because people know the united states just can't be trusted with secrets any more? >> i think it remains to be seen on snowden and what i see and read coming out with respect to europe and our european allies how they may be reacting to this. but i think just actually it remains to be seen on it. matt again has to be a diplomat and i don't have to any more. first of all i will be shocked if there are not indications with an intelligence that al qaeda affiliated groups do not change the way they operate based on these leaks. we've seen every other situation in heavens and it makes the job harder. second, i was still the director immediately after wikileaks, and i can tell you that every place i went overseas for the

hour-long meeting when easily had half an hour of that with me having my head getting bitten off saying how can you be so sloppy why can't you control information? we will not share information with you. >> are those just threats? >> it's not that they are going to stop cooperating with us and it's not that the french get to tip the ballot if a bomber is coming to the u.s. tomorrow they are not going to tell us. but they are going to be much closer hold on information they collect and the one at to understand the environment. it underlines the was relationships. last but not least, but why if we understood relationship partnership at times between the u.s. government and very patriotic american companies has been really important in the national security matters just going back to world war ii. if i am the multinational ceo or

the ceo of a multinational and i've been cooperating because the courts tell me to do it this way and that's what i'm supposed to do and now suddenly my market is getting killed because everyone is holding up the fact you don't want to work with x you should work with our company than the nsa gets everything. that makes future cooperation with the government on the national security issues in accordance with the law much more difficult. so all three of those have a jury is impact on the national security. >> we have seen in response to be snowden weeks the al qaeda and affiliated groups speaking to change on the tactics looking to see what they can learn in the press and change how they communicate to avoid detection. >> i think there is a lot of mystery about what the in ctc --

nctc does in the counterterrorism world. let's talk about the central role that it has. one of the changes that happened on your watch was the calling of names for the targeted coming from the national security council and the pentagon to being centralized that nctc. there's been a lot of controversy about that. can you to the extent you can talk about what was the role in developing and calling the list for the killings? >> i will narrow that a bit. it's a criticism we have heard from congress and elsewhere. i see eric l. tabare and others that wrote about this that you

have in the theory the cia had a kill list and the cia had another list and the list didn't match up and there was all this confusion. that's not entirely true either. but you also have the possibility that you have the people responsible for operations making intelligence calls about how bad someone is or is not and that can lead to -- i'm not saying it will but it can lead to some perspectives about how you draw the justice about who is no kidding an imminent threat to national security because they are plotting? so what nctc's role became because it is made up of analysts from the fbi and the dhs and dod and it's not attached to anyone like the cia or the department of defense that we could work with the entire community and say yes it turns out that we see mr. smith is in fact plotting.

he is an mnf ret and as long as there are authorities that you believe fall into that category, this is where we would prioritize him to be detained, targeted and the like and that is an important role. the other piece that i would say is they worked hard to develop options and there is a lot of people that now say the u.s. government isn't cut during people it's just killing them instead. at least in my experience, the idea that anyone didn't want to capture anyone they could is wildly crazy. if you could capture someone, you capture them. nctc marked with the agency, the fbi, the dod and others to develop the options of what you could do with someone if they were captured, if they were arrested and things like that so i thought was a valuable role to

make sure it ultimately led to the decisions with the national security council and the white house. >> let me answer the question this way. we are approaching ten years in existence in 2014 and really building on the work when i came in building on the work that mike did in ctc -- nctc has become the gravity both on the analytics side and on the planning side. just to give the analysis as an example the white house now looks nctc to look at what is the threat going to look like? it's very strategic also looks to nctc to describe who is this operative and what is his role and what is the intelligence on him and one of the benefits we bring to doing that is that everything we do in that regard is coordinated effort. so we bring together the information john talked about

the critical view of using information so that is the idea that animated the creation of nctc, but it's also people. so analysts and officers around the community work together and produce a product whether it is about the threat strategically or an individual looking tactically that represents the view of the entire intelligence community. so when that is presented to the senior policymakers, it reflects that in time year coordinated of you and i think that is actually valuable. >> another issue that has come up with in nctc is the data that you don't have access to and why. last year you changed the federal guidelines from the 2008 guidelines and the new guidelines allow you to basically get access to any government database. when this happened in the administration, the dhs objected

to the one database the nctc wanted and you got the rule changed. take me through the debate and what was the thinking behind changing the rules which a lot of privacy advocates are not comfortable with. and what government database does the nctc now have to collect data couldn't collect under the 2008 rules? how are you using the data bases and why shouldn't i be completely terrified by this? >> you shouldn't be terrified by this at all. it started under mike, putting my arm around mike here. a couple things about the top and this will get very wonky very quick so i will try not to do that. we don't collect any information. we get information from other agencies whether that is the nsa come cia, dhs. it has been collected by other agencies with the key insight and i know i can speak to this

more first hand than i can came after abdulmutallab after 2,009 that we didn't have access to some of the information would help us stop the next underwear bomber to be we have great access to the information coming from the reports provided to us by the cia. what we didn't have was the type of access we needed to them on terrorism databases. so information about individuals applying to the refugee status in the united states or the individuals applying for the visa to travel to the united states. we need to have that information not just for a minute or a day or a week but along the enough period of time that when we got right information from the cia that says he is a bad guy all we have is a first name. what can we do compare that information to the other information we have collected that the government has about

people there traveling and seeking asylum here and mirror that up so we can take that information and then provided to those agencies, the fbi in particular. and if it were my perspective that this was something that the american people felt we were probably already doing it would have been a surprise to learn that we were having trouble. so we worked very hard the last several years to work with the civil liberties community as well as our dhs and fbi and other agencies involved to increase. >> what was the objection from the dhs on that request for the database? this would be a way the government interacts in the general public. >> there's a concern and i understand the concern about aggravating the data and so we work very closely with the dhs and privacy groups to design the rules. all the things you would want

and expect to do this as carefully as possible and we work with a the per ton of justice ultimately to have new guidelines that are approved by the attorney general. so they are protected. >> this is a beautiful statement by one individual how they felt about this change. frankly there were many other parts that absolutely wanted this to be done. of course there are civil liberties issues. we actually do get these issues. but you have to understand the whipsaw that when i have my position that had this but a few months before christmas day i was up arguing for the extension of the patriot act, certain sections of the patriot act and i had, after congressman,

senator after senator saying why you need to spy on americans? what's going on? and i had americans yelling at me say life as my constituent on the no-fly list? bac forward three months after christmas day and it's why aren't there more people on the watch list and the no-fly list? why aren't you spying on more americans? why can't you collect more data. citizen formation they are real issues but we have to in my view stop flying the pendulum back-and-forth to get someone in the middle. and the perfect example on this is bill smith comes to the united states on june every first and you have phil smith and his phone number. under the old guidelines, 91 days later, that information had to be flushed from the system. and a former day 91 if you had a tip from the cia that this phone

number was associated with al qaeda and that is bill smith's number, the in ctc wouldn't know it. imagine that when the attack occurred. the issue is how long should nctc be able to keep this with the people that collected the information in the first place. as matt said, the review was verified and frankly the old system wasn't calibrated post 9/11 or post 2005. they were guide lines from 2,000. and the world had changed and expectations have changed. >> we adopted these guidelines and we put them on our website. on well with salt i still have a quick -- whipsaw we had a forum with a number of different groups on wednesday very, very

concerned about our aggregation of data as well as practices, leaks. less than 24 hours later i was in a congressional hearing where the focus was on boston and the barrier to do more on tamerlan tsarnaev based on information from the russians. as a complete 180. but i am concerned when that happens for the intelligence community and intelligence professionals who need predictability and need to be able to know where the line is to do our job and that kind of swing the pendulum very quickly. >> it seems like this is an issue you are going to be dealing with a lot because the first decade at the nctc you developed a lot of counter intelligence agencies and strong partnerships that increasingly are looking for both data sets

that the u.s. government has and the intelligence from state and local officials. that penetration into the domestic sphere gets people all little bit more concerned. talk about going forward the relationships that he would like to build with the state and local officials. >> that is a good part of the conversation and its cover a couple times today. some of the challenges we face in the domestic sphere. for understandable and appropriate reasons. but for the last several years particularly under like we made real gains in how we interact at nctc and the committee as a whole making sure that information is shared properly, making sure we have and all of government effort when we are looking at threats emanating from overseas speed it's much more difficult and challenging when you start to look at the

picture inside the united states so there's a more complicated structure at the federal level and then the thousands of state and local police departments and fire departments because really the challenge for us and the tsarnaev brothers held we make sure the police the part of and firefighters who may be the first responders may see something that is suspicious hell do we make sure that information gets put into the national intelligence picture so that we can marry up what is being seen at local level? [laughter] how we make sure that is getting made up with national threats. that is when to be a challenge working forward with the fbi and the dhs. it's designed in a way that really starts to replicate what we have been able to achieve

looking overseas. >> what is the kind of intelligence that you wish you had when you were the director you would like to have from the state and local officials? >> perfect as and everything. no, i don't want everything because it is a civil liberty and then you have to go through everything. you just got the important stuff and anyone that is working the field you don't know what is important until after you've gotten it and after you compared it to a lot of other stuff and circumstances began to evolves. so how do you get what is a reasonable amount protected in certain ways and then compared and ways to try to figure out? will connect the dots thing is 2,001. it's utterly simplistic because you don't know what you're looking at. you don't know if that is meaningful until you are comparing it to other dots.

so what i want -- i do think we have come a long way. the fbi evolved tremendously. joint terrorism task forces which are these interagency state and local they investigate things very well. what we did simultaneously is invested lots and lots of money and use all state and local fusion centers that get information from state and local police and go out and they try to correlate. the problem is that the two pieces are semi independent cannot completely independent but semi independent. what we saw in boston is that we have to merge the two together more effectively. once you have that you can have the fbi working with dhs in a way of saying i can't cover tsarnaev. we close the case but if you want to look at it with your resources, go for it. and then for the nctc what they can bring to the equations i think is taking that information about things that maybe look

significant or don't look significant and comparing that in the civil liberties protected way comparing that with lots of data the fbi and the dhs don't have. you would like to know this didn't happen but if tsarnaev had called somebody in yemen and once they closed the lead on him, nctc can play a valuable role in continuing to look at the data to see if that is the case and goes back to the operators to have them look at it. i can't say all of that without. it's a harder problem you're right because it requires greater domestic work. we haven't really since 2001 have a great national conversation in terms of domestic surveillance. not particularly understood by many in congress. but even if we do all these things, we can't expect to stop all these. they are very hard plots and we

are going to stop them in a variety of ways not letting people get the right fertilizer so the bomb doesn't go off in times square. we are going to stop them because they will keep them from using a good explosive device on the airplane on christmas day and sometimes stop the bleeding by having a really effective response for an incident like boston but some things are going to get through and what we can't do then putting match up against the wall throwing darts at them they have to make sure that that is going to learn from the experience. but we can't simply crucify matt and the counterterrorism professionals because then everybody is like me and not there to defend us at all. >> i spent tuesday in denver visiting with the fbi task force there and i went and visited the fusion center and ask a lot of these questions about how they

would work together and looking at in addition to boston how would that have happened and played out here. we can always do better but there is a pretty good lashup there and i think you can go back to the case where the plot to carry off the attack in new york and the fbi started here in the investigation in a roar of colorado. and it's not a good idea to bring up the program since you haven't asked for that. but we can talk about how zazi as an example of that working with the fbi the zazi case is a good example in colorado of a very effective investigation that ended up moving across the country from colorado to new york.

>> let's talk about the oversight of the counterterrorism and intelligence agency. you summarized the counterterrorism this way. the executive branch oversight operates in secret congressional committees operate behind closed doors and the foreign intelligence court that is largely invisible to the public. so, as a journalist when you put it that way none of this inspires much confidence that the same time these institutions couldn't operate transparently. but the intelligence community the story today in the paper and the indications seem to be losing some of the folks in congress. why should the public trust the oversight regime and how can we improve it >> first i hope the events like

this when you see people like matt olsen that inspires a little bit of confidence because they are not a bunch of ogres. these are people that are tackling very hard jobs. the list goes on and on and that's what we have got here today. the second i like to think of it as oversight serving the two purposes. to make sure the government is doing things right and number two is to give the public the confidence the government is doing things right. in my experience, oversight works really well if you do something wrong there is going to be a congressman and there's going to be an inspector general and there's going to be a general counsel and protection officer. it's possible all of them can get snowed in. [laughter] sorry. you can smell them all and no one will figure out something is going wrong but it starts in the

case. as of the oversight is working in terms of making sure people are following the rules. your question is oversight working in terms of giving the public the government responded rules and i do think that is where we have failed and look at polls and it's not especially high. so there is a lot of faith in people doing things right but i think you can increase transparency and you can't take it too far. if you go to full transparency like we do in other areas you will have zero security. it's the executive branch, congressional branch -- >> the administration should embrace the civil liberties oversight earlier than they did. they should have held hearings and it should have been a more robust oversight board selected by a bipartisan way during public hearings three, four, five, six years. they were not and now they will.

that's good. inspectors general can give more generic reports about the methods. congressional oversight committees, the intelligence committee can talk to the subjects they are looking at without disclosing. john noted we do publish intelligence oversight hearing. that's good. and i think even on the court i was disagreeing with some of panelists. the court can release some things, how many cases they get and how many are sent back to review, the general type of issues they will get. you can have periodic reviews by other commissions that have credibility looking at these things. you can do it incrementally but it's when to be difficult for the general tide of the distrust of the government. and i would also be remiss if i didn't say i personally couldn't disagree with anthony more. i think that he did this country an incredible this surface that

we are now going to have slightly more transparency and better oversight is a good thing but i refuse to give mr. snowden credit for that. on the oversight piece, there are changes to the procedures that we talked about and an example it's hard to imagine an oversight regime that could exceed what has been done in particular with 702 where there was a public debate when bill walsh was changed where the court reviewed the procedures where the congress was directly involved in making those changes. a lot of folks in the room don't realize that in 2008 the fisa court of opinion released the way the nsa does the program under the prior statute to

protect america act look at this exact mechanism of targeting persons overseas and held it against the constitutional challenge. that's why it hasn't been reported a very much but that is an opinion of the court review, arbuckle three that have looked at the program and said that it is unlawful. it's hard for me to imagine an oversight regime that would exceed that. the problem -- >> i don't think you are using that -- >> you have to look at the core to -- court. we were prosecutors and seat to get a first warrant. you go to the judge and present the facts and i am not aware of any country in the world that has anything like the court so you could make it adversarial

and slow it down and rest. the problem i think is there's a lack of confidence. it is somewhere below headlights and above right now. >> it's hard for us because in the community we depend on the relationship with the intelligence committee to provide the legitimacy that we need in the program to carry them forward. >> where is the abuse? ayaan understand some people think the collection itself is devious but the fact is the collection and that program has gone through our space process of government and the systems that we set up. so the collection, if the

collection is and because that is improved, where has the collection and analysis of information been abused? where are the results that people have been arrested, persecuted, what ever it is? so far i haven't seen that. we can't just rushed to the darkest corner of the room and assume there is abuse going on when right now we seem to have a total absence of the circumstances. >> my argument would be repeatedly extending the fisa act that has been subject to the preview. i would say we don't really like the image they are up there and can't do anything. there are plenty of senators and congressmen that know about the program if they want to stop it there is a little thing called the power of the purse and there

are whole lots of ways you can stop programs and the fact is you didn't win those cases. >> let's open up this conversation with 15 minutes left. >> member of the state's legislature and of the homeland security committee, probably 50 questions but i will try to limit to one and whenever you can put in there. i believe i heard you say and correct me if i'm wrong that the limited information the fbi had previously was passed on etc that some mechanism should have been decided they were not going to pursue it they should have passed on to someone else and that someone else should have been boston police can you

expand on that and if so, understand the complexity there of the cross jurisdictional who is going to do what. the aid in my office says everyone's job is no one's job. >> i can speak about this and not specific to boston as important as boston. here's how i think you can design. if they get a ticket can be from the russians saying bill smith is a bad guy. they investigate bill smith, interviewed him and they say it turns out bills that is not a bad guy and they close the case. that is what happened to tsarnev. they say we have a case on bill

smith. we didn't find anything. state and local authorities you have a police officer. you can knock on the door and check with friends. if you want to do that, fine. we will continue to do the search using other sources but this is now yours if you want to do something. in reality most state and local officials aren't going to do anything with that because they have other priorities. that is a way of creating a safety net below the kind of federal investigative limits. let me just say this isn't the real civil liberties and i used to suggest with the congress to weeks ago. this sounds great if you are dealing with someone named tamerlan tsarnaev now let's make it to bob smith who lives in texas and is reported to be an anti-government guy. the interview him and he says i am a loyal american. i'd just like my guns.

i would never do anything bad. they closed the investigation and the police say you might want to keep your eye on him because he has a lot of guns. do you think people in the congress might have a problem with that? so we have to realize that we could increase the safety net that we have but it has implications for what the state and local authorities do and how that potentially and hinges upon the civil liberties and how we want to live our life independent of the officials investigations. >> i would completely agree with mike on this and the problem as the observations are made that we have the advantage of hindsight and i think that one lesson is our collection capabilities the way that we are able to collect information has increasing so that almost inevitably when something happens when we had something like a boston marathon attack we are going to be able to look back and find points of opportunity where we had an opportunity to engage or to do

more. but the lesson comes the difficult lesson is one, the fbi faces what they can do out of the amount of information so they predicate what they do based on the information and that is a tried and true way of conducting the investigation how much truth based on how much information you have to show the person is violating bill ball and that is exactly what we want the fbi to do. so the other aspect generally speaking of the opportunity within the jttf structure it so that the information can be shared with state and local representatives that share on the task force and they think it warrants and they can share that information with their department. >> i appreciate the conversation about state and local intelligence sharing information

it struck me earlier as we were having a conversation about connecting the dots that is certainly the first thing and not the only thing. there is still a matter of communicating the picture to the people that need to know at the right time and place and that includes my people and i think if you think of all of the iconic image is that we have had, firefighters are front and center. so what do you think that we still need to do to be able to not just collect the dots, but communicate that information effectively to those people. >> very much it is a nctc program the lead with the dhs and if you are still here it was one of the architects. mike had it when he was there and it was an organization where we had a small number of state and local representatives by the fire departments and police

departments. come and serve with the have access to all of the intelligence and the clearance is they can look at all of the reporting and take that would be useful for my for your department and for my police department and then we write reports. what to look for and when we see something in the garage to engage the federal level and the advocates on behalf of their own departments and the over all firefighters and police community and this is a program that we continue now going forward in coordination with the fbi and the dhs we have people at the nctc. >> it's getting beyond for every reason for the protection, the response and the prevention and the first instance. they are doing engagement with the mosque that when tsarnaev

new and got in fights with. but doing the same engagement to reduce al qaeda's message and engage as a partner and not as an adversary. something that they started right after the attack and i sure a lot of people remember back in 2008 nctc partnered to do training exercises across the country how he should respond to the multi casualty attacks. about a year before boston, nctc with dhs ran that scenario with 150 plus representatives from across boston hospitals going

through the scenarios and discovering things like we have to have a process. we are processing the video from the camera stores. we have to think about the communication if we have siltstones go down during an attack. you're not going to stop everything. when you can do is help the communities prepare for these horrible situations and really readers the casualties might otherwise see and accelerate the investigation. >> anyone else clacks yes, right here. >> while you are getting the microphone in further response to your question is important to think about the fact we have about 12,000, 15,000 agents around the country. we have 2,000,001st responders. over a million firefighters and that many police officers. that is how we are going to stop the next boston attack and how we are going to find it next the home grown extremist on the

course from being radicalized to be mobilized. >> p.j. from george washington university. i will direct the question and i know that mike will try man. eight days after benghazi in the congressional hearing you said benghazi was an act of terror. we had a significant political and bureaucratic debate about the talking points and what happened prior to that point. but what goes into the formal determination because depending upon a political legend that it could be enacted of war or terrorism. and for those that have been inside of the system come eight days for the government is not necessarily bad. >> i think the important plight there is this is just after benghazi there wasn't a hearing but i was asked that question. in the intelligence community, and i think i can speak for not

just nctc but all the analysts. we proceeded on the assumption that wasn't a terrorist attack. lenni you have an attack that killed americans at a government facility in benghazi and they were clearly targeting the presence there and was violent and resulted in death there are a number of legal definitions of terrorism. but really the practical common sense of you that we all succeeded on from the outset is this was a terrorist attack. but that doesn't answer is a whole bunch of other questions that were more complicated. how coordinated was it? who was behind it? those more questions that we were still struggling with to this day because that picture wasn't clear then as in some ways it is now. ..

>> i think that's the case. >> i think that's the case. it can still do a lot of things better but is still pretty darn good. one of the great things is regardless of how politically heated discussions get whether it's benghazi are going back and forth with workplace violence or terrorism. i think john brennan and scott and me and matt have really tried to keep it a completely apolitical location. it doesn't mean you don't have

bureaucratic fights but we called fort hood an act of terrorism a day after the shooting. we kind of color as we see. we want to inform the policy process in a way that we are getting the best effort. i'm sure, i couldn't tell you the politics of almost anyone at the nctc. it simply wasn't an issue. people came there to stop terrorists from killing americans. pretty straightforward and not a lot of politics involved. >> i think we're running out of time. we have time for one more question, right here. >> advantage of being in the front. >> just to follow up on one of things met said. you said that you had seen al qaeda and other groups changing their ways. did you mean specifically because of the snowden leaks? can you describe, and mike, you

said you've also seen evolution. can you give us specific examples since your hands are not tied? >> i would put it this way. what we are seeing is terrorist scum individuals, terrorists and groups looking at this and seeking ways to circumvent our surveillance, based on what you're learning. >> [inaudible] >> from the snowden leaks. >> we have a strategic problem and the problem is we can keep our national secrets secret. it's not to say that everything is classified should be secret but those things that we should be protecting we are not effectively protecting the that hurts our partners whether their corporate partners, foreign partners. and the to help our enemy. we've got to fix that. i think one of the ways we fix that is somehow reinstituting some faith in oversight so people say, if matt has been working with congress, the house, the fisa court, that's good enough. if not, summit in congress needs

to change the law. someone is going to arrest map. or course will tell him we're doing it wrong. and until we reach that level iq the snowden will be, will have a continuing run of snowden's. >> into mike's point, i think we need to try to find ways to be more transparent but the really are limits to how trace their we can be. summary arguments for transparency in some ways i see they are a little bit of a trojan horse by people who don't agree with what we are doing. and knowing full well how it works. again, taking more of a strategic view for a second, the challenge for us, everybody goes to work at nctc, they are there to protect the country. to use the metaphor of chalk marks, we were in talks industry about the bounce of finding the right balance but ultimately i want to know where that line is. i want to know with a predictable way how far we can go. my job is to protect the country from terrorism. so i want my folks to go right

to the deadline of legality and do everything that we can within the bounds of the law, stay in fair territory, but go up to the line. i think that's what we owe the american people. as we move forward we need to be more transparent, but ideal the oversight machine can gain the credibility that will allow us to continue to do our job. >> i want to thank you both for a great conversation. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> "the associated press" reports former egyptian president hosni mubarak could be released from custody later this

week. according to egyptian official, he is being tried in for the killings of hundreds of protesters in 2011, and the uprisings that led to his ouster. officials to a two-year legal limit has expired for holding an individual in custody pending a final verdict. defense secretary chuck hagel addressed this news report during a conference today at the pentagon. here's a look. >> we don't know about a mubarak report. i'm not aware of it. i can't help you. saudi arabia, as you know, saudi arabia, uae, kuwait, announced a couple weeks ago that they committed to a considerable amount of assistance to egypt. the specifics of your question regarding saudi arabia, i don't know about those specifics. your question regarding

cancellation of apache helicopters, or other perks, as i said to bob, we are reviewing all aspects of our relationship. >> [inaudible] to bring an end to the bloodshed in egypt right now? and why not answer the calls from capitol hill? just pull all the aid out if they're not cooperating our don't appear to be cooperating. >> first, there's not a consistent call for capitol hill one way or the other, as you know. but more to the point, we have serious interests in egypt, in that part of the world. this is a very complicated problem. we continue to work with all the

parties. to try to help as much as we can. facilitate reconciliation, a stop the violence. our ability to influence the outcome in egypt is limited. it's up to the egyptian people. and they are a large, great sovereign nation. and it will be their responsibility to sort this out. all nations are limited in their influence in another nations internal issues. i don't think the united states is without influence, but that has to be a collaborative effort, focused on what the egyptian people want, supporting the egyptian people. and we believe, as i said, the president has said, secretary kerry, ambassador patterson, deputy secretary of state burns, that should come as an

inclusive, open, democratic process allowing all people to have a role in the future of their country. thank you. >> that was part of today's news conference with secretary hagel and china's minister of defense. you can watch the entire conference on our video library at c-span.org. >> coming up on c-span2, all this week we'll present encore q&a. today, both editors at large with "fortune" magazine talk about a recent cover story outlining proposals to jumpstart the u.s. economy. that's today at 7 p.m. eastern. tonight on booktv, military history.

that's all tonight beginning at 8:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> retransmission is usually important to my television members. there are two ways to pay for localism. local content. you pay for it through advertising model, which is the historic model of television broadcasting, or now, a growing stream is retransmission consent. it will find its level like any market. right now cable pays itself far more for its content than it pays to broadcasters. and the truth of the matter is our content is the one that people watch the most. look at the one of top shows of any given week, 94 of them are

broadcast content. so it's worth something. it's important that we fight and win this battle on retransmission consent because candidly, it's vital that congress wants us to continue trying to foster localism and provide all of the things that we do to earn our licenses every day. you've got have way to finance it. its advertising come is retransmission. >> ahead of the nab on issues facing the broadcast industry. tonight on "the communicators" at eight eastern on c-span2. >> last year, president obama sign a number that called for deferred action for some undocumented young people who came to the u.s. as children and have pursued education or military service. a year later, the center for progress hosted a panel looking at the results, successes and challenges, of that initiative. and how coul it could impact th.

immigration system. this is an hour and a half. >> hello everybody. thank you for coming today. my name is philip wolgin and i'm a senior policy analyst for immigration at the center for american progress. we are very excited to be hosting this event on the first anniversary of the deferred action for childhood arrivals, or daca directed. just one year ago today uscis began accepting applications for daca which is pretty remarkable considering president obama had only announced the directed three months earlier in june 2013. daca represents a new usage of executive authority and path to the discretion to prioritize the u.s. immigration enforcement focuses on, namely, criminals, rather than in this case young unauthorized immigrants, people who grew up in this country and our american in every way but their papers. daca gives applicants a two-year reprieve from work

authorization, but unlike legislative efforts such as the dream act, daca can give permanent legal status. it's at best a temporary fix to a larger problem of a broken immigration system, and a lack of a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants. just over 1.7 million people are estimated to be eligible for daca, with just over 900,000 of them eligible to apply immediately. and given the uncertainty in the first few months of the program, remember, it began during the presidential election when there was a real possibility that if elected, mr. romney would and daca and resend the directed. it is remarkable how many people replied. we get new government data from dhs just this morning and that shows over 570,000 people have applied, and over 400,000, 430,000 have received the status. out of the total number of applications, what we expect that just under one-third of all

who will be eligible, and 61% of the people immediately eligible. slightly worryingly the number of denials which have been very, very low were hovering at about 1% of all applications, jumped up to about 1.7%. we saw the nose go from about five to 7000. something we'll want to talk about today. daca is undeniably changed the lives of people who have gotten the status. as we will discuss come it hasn't been without its challenges from uneven at regionally different immigrant groups the obstacles facing those actually applying for the status. so today's event is both about trying to see what can be done to remedy these challenges and also looking into the future. we will want to know how we can improve outreach around daca, and what lessons daca can teach us for a wider legalization program for the 119 unauthorized immigrants living in the country. that kind of program would be many times as large as daca but

which are many of the same characteristics and potentially many of the same pitfalls. more than anything though, today's event is on the beginning of the conversation. we still didn't know much more, for example, about best practices for service providers to government officials, or why disparage continued persist among different groups when it comes to application rates and acceptance rates. so we hope this event will spur further integrate into the subject. we will begin today with an overview of new research by tom wong, then of an interdisciplinary team who has been analyzing daca data. then we have a great failed to respond to those findings. professor wong is assistant professor of political science at the university of california-san diego and has been a leader in statistical modeling to predict the members of congress might vote or how they will vote on immigration reform. when it comes to issues of undocumented young people, this is an issue that's very personal

to tom, because he was himself an undocumented immigrant ones. like so many others, tom's parents brought them here at a young age on the birth of these and state when it expired. tom has been active in advocacy around daca. so please join me in welcoming professor wong. [applause] >> do you know what? i'm not going to risk spilling that water. that will be my last talk here. okay, well thank you for the one warm remarks. and thank you all for coming here today. there is a lot to go through in the report, so let's just jump right into it. so as mentioned, this is the product of the work of an interdisciplinary team, so this

includes political sciences, sociologists, those with expensive immigrant political participation, civic engagement and demography. so, it is no surprise that daca elicits mixed emotion on parts of undocumented use in particular because for many, we hear that daca is sadly not enough and i hope that something we can get into later in the discussion today. but i want to start with a few quotes that sort of illustratese the mixed emotions around daca which segues into the next findings we get when we evaluate the first year of the existence of daca. so here we have a few different quotes from a new innovative survey actually administered by undocumented youth, and i think grad students in southern california about specific engagement of undocumented youth. as it relates to doctor connie we see one person say i feel

free in the u.s. know. i no longer live in fear. another i was able to get a part-time job and start saving money for tuition. driver's licenses, building credit, those are some practical benefits of daca. one more person has motivated me to continue organizing. so then this would've resonates 15 that daca is not enough, that the end goal here is a path to citizenship. but here is another response. i am grateful for the opportunities that i have through daca, but i'm still scared my parents. daca does not protect them. my entire family, and i'm still in fear of losing them. so again these mixed emotions around daca reflector findings about the mixed results. so some of the main research questions that we pursue in our report is daca performing evenly across the country before any particular groups being left behind? these to me national origin group, men versus women, said.

what impact has community-based organizations had? the one focus of our report is actually to identify things that may be useful for service providers on the ground. and lastly, how restrictive state level immigration policies like s.b. 1070 stymie doctor exide we answer these questions? through numbers. and if this were an academic presentation, i would sort of throw out some equations to stoke my academic ego. but suffice it to say, we are using data obtained from the freedom of information act request. phil mentioned the overall numbers thus far. the uscis does a great job in reporting summary statistics about daca but or to answer some the questions that we're interested in we need better data. and so we have 465,509 individual level records from applicants from august. the march 22, 2013.

and so, quickly, the national portrait, i won't spend much time on it. this is based on the last release of daca information from the uscis. but things still are, for the most part two. over 400,000 approved. 99% of applications with final decisions have been approved. so one of the numbers that has been thrown out is 75% approval rate. so if we think about the case review status of daca application, we've approved, denied, pending. so if we throw pending into the mix and think about approvals in light of pending applications, then the approval rate is about 75%. but if we think about those applications with final decisions, many approved or denied, then we're talking about 99%. the most recent release out today changes in this number a

bit. so that's 98.3% approval rate for those with final decisions, and 1.7% of applications with final decisions have been denied. and we will talk more about the national origin in the second. but hear daca applicants are overwhelmingly latin american. okay, so i do apologize because this is in part stroking my academic ego. it is throwing a bunch of numbers and stuff at you. but this that is meaningful. so one of the first questions that we address is daca performing evenly across the country? the answer is no. when we look at the implication rate or the actual number of applications that have been received in a state relative to what we expect, we can begin to identify where daca is underperforming, and whether or not that underperformance is statistically significant. meaning it's not random. so the main take away here is

that they are 13 states that are underperforming when it comes to daca. california, texas, florida, arizona, nevada, massachusetts. and there's a printout of the powerpoint presentation so you will have this slight. there's some commonalities across these states. all southern border states are included in this table. these states ca to have the lart numbers of daca eligible youth. these states also tend of the largest foreign-born population. have larger asian populations relative to other states, and have almost twice as much as latinos. so this is about identifying where new are bolstered outreach related to daca is needed. so i was able to rerun this analysis this morning. so instead of face time with my three old triplet boys this morning, which i deeply regret

now, because the slide did make again. but it's okay, phil. so i did rerun the analysis based on the updated number released today. this table remains unchanged. the 13 states are the same. there is one new addition of though and that's the district of columbia. so in the past report d.c. was actually sort of are forming as we would expect, but now it is underperforming and that difference is statistically significant. so that was about identifying where new bolster data outreach can be at needed. this is about identifying to whom that outrage should be targeted. so here we're talking about whether or not daca is reaching all groups evenly. and so here, another cable that you have in the printout, but here's the main take away. when we take the individual level from the foia data, store

all of those individuals in to the country of birth or region of origin, and then we begin to evaluate what we see versus what we expect. we can then identify particular national origin groups, or particular regions that are underrepresented in the sample. and so hear what we see is that applicants born in mexico are actually doing very well in the daca process. they are actually overrepresented in the pool of daca applicants. those from central america, asia and europe, on the other hand, are underrepresented in the pool of applicants, so far. and for these three groups, this underrepresentation is also statistically significant. so just a reminder here, i'm going through sort of the topline findings, and this discussion, hopefully, will impact some of the reasons why.

okay, so we can move beyond national origin, and this is where i do apologize because this should've been removed because this is all about stroking academic ego. but this is just the most progressive analysis. this is the way to take all of the data, analyze the data while controlling for other factors. now, underrepresentation is one thing, and new are bolstered outreach to those particular national origin groups can correct about underrepresentation. but are all groups expressing daca sort of equally? another way we can address that question is look at the niles. so when we think about approvals versus denials, we can ask ourselves are any particular group is proportionately being denied? so this may be one of the most pivotal questions not just from the sort of policy point of view but also for providers on the ground. so this table here answers that

question controlling for the age of the applicant, the sex of the applicant, and where that afghanistan. the main takeaways here, there may be strong reasons to suspect that mexican born applicant may be discriminated against in the daca process but when we think about things like s.b. 1070, there is a clear focus. it is not about white european undocumented immigrants, for the most part. we think of sheriff arpaio, we think about tent city i would think about who is in there. it was clear racial ethnic and direction of those policies. so we can think perhaps that mexican more applicants are more likely to be denied in the daca process. they also form the largest born applicants. they would expect a lot of denials. or high rate of tiles relative to other groups.

that's not what we see. mexican born applicants are actually the least likely out of all groups to be denied. and so what we can do is evaluate denial rates for other groups relative the mexican born applicants, since they represent the lowest state -- rate of the now. when we mush all groups together, then we can sort of say this sort of nice of statistic, all other daca applicants are 1.8 times more likely to be denied than mexican born applicants. this result is statistically significant, but we want to unpack this a little bit. this is where the multivariant analyses comes in. in one of the models he we actually take each of the national origin groupings and compare denial rates to the denial rate for mexican born applicants. here's what we see is the following. south americans are doing okay. their denial rates are on par

with mexican born applicants. central american, asians and europeans are about 1.8 times more likely to be denied than mexican born applicants. the most staggering number is that the other category, which is comprised mostly of african born daca applicants, they are seven times more likely to be denied than a mexican born applicant. and so this, again, is about identifying to whom daca at region should be targeted. and if we see this proportionately higher denial rates for central americans, asians, europeans, and that the most extreme in for the other category, which is again mostly african born applicants, then this can fight and insight for service providers to design new outreach programs. i will skip this. okay, so we can also think about

denials, not just by sort of commune, groups being racial and ethnic groups or country of birth or region of origin. we can also think about male versus female, and the age structure of daca applicants. here's what we see is that in general, all else equal, men, even though they have fewer daca applications in than women, art 1.4 times more likely to be denied. that's the general funding. but when reserve throw this information into the multivariant models what we can do is actually identify particular sort of kinds of men and particular kinds of women. and we can look at a 31 year-old male and compare denial rates for that particular individual twit 23 year-old male. so we pick 23 years old because that's the average age of 89 the applicant to so what we see is that 31 year-old males are 4.3 times more likely to be denied

than 23 year-old males. and so this combines the findings for sex and age, that males are more likely to be denied, and that old applicants are also more likely to be denied. the finding for females, a 31 year old female is 3.7% times more likely than a 23 year-old female. this shows the denial rates and how to increase with age for males and females. so, we're also interested in potential facilitating factors for daca. so what is happening on the ground that leads to increased daca applications? and so the first thing that we looked at are those immigrant servicing organizations, those nonprofits that serve immigrant communities. one cut of the data shows an undeniable positive relationsh relationship, many more immigrant serving organizations

means more daca applications. so you can think of the daca clinics, the daca workshops, everything that the organizations are doing. also we have new daca iphone apps that help individuals sort of determine whether or not they are eligible for daca. all of these things combined to improve the overall implementation of the program. but when we got the date a different way, the results are less clear. and so we can think about the overall number of daca applications can and we want to see more of them. but we can also think about the different implementation rates across states of daca. and so what this is looking at how many applicants have they been in the state relative to how many there are. because when that number reaches 100%, that means everybody who is eligible has been touched by daca. and so when we sort of look at different metrics of immigrant

serving organizations and different outcomes like implementation rates, we sail -- we see less clear results. these are three different ways we look at whether or not the density of immigrants serving organizations actually has an impact on implementation rates. and all of these results are statistically insignificant. we can remove some outliers they are, new york and california, because they have a large number of immigrant serving or decisions and the results are unchanged. answer your this is a mixed portrait. more immigrants serving or decisions, more daca applicants, it is not necessary translate into higher implementation rates. so in the interest of time i will just say that for those policies that are designed, you know, to drive undocumented immigrants out of the country or underground or to self deport, s.b. 1070, then having any sort of impact whatsoever on tranten. they are not driving

undocumented youth away from the country to the point where you're not even here to apply. there's absolutely no relationship. for the chris of the world, soy, but what you're doing is not having an effect on daca. so here, main conclusions, because i think i went past my time, daca is not performed evenly across the country. so 13 states plus the district of columbia are places where we have identified our underperforming and where the underperformance is statistically significant. central americans, asians, europeans and others are statistically significant more likely be denied that our reference group which is mexican born applicants because mexican born applicants again are the least likely to be denied. males are 1.4 times more likely to be denied and females. we see this result also intersected with age. so old applicants are statistically significant more likely to be denied and younger

applicants. and while immigrants serving organizations are having a measurable effect, the results that we sort of fine art unclear. and lastly, this is a general sort of take away. a lot has been done with daca so far but a lot of work remains. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> all right, thank you so much, tom. so let me introduce our great panel that we have to discuss some really interesting findings. in addition to tom, nexium we have roberto gonzales, assistant professor of education at harvard university. erika andiola, one of the founding members of the action coalition. and, finally, audrey singer from

brookings. erika, i want to start with you turning from i think the data to the more personal narrative. as somebody who's received daca, what exactly has the status me to you? and to the dreamer community as a whole? >> yeah, of course. so i think being, not only a dreamer but an advocate, a little bit different than the overall population of dreams. but to me i think it was more than a personal benefit. it was a win. because of so many years of advocacy is, so many years of the sort of try to figure out how to come out of the shadows and doing all those things that i could put a face to the undocumented community. it was definitely a win for us. but also i guess in a personal level, you know, having a family that had been targeted by joe arpaio and anything else in arizona, you know, having your mother wasn't able to work

because of the race she was in when joe arpaio is in doing his thing. it was a very, i guess it impacted me so much i was able to get a job and i was able to continue contribute to the household. but again, it's just like, some of the quotes you showed, it was just interesting to me that the same day i was able to get an offer for a job, exact same day i come home and then immigration knocks on my door. right? and try to take my mother and my brother. and so it kind of just shows that it's important to have this. it's sort of like a step forward, but at the same time for us, you know, we tend to focus on the wednesday on a personal level. we have a lot more wins to fight. a lot more battles that we need to get through so that our families are not insufficient but i'm not okay with just having a job. i need to have my family with me

to make sure that he am as happy as i can be. >> audrey, it's hard to follow that up by do want to add, you worked with much of the same foia data. i know you've been interviewing applicants. what jumps at you from the date of? >> yeah, sure. so, time and i've been playing around with the same data in different ways. so i have some, i developed like a profile of the people who have applied for daca so far. so it's, we've got about 87% of all accepted applications in the data set. they are not estimates. they represent real people. and it allows us to know more about this population and the characteristics of this population. but we don't yet know much about the people have not applied. i mean, by definition this is an elusive population. so the data that we have provides a window into this daca

or dream group. and the portrait is still emerging, because the program is ongoing. applications are still being accepted, and adjudicated. and so this is just a snapshot in time. more than half of those estimated to be immediately eligible have applied. the success rate is very high, as tom pointed out already. nearly equal numbers of young men and women have applied. women are slightly older. they come from nearly every country in the world, but by my count is 192 countries represented. but the vast majority, 75%, from mexico. central americans make up another 10% of the total with el salvador, honduras and guatemala being the three largest groups. south americans make up 7% of the total, peru, brazil, colombia and ecuador in that

order are the four largest groups. asians comprise about 4% of the total. south korea ranks fifth in all applications. so it stands out from a lot of the other asian groups, but philippines, india and pakistan are the next three largest groups, and notably, china is not on the list of the top 25. and the top 25 include any country with more than 1000 applications. and applicants conjured his make up about 1% each, poland and nigeria are the largest groups there. they also live in every state and washington, d.c. 20% are in california, another 18% in texas. and along with new york and illinois, those four states have more than half of all daca applicants. and some of those interesting things about the group have to do with their age. a large share of our teenagers,

high school age, a time when we're all making important transitions into adulthood, driver's licenses, graduating from high school, applying for jobs, perhaps applying for college or joining the military. these applicants are relatively young, more than a third, 36%, or 18 or younger when they applied. only 24% or 24 or older, and in the middle, 19-23 olds is the largest group at 40%. so they are relatively young and they were young when they arrived. two-thirds of them were 10 or younger. one-third of them were five or younger. so this is a very, a group that's been in the u.s. for a long time. the majority have been in the united states for a decade or more.

and that's important, given their age, obviously they've spent a good portion of their lives in the united states, by definition and another thing about youth, and i think eric is, 3.2 this is, because many of them are seen as young people, they are likely to be in, once they get daca, they are likely to have a very different status from other people in the household, younger or other siblings, including parents and other adults. so this is the big discussion that's also the brewing now about how to handle this. i don't know if you want me to talk about the other stuff now. >> we can get into it later. >> i'll tell you, there's a couple, i've been interviewing organizations that are implementing, helping people apply for daca. and there are three main things

that i've been hearing. i'll talk about them more, i mean, we have a fuller discussion because i don't want to take up too much time. i've got an insight into the pace and the trend of applications, what was we are seeing in terms of tapering of daca applications, what makes a case easy, what makes a case hard. insight into the population that is not applying, that's not being served either. and the third thing that has been really enlightening is that the staff at these nonprofits who are running clinics, who are providing legal services, many of them are lawyers, are very much defining the methods of documenting and undocumented status. and so, this is a very important thing that is happening organically in different places. people are strategizing, perhaps with groups, that they are associated with.

but this is a really important part of the process when you think about a larger legalization program, and the meaning of documenting continuous residence in the united states. >> so roberto, i know you've been putting together one of the most wide-ranging surveys of undocumented youth, those eligible and those who apply. tell us about the survey and what you found. >> sure. so july 1 we launched a national survey of daca eligible young adults, so 18-31. and in the six weeks since we launched the sugar, 2000 young adults have taken the survey. essentially, the ocean people come from 38 states, 41% are male. 59% are female. roughly a third of the respondents had high school degree or less. a third have some college, and a third of them have a college

degree a tween and 88 and a professional degree. today my colleague, in collaboration with the immigration policy center and the center for the study of immigrants integrations released some preliminary findings. salve want to briefly share some of those findings with you all. what we are focusing on is the roughly 1400, i guess 1402 of our survey respondents have already received a daca. and these are the and people that i'm going to talk about. so we are finding strong evidence that daca recipients are benefiting from increased access to the american dream. so for example, 61% of those young people reported they have a new job since daca.

61% now have driver's licenses. 54% have a bank account, and 38% have obtained a credit card. but as we all know, daca's benefits are only temporary and/or shall. daca recipients want further social integration. they feel american and want to be fooled americans. and overwhelming number of our respondents, 94% of them, said that if given a chance to receive citizenship, they would. so they would apply for citizenship. however there's another side to the story. tom alluded to. erika also did. over the last several years, immigrant communities have witnessed a shrinking of rights, and increased enforcement efforts. such that some 1100 people a day

have been deported over the last several years. and that's undoubtedly had a facts. -- had defects. one out of every two of our respondents report that they weren't all the time, or most of the time, that a family member or friend will be deported. almost two-thirds of them know somebody that's been deported. 14% of them have a parent or sibling deported. and another 57% know of a friend, a neighbor, a coworker or somebody else in the life who has been deported. so indeed, daca recipients don't live in a vacuum. they are part of families and communities, and their fates are tied to what happens to the parents, to their neighbors. and so forth. overwhelmingly respondents

indicated their families would benefit from immigration reform. so these numbers are staggering. 86% said their mother would benefit from immigration reform. 75% of them reported their father would benefit from immigration reform. 62% reported a sibling would benefit from immigration reform. and 60% said that another family member would benefit from immigration reform. so the story here is one of importance, although partial access to the american dream. whether we still have a lot of work to do. >> let me bring you back in here to weigh in on what he just said. >> well, i mean, there's so much. so in terms of roberto's survey, i think this is one of the next steps, at least from a research perspective. in terms of how we can integrate daca and how daca performs in

its first year and what undocumented youth are doing with daca, i think the next step is research and integrate sort of this entire process with the broader immigration reform debate, to i should figure out what hyundai committee youth are doing with their daca status. this is something that we would refer to as the counterfactual and causal inference. this is the one if legalization happens. and so, all of those questions and answers that roberto mentioned in the survey are incredibly telling, and speak to the urgency and need for immigration reform. but something that a lot of undocumented youth who i've talked to kind of chair is this motivation to use their daca status to prove something. to prove that whoever is out there, that they are fully american in every sense of the word except in paper.

and that they can actually use this status to succeed. and to succeed beyond expectations. and so that's something that i get from roberto's comments here. and using daca and the new status that undocumented youth have, as is or why we we need a broader path to citizenship i think is the next step in research that can potentially inform policy. erika's story, i mean, these are heartbreaking stories. i only met you today but i saw the youtube video. i mean, these are things that really traumatized and humanize the undocumented immigrant experience. and it's, you know, stories like yours, i am not afraid to say that they evoke emotions in me, and i would cry if you guys weren't looking at me. because these are things that in

the 21st century, in 2013, i think our immigration policies should not be geared towards, which is separating families. separating american families. and oddly, we need to team up because we have, we can do a lot with this data. soap india profile, identifying unmet needs, i think that's also in the research sort of opportunity moving forward, especially when it comes to program evaluation, comparing the outreach strategy of organizations to identify best practices. because if this does represent the sort of precursor to a broader legalization program, then getting this right means potentially getting it right for 11 million undocumented immigrants. >> that segues in nicely. let's take a deeper date. i think the profile and the organization. let's start with the profile. i am struck by the differences in what groups are applying and

what groups are denying. so what are the obstacles that are keeping people and possibly different communities from fully accessing daca? i'll open it up for everyone. >> i'll take a stab at it. i think what i'm hearing, and reading from other people's work, is that there's a couple of key things. one is that a lot of people don't realize that they qualify for daca. even though the criteria are, you know, we often find them. people don't necessarily take that and and think that they're going to be able to do that. that's one thing. other people may not especially if they're young, may not realize they are undocumented. i think some parents shield their children from that, but once they start going through these life course moments like

applying for things, like a driver's license or seeing their siblings to the, they understand that. that's another thing. the feet, the cost of applying t is $465, and if you are young, if you're not working or if you're working in a very low wage job and your parents are, too, it may take a while to scrape together the money to apply. so i think that's another thing. and then the final thing, which is maybe the biggest, is that people don't feel like they have the requisite documentation strategy to prove that they have been continuously resident in the united states. so the requirement is that you have to be present since june 15, 2007. so, you know, the older you are

the harder it is to show that on a regular basis. and that maybe also why we are seeing this population skew young. >> on audrey's last comment, i think it's no mistake that those who got daca really early where the younger dreamers, those who were in school. those who had less of a trouble proving continuous residence. providing all the documentation needed. i think what we're seeing is for those who haven't applied and those have been late in applying is that for those have been out of school for a number of years, those who are growing older and having responsibilities in their household, in their communities, that it's much tougher effort to prove, to provide all the documentation necessary. >> i would just add -- okay, so i would just add that part of

the evidence area requirements are about the continuous residency, but there's also the very basic sort of requirements of establishing some sort of nationality. where were you born? do you have a birth certificate? are you actually a u.s. citizen, or are you a national of another country whose undocumented here in the united states. and so part of the and i did surveys, the survey for undocumented youth and document use ask a set of daca related question. there are some who identify not having a birthday to get as one of the reasons why that not yet applied for daca. so when we look at the numbers and we see that the denial rates for mexican born applicants are significantly significantly lower, well, it is a very good reason for it, and that has to do with the work of the mexican consulate. i was able to speak with folks from the mexican consulate for this, get a, not for the panel,

to give some background information. we are talking about the mexican consulate across the country, increasing staff, increasing ours. so increased hours means increased accessibility. specifically for the stratified eligible youth to go to the consulate and say, i am putting my application together. i need my birth certificate. there's even an effort right now among the mexican government to try to facilitate that process online. to make getting a birth certificate and acquiring those identity documents much easier. i have not heard the same for other consulates. and so, yeah. >> i mean, i'm not an expert on the numbers but i would say that, i mean, at my job actually to job applications and it works with similar organizations. and also what i notice is that sometimes people in our community are afraid to going to

a lawyer or if they don't know that there's free services, and so sort of defining those to these people in like not even trying to apply. because camino, we are afraid of going for anything immigration without having, without if so by a lawyer. or even in its many there's a lot of -- [inaudible]. so i think that's a big one as well. a lot of people who come to us say things like oh, my god, i didn't know there was free, nina, ways of doing this. i went to a lawyer and they were charging $2000 deposit the. so there's a lot of very high fees to even just apply, plus the $465. >> that's great. i think that gives us a good sense of the overall, especially mexican applicants might be more likely to apply. but what's going on in asia and particularly african communities that means we're seeing such low

numbers? >> i can start with the asian community. back a few months ago when the first batch of daca information were being released, we saw south koreans in particular being pretty high up on that list. in the l.a. area where there is arguably the largest pocket of chinese nationals and the chinese diaspora, there was a sense among serving organizations in the l.a. area that more outreach and needed to be conducted in mandarin or cantonese to target specifically chinese daca eligible youth. now, they got that sense because korean ethnic media was doing a great job just like spanish media does. not just informing the people about daca, giving the basic requirements for it, but also sort of providing testimonials of undocumented youth going through the daca process but because let's not forget the best sort of recruiters for daca

are documented just. those haonehrough the so, earlyr batch of data i received i was able to map the geography of chinese applicants in the l.a. area specifically. and it was very clear underrepresentation. and so what that meant was the advocacy organization in that area reaching out to chinese ethnic media to try to replicate the same model that spanish-language media has innovated. that's talk about daca. let's talk about the requirements and let's talk to people -- people have gone through the process. chinese language media tried to do that, but the numbers do not sure it has been very successful so far. in terms of african born applicants, i have nothing to say except speculation, which is that one african born african

come in terms of language, diversity, i think of asian language diversity, and it is pretty complex. if we think of the ask and covenant, line which diversity is exponentially more diverse. and so when we think about different outreach strategies, language specific outreach strategy, or to a specific and sensitive outreach strategies, i have not heard of many organizations specifically focused on african daca africans. and so for those groups have the capacity to bless and programs together, well, you will be leaders as far as i can tell. >> yeah, i want to echo some of things that tom has said. first, a lot of this is speculation because we're talking to different people at different points in time and it's not been very systematic. but i think tom is right that

the outrage that has happened, or not happened to different groups, is one of the determining factors and the type of outreach, and the idea of having testimonials and success stories play a bigger role is very important. and i think also that when you look at the approval rates by country of origin and region of origin, there's another group that's very low. those from the caribbean. and it seems like the outreach and coordination and information flow, there may also, you, there's language, you know, several different languages, there's lots of different countries, there's some clustering of these groups in the country, so this is a small group but the other opportunity for greater outreach. >> i think this is a good segue

to talk about immigrant serving or positions, nonprofit and advocacy groups. you know, from scholarly literature we certainly know -- i think what i'm hearing is kind of a mix of we know they're important, they're doing good work, and tom's work means more applications. but talk to us more about what they are playing it up with some of the challenges they are facing. >> sure. again, statistically correct. [laughter] but i mean, i think that, i can tell you that when we started doing the outreach in arizona with the arizona dream coalition, some of th united drm folk, we're able to get, i mean, we were only trying to serve about 100 to two and a people because we didn't have as much of the capacity to serve more folks. and we got surprised.

we filled an entire auditorium of the school. there were hundreds and hundreds of people that were trying to apply, but what we found was not a lot of those folks actually ended up applying. because they brought the documentation that they had, you know. they brought whatever they could but when they went back home, many of them didn't necessarily have, you know, the check already or there were some pieces that they didn't have yet. so it's a challenge because we do create specific drives and we have people come to the drive, and we don't have everybody to, actually applying because they do go back home and when they come, they're like i forgot i had that they are, or didn't know i have to have a birth certificate or a passport. and so it is a challenge to some to follow up within. you do follow up with them but

many times they will tell you that they are still trying to raise the money, or so on and so forth. .. putting a to videos and everything we can to reach people through social media. but again, we are always looking for more feedback and how to have people apply and not just take the information with them.

>> going back to the site level view when we look at the immigrants serving on profits in the sample there is a wide distribution in terms of the experience that these organizations have. when we look at the u.s. founding, we want to make sure these organizations were around prior to the announcement and brought back to the announcement of dahka. but we see that overwhelmingly by 91% of all of the 2100 or so organizations in our sample were around since before. now the median year funding of these organizations is about 2,003 to eight cities organizations have been around for about ten years. but with that tenure cut off period, since 1986 and this is the last large scale legalization program in the united states. when we think about looking at these non-profit organizations and the outreach strategies, we

can also begin to isolate different characteristics about the organization and so we can think about how long they've been around as a proxy for experience and institutional memory when it comes to similar types of legalization programs of the past. and then we can sort of further distinguish between the resources and the capacity. when we think about resources, it can be the staff and the sort of relationship with others in the community to actually find a place to have a workshop or a clinic and so on and so forth. so when we sort of thing about the different organizations, we can cut them up in a lot of different ways and we can sort of expect that how we cut them up me lead to very different outcomes from some more positive than others less positive. but there's another thing. a lot of organizations that are patched together especially in places like los angeles and new york. and so something that i have heard only sort of anecdotally

is that there is not a lot of cooperation between the organizations to coordinate among the services unit and working on the sesir and with lots of different organizations and lots of different interests, i have learned the very well how difficult it is to bring different groups together through similar objectives. and so on down the road coordination, more coordination may be something that actually does and proved dhaka implementation. >> i think the capacity and resources issue is a major one. this is something that developed over the past year. the announcement was a little over a year ago stepping up and trying to figure out a stipulation has been a challenge. we have also seen the tabling of applications and so now the question is how to reach people that are harder to reach whether

it is geographically or national origin group or language group that, you know, other than spanish basically. and i think one of the important things is that a lot of the people that have come through the application process have had some ties to other institutions and organizations so there's been a lot of recruitment through schools and higher ed programs. there are people that are trying to work through other organizations in order to reach people they might not otherwise reach. but i think as we continue it is going to be harder and harder to

reach people because some people may have given up already. >> i don't know that i have anything specific to add to the comments that have been said, but i think that if we look at this from even more altitude, a couple things stand out. certainly over the last several years as the congress has been unable to pass any sort of immigration reform, what we have seen is the states and counties taking it upon themselves to pass their own sort of immigration reform. what we have seen across the country is this kind of uneven geography of immigration policy and practice. what we also seem to overly on top of that is that immigrants are moving to a very different what scholars call new destination areas spread across the united states. and i think finally there's also

an uneven distribution of kind of local level infrastructure when it comes to immigrants serving organizations and the capacity to respond to the needs of young people and their families. >> i need this is a good segue into a final question. putting on your policymaker hats, both for dhaka going forward and if it is the blueprint for the legalization program, what recommendations do you have for the policy makers and advocates, service providers at whatever level. >> i think the first is to identify the needs which the report begins to do. it's not a final word but it begins to do that. so where the outreach is needed because that is the first step for the service providers and even for the local the engagement teams to think about

the place is strategically they should be both people they are targeting so they can come up with only language appropriate events but also informational materials to distribute. and so i think that is one sort of critical thing as it relates to dhaka. but this policy recommendation for the undocumented immigrants it means we won't talk about it at this point next year. we will talk about how to implement a much larger and more difficult task. >> i would second of those comments. in the meantime, i think that we certainly have found out that cost is a huge barrier. i said this a few months ago i think we need to be talking about a flat family fee.

in several families parents are having to come up with money, $460 for one child. but if they have to come up three, four children and on top of that have to pay lawyers fees, a flat fee would really help move a lot more people through the pipeline. second is that dhaka has done a good job at providing multiple education pathways. ged programs, for example. what we are seeing across the country is in a lot of places and new york recently responded to this is that there are not enough programs. so some of them while there is an opportunity available they are underfunded and so we need to figure out how to provide more resources into these alternative education programs. 3-cd, we have been talking about it for a while and we are close this year.

let's hope we really move this past the goal line but in the meantime people and their families have to carry out their lives and so how do we think about integrating them into the community on a broad level? through internships and apprentice chips and opportunities to legally engage in a day to day life for the community. then finally as we talk about issues of enforcement and deportation and family things being separated, many of the young people that are going for dhaka are also transitioning into adulthood with stress emotional and mental health. how we think about mobilizing the mental health community to address some of these important needs? >> to repeat what i said we are getting things in terms of implementing and which will also be very important to try to figure out ways to get more folks to get their ged.

i don't know looking at the data that was shown before. i think one of the reasons the older folks are not necessarily playing as much i think it has to do with not having a ged. being in school it's easier to apply you are a high school student and you can apply and your good to go but older folks that get the i found a lot of community members that are trying to figure out where to get their ged because there isn't as much outreach to try to do that as well and it is a challenge. in terms of the policy integration reform, we keep pushing on dhaka but we are still very targeted. i don't have a driver's license and i cannot get one in arizona.

like i said my mother is in the city and we have about five months to see what's been to happen to her next year as she was only given a one-year stay. so as undocumented users we keep pushing my only congress the president as well to stop the deportation. for us it's not black and white, it's not immigration or not. there is no other way in congress. we are going to search for something bigger in terms of dhaka. perhaps the parents are not necessarily dreamers and people didn't believe that we could do it with the dreamers and we were able to get the president to do this and so there is a way if we push congress for the longer term we will stay forever and ever met at the same time we also have urgency if that comes

through congress or the president, you know what i'm going to push for it whatever way i can. >> to add to the comments that my fellow panelists have made, i would say that if daca has been a kind of task for the uscis when we extend the legalization to many more people in this country, then it's important to take note of what happened already. uscis has been keeping up with the application process and the fact that they have made decisions, 75% of them already and it is a process. so everyday people are submitting and being adjudicated and that is important to note because it is going to ramp up in the future. and i think the reason why that

is important qualitatively and in the lives of people is probably the number-one reason people are applying for daca is to get work authorization. and the longer between getting applied and getting your card, the harder it makes having daca documented status because you want to receive the benefits, full benefits. so i think we have a lot to learn from organizations that are providing assistance to people who are applying because they hold the key to what the process is going to look like and there is no on the ground what works and what doesn't work so that is a really big door we have to look through. one thing i forgot to mention is that uscis has been great in terms of providing the data,

those updates they give about the review but to the extent we can help as researchers and make daca work better we need more data. what has happened recently with the data analysis this is the age of the data and it can help us identify how to make this process better. so if we can be more forthcoming with the data we can do a better job. but in the absence of that, the service providers can also provide for us a wealth of information. so thinking about the surveys these organizations do, there can be specific questions related to not just the applicant but to the applicant nose so that we can map out the networks of those that haven't

been served by daca or we call it responding driven a sampling of those organizations can in the absence of the population from the daca can be the focal point for the data necessary to improve the program on the road. and i say this because i met some of the organizations on the ground. >> why don't we take some questions from the audience. and the microphone comes to you please state your name and organization. >> thank you to the panel and for taking my question. this is more of a policy question because i'm not really privy to whether or not the president can do this to read as someone mentioned earlier, a lot of daca people feel that this is not enough and of course congress needs to improve immigration reform once and for all. so from a policy perspective can

the president like he was pressured into the authorizing daca last year can he extend it to the parents of the dreamers or in other words what are the limits to what he can or cannot do while congress decides whether or not they will pass immigration reform this year. thank you. >> my thinking is that we've been able to yield deportation with the discretion some colette and it's basically saying the discussion to deport someone or not depending on the priority so what we have been able to do is find a lot of cases and we've been able to stop the deportation one by one.

it takes a lot of people to call immigration and this kind of thing. our thinking through this like [inaudible] daca was the same thing we were trying to get so now we look for the ways to do that and we can talk to lawyers that we naturally think that we can find something where the discussion can be granted to our parents and our older siblings sort of in the same way. >> one thing that can be done is to stop the deportation. but i also want to say from my perspective the book isn't closed on 2013 immigration reform and the house is coming back next month and it looks

like there is increasing pressure on house republicans as more of them are coming forward supporting reform so we have a really good chance to push for some important legislation that includes a pathway. to me that is the most important thing that many people are thinking it will be done. >> thank you for this tremendous event. i'm with the national latino institute for reproductive health. the immigrant latinos we work with what texas and florida in the midwest try to win the program announced in it for the first time they felt their contributions were being recognized and they were invited to come forward and participate in this society. a few weeks later the u.s. department of health and human services issued a final interim

rule that noted unlike others with deferred action come daca recipe as are not lawful to the presence of the health care program effectively shutting them out of the affordable care act and for medicaid. i'm not sure that particularly impacts women and children. and so, you know unfortunately there's a tremendous benefit of daca there is a lot of disappointment. women were really looking forward to getting health insurance for the first time being able to pay into the system and so there's a lot of talk today on today's panel about integration and i was wondering if you could speak to how some of the shortcomings in terms of the daca program and in terms of integration what impact that has had on the enrollment outreach to some of these communities and because we know that some of the shortcomings have had an impact on the immigration reform debate from the restrictions on health care and daca have been married in the senate bill for the immigration reform. thanks.

>> i think i want to take a first stab and say in the survey that i mentioned i am wrapping up a ten year study i followed 150 undocumented in los angeles since 2003. i start about the project with some kind of questions about educational attainment and political participation. the one thing i found overwhelmingly that i didn't expect is that almost to the person of those young people i talked to and the very young adults would come to the u.s. before the age of 12 who had grown up here. a lot of the people we are talking about today. almost to the person described mental and physical manifestations of stress. chronic headaches and toothaches , trouble sleeping, trouble getting out of bed, eating problems, thoughts of

attempted suicide. real intense problems. and i think that this segment of the population that is also economically challenged doesn't have access to health care but has enormous needs i think this something that needs to be changed to this gimmick the part of the debate has been about the access and this is an uphill climb in the absolute moral imperative of serving this community and meeting with the health needs of this community we see how it is a sort of a bargaining tool. the senate bill barbara boxer introduced an amendment that says we can create this sort of state impact fund where we can take money from the applications

people will be paying for the path to citizenship and distribute that to the states to help cover the cost of the health services for example. there was a republican alternative introduced by john cornyn that actually beat out the proposal and the alternative beat out the proposal because john cornyn said instead of taking the money away from the health this would increase the overall cost of plugging for the path to citizenship. and so at the end of the day if we are talking about this in terms of health and if we do fall within the categories access to health may be unattainable but it's on the high cost so in the senate bill that language is completely excluded. so barbara boxer's office is considering the amendment before they shut the door of the senate bill. we know in the house the

affordable care act is against all things with the 40 for the 50th vote on obamacare and so policy why is it is a crime. >> we have time for one more question. >> my name is marjorie from the university of immigration policy. and i am here on the science foundation directing the program. i say that in case people are working for funding and want to talk to me. >> one of the things i'm finding is the number of people are not eligible for the discussion because the felonies i'm

speculating that it's only speculation on the faults that part of the reason why the denial rate has been so low for daca has been u.s. cis has done a good job on the website what makes you eligible and not eligible if you have eight dui and the nonprofits are working with people saying you are not going to get. people are nervous enough about it so in some of these conversations where they are saying you are probably not going to qualify. but i would love to hear about research if you are finding that in your research and also then how you respond to the opponents of daca who are saying everybody is getting at. so this isn't really a fair adjudicatory kind of thing.

i'm guessing what's happening is the earlier process is leading people out who wouldn't qualify. but that is legislation on my part. the other thing is if this comes from a second point is in the data that you have do you have other information on education, family occupation, anything else like that on your work? because i feel from the quality of part -- >> it's really hard to get a bigger perspective on it. and it does seem to be that slammed -- slam dunk and people who even themselves think they may not qualify and are holding

back. what i do have in the paper, there is a table you can see the share of all applicants approved you can see some of the loyalist approval rates from the non-spanish-speaking countries so again this is and like all of the applicants at all that have been agitated -- adjudicated. there are some people flying solo on moonves success rate. >> the sociologists on the team has tried to interpret the finding related to many verses women and how that sort of

increases with age. so it fits neatly within the sociological phenomenon of the criminality among the men and in that sort of age fraiman, too. so this isn't to say that there is a large pool of criminal mails in the sample of daca applicants talking about, you know, the percentages year but because there is a sort of disproportionate number of males that increases with age, the sociologists on the team planned to every reality of the sort of criminality in the united states the sweet spot with age and the 20 to 30 range. >> am i study i found a number of these young men and women who

would have been deported if caught based on prior crime and i think the issue for a lot of them is that they have been living their lives for some time now hidden from all enforcement pete i suspect that a lot of these young people just haven't applied. in terms of your question, we are at the 2,000 surveys and we hope to get 5,000 by the end of our run buy probably this fall. and i certainly support the call for the greater level of data from the uscis that we are getting the aggregate level data on these important questions. i would be happy to talk to you more about that. >> that is a good place to leave it since we are out of time.

i want to thank all of the panelists and reiterate what i said at the beginning that this is only the start of the conversation that think of the panelists have pointed out that there is so much we need to know from continuing to track the trends we have highlighted today in the applications and approvals continue to just say what actually happens to people going forward that to get daca or that don't. so we have to have them back soon and the conversation. please join me in getting the panelists a round of applause. [applause]

>> read transmission as important to the television members. there are two ways that you pay for localism, local content. you pay for it through advertising model, which is the historic model of television broadcasting or now in a growing screen as the the transmission consent. you don't find this level is like any market right now cable pays itself far more for its

content than it pays to broadcasters. the truth of the matter is our content is the one that people watch the most. you look at the 100 talk shows at any given week 94 of them are broadcast content. we win this because candidly it is vital if the congress wants us to continue trying to foster localism and provide all the things that we do to earn our licenses everyday. you've got to have a way to finance it. the advertising and the transmission. the association for the unmanned systems international held its annual convention in washington, d.c. looking at

drones, new technology and the systems and their impact on privacy. up next remarks from lt. james barclay of the army deputy chiefs of staff. >> i would now like to bring to the stage the next speaker who faces challenges of an entirely different sort. lt. general james barclay free is the deputy chief of staff. as most of you know, g8 is responsible for matching the army's resources with its plans and strategies and given the defense of the past several years, he must be reminded us to live in interesting times. to assume the bill in july, 2012, lieutenant general barclay served as the assistant chief of staff. the ultimate general has had a command including the commanding

general, the united states are mechem aviation center of excellence in fort rucker. aviation brigade and later chief of staff of the fourth infantry division recognized during the operation iraqi freedom and a battalion commander in the tenth division. he's a 1978 graduate of the academy at west point. a graduate of the army command and general staff college and 1998 graduate of the united states naval war college. he has been kind enough to consent to ask -- to asra some questions at the end of the stock so we have some microphones set up so be thinking about what to look like to ask the general about. please welcome lieutenant general barclay. [applause] she said i was willing to take some questions.

he didn't save that i would answer questions. i will do the best. thanks for having the helped today. this is my first time to come to one of these. it gives me an opportunity to give you some of the things we're thinking about at the orman level and where we are going to go. to start speaking today, we have to remember kind of where we've been to last ten or 12 years and that sets the stage for what we want to do in the future. if you look at the past ten or 12 years at the fight we have been, the unmanned systems both air and ground have come to life and developed at a piece i daresay many jokes would have thought was unimaginable back in the late 90's as we were trying to get our arms around with the unmanned system technology.

as we look back on what we've accomplished i will tell you that we have an even bigger challenge in the future and that is the leverage of all of this that we have learned and put it against where we want to go and leave out the road map. we developed uas road map and i was focused on the system because of my job at rucker and that is where it came to light to me that even though we were dealing with a day to day war and trying to develop and field and bring capabilities to the war fighter we didn't really have a plan for what we were going to do in the future and how we were going to continue to integrate and develop systems and improve the capability of those war fighters. in those on mant systems at the uas level younkins the past ten or 12 years we worked at three

levels, the company level, kind of the raven drove us down those lines and we've got him great success, great utilization out of that and has provided a significant amount of information to the company level commanders in the areas of clearance to counter ied. at the brigade level as we were coming in today we were talking about the shadow that happened to be at fort hood and we were bringing the first ones in using them and taking those in the to iraq on the shadow platforms and later on we can see what it has done. but its continued to move forward. now we have the château with the teeming. first it was independently controlled and operated and now we are integrating it with our other systems. at the division level over the past several years we have been fielding the platform and that is working on the reconnaissance

attack. in the future we are looking to do some of these things on the air side again focusing on the company through the battalion. we have those that we are looking at, the reagan and in some of the other areas they are the future microwave vehicles and being able to put these scenes with the small ones that are much smaller giving different capabilities other than just being in orbit above you but being able to maneuver, hover and get an smaltite places and look at those. but again it has to be transported by an individual and also at the same time as he said introducing me, it has to be affordable. at the brigade level, we are developing, continuing to do the type of battling and we are looking to get that still on track. at the division level we are

looking at the universal ground control station and that is on track for the 15 fielding. we are also looking at as we started filming the eagle and we were looking at the configurations and moving some of those eagles into those formations and those battalions, the gray eagles will be looking to do some integration with some of those sensors and processors on the platforms as we feel those systems. mal on the ground side, that probably hasn't gotten as much attention as the terri hail side it's nice and everyone likes to talk about the aviation systems that fly overhead and you control but it's really where the work is being done and a lot of great work is being done on the ground side.

they've proven themselves on the battlefield. whether it was in the arena, the counter ied or road clearance it has been the game changer when it comes to protecting the soldiers and taking care of them. the battalion level we have individual transportable a lot of these four systems that had been focused on again the eeoc. then some of the examples there of course we got the application systems which was a detection system and we talk about the autonomous mobility applique systems and it was interesting the previous speaker talked about autonomy. he used the term that there was supervised autonomy. i thought was interesting and

this was something that we looked out to be truly autonomous that is something in the future we are looking at where you can program the mission assets and go out and do the things it needs to do without being tethered and without someone looking for the camera or tv screen but you can send it out and conduct the mission so to me autonomous this is something that is a challenge for this body as we look to the future to develop those things about autonomy and what that means to the different users. some of the things that we are looking at is of course the common robotic system and a part of that we are working at the marine corps now as a joint program to try to consolidate efforts which then they help us save all was when we can get several different services coming after this. we are also looking at a multi-purpose equipment transport.

it's something that will give the lowest level of the squad some capability to move from the battlefield and carry the stuff it means and also provide power in a network extension. again as we try to define what those are both on the air side and the ground side. you put it in your pocket and is it rucksack, does it come with a backpack that contains it and those are some of the things we are trying to work at. we are looking at the semi autonomous and automated convoy operations pity it again, this is one of those areas we are trying to define and look at what is the autonomous, semi autonomous and what does that mean to us and where do we want to go with it and how we want to provide this to the devotees as we move into the future.

we've talked about the senate passed how we are trying to link it to the future is dependent upon the resources that we will have available as an army as we move forward. so as i am taking a look at the modernization road that of the future for the army, some of the things i have to consider as we are looking at what we want to get after. first of all, we have to be able to provide an affordable modernized force, both that this man and unmanned and that continued together to get as we are doing this what we are looking to accomplish is to improve not only would it brings to the soldier, but also the systems, the protection, persistence and the autonomy and again there comes the word and how we define that and how we want to get after that in just at what level and with which systems the degree that we want to accomplish the autonomy

aspect. while we are doing this we have to identify the cost and to double the threshold. the cost and keep above the threshold is really interesting because they compete with each other. cost defines where we are going. and it also helps us to define just what capability level we need or can afford to get after over in the next few years. and all in all while we are doing this we improve the effectiveness and efficiency. some of the things we are looking at in improving the effectiveness and efficiency our commonality, interoperable the end modularity. those are three things that we'd need to really focus on as we are looking to become more a effective and efficient when it comes to the unmanned systems. while we are doing this, we know that as i said, in one of the ground systems are cut. we know it's important that we

leverage the commercial technology, the funds that you put into research and development and how that assists us as we try to make decisions and move forward. and then gradually start to introduce some of the systems because as we are moving forward and developing the capability that become more autonomous, there's always that fear of what work? khanna to do the job? is it fail prove? so as we look at this, we have to develop those parameters that will drive us to move to that truly autonomous top of operation. then finally as we are looking to the future what you have to look at what cost perspective is a contractor logistics support. as you know in the past not only the unmanned systems but we went

with the cls to provide maintenance for different systems. but as we move to the future again looking at the cost, we have to be very cautious about how we go into this and that is where the industry has to help us as we look at managing the cost whether it is done through contracting what sticks or whether we have to go back and look at how we develop the military organic capability to do that top of maintenance and work on those. so those are some of the things as we move into the future we are trying to look forward to and put our arms around and develop to the of course as we move forward we know that we have challenges in the unmanned systems. i don't know if you have noticed that it was announced several weeks ago again where we sold off some of our frequencies to the industry we all know the

band with and the frequencies are important to the unmanned systems so as the nation starts to sell that with other bids that it has it brings money in and you have a lot of folks out there that want to use it because it will help them with phones and satellites to use that so that will be a challenge for us to ensure that we protect enough of the bandwidth so that we expand and that is one of the problems that again i'm not for sure that we have balanced that and we take a long look forward to kind of see exactly what is the band but spectrum that we are going to have and how far we think we are going to go when the unmanned systems in the future as we build the army in the future. >> as we expand the network and we say that the network is what drives our soldiers and squads and companies, everyone is

reaching out trying to pay claims on the band width said that is what we are looking at. and then of course we also have the willingness or the unwillingness as we look across the federal government, state governments to allow us to operate within the united states as we train and use these. we know that we are faced with working with the national airspace and the faa trying to get the unmanned air systems ayaan and certified because there is a concern that you will lose control and then what are the cause and effect of doing that on the local populations around where we are operating fees but as we expand in the future it's not only about the air it is about having them on the road and that is something the nation as a whole is going to have to address because in the future it's not only about

military operations but you can see the commercial aspect as we develop stuff in the military that it can move in the commercial sector where you are moving stuff with trucks and cargo that again those autonomous operations allowing the country to move stuff back-and-forth as much as we are trying to do in the structure of the military to move equipment and logistics back and forth across so that is a challenge that we will face and some of the things that we are going to really have to focus on as we move into the future to ensure that that isn't something that prohibits us but that we as leaders in helping the nation to develop that. some of the other things i would like to talk about are the additional thoughts on the unmanned systems and industries. there are some capabilities we are looking at to develop, for example, modular, interoperable at the same time we want to

ensure that we have the inclusion of the joint partners. this time we are drawing down and we don't have a lot of money you have to ensure that you do this in an environment where it is a joint cohesion effort with all the services together. as you are cutting budgets everybody knows you can take a look back and anything that has the word joint it seems to get hammered pretty early on because the store to protect their own systems but that is important to the future that we look at both joint and coalition because there are a lot of collisions and allies making some great strides in developing these systems and that is important to us that we include that as we move forward to it finally, just in closing before i take some

questions, there are basic things that we are looking for as we are looking to develop some of these systems. one of the key things is we are looking at things that have to be intuitive that gets to the autonomous aspect. they also have to be energy efficient and flexible and at the same time we have to have systems and as you look at the intuitive part, they are easy to train and they can reduce the training cost and sustainment cost. that is the key aspect as we are looking forward to the future because as i said when i was introduced, we are in some tough times not only the part of defense of the nation as we try to get our arms around the fiscal issues that we have. that plays into every decision

that we make and sell as we go into some of these programs, we have to be honest and know as we develop these they have to be affordable and more than just additional burdens and cost to us. so that's kind of the view i am taking as we look to develop the future systems and this related modernization program for the future. but again this is an area that as i look back at my career of about 35 years and i can remember back early on we said no way. it has to have a man because everybody was scared that at the end of the day everything would become unmanned and would do away with our jobs and stuff that i won't tell you that that is in the case. we know that you have to have the team. we know that the welding better keep a devotees to the force.

and that is the future of the army. we have to incorporate this and it is going to be a big part of it even in the fiscal environment that we know it is challenging. we have to continue to look and that will be where the industry has to help us as we partner to move forward. thank you for having me here today to talk to you for a few minutes and i will open it up for a few questions. if anybody has any. [applause] i love it when i don't have any questions. that makes it great. >> i think the only person that had a question has already left the room. [laughter] [applause]

>> thank you very much. >> more now from the association for unmanned vehicle systems international annual convention. in the next panel speakers look at the use of drones and their impact on civil liberties. this is 90 minutes. >> hello, everybody. i am the government relations manager and the general counsel to the association for unmanned vehicle systems international auvsi. thank you for coming to this important topic and panel that we have. before i introduce the moderator here, just a little bit about us. auvsi, we are the international trade association that represents the unmanned systems industry.

we have over 7,000 members from 60 countries and this is the big yvette to here in washington, d.c.. as a auvsi government revisions manager and general counsel, i have them kind of the forefront of auvsi's response for a lot of the privacy issues that have been raised about the unmanned aircraft systems and i believe that we will get a little more in-depth and to some of these issues at this panel, but what of the members to know that we have been dealing with this issue in a very productive way and we encourage you to visit our web site to see how we have been responding to this. it is my pleasure to introduce alan frazier professor at the university of north dakota in the aviation school. prior to joining, he was a law enforcement officer with numerous years of experience in the airborne. what was the police department glendale police department. and now and north dakota she

heads up a lot of the research efforts and he is really one of the experts on how law enforcement agencies can use and fly the aircraft and work with the sheriff's office with their operations. please join me in welcoming al. [applause] >> thank you for coming. i have to tell you i'm a little bit relieved because when we did this in las vegas the room was packed. what it tells me is maybe this issue is going to the back burner a little bit where it should be. that is heartening to me. just to set the tone of well but what we are here to do is discuss something important and that is the respect for citizens that we serve that law enforcement agencies should have been utilizing any type of new technology. respect for the fourth amendment, and unfortunately

i've had some experiences in my background where i have seen even though a particular law enforcement agency doesn't of use the technology or abuse the freedoms of the public they serve, another agency doing something that can be perceived like that puts a black mark on all of this and the two instances that come to mind, most of my law enforcement was in the area in the california police department and i sure that all of you remember the arrest of rodney king in '91 and the subsequent trials in the state and federal trial where several of the police officers and stacey koon was the supervisor ron charged with the violation of rodney king's light speed and throughout that trial the riots that followed after the first acquittal in the state court on numerous occasions i would be called to assist officers on basically complains that the citizens had of the officers' behavior. i can't tell you the number of times something similar to this

was told to me by the citizens and that is what are you going to do, beat me like you did rodney king? we are a different agency and we have nothing to do with the los angeles police department but yet our actions were with a broad brush as a result of the actions they took in california that evening. later in 1995 after the trial of o.j. simpson and the revelations about the detective and some racially insensitive comments that he made, the same thing occurred. we were broad brush as were probably many agencies in the country with being a racist cops. and that is a great fear that i have. the most sacred thing we have in this country other than god is the maintenance and respect for the u.s. constitution and the bill of rights. so we want to protect that. but even if that doesn't get close to your heart, just as an industry and law enforcement

that want to use this technology if we don't get the public to agree to its use, then we are going to be unsuccessful and we will fail before we ever leave the starting gate. so if you will from the purely selfish standpoint of being able to utilize the technology effectively, we have to win the public over. ..

it's very valuable in determining whether or not they ensure repeat sessions of modified sessions and so forth if you could provide the input. if you could, please, take a couple of moments toward the end of the presentation to fill it out. you can leave it on a chair at the back of the room and i will make sure they get to the auvsi representative. we're hoping to have at least half the session dedicated to understand audience-directed questions. i would ask you hold them until the end and you come to one of the microphones so everyone will hear your question. t also being reported for distribution. that will make sure that the audience is watching those recordings is able to hear your question as well. i would also ask, having worked with all the panelists, i know they will comply with this. i would ask you the same thing. you treat the issue with respect, and pose your questions in a respectful manner. not like "saturday night live" and jane curtain.

you ignorant, misguided -- i'll let you fill in the rest of it. with that in mind, i would like to introduce my panelists. to my immediate right is jay stanley. he's a policy analyst based in the d.c. area. he is written extensively on the issues of privacy and the use of technology. very -- what i think, is a very informative paper he wrote with a coauthor when that is to do with the im-- implementation of technology by law enforcement. if you haven't read the paper, i would enjoy cow to read it. to the right is doug marshall. very influential in uav has been involved in many years. sits on numerous panels and generally recognized as one of the experts in the implementation of uas technology

and worldwide. to his right is greg mcneil. he's -- mcnail. he's a professor of law attar. dine university. it's one of the the main campus is wonderful in malibu. -- do you? i thought you were downtown. oh my gosh. yeah. oh. i take that back. [laughter] i'm jealous now. okay. there you go. perfect. greg's research focuses on emerging technology. he's been interviewed and written extensively on the use of technology and how it interfaces with law and renowned publications as the "times," baltimore "sun," national review online. quite a well spoken expert in the area of the intersection of technology and law. and then finally you have met

ben the government relation manager. he serves as somewhat of a lobbyist, if you will for auvsi. in the role stays very much on top of what is a very pivotal issue in the implementation of this technology. which is privacy concerns. and respect for the fourth amendment. the format we're going use is we have some prearranged questions i'm going asking each of the panelists to give full disclosure. they were given the questions before the panel, they had time to prepare their responses to them. we are al going to open it up to the other panel is if they want to counter point that particular response or want to segue on or add something to it. they would be welcome to do that. as we work through those questions, once we have made it through the questions, i would ask you to hold your questions, responses until the end of the presentation and we'll invite

you to one of the microphones. you can either address one of the yours we have begun discussing, or you can suggest a completely new topic. you can pose your question to an individual panelist or pose it to the entire panel as a whole. i will taupe to the entire panel to answer the question. we're going start with jay. jay from the aclu, what are the privacy concerns with the use of unmanned aircraft systems? >> well, i mean, there are a number of concerns in term how they are precisely deployed and implemented. the joarch arching bigging concern is auv drones, if you will, not be used for pervasive surveillance. the technology now exists to have aerial surveillance using gigapixel cameras watch vast areas, 25 square miles. track all the vehicles and pedestrian move within the area,

log the movement to a data base, store the data base. data mine them. and that is our biggest concern. we don't want, you know, we don't want to live in an america from the minute you walk out the front door until you get home at night you have wonder if there's an invisible eye in the sky tracking your every move. it might seem a aways away from where we are now especially with the regulatory environment because of safety concerns held back that kind of deployment. those issues will get worked out, and there is a lot of demand pent up demand by police around the country and other agencies to use the technology. we have police helicopters, police helicopters are expensive, they require maintenance crews, they cost millions of dollars. there's a built in natural restraint how much aerial surveillance those are used for. it when we look at the future where the small compld deploy

hufns of small cheap inexpensive robotic flying video cameras, we are going to see police agencies in the country, we have seen some express an desire to do so want to put them in up over the neighborhood and track everybody all the time. we need put in place good -- to establish the rule of the game and what we as a country want the technology to be used for or not used for. once they are in place question rest easy they're not going to be used for the big brother type of use. that will be good for the drone industry. we can see a lot of innovation and innovative cool new use for the technology without people having to worry about, you know, being watched every minute. >> very good. when you talk about that per pervasive surveillance. are you personally aware of any law enforcement afganistans that have utilized the technology in that manner? something you would character as abusive?

>> we saw the mayor of ogden, utah fielding a bumper over certain neighborhoods in the city that would have cameras on it. he was turned down by the faa. they did meet the current regulatory rules. we saw the dayton, ohio work with a private company to carry out surveillance tracking within the rather large area using manned aircraft. and, you know, manned aircraft circling over and video taping everything and tracking everything as sort of a test. the technology is here. the only thing holding it back is the faa, really. and the faa, you know, -- this particular deployment got around by used manned aircraft. it's very expensive. we're not going to see it over every city. if you can have a cheap flying robot there's have limit. >> i see. let's drill down a little bit, you know, when we talk about surveillance, you know, that almost has a negative

connotation to it. any time we're observing something, we could liberally say we are surveilling it. let's drill down to two major category of public safety mission. specifically law enforcement. the first type of mission would be let's say things like disaster reconnaissance, searching for lost persons twhab type of thing. versus a pervasive, let's say, antiterrorist, counternarcotic surveillance. if i could have you focus on the moment of the question of public safety-related use of uas. and think hazard use material spills, searches for lost children, that type of thing. does the aclu have concerns about those type of applications of small uas? >> in general, we do not. we are perfectly happy to see drones used for specific particular operations. whether it's, you know, search and rescue, disaster response,

you know, police use in particular operations. police have a warrant to storm an estate, and they want to use a drone as part of the operation. we have no problem with that. we think that, you know, those are probably a lot of good uses for drones in those kinds of areas. there might be particular, you know, rules that need to be worked out around, you know, if a drone is being used to search for somebody that happens to fly over some private people's houses and observe their backyards. you know, we think there should be rules how the images are handled and the people's who houses who happen to be flown over their privacy isn't invaded. generally we're focused on mass suspicionless surveillance. watching everybody all the time. and, you know, we think the drones is a technology that has lot of potential to do good. i think that, really, it's in everybody's interest to pin down the privacy questions, put in place some good common sense

protection and we don't have to worry about the privacy and the public safety agency to use the technology the way you're talking about without the cloud of "big brother" hanging over it. >> did you have something? >> a question to understand their position on this. this year, the boston police department would like to use an unmanned system over the marathon to monitor what is going on to use it for security purposes. there's no suspicious that would warrant getting the warrant in that circumstance. would the aclu considered it mass generalized surveillance or particularized law enforcement use? >> i haven't thought about that particular use, but in general we would probably say that would be, you know, something that would be, you know, toward thes masseur vai lens end of the spectrum. i'm not sure exactly what the purpose of a drone would be in

that kind of situation. there's a long record of law enforcement wanting to video tape political rallies, and keep track of who is politically active both on the conservative side of the spectrum and the liberal side of the speck trum, and create data bases. >> what would be the privacy concern that the aclu would find in aerial surveillance of a marathon? >> well, i think what the issue here would be establishing the principle of not using drones for things outside of very particular, you know, situations. you know, we don't want our drones flying over our city all the time watching everything that is going on. maybe -- again, it's not an issue i thought about in depth. it's possible if it was limited in time for a public safety situation where there's a worldwide event going on, you know, maybe that would be an

exception that could be carved out without raising the danger of per pervasive surveillance. >> let's switch gears. what is the aclu's position on the use of uas for commercial and noncommercial application. those applications would not bring in the protection of the fourth amendment unless people that were utilizing the uas were operating as agents of law enforcement. so this is your next door neighbor utilizing a uas for commercial or noncommercial purpose. >> it's interesting. the private sector use of drones raise privacy questions. there's a different set of privacy issues. we have not called for sort of regulations at this time to cover priefort -- private use of drones. for one thing, there are an existing set of laws in states such as peeking tom law and

harassment laws that cover at love things that people are worried about. like the teen next door peep in your bedroom window. that's covered by peeping tom laws. they are consistent from state to state. maybe they should be made more consistent. but there is also an enormous potential for innovation in the private sector area. once the safety issues are taken care of, and we would hate for that innovation to be stumped by laws where it's not clear exactly yet what the privacy problems will be i don't think it's nearly clear in the government law enforcement -- we see clear desire to use them certain ways. and also there's a countervailing constitutional issue here which is the first amendment. you know, we at the aclu have defended the right to photography around the country. we have seen police officers harassing sometimes arresting individuals for taking photographs sometimes taking

photographs of trains or bridges, sometimes taking photographs of the police itself. it's clear in the court you have a first amendment right to take photograph of police in public. we have seem then harassed. we have worked to protect the first amendment right of photographers. those rights are implicated by drones. drones have been used by, you know, by groups to watch japanese whalers, by, you know, environmental groups, and by, you know, there was some of the occupy wall street activists created a drone which they were going to use to watch over what they regarded as abusive harass by the police. although i don't think it was legal for them to fly it . i don't know they flew it. we think that photography is something that individuals should use to watch over the government. we don't think that the government should be watching over the people unless they have specific evidence you are involved in wrong doing.

it shouldn't be watching everybody all the time. >> thank you. doug, let's move to you. in a broad sense, are there any legal protections throughout now in place that would protect the privacy of the public in relation to uas? >> well, jay pretty much covered that topic just now, but other than local legislation on peeping tom and the abuse of the sort of device to intrude upon the privacy of the next door neighborhood. probably not. essential not at federal government. the federal aviation regulations yet don't deal with immense -- unmanned system at all. privates doesn't appear anywhere from the mandate of congress from valentine's day last year for faa. one of the big questions for the industry, for the faa is whether

the faa should be in the business of regulating or dealing with the privacy and many would argue probably not because that's not their job. their job is safety. so the ample since to your question is no, there are no legal protection on the federal level that i'm aware of for privacy protection for use of these systems. >> okay. how about civil repurr cushions? i'm tired of that odd guy two doors from me putting the uaf up and watching my teen daughters. is there any sort of civil action? >> certainly that raises the specter of civil torts and intrusion of privacy. a misdemeanor would be committed by one of the system to go over the neighbor's fence and invade their privacy in some fashion. using the unmanned system would generate from that to disseminate private information. take a picture of somebody and put it on the internet to defame

them in some way by dissemnating false information about them to expose some testimony -- activity they don't want exposed to the public. those are all potentially result in civil litigation called a tort or civil tort, and that would be damages -- could be compensatory damages, damages for pain and suffering and humiliation, and -- intruding on the privacy. if the offense was great enough or egregious enough, the injured party could obtain an award. punitive damages being damaged that are intended to convince the actor or the wrongdoer not to do it again or to provide a negative ramification for those that might want to do something somewhere in the future. there are civil remedies available. i haven't seen it happen yet in unmanned system, but it's

certainly problem. >> i see. let's step back a little bit to statutory law. some 30 plus states are considering or have considered or in one level of review of laws that would control unhas been -- unmanned aircraft system in the individual state. the first question is, in your opinion, is the senate legislature the creation of state law an appropriate way of controlling or trying to control uafs? >> our personal opinion is no. you run the risk of firty different set of law and regulations that would be impossible for a legitimate operator or commercial operator to be fully understand the ramifications from one state to other or an operation that might cross the state line or state borders. you have the issue of the right of local government, municipal

government, county government, state government to exercise their police power over activity within their state. that's something that is retained be i state and constitution. at the same time you have the federal aviation policies and regulations that come from a federal oversight rule and those laws tend to preemplet conflicting state laws. i think from the last count and ben could probably address it. there are six states enacted some sort of laugh. they have been introduced in 41 other states resolution. i think the danger is border of jigsaw puzzle, if you will, conflicting the regulations nationwide. i think there -- needs to be a -- the overall regulation and management of unmanned systems. >> sure from a developer

standpoint it sounds like it would have a chilling effect on the dj of the technology. >> it could. it's a global issue. the ongoing attempt and oafort -- standard environment for immense system around the world. it's a major effort if you were here yesterday for ted's presentation across the hall they talk about what they are doing, and rtca new's committee 228, and those efforts have been going on for years. they are likely to go on for another decade or two before they are sorted out. the problem of the conflicting and overlapping regulatory environment that make it nearly impossible for the developer or the commercial enterprise or the manufacturer or the researcher to understand the rules depending where they try to operate. so something we try to avoid. >> thank you. craig, we're going to move to you. i know, the issue is near and dear to what your heart.

what should the associated industries be doing to deal the real and imagined issues associated with privacy? >> i'm shocked when i walk the trade show fll here by the lack of attention to the issue. mostly because it's a business opportunity. get out your notebook and write it down. the first company that has, you know, a phone board set up that says our software cat logs where the operator was logs where the camera was and the uav was pointing the camera. date and time stamp it and log off on a separate system and stores it so only authorized people can access the data is going to be someone two or three years ahead of the privacy curve and able to sell it to the states where legislate or its are clam more -- what are you doing with the data and using it.

jay has conceptualized for us the privacy concern for an entire group of organized -- i call them the privacy lobby, which probably bothers jay. a group organized around privacy interests. and they're tapping to a vein of par noaa the general has public has. getting reflected on city council. go to seattle see if they're buying unmanned systems. it's getting reflected in state legislator. the answer if you're in an industry that is innovative. look at the innovative product that addresses the concern the people are raising. i have some personal belief about some of the concerns i think some of them are a bit overwrought. i think we disagree about what pervasive surveillance might be. i would put it at the lengthier period of time than a couple of hours it takes for the bonaminio to -- boston marathon happens. it's going happen in a legislator when they identify what the privacy concerns are.

what your systems offer to address the concern. my argument, would be if i was in your chair, not sitting in your shoes. if i was in your shoes or in your chair, my argument would be unmanned system can be more accountable than manned systems. let's take voicerrism. if i have someone who is an officer if they decide they're going drive to the state college campus and going to park their car outside of the sorority house and observe what is going on inside. if someone sees them they'll ask a question, and he'll give some answer be able to go along his way and cover his tracks. if he tries to do that with an unmanned stham is accountable tracking who using it, flight, the flight log, the person is going to get caught. people are going raise questions. why was the system being operated in a way pointing in the certain direction. that direction is always pointed in was the sorority house it was

always at night. what is going on here? the system would be more accountable. it would be subject to audit. if you wanted to store the data for some, you wul be able store it but it will be destroyed or only acceptable with a warrant. the other issue i have with industry the only person pushing back that i witnessed and trying to track this pushing back again the legislation that is cropping up in different states and the congress is a -- i don't see a lot of effort from businesses themselves. and this is really going to hurt your bottom line. if your local government or your state decides to pass a bill that says any evidence derived from an unmanned system without a warrant cannot be used in a trial -- after the first time you fly the thing out there looking for the lost hiker, and as you're flying looking for the lost hiker you don't have a warrant. you are looking for a lost hiker. you witness someone being

stabbed to death in the woods. that evidence of the person. these bills being poorly drafted to address the concerns i think being a bit -- they're being blown out of proportion by the aclu and rand paul and others and hurt your bottom line. you're not going to be able to use your system if law enforcement can't use evidence of crime when gathered from the system. it's important for you to track this and be a part of it and also offer solutions from a technology standpoint. >> i would like to chime in our position that any evidence that is collect that contains evidence of a crime pub suppressed. it's not our position. >> okay. i'm glad that may be the -- >> in front of the state legislation being passed. that's not what we call for on the white paper. >> i'm glad to hear that.

a representative of the california aclu at the police town hall said the exception for inadvertent collection for discovery is a big exception you can drive a truck through it and opposed to inadvertent discovery usage of that evidence. i'm glad to hear that's not the position of the aclu. >> just, you know, somewhat of an independent voice. i would hope no legislation is restrictive it would incorporate that type of language. frequently the law enforcement agencies are conducting searches and fall within the plain view dpoct rain and the search warrant find something unassociated with the search warrant but in a place we had a right to -- then that would be a legal seizure. >> you're going to be disappointed then. >> i would be terribly disappointed. >> that's the american privacy act of 2013.

came up through the house judiciary committee. who was the sponsor? ted poe out of texas. was the sponsor of the bill. if has the most cosignatory of any of the bill working their way through congress. if it passes, this is your federal legislation harmized across the board, and in my testimony in the house expwriew -- so you -- it's most like lie to get passed and blow a whole in the bottom line. it's most popular bill in congress. >> well, if in fact it has the language you explained to us, not only would i be disappointed but it will definitely hurt law enforcement if it includes that language. >> to characterize he said want to know if the fbi is getting a

warrant before they fly drones. he is concerned it's going capture the roof of his house. he wants the warrant for the police driving the patrol car and capture video of the street an the front of the house. is it lives of his roof? this is the tenor of the debate and getting bills written in the debate really poorly drafted bills that i think people should be paying attention to. >> one thing we see around the country is police video camera on the street installed pointed at the front door of people's houses. but the problem with the definition is there are places like that. drones will be capable of tech

lodgely. equal of neighborhood and backyards and houses and et. cetera. that's why we need good strong protection. >> in my testimony, my proposal was to define what is persistent as you move up over a period of time. once you get to six hours and you debate about the length of time you need couldn't the surveillance. once you question to 24 hours you need you need a warrant. if you are driving down the street. the police can stop you based on reasonable suspicious, they can ask you to step out of your vehicle. they thought reasonable suspicious. if they have probable cause. they can arrest you without a warrant and search your vehicle without a warrant. they can bring you to the police station all without a warrant.

all can be document bid the patrol car camera, by law enforcement officer stand on the street with the camera. if you pop the drone overhead. i use the word drone and video tape it all the evidence would be suppressed it's gathered without a warrant. that seems excessive to me. that's to say if we suppress under current proposal. it wouldn't be suppressed under current law. the proposal requiring the law. it would be suppressed. it seems out of touch. a police officer can stop me, frisk me, frisk my vehicle. if they want to fly over my house and take picture they require a warrant. i agree with the persistence. we need to define what it means rather than just to say -- they can't stop and search anybody they want. they have to have reasonable suspicious. in my area in new york and --

and gather evidence of wrong doing and not doing it all the time. that's the temptation we see and fly over our neighborhoods all the time. >> oneself that off the table is boston bombing situation. i return to my national question with you. i'm if i'm in a concern with public safety. one of the things i want to do is want to have aerial surveillance over the massive times. "the new york times" new years eve celebration. i want to look down. i could do it under precedent look down and see what is going on. i can see if someone it is placing ied behind 3-year-old. i want -- they don't require a warrant. if the cameras on a helicopter. it's okay. it doesn't a require. at position of the aclu if i put

it on an unmanned system, then everything has fallen apart from a privacy perspective. but i take the same camera and dpliew it to a building everything is okay. what is this parking lot of a -- part of a bigger privacy. just the person in the fight. >> we don't like pervasive surveillance of the public space whether it's aerial or license plate readers which are tracking americans' cars by the millions without warrant they do to government data bases. it's a principle in our country that the government doesn't look over your shoulder literally or figuratively unless it has reasons to think you are involved in wrong doing. it doesn't watch everybody all the time. the change in relationship between -- >> a police officer gets in a car and drives; right. we see them all the time. they don't have any reason to think i'm doing anything wrong. they pull behind me and watch what i'm doing for a little bit and maybe radio in the license plate or the license plate reader reads it.

we don't have a problem with that. if you are a seg citizens they take the time and system and save it for a long period of time. they are building on track. why they save data on innocent people. that's the issue with syndromes. this is a retention. unless we think they are doing something wrong. number one there are only so many police. if you had a personal police officer who followed you 24/7. most americans would freak out. number two, when a police officer is in your presence you know a police officer is in the presence.

you know who is watching you and who isn't. the technology is now here that we have the virtual equivalent of every one of us having our own police officer watch everything we do. and that's why we need to put in place some good common place common sense regulations around some of the technology to preserve the privacy that americans for hundreds and years enjoyed as part of our heritage in our constitution. and going lose that privacy if we sit back and allow the technicals to be put in place on that without putting in place a protection. >> greg, let's back up a little bit. not to interrupt. let's take a look at the macro view. jay indicated there is to his knowledge and aclu's knowledge. i'm sure you're doing what should be doing. monitor the important issue. there has been documented cases by the unimagined system in the governmental education a in the country. it seems important to me. not it went cur tomorrow or night. it hasn't occurred to the aclu's

knowledge to date. where did the come from. aclu generated? press generated? is if legitimate concern of the public? is it technology generated. a fear of technology, in your opinion, greg, why did it become a good issue or large issue. it seems odd to me that usually when we focus as a society on a particular problem or issue, it's because it is a prevalent issue. it's something that occurred repeatedly or the single occurrence was shocking to the consciousness that we focused on it as society. i see the absence of this with uaf in this country. i'm curious in your opinion why it became such a prevalent issue. >> i think it hit on all the things. and, you know, i want to be clear that the priseres concerns jay is arctic lace. i didn't agree with the scope of the concern and the rhetoric it

seems like they are treated different than other technologies. those chart out some of the territory. let's take what you said cameras have been around forever. go to new york city and leave a backpack on the ground see thong takes before a police officer shows up. n.y.p.d. has a helicopter that can see people from miles away. better than any camera because the helicopter can carry so much heavierier than the unmanned system. but drones -- has this sort of fear. they are a cad lens for concern people have of pervasive electronic robo cops following each of us. cataloging everything we're doing. that fear combined with advance in technology. the fact with cell phone. we understand how the technology works. has raised i think legitimate

privacy concerns, but they are privacy concerns for which the unimagined -- unmanned system is taking the brunt of the hit. as a opposed to having a way of legislating about privacy and pervasive surveillance that cuts across all technology. if we are concerned about being watched we should be concerned about being watched as well as 0 camera on the unmanned system. to go after the inmanned system is the industry is the easy target that capture's people's attention. i think it makes bad legislation when you single out one industry tbowt cuss on all the other ways that privacy might be implicated. i think that's my biggest concern with the privacy lobby approach they don't take a technology neutral stance in much of their legislation. a lot of bills you see focus just on drone. the texas bill is absurd and

almost humorous how it goes after drone and the carveout for realtors and cattlemen and oilmen. it's just -- legislation gone bad with special interests throughout it. it doesn't do anything from privacy from aerial surveillance, helicopters work fixed position and whatnot. those are the big problems i have with it. the trigger is distaupe began fear of robotic and unmanned system. that's why we see so much emphasis on drones rather than on the rest of the way the privacy might be implicated. >> understood. ben? >> just to give a little bit of historical context for the audience. really, a lot of these issues surrounding privacy an unmanned aircraft started a year or two ago after the congress passed the faa authorization bill, which has been stalled for a number of years. when congress finally passed the bill. there was a section calling for the right to safety rule to allow unmanned aircraft to fly

in the national air space. the language had been in the long stalled faa bill far number of years. in fact. privacy issues were never raised. in privacy years until the faa bill was signed and passed. the uaf section of the bill were the most popular provision of the bill. every senate want a test site in the district. they recognize the future of aviation and aerospace is unmanned. they recognize jobs could be associated with it. it wasn't until there was agricultural group that had some concern that the epa was over flying their property using camera to look for clean water act violences. and those -- i don't remember the cattlemen or who it was. it was someone in the midwest wrote their congressman and congressman was on the floor of the house and railed against the

epa's ability to surveil. somewhere where the news reporting of that cubes they inserted the road it went viral on media, you know, numerous stations picking up. but the problem is nobody fact-checked the actual article. in fact the epa does not have any unmanned aircraft. they have manned aircraft and have been using manned cessna to fly over farmers' field for decades. it was the word drone that got things going. from that moment forward, things have really, really, you know, tumbled. i think that we would agree with greg's assessment. it's that people are not truly talking about privacy issues. they are attacking this industry. this unmanned aircraft industry and which is easy to do right now the faa has not yet written the safety rules. so right now it is illegal for

commercial entities to fly an unmanned aircraft in the national air space which is why there aren't a lot of good news stories how farmers are using these aircraft to monitor their crop and increase their yield or how firefighters are using them to monitor wild fires or help save children in burning buildings. and the list goes on and on of the great applications. so our concern is a lot of privacy issues could stifle the faa's progresses on safety rules and impact the industry and -- >> great, thanks that puts it in historical precedent where it came from or that fear. to be fair to jay, he wrote his article, i think, a couple of month before that faa passed the law. >> there you go. greg, let me come back to you. ic i know the audience suspects the answer. we started off with the pivotal question of what can the industry do to address this very

important concern of privacy? on a scale of one to ten, how would you rate the overall uas industry's performance in this important area? >> separate out a -- >> okay. >> greg, you're -- >> very diplomatic. >> the association goes bat for you. obviously the industry association is on top of particular policy issues. so based on my informal survey at last year's subsequent follow on conversations through my writings for forbes. if ten is the best and one is the worst. i would give the industry a zero. [laughter] have you -- if you have a senator or congressman who has sponsored or signed on to a piece of legislation like the protecting american privacy act, there has to be someone in the room who is congressperson sign on. have you brought them tour

facility to understand how many jobs can be created. to talk what are the concern that you have to sign on to this. if you asked them about the concern and hearing from the constituents so then you can go back to your development team and say there's a concern about data retention and who can access the lock. don't we have a computer guy that write a program that require a password and logs who accesses what subject to auditing. if you haven't done those things, then you're at zero. if you have done the things and you start to move up on the scale closer to, you know, five. if you implementing them and going to be a ten. i'll single you out for attention if we have a panel again. that's my scale on privacy. doing something to address the privacy concern. by the way, you'll two equal systems equal costs if you're selling it with the software package that has it all the

audit control i bet your system gets sold to the local town council more readily than the competing system that doesn't have the concern. all the elected officials are paying attention and so are the chief who have to listen to their town council and listen to the legislator. >> okay. great. outstanding segue to ben. the representative of the largest organization representing the industry. what is auvsi done to deal with privacy and to encourage the moip of avusi to deal with the issue we recognize the issue with privacy are serious and they need to be addressed in a responsible manner and thoughtful manner. we have been trying to do that. in fact we know --

talk to them and see what the concerns in the industry how are we different than other type of electronic, you know, communication devices or anything else. and the word about what are the issues. and after kind of the addressing those and talking to our members auvsi came out with the code of conduct which talks about operating a system in a professional and responsible marijuana -- manner that talks about privacy. we the privacy statement and other position. our standpoint is we don't think that privacy bills or legislation should be addressed to uas. you are going miss the bar. if you want to address privacy, you have to do it in a technology neutral way. i think greg used that term.

i think that's important here. if you are always legislativing the new tblg. there's a new thing and on and so forth. what it boils down to, al. what they have concern with the government's usage. do they have a right to take a picture and use it against you in the court of law? that's really what it boils down to. and our approach is who cares how you take that picture, it's the fact that the picture was taken from a satellite an unmanned aircraft or a street camera. whatever. that's the issue that needs to be addressed here is the picture taken and data. there are ways to implement protection. the international association of chief of police, the world's largest police organization came out with model guideline how they recommend police adopt this new technology and put policy many place to make sure dat is retained properly and not used discarded and there are audit and everything else. and we absolutely sport those. i think that a lot of those --

comes down to education. and we have to do a better job of educating the public, educating decision makers and others what is the technology? how is it going to be used? i think a lot of folks when they hear the word drone, they think of a being weaponized, military system. that's just not what we're talking about for domestic application. what we talk about are small things that probably look for akin to toys. things that way a few pounds that law enforcement can put in the back of the truck and deploy when needed kind of like when they use a k9 today. they can use the small unmanned system for the individual situation. what about the future when the things are cheap and pervasive. the real city faa doesn't allow us to fly hardly at all. when they do it's under tight control and restriction. not the mention the technology isn't there yet to make it affordable or realistic.

the large systems are expensive. if a police department has mlts of dollars they're going to spend it on a helicopter and not unmanned air kraft. >> can i jump in? i can unwhy the industry peoples beleaguered by the privacy concern around the technology. we are concerned about privacy loadly. we were about cell phone tracking and license plate tracking, we worry about pervasive camera how it change the way of american life. we worry about drone and proprose solution for all of these. the fact is that's one area where we have concern and lot of interest on the part of the state legislator around the country. we are happy to see them act on drone. we would like privacy laws arode

and cover many technology. we're not seeing those. we're not going oppose the drone privacy laws. they are a very powerful surveillance technology. they need to be regulated. but we think there are other tblgs. that fact is not a fact to regulate drones. >> i appreciate that. what we have been seeing by tracking the state proposal. the fact your state chapter loosely affiliated with headquarter is that what we're seeing at the state level is the aclu state chapter in fact supporting these bills that would require a search warrant before you can fly an unmanned aircraft. which as greg talked about earlier is fundamentally different how police use manned aircraft today. and what they're usually doing. and the reason why so many sponsors are republicans is usually the aclu is going often

tea party a line republican and those are oftentimes the sponsor of a lot of legislation. when you have the siflt libertarian and the civil groups joining forces here. i certainly understand where you're coming from on this, jay, at the state level we're not seeing it like that. >> very good. thank you. what i would like to do, i'm going come back with a couple of questions to close out the pam. so we have memberty -- plenty of time to entertain audience questions. i would like the awe dwroans -- audience to approach any of the mics. you pose a individuality question to the panelists or as a whole. can i ask you to go to one of the mic please, for a number of reasons. we are recording this, we would like to be able to hear your question. >> sure. >> thank you very much. it's been educational panel. i have a quick question. it has to do with if you have

standards for police and law enforcement privacy concerns for the fourth amendment, but not for the private sector or individual citizens. i'm curious if it creates an opportunity for a third party to conduct say ongoing surveillance or run comoacial -- commercial overflight and as needed to sell it or video footage or sensor receive data to law enforcement as needed. it occurred to me as you were talking. that a potential work around for a potential customer to enter and bridge the divide? >> anyone want to take a bat? >> yeah. i'm sure jay will jump inspect i think he already allowed -- alluded to. it there are companies that do that. they will fly a manned cessna over a city and record the city or the whole town or whatever. if there was a crime, they will look at that specific area then run the tape back ward or

forward to see with the bad guy got off to. i think they do it for the specific home when they run the tape back. that's a fee-for-service activity that law enforcement does already buy today from manned aircraft. >> keep in mind as well, any time you are utilizing a civilian contractor or source that search and seizure laws kick in and fourth amendment laws kick in. they are a function their of law enforcement and become law enforcement agent. >> i'll clarify talk about surveillance. for instance the analogy of overhead satellite imagery. let assume instead of -- whether it was cell phone camera, or uas station somewhere or fixed-point camera. or any kind of data collected it would address the privacy concern if that the data lived in a trusted third party provider from persistent

collection? not passed out as necessary. but that, you know, i think in many ways a mall security camera is always collecting. is that a potentially addressing. >> i think it would not address our concern. we don't want to see american public life subject to 24/7 aerial surveillance. everybody's movements and comings and goings are recorded. whether it's by a government agency or google. you know, live street view would rise a lot of privacy question. we're now calling for -- private sector use of drones, but, you know, it's almost like it starts to emerge. we would call for limit on that. ting would change the nature of american life, you know, and create chilling effects and give everybody the feeling they're being watched once they leave their house. americans that we represent don't want that kind of a

country. >> thank you for your question. good afternoon. thank you for your participation. first comment, i would disagree with you a.m., -- al about the lack of attention. this is an important issue. it's a bad time, i guess. secondly, wondering why we are being picked on. it's because it's aviation. we're always picked on in aviation. that would be my second comment. the third comment, i would say the issue is somewhat analogous to the noise issue with airports, if we're not on top of it, it's going actually depress the market as some of you pointed out. of course, there was a response that the stage for noise-type standards that helped. so someone talked about, i believe it was you, greg, the way to get on top of this is to be proactive. i would agree with that. my question for you all. you have heard the stats today

40 something state legislator. >> 41. yeah. that's a lot. and so i look at that and i look at the traditional role of the faa in managing the air space and say wait a minute. there's a huge disconnect here. how are we going make the parallel? can we make the parallel? and my final comment is -- before you answer the question, or maybe a followup question to that. to what level might this issue ultimately the deployment of the devices? >> let me paraphrase your question. how will the issue ultimately affect the development of uas? yes. i'm going what prejudice your response by saying i think it's going to really depress it. >> okay. would someone like to take a swing? >> i would be happy to at least address the faa portion, which is from an industry standpoint we absolutely do not think the

faa should be responsible for unmanned privacy issues. they're probably the last federal agency you would want responsible for privacy issues. they are a safety organization and they should stay focus on the mission. there are legitimate safety issues. that's a huge challenge. but right now the faa is up against the public perception. they are being told from a higher power, you know, maybe don't move that -- forward so fast. maybe their on to something. you're right. the industry is jeopardized by the issue of privacy because it is holding up rulemaking to allow for commercial activities. which is why we need to focus on the issue to other folks that are more adequate to handling issues like the department of justs, department of homeland security. >> greg? >> i don't want to harmonize this at all. i think federal legislation for privacy is a horrible idea.

a federal legislation to address the concern that we talked about before so you know how to development system to fly in a safe way. of course that's a role for the faa. but privacy is a local issue. it really is. think about this. you go new york city, take off your clothes and run down the street. do you think anybody is going to get a picture? i think they might. do the same thing on a ranch in texas. i'm thinking you don't believe that anyone is going to be snapping photograph of you. your conception of privacy change based on where you're at. i think the people in somewhere, utah. want to subject themselves to per pervasive surveillance it's their right to choose to do that. if massachusetts wants to ban unmanned systems let them do it. things will work themselves out. as an industry, you can develop and sell to the places that want to buy your product and the places that want to let the hikers die in the mountains.

they'll die in the mountain until they realize it's a bit overprotective. if you have a one-size-fits-all privacy bill i don't think you're going result. especially when you look at the type of bill that are working the way through the congress right now. the best way to go on it is let it crop up and see what type of good idea crop up in the state. that's the best way for it to develop. not in d.c. we like to see good, strong, privacy legislation. >> that would be our first choice. the second choice would be let it stay in the state and local level. and you'll see the bode sprek tom -- broad spectrum of different bills. the faa -- the federal government, of course, has precedence over the federal air space. the loam bills the regulators is

not the air space. they're regulating local law enforcement. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> you know, -- [inaudible] >> there are better legal vibe on the panel than me, certainly. but, you know, there is a question of what is the navigateble -- anyone can fly at those altitudes. whatever people see is without a warrant. but obviously an unmanned aircraft can fly places where they can't because of safety issues. they can fly in between buildings and around power lines and close to mountains or in the foliage. those issues need to be addressed. to be honest we think they are in a better situation.

the court that historically define what the fourth amendment is and how it's governed. .. >> i am curious to see what jay has to say. thank you for that question. newsgathering is obviously one of the great economic potentials of this industry when in fact the faa does the right to safety rules to allow for commercial

eye to these. newsgathering has always had a special place. some people argue it's the fourth branch of government and its the freedom of the press that really is upheld on this. the media would love to have access to these things especially in situations where they might not evil to afford a manned asset or a bike after a tornado or a flood or something like that where the images are extremely newsworthy but very difficult if not dangerous to get. there's a great value there and i think the news media will be a big user of this technology when it's allowable. >> this is the point where i really don't envy poor jay's role because he is the thread the needle between protecting first amendment rights on individuals whether legitimate journalists are citizens citizens citizens or lose that first amendment rights versus privacy so we see this actually from california. we have this paparazzi legislation in california that tries to deal with these types of issues.

how do you thread the legitimate right for someone to take photographs of a public figure verses that public figures privacy interest? it's super challenging. you know and so what may end up happening i think is as we start to think about this and develop legislation i hope we will be able to experiment. we will find different ways of dealing with the use issues, use restrictions, commercial sales of persons like mrs. and then the whole area of tort law that was referenced before. i think this is a really challenging balancing act. if you had to think about writing legislation on this i teach legislation in the spring and this is going to be one of the topics i'm going to try to have my students work with. it's almost impossible to write legislation that will make everyone happy here. >> interestingly that ties into what you said about individual states rights and maybe the concept of don't fix something

that's not broke in. in california we see that the paparazzi concerned. we don't have that in north dakota. so it's appropriate for california to address the type of use of this technology or any type of technology that would potentially be utilized by the paparazzi where in north dakota that's going to be a very minor concern for us. doug, any feelings on this? >> i would agree with what was said. for the same reason it make sense economically for law enforcement to consider this technology as a supplement or a substitute for 6 million-dollar helicopter the news media is going to see the same benefit on that. i think there's a huge market. sometime in the next two to three years i believe there will be a case before the u.s. supreme court dealing with technology on the privacy issue and that's a scary thing for all of us to have this industry and up in front of a court that may not understand or want to

understand all the implicatiimplicati ons of what we are talking here. but it may well not need a fourth amendment issue that is out there or a regulatory oversight or preemption issue but a first amendment issue. the media's right to use or deploy a small unmanned system and outside of what is generally considered to be navigable airspace to collect news and being told by the faa or some local law enforcement agency they can't do it. i think that's going to be the case we will see in front of the court. >> interestingly i i welcome that sort of a different opinion. i would like to see a case go before the u.s. supreme court. i would like to see auvsi with amicus briefs. there's a big debate on whether we can take cases like florida versus riley and apply them to unmanned aircraft so will be interesting to see not only with the u.s. supreme court but the appellate and supreme courts

weigh in on the thing connect the dots between manned aircraft searches and unmanned periods we are waited with baited breath to hear from the aclu. >> is a difficult balancing act in some cases and it's complicated. the aclu is a first amendment free-speech organization. we have been for 90 years. we were founded in world war i when people were being thrown in prison. and you know we think there are significant first amendment implications of the drone photography. it's exciting that drones can be used not only by formal media organizations but by individuals who act in that capacity watching over what their government is doing, watching this and so forth. this distinction between formal media and individuals is increasingly blurring today. we can't imagine scenarios in the future where you have very

typical conflicts between the first amendment and privacy. we hope we won't see those but we do, our prejudices towards allowing individuals the right to take photographs which is one of the reasons we have not called for any legislation when it comes to the private use of drums. we think that if some of these really difficult problems emerge and maybe we can have a difficult soul-searching conversation within the aclu, but for now we would like to see individuals have the ability to watch the government and not the government watching individuals. >> just that one little additional point. i know the aclu hasn't sponsored any legislation on this but i had an opportunity to consult with a senator who i won't say who the senator was on a bill to regulate private collection of information from a drum and

after like three weeks of back-and-forth and how they were trying to define it i think they just gave up because i didn't see it introduced anymore. but it's so hard to try to document what's going on in the stadium. do i have an expectation of privacy in the stadium that i won't be documented? until the foul ball comes, is so hard to figure out how to define the spaces where we have reasonable expectations of privacy that should be part detected from private industry or government surveillance. >> i think this is something that we as a society are grappling with a cousin dies used to be easy. who is watching you? whoever's in the broom and whoever you could see with seeing you and now we have these technologies that you are in public but you are trapped everywhere you go throughout your whole life. that is an invasion of privacy that wasn't possible until very recently and how do we confront that with the fourth amendment and other policies? the supreme court has begun to

rebel with that with the u.s. versus jones that police do need a tracking device even though your car is publicly --. >> interestingly it while back we were doing training with our unit and we have some members of the press there, which was one of the foreign press that they wanted to interview a pilot. went over to a grand police officer and was focused on the privacy issue and said gosh this is earth shattering. this is so different in kind of a young police officer so out of the mouths of babes. he said i just don't see that. there is nothing that is change. they're still the fourth amendment and there is still caselaw in search and seizure and still there was respect for the public we have as police officers. i don't think anything is change so sometimes i think that was the clear answer that i've ever heard on this issue that we still have all those checks and balances. we are just applying them

through different technology but again his opinion and there is some validity to it were thinking about anyhow. yes, this error. >> greg i know you spoke or it least it seems as though you are saying now all of you about external regulation or external control over what's being done with unmanned aircraft systems and i think he said everybody right now is about a zero. but you would like to see some people. to the top. professor frazier u. you know of any situation where there is internal checks and balances on the operation of our manned aircraft systems whether it be an academic or private situation? >> yes and i can speak to our project in north dakota. we have an independent committee of 15 members sponsored by the university that represents public safety, represents the community as a whole, represents

the faculty and administrators at the university and looks at every missions that they we do and they are there to be a set of checks and balances and apply community standards. interestingly the community standards in the city of new york may be different than they are in grand forks and different than they are in los angeles of this particular committee was charged with the responsibility of applying community standards to the use of uas. i have to tell you i wasn't the biggest fan of that process when i was introduced to it that it actually has been very productive. they made some recommendations that we intimate it -- implemented but it has made it more acceptable to the public but also are in more credible unit and supporting what we are trying to do and in protecting the privacy of the public. in our particular case it's been very successful.

[inaudible] >> sure. i will give you one. there are some internal police standards too and so what we learned from the most recent senator paul grandstanding was that the fbi has internal guidelines for the use of unmanned systems so during a period of six years they only used unmanned system 10 times all we send an investigation. if you don't know anything about the fbi's guidelines for investigations it starts out as an assessment with limited things you can do via their increasing levels of suspicion required to continue the investigation and its required and predicated or perhaps a full investigation. this is an appendix to the fbi guidelines for investigations. those internal guidelines are in place. i want to get you from a one to attend let's say from a manufacturer would say what system can i handle -- hand law enforcement so they don't even

have to think of the accountability checks and all the other things the aclu is concerned with and you can talk to me to figure out what those things would be but i want a system that identifies who the operator is. swipes an i.d. card before it goes up in the air and documents how long it was flying for where it was duration and images captured and detained off-site with certain access controls with the software program in place. now when i go to the police department they don't have to think whom i going to put in charge of the send who is in charge of the keys. what a big pain this is going to be. i hope they don't pass legislation requiring me to do it. instead the officer or police department by sit-in and says look at all the privacy controls it has built into it and we are happy to create a town council civil liberties review board that will audit the records on a semiannual basis and sit on the audit lord.

some things will be redacted if they are law enforcement sensitive and after period of time we will -- you would need all of that currently the system would be one that you know officer schmo in addition to the other duties he has been tasked with has the duty of maintaining the excel database for all the information and the word document and saving out -- saving it without losing the thumb drive. we know the police are tasked with so that will follow the lowest guy on the totem pole or the newest sergeants have to do that so why not deploy a system that i'm sure you could get an intern from a computer science department to write this program over the next couple of weeks and now you are selling the package and all the protections. with a marketing feature as well as protecting privacy and creating privacy. that is what i have been waiting to see every year. maybe next year. i just gave you a business plan.

i will give the powerpoint later. >> in many technologies we are seeing auditing become a standard feature of things and there is technology can put around auditing to make sure it can't be tampered with and so on and so forth. it's becoming a standard practice in many areas. >> greg you just on sheets what i would call a double-edged sword so i want to hear from you and some of the other panels. on one hand i think is of benefit for the ua have's for the archive. that's a slippery slope because now we are establishing this robust archive of things that potentially do that potentially did not have evidentiary value in there some danger there. on the other hand what you suggest about being able to go back and say investigative citizens complained about the misuse of the technology would be enabled by the archiving of that, but how do we reconcile that? how do we archive but not and intrusive archives of data that would be offshore onerous to the

aclu and frankly onerous to me as a citizen? i don't particularly want a lot of archives of footage stored by law enforcement agency that does not have evidentiary value. >> i've struggled with this one of the best solution i have come up with is the immediate collection perhaps subject to some analysis and then it needs to be removed from the hands, put off site somehow and perhaps only accessible come to you might need a statute or internal procedure that says it's only accessible with the supervisors permission or perhaps with a warrant want to archive somewhere and after period of time it just dies. so it could be a year. i would imagine jay is freaking out, maybe 30 days or 15 days depending on where you fall on the privacy civil liberties spectrum but once it's archived offsides, after period of time the information is deleted.

if you just take the boston bombing example, if we had a uas overhead we would reconstruct crime scene more quickly than we did at 13 or 14 days or whatever once you got the lead you would take the evidence you need and put it aside because it's relevant to the current prosecution or investigation but the other data would be deleted just like surveillance cameras in stores for government facilities. i don't think you need to log all of that information forever because someone might say their car was -- three years ago and we need to go back into the database to see who was there. you can make those types of controls. everything i just said is hard to reduce to a politician sound bite and expected to get into legislation somewhere. where it needs to. up would be smart ideas from industry that may get codified at the state and local level. to. >> protecting our rights, archived or not archive?

>> i think you can archive but it should be in days and weeks and not months and years. what you can do is if somebody flags images either the authorities because they believe it has value or individual because they believe there has been some sort of abuse then the data is retained and otherwise it's left out. i think the schemes you were talking about are what we need to see. >> thank you. yes, sir? >> my name is john and i with an organization called maps. we are an association of firms in the aerial photography satellite mapping business. the american people have benefited from the capture of photography from a friday of platforms for decades. you dial 911 and expect an

ambulance to come to your home or where you are because the emergency response department has an accurate map that began with an aerial photograph so there are a lot of things that the american people use every day that is a benefit from the acquisition of aerial photography. my question is, goes to the point that was made about being technology specific and the legislation going after uav's or drums. given that using other platforms that have been beneficiaries of imagery and data collection for a long time so number one, i want to make a point to greg that we have been involved in pointing out the benefits that the members of our profession bring to the public and our anticipation to be able to continue to operate using an

unmanned system just as we have with satellites and manned systems. for example senator udall, his bill does make that acknowledgment and recognition for our profession. the question i wanted to ask the panel is your familiarity with the dow chemical forces the united states case back in 1980s where basically the use of manned aerial imagery within a certain parameter the court said is not an unwarranted search and do you think that sets a standard or is a relevant precedent that if and when that court subsequently looks at this issue with regard to unmanned systems they will say this is already decided in love. the platform is ubiquitously available to the public as was the case with aerial photography from a manned fixed-wing aircraft that it's not in illegal search or unwarranted

action. >> i know you are intimately familiar with the dow chemical case. >> i think that case set the standard and its president is likely to follow with significant changes in the technology. the technology the support of that aircraft was a commercially available camera that is no different from anything currently -- so i don't see that case being overruled. >> but you have highlighted -- for the nonlawyers in the room with the gentleman is talking about was one of three supreme court cases california versus ciraolo. these cases where police took photographs from manned aircraft. it was challenged by the aclu. in their briefs and this is the late 80s

and you wish to lie in your bathing suit in your backyard that the police can go over and take a photograph in your backyard without a warrant. that was the argument we were involved in and that is a president that is set. it's unclear how it will apply to drones but that president is one of the reasons we think existing law is not enough. i apologize. >> no, no you are fine. so if that precedent applies to unmanned systems which that is what this whole fight is about

then the aerial documentation for mapping purposes would be okay. so into the fray runs all of these groups that want to propose legislation to stop people from documenting someone in their backyard in their bikini. bear in mind if you were in the third floor of the house next door and you looked into the backyard you could see that person a bikini and if that person when the backyard stabbing someone to death you could call the police and say, to my third floor and looked down and you will see what's going on. that person would not have a civil right of exit -- privacy. once you expose it to a cessna weather said police cessna -- you could argue you have exposed it and it's out there. the problem you're facing is into that thread comes legislation, this is language from i think the north carolina bill but i'm not sure. taking a picture of a person without a warrant law enforcement taking a picture

without a warrant is unlawful use of an unmanned system and private parties civilians may not take teachers of people without warrants. let's just stop there. that's the basic test of the legislation. you are out of business because you are going to fly over and were going to look out and see little dots of people. the way that language is written those little dots of people you didn't get permission from each of them. fly over festival was doing your mapping and see 500 people down there. you should have run around and gotten a signature from everyone. someone will say you don't have my permission and therefore that would be unlawful and there are civil damages in some of these bills that say for the instance of a privacy violation you are able to be sued for that. thousands of dollars of damage and one of the bad ones is -- if you destroy the imagery you have destroyed evidence in a criminal case but if you retained and the tree you are violating the

person's right to retain it. the only person that -- is a plaintiffs lawyer. it's the most absurd legislation that the first team. i wrote about it in forbes. that made sense to someone when they wrote it because they are not lawyers. they look at it and they say oh taking a picture of someone without their permission should be a violation of the law and i should be able to sue for that and you think that's a great piece of legislation until you realize from 1000 feet up or it just see a spec how can i do that next the bill isn't defined in a way to mean what you think. sid defined in a way to prevent your mapping company from flying an unmanned system. do it from a helicopter though no privacy issues there. that's the north carolina bill. i could pick another one at -- and flies back it and find a problem that's going to kill it

in the other states. >> that's going to close up but i have a couple of things i want to leave you with. the first is ace sincere thanks for our panel is about a lively debate about a very important issue so thank you very much for traveling here and doing that. [applause] in our last five seconds i want to leave you with something to think about as you depart the conference hall here. i began with a short opening about how important i thought this topic was and i think it's vitally important to citizenry law enforcement in the uas industry but i would suggest to you that there were two brothers on a sand hill in kill devil hills in 1903 and if two gentlemen in suits walked up to them and one of them said i'm with the civil aviation board and i'm sorry you are not going to be able to fly that flying machine here because we have got

some regulations that we have put in place that you are going to have to get a certificate of authorization to fly that wright flyer and killed several heels heels -- kill devil hills. the other g-men says by the the way i'm alone for smidgen from north carolina and i don't know if you know it that we passed legislation that have privacy concerns about the use of flying machines because it will be able to observe people and their property in the state of north carolina. i'm afraid i have to tell you you can't fly that flying machine as well. i just want to leave you with a thought that along with many of my colleagues here i think this is an important issue. i think there's a place for government in it. i just wonder out loud whether we aren't being a little bit premature in trying to legislate technology that hasn't even begun to mature. i think we are at the wright brothers stage in the application of uas's to domestic missions and i'm a little fearful that we may be chilling

the development of this technology by the the premature an act meant of state and federal legislation. with that i would encourage you to please fill out the survey. the top of secession number. you can leave that blank but if you take a moment to answer those five questions in and on your way out the door you can leave it on that one of the chairs at the back of the conference hall. thank you very much for attending. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we are standing in a two-story log cabin of grants family and -- ..

she will gain a great deal of confidence as a a wife and mother. it starts here. >> this week the encore presentation of the original series, first ladies influence and image. looking a the lives of our nation's first ladies. first lady weeknights all this week at 9:00 eastern on c-span. ♪ ♪ alan sloan and geoff colvin. >> host: you and geoff did a piece that was transferred to "the washington post and had a hmm ton.