measure of success that is largely the legacy of some others that came before me. in terms of equity working towards, and universities and colleges, and it needs to drop in states. more kids graduating with meaningful credentials, and post secondary training programs, and community college, dated points we are looking for. >> one to tackle to the lightning round, and the advocates were setting up the common core to fail, not such a high bar, secretary duncan, to pile on here.

the common core is the single greatest thing to happen to public education since brown boat versus board of education. and what happens, could conceivably be achieved. >> the way we advocate, the concern we have to others, we all have our own style. we shouldn't underemphasize the fact the we are asking more of kids all over the country. giving new assessments, secretary duncan has done a good job, and his push to look at standards and assessments, those were all locates pushes. getting to the point where incentives and other things come

we end up in a challenge. am i concerned about this? rick and others can debate that. as the chiefs we care about kids getting to these dynamics. and the discussions it takes we realize these standards. realize they're just words. >> we will turn it over to the audience. we're getting questions yvonne twitter. the hash tag is what now cc, i think we will start with the twitter question and move to the audience. those that are tweeting, we will combine a few tweets because i am seeing a lot of them in the same area, might not read your tweet exactly. those of you that are joining us if you haven't been to end a i education event before we generally have two rules for questionnaires.

the first is the we ask that you identify yourself, have folks with microphones to help you. the second is we ask the u.s. actually ask the question. we are trying to go on soliloquy, high on questions. i see from the twitter engine and smattering of handle lot of people want to ask questions. i want to get to as many as possible. some quick questions, think tweets, 140 characters. the first question i have seen, different variations of, maybe we will start with katharine. a lot of people have been asking about the effect of the common corn on non tested subjects. people are asking about the arts and a lot of other issues we want schools to do. in your experience in schools, have you seen any evidence of a narrowing of curriculum or any

evidence of fear of narrowing by focusing on what the common corps does. and other panelists respond as well. >> what i have seen, a genuine attempt in a lot of places. a lot of places don't get the genuine attempt in places to implement these cost disciplinary expectations of common core, there is huge misunderstanding about what that means. i routinely heard them referred to as social studies standards, they are literacy standard specific to certain disciplines. developing literacy skills specific to the sciences. how do you deal with scientific material? same thing in social studies. i have been in places that are trying to do that and they involve science teachers and social studies teachers to do that. and in canton county, kentucky

and few years ago. those folks didn't seem concerned about a narrowing of what was happening after no child left behind. if anything a broadening to that, they are not social studies standards for science standards, everyone has to get involved to teach literacy in those subjects. >> you have expressed some concerns about this. i would like to hear your take. >> common core feels to me like a pig in a poke. i would like to see things before i buy them. catherine's point first off we have been -- schools have been under enormous pressure on language arts for 12 years now under no child left behind. i don't thing common chord changes that dramatically one way or the other. knifing common core hypothetically creates the

opportunity for this collaboration of among teachers which will actually deliver on the promise that will help make sure instruction is robust but frankly for instance the boston public schools is tinkered with disorganization to subsume social studies and history under english language arts and for me, not something i worry about. end is easy to talk about with close -- kerri this stuff to other courses that may or may not lead to build or interesting instruction. i have yet to see anything that convinces me to lead to interesting instruction morning often than not to. >> i don't have much others and we have to guard against with any set of standards whether it

is common for, whatever standard states have it has been happening in the past and narrowing and in my experience teachers told me this has given more space rather than less that there are places where this is not working the way we wanted to. every state has science standards and states have social studies standards and if we are not seeking to state standards in those areas that is a problem so i hope we are. as advocates for common quote we should be advocating for those things as well. >> let's take one from the audience. >> "national review," the question is mainly, we started with sort of a neutral stand.and

i will give an example of what i mean. art teachers finding they even understand what it is the standards are asking them to do coamo or are they finding it is a bunch of educational bureaucratic gibberish? is the reason i ask this is i will give one example. >> i you going to talk about we have seen a lot of math questions? >> i will quote one thing from an introductory part from the common core. it says this is what it is telling teachers, math teachers they need to get across to their kids. students should have two abilities. they should have the ability to

the contextualize, abstract a given situation and represents it symbolically and the representing symbols as if they have a life of their own without necessarily attending to their reference and the second is the ability to conceptualize what is needed in the manipulation process in order to probe into the reference to the symbols involved. the question is, what does that mean? >> i teachers able to translate that into practice? >> how have teachers been wrestling with translating actual standards in practice? >> the same an annoying answer but depends on where you go. honestly we have a lot of teachers in this country and a lot of variation in how well they are supported and how well they have been trained and doing their jobs or how good their district is and giving them support, it depends on where you go. i spent time in places that are

doing a great job getting stuff together. a fet knows what is going on in cleveland. i hung out with those folks when they talked about using empty school buildings for the entire day, wrestling with standards from the earliest grades on up. translating into what it looks like with units and lessons. teachers do that, didn't seem like -- they need support to do that and in other places they are completely covered. they do need help understanding. every place there are teachers that are a little confused and some teachers feel they are ready to go and everywhere in between. that is not an answer but i don't think there is. >> do you have a response to that? >> yes. i think one of the hardest things we wrestled with was how do we make sure the standards

actually represents what mathematics is so parents and kids, what the standards the gentleman just read was more complicated than most folks would engage with so that was a balance i had to strike in writing standards and if you go to most state standards before common core many of those things were in those states standards and we could get better at making these standards easier to read, easy to understand. i can also -- i can quote some standards that are very straightforward. the balance we were trying to strike is something complicated enough for mathematicians who will teach this in isil in addition to parents and kids. >> i will take another one from twitter. some are confused about what pig in a poke is but that is what

wikipedia is for. some questions earlier i will try to put together here about technology and the new tests that are designed to be taken on computers and the capacity within schools to do this so i assume people like talking about bandwidth, hardware, software, in order to meet this in its time frame. we can start with you, to get up to speed with this, have they had time, do they need more time, is that money, is the technology necessary to administer the test? >> it depends. but there is the reality. there have been tremendous investments in this stuff, whether it is sufficient remains to be seen. the report from last week identified that work being technologically ready, having infrastructure for the assessments and being one of the lagging indicators, one of the

ones where fewer districts were willing to say i am good, i am ready. our reporting on steel testing, 26 states and found from my surprise there were fewer technological glitches than i would have guessed given all the level of anxiety around technological readiness, and i thought it would be sort of a more dramatic problem and it wasn't. there were small glitches. it is pretty well established in the surveys i have seen that districts have a long way to go to be ready especially with bandwidth sort of issues, hardware issues. >> how do you respond to that? do i make you nervous? >> anytime education is filled with inveterate optimists. those of us around no child left behind, that was all the hurly

burly and back-and-forth among those of us who don't have real jobs to talk about these things and educator's were like this is going to work out until they were like man, this is awful. i am always a little hesitant on these surveys, district leaders or teachers or anybody else but one of the big tech challenges is one reason folks are going to get a lot of kids obsessed is they are using a medley of devices. we don't know about comparable monday when you talk to educator's and kids who have never done, drop and click, using different devices for the first time. and this has not been a problem for the national assessment for educational progress because they roll up into their computers and tape everything down and there is up and delivery wear and it is tightly orchestrated. this gets to the question of how

much confidence we should all have in the reliability and validity of these results that come out not because i am questioning anybody's intention or people doing anything on this. i worry this is an engineering project where maybe we paid more attention to getting it done than the pieces that get done. >> just quickly, educators are optimists and i think the sea is full of pessimists. rick is on to some points we need to attend as we go forward. comparability -- i was in oregon in 2,000 when we began shifting online assessment and it took us five years to get every kid on line in the state of oregon. that was 13 years ago and door

again is getting their assessments on line and has been for seven years. i think some states will have it easier than others. one year transition is going to be really hard. we took five years to get everyone transition to online assessments. we will see some glitches in the first year or two but they will be livable when we will give assessments on line. that is going to happen in this country. >> we can take one from the crowd here right here, if you would be so kind to wait for the microphone to show up so identify yourself as the question. >> i am from the center for education reform. the most important question, how it gets done. and the common core debate has been a distraction from the largest outfit in the room that our schools may not be equipped to do this because the structure of the government's isn't there. go to a really good school they

don't care about common core so it is not an issue. shouldn't you be focused more on teachers have the freedom and flexibility to figure out how they run their classroom? >> great question. i think there are two answers. one answer is this is something which i think is partly a thermometer on how someone feels about the common core. my friends who were very enthusiastic about the potential of common core they say we care about governance but honestly we have to fix classrooms and this will give us a letter to change practice and change instruction and that leads to the second issue, there is a disconnect oftentimes between those of a specially to hang out inside the beltway and spend time talking

about systems and institutions and our schools are run and systems are run and folks that catherine is talking to think that is a bunch of noise but it is about what happens between a teacher and a student with a curriculum and part of what has made the common core debate as unproductive as it has been is a lot of its talking past each other. i am somebody obviously as you know who thinks a lot about governance issues and these matters return. is easy to be agnostic about what happens in classrooms and we are doing the real work, can't you tone down the noise. for me the reason common core matters so much is these conflicts are playing out speaks directly to what happened instructional league which i don't have any business talking to because i am hanging out on the tenth floor of an office building but it will also play out immediately for the kinds of decisions leaders make for how dollars are allocated and how

they prioritize schools. i think we have been so heated initially, enthusiasts were sewed this missive of questions and concerns that it spurred a backlash. the backlash is so focused on motives and out liars that we are not having an impressive conversation. partly what i hope we can move forward on going forward is an honest discussion about when does common core get in the way? when does it impede the ability of families to make choices for their kids or facilitate the ability of schools to develop education, how do we think this for without questioning each other's motives or intelligence? >> great to see everybody coming, i will take another one from twitter. teacher preparation making sure, see a smile over if there,

teachers who are entering, there are two and not such a crack at one to give teachers that are currently on the teaching force up to speed for development and resources they need which we spent time talking about. there's another question about teacher preparation programs aligned with the common core. again, in what you saw i will allow your smiles to feel free to tell the tale of teacher preparation alignment with the common core. >> i don't have a tale to tell as much as we checked getting here. the world hasn't changed in an overnight revolution but i wanted to check to be sure. in general teacher tech programs, there are some places looking at the common core and incorporating that into prep programs that there's a philosophical divide. teacher prep programs that this is not their job to prestigious

for a given set of standards. it is pedagogy and theory and air has been a response on feature programs that don't do much or anything at all. on the pd side that is that different ball of wax. that varies too. big teacher preparation, there is a lot that is shallow and it is -- >> maybe i want you to respond, from the place of common core advocates, university professors have a great deal of autonomy so it is more cajoling or convincing they want to get involved. the lever that advocates can

pull to get these folks on board so what are these efforts to try to get teacher preparation programs on board. >> establishing that we are teaching common core, we are expecting for you will teach the standards. sort of an essentials peace. whether we had common core or not, we need to fix teacher prep. there are good programs that need to be scaled and probably far too many programs preparing teachers for our schools. a separate men's, we could spend an hour-and-a-half talking about teacher preparation. that is an issue we have to work on solving. from my perspective we need to highlight colleges and universities doing great things with teachers because we could

see a big different. it is not like we don't know how to do this. not like every university is preparing it. >> do you see the common core eckert accelerating these efforts to reform teacher preparation? is it bringing this broader political fight in to this other fight taking place? how do you see that interaction? >> i wrote a piece the decade ago in principle preparation. the more things change the more things stay the same. every 5 or 10 years, you will be told any critique of teacher preparation or leadership preparation is invalid because they reinvented themselves. you look at what they are teaching and spend time with faculty, it feels like 1995 but they will insist is different. it partly depends on perspective. these guys think what they're doing is in tune with common core and can give you chapter

and verse and if you're sitting down with them nothing feels like it is change. as you mentioned universities are enormously buffered. the only way these guys, teacher prep programs will feel much urgency about anything is if the people who are taking the graduates insist on what they need. as long as we take high school math teachers who are poorly trained, so long as we take folks who don't do things particularly well it is hard to generate the leverage internally that fundamentally change what they do. if you think about the common core as chris said a few moments ago they are just words on paper, which is exactly right. my preferred way to think about common core is the mission statement. or any fast-food restaurant. they pretty much say the same thing. they want to get you delicious food, crops service, be

courteous and that may or may not have any relation at all to your experience. what actually matters is how the employees do their work or how they're held accountable or how the organization is managed and frankly it feels like getting here to there from common core advocates, getting it adopted is an enormous political accomplishment. its data on a 26 mile an hour marathon. they are couple miles down the road. frustrates a lot of my friends who think the common core is -- i want to see these guys get to what feels to the 25 mile mark would fall for i am confident this is good or bad. they say we are at the 18 mile mark, tests are rolling out next spring, we are pretty much of their and i think they vastly oversold how far along the road schools and systems really are.

>> take another one from the crowd, gentleman in the center. >> what are the measures, and be more creative in what we think about what those measures are. and i they only quantitative. >> i think for us what we are responding to, too many kids going to college and having to pay for classes they should have had in high school. it is that simple to me. they were not writing at a level they could enter their freshman year. i am sure there are other measures we should be thinking about the basic one for these kids leaving high school ready to do what is next whether it is college or go to a career training program or whatever

else and be good members of society. i can't get past the fact if we don't hit that number, that when is essential for the movement, we have to see more kids being successful and quite frankly i could not be more excited to see the numbers out of kentucky because we are seeing that success even in the first three years. i agree with rick we have a long way to go. we have a long way to go. we are closer to two than 18 but may be somewhere in the middle. this is still an open question whether or not we can deliver kids out of high school, ready to go. if kids are doing that, i don't think any other measures really matter. >> this ties into the conversation about fears of narrowing, what gets measured, for fear that floors will become ceilings. i want to hear your response to this. do you have a worry that even

though the standards say you want to bring an outside content matter to do well on those there might be strategies developed to maximize reading and math scores and fact that happen to the detriment of students? >> yes, sure. i don't think it is fundamentally different, it is this same recommendations that i think many of us would have encouraged. let's make sure we are looking at how many students are mastering world languages, make sure we are looking at completion of iv or passing a pea exams. for me i don't think it is fair to blame this on common core. it is the same challenge we have had since 2001. >> there is an opportunity and it seems to me when we are talking what is measured, talking about how it is measured, what is the assessment tool and what is being measured,

the underlying stocks. we mentioned this before but we need to keep in . we mentioned this before but we need to keep inuff . we mentioned this before but we need to keep in. we mentioned this before but we need to keep in mind only 27 states using-how well those tests measure what is in the standards we don't really know. the flip side is you can't independently analyzed how will you think the smarter balance really gets at what is in standards. we are not talking about are we getting a chance for social studies differently or science differently. we're talking math. on the test going to be better, will they get deeper and more nuanced stuff which is what the big one was. we will wait and see. we don't know yet. >> i will take another one from twitter. i will kick it back to you. something you referenced earlier about a measure of success was how well common core helps our

most vulnerable students. lc number of questions have been special populations. .. population students with special needs an english-language learners and others. when you're out in schools that had special needs during the language learners how did you see them interacting with the common core? >> i didn't hang out with teachers of special populations as much as teachers who are trying to serve all their kids and we are talking about a very wide spectrum. not too much on ee ll side. admittedly what i saw were teachers trying to do their very best and feeling one of the places that the most were getting at was teaching special populations. that's one of the areas in which they had the least support and they have gotten the least insight. how do i deal with kids whose native language isn't english's kids with special needs developmental and intellectually. that is a weak song in my

reporting in the research not to matching kids with special needs. kids who are far behind academically. >> absolutely. chris is this your experience as well? >> it's my experience with whatever state standards we have had in the past so i think we have a challenge in a country about what do we do with kids below grade level? our current structure test the grade level so how do we make sure we are staffs of children can advance and we are measuring growth is part of our accountability system. these are all things that need to be looked at to make sure the special needs students and kids are behind academically actually get there. >> i think we have time for one more question from the crowd. i think we will go right here to the front if you'll be so kind. >> i'm roberta stanley. >> you need to speak into the mic. >> can you hear me now? roberta stanley.

in retrospect do you think it was a mistake for the officers and the governors to sign this compact and have it go top-down? >> state school governors have traditionally been responsible for standards in the state so i don't know, don't think it was a mistake. there was a mistake made but it was that we weren't ferocious in our defense that this was actually led by the school chief officers in the governors. [inaudible] >> there are some that are put relative to that of the state chief in the state governor in charge of the education system in the state so i mean if it had emerged from school districts in the state or something like that i think that might've been a possibility but i don't think her strategy was wrong. i think quite frankly we weren't strong enough that the federal

government needed to not incentivize to us to do this and we need to stay in control of it. i think we can get that back but we are just going to have to be more firm. rick do you think it's possible for them to be able to get that back? >> we will see. i think certainly the direction krissah signaling us it will beat productive and constructive. under race to the top the obama administration was delighted that congress was able to carve out 360 million to fund consortium. as states are backing up one of the criticisms about move is like my friends who like the common core is it's a waste of money. it will undo a couple of years of work so i think it's appropriate the secretary duncan said gosh maybe we have pushed us into something we were excited about so i'd like to see the secretary to president fined 350 million carved out of administration priorities toward the states to drop common core.

you could have a national contest for states that are not excited about the common core. they can submit the common core application to the grant contest and 350 million will be divvied up among states to offset the cost of developing the standards and training. i think something like that would actually go a long way toward putting some real symbolic behind the notion that the federal government is whatever role it plays getting the ball rolling in the last five years is fundamentally going to relate to the common core difference going forward -- forward. >> that's a great note in them. if we could give a round of applause for our panelists here. those of you following at home you don't have to stop talking. i see people conversing with each other and using the hashtag. please continue to do that. a lot of great questions were raised there. keep chatting about it. great to have you and thanks for coming.

great to have you. thanks for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> today, david cohen, treasury undersecretary speaks about the u.s. strategies to undermine the financing of the islamic state. also known as isis. we will have those remarks from the carnegie endowment for international peace lie that tammy -- live at any empty turn on c-span.

>> with the 2014 midterm elections just we can have away our campaign to be coverage continues. today at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span, live coverage of the new york 23rd district debate.

>> here are a few of the comments we received on a campaign 2014 debate coverage. >> i listen to the debate campaign 2014. it was between karl the mile and representative scott peters, and it's just politics as usual. what we really need is for the politicians to quit making decisions based on power, money and votes, and start working together at a higher level seeking the best decisions for the american people. i'm to the point that when there's any type of political event, both republicans and democrats and any other party that wants to get involved should organize it, should start from the get-go learning to work together, and at this event show

their constituents and the american people that they can literally work together, reason together at a higher level, and on all the issues that americans are concerned about, and get the best decisions by reasoning together instead of it being based on power, money and votes. we win and you lose. >> i'm calling to say thank you for airing the debate. i just watched the vermont governor's debate, and i am embarrassed to admit when i first saw there were seven candidates on the stage a fight is going to be a circus, but i'm glad i got over that and i watched. i was really impressed with some of the ideas that some of the candidates, the suggestions that they made, particularly the gentleman who said that an

educated workforce is to the benefit of her country. so we should be paying students to go to school, not charging him and putting them in debt for going to school. and i really like the woman candidate who reminded us that senator jeffords would refuse to debate, to attend any debate that didn't include everybody that was on the ballot. it's time that americans realize that we don't have to choose between democrats and republicans. there are more than 100 political parties in this country and it's time we started looking at some of the others. thanks again, c-span. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. calls you're watching. calls of (202) 626-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet at c-span hashtag comments. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, all of us on twitter.

>> british foreign secretary philip hammond testifies before the british intelligence and security committee this morning. committee is reviewing their foreign policy, national secured and intelligence issues. live coverage at 8 a.m. eastern on c-span2. >> after meeting with members of his cabinet about the ebola virus, president obama spoke to reporters about the meeting. the shooting in ottawa, canada, and this call with canadian prime minister stephen harper. this is 15 minutes. >> well, i wanted to give you an update i just received from the team that's been working day and night to make sure that the american people are safe and that we're dealing effectively with not just the ebola case here, but the outbreak and

epidemic that's taking place in west africa. a number of things make us cautiously more optimistic about the situation here in the united states. first of all, we now have seen dozens of persons who had initial interaction with mr. duncan, including his family and friends, and in some cases a people who have had fairly significant contact with him, have now been cleared and we're confident that they do not have ebola. and it just gives, i think, people one more sense of how difficult it is to get this disease. these are people, in some cases, who were living with mr. duncan and had fairly significant contact with him. they, we now know, do not have ebola. and so, once again, i want to emphasize to the public, this is not airborne. you have to have had contact with the bodily fluids of somebody who is actually showing

symptoms of ebola, which is why it makes it so hard to catch, although it obviously is very virulent if, in fact, you do come into contact with such bodily fluids. our hearts and thoughts and prayers are still with the two nurses who were affected. again, we're cautiously optimistic. they seem to be doing better, and we continue to think about them. i had a chance to talk to a number of their coworkers at texas presbyterian today. spirits were good. people were very proud of the work that they've done, and understandably so. because as i've said before, when it comes to taking care of us and our families, nobody is more important than the frontline health workers and nurses in particular who so often are the ones who have immediate and ongoing contact with patients. and they're very proud of what they've done, and want to make sure that everybody understands

how seriously they take their work and how important they consider their jobs to be. in addition, what we've also seen is two american patients, who got ebola outside but were brought here to be treated, have now been cleared. they have been cured, and we're obviously very happy about that. i know their families are thrilled about that. and finally, we also received news that, according to the world health organization, both nigeria and senegal are ebola-free. now, these are countries that are adjoining the three west african countries that are experiencing the most severe aspects of this disease. and again, it gives you some sense that when it's caught early, and where the public health infrastructure operates effectively, this outbreak can be stopped. what we've also been talking about then is dealing with the particulars of the situations as

it arose in dallas and what we're doing to making sure that we don't see a repeat of some of the problems with the protocols that took place in dallas. first of all, with respect to dallas, working in coordination with governor perry, mayor rawlings and health officials in dallas and throughout texas, we now are very confident that if any additional cases came up in texas, that there is a plan in place where they would go receive first-class treatment. and we continue to actively monitor those who remain at risk because they were involved in mr. duncan's treatment -- although a number of them rolled off of the list of people who could possibly get it today. and each day, more and more folks are cleared and can be confident that they don't have ebola. we surged resources both to dallas and to cleveland, making

sure that the cdc is on the ground so that if additional cases arise out of the dallas situation, as well as the second nurse who flew to cleveland, that we're on the ground and we don't repeat any problems with respect to the protocols that have to be followed. the cdc has refined and put in place guidelines that will make sure that both in terms of protective gear and how it's disposed, and how we monitor anybody who might have ebola, that those are tighter. and our team has spent a lot of time reaching out to hospitals, doctors, nurses' associations, health care workers. there were thousands who were trained at the javits center just yesterday, i believe. and so we're going to systematically and steadily just make sure that every hospital has a plan, that they are

displaying cdc information that has currently been provided so that they can take step-by-step precautions when they're dealing with somebody who might have ebola. and i'm confident that over the course of several weeks and months, each hospital working in conjunction with public health officials in those states are going to be able to train and develop the kinds of systems that ensure that people are prepared if and when a case like this comes up. and that ultimately is going to be the most important thing. this is a disease where if it's caught early and the hospital knows what to do early, it doesn't present a massive risk of spreading. but we have to make sure that everybody is aware of it. and obviously, given all the attention that this situation has received, as you might expect, hospital workers and the ceos of hospitals, and dentists,

and anybody who has contact with potential patients is paying a lot more attention and is much more open to making sure that they've got a sound plan in place. and we're going to be helping everybody to make sure that they put that plan in place. in addition, i know that there's been a lot of concern around the issue of individuals traveling from the three nations in west africa that are most affected. so, as has already been announced, what's now happening is all flights from those nations are being funneled into three airports -- or five airports, rather. each of those airports have systems in place so that all the passengers getting off those flights will be monitored. the cdc announced today that it's going to take some additional steps to provide information to states so that they can actively monitor what's taking place with those persons for a period of 21 days in order to protect the citizens of their various states, and will

continue to put in place additional measures as they make sense in order to assure that we don't see a continuing spread of this disease. and on the international front, the good news is, is that along with the billion dollars that we are putting in, we've now seen an additional billion dollars from the world community to start building isolation units in liberia, guinea and sierra leone. health workers are beginning to surge there. we've got 100 cdc personnel on the ground, as well as more than 500 military personnel. i should emphasize that our military personnel is not treating patients. but what we're doing, which nobody else really has the capacity to do, is to build the infrastructure -- the logistical systems, the air transport, the construction -- so that, as other countries start making

contributions, they can be confident that it's going to get in where it's most needed, and it's going to be coordinated effectively. and we just want to thank as always, our men and women in uniform who are doing an outstanding job there. we're already starting to see some very modest signs of progress in liberia. we're concerned about some spike in cases in guinea. one of the good things that has come out of all the attention that this has received over the last several months -- and, frankly, the coordination of the united states with the international community -- is that people understand if we are going to protect all of our citizens globally, we have to do a better job of getting into these countries quicker and providing more help faster. and american leadership has been vital in that entire process. so the top line, i think the key

message i want to deliver is that although, obviously, people had concerns with mr. duncan -- and our hearts still go out to his family as well as the two nurses that were infected -- in fact, what we're seeing is that the public health infrastructure and systems that we are now putting in place across the board around the country should give the american people confidence that we're going to be in a position to deal with any additional cases of ebola that might crop up without it turning into an outbreak. and i want to emphasize again, this is a very hard disease to get. and in a country like the united states that has a strong public health infrastructure and outstanding health workers and hospitals and systems, the prospect of an outbreak here is extremely low. if people want to make sure that

as we go into the holiday season their families are safe, the very best thing they can do is make sure that everybody in the family is getting a flu shot. because we know that tens of thousands of people will be affected by the flu this season, as is true every season. i'll say one other thing about this. if there's a silver lining in all the attention that the ebola situation has received over the last several weeks, it's a reminder of how important our public health systems are. and in many ways, what this has done is elevated that importance. there may come a time, sometime in the future, where we are dealing with an airborne disease that is much easier to catch and is deadly. and in some ways, this has created a trial run for federal, state and local public health officials and health care

providers, as well as the american people, to understand the nature of that and why it's so important that we're continually building out our public health systems but we're also practicing them and keeping them in tip-top shape, and investing in them, because oftentimes the best cures to prevent getting diseases in the first place -- and that's true for individuals, it's true for the country as a whole. thank you very much, everybody. >> can you say something about canada? >> oh, thank you very much. i appreciate -- thank you. i had a chance to talk with prime minister harper this afternoon. obviously, the situation there is tragic. just two days ago, a canadian soldier had been killed in an attack. we now know that another young man was killed today. and i expressed on behalf of the

american people our condolences to the family and to the canadian people as a whole. we don't yet have all the information about what motivated the shooting. we don't yet have all the information about whether this was part of a broader network or plan, or whether this was an individual or series of individuals who decided to take these actions. but it emphasizes the degree to which we have to remain vigilant when it comes to dealing with these kinds of acts of senseless violence or terrorism. and i pledged, as always, to make sure that our national security teams are coordinating very closely, given not only is canada one of our closest allies in the world but they're our neighbors and our friends, and obviously there's a lot of interaction between canadians and the united states, where we have such a long border.

and it's very important i think for us to recognize that when it comes to dealing with terrorist activity, that canada and the united states has to be entirely in sync. we have in the past, i'm confident we will continue to do so in the future. and prime minister harper was very appreciative of the expressions of concern by the american people. i had a chance to travel to the parliament in ottawa. i'm very familiar with that area and am reminded of how warmly i was received and how wonderful the people there were. and so obviously we're all shaken by it, but we're going to do everything we can to make sure that we're standing side by side with canada during this difficult time. >> what does the canadian attack mean to u.s. security, mr. president? >> well, we don't have enough information yet. so as we understand better exactly what happened, this

obviously is something that we'll make sure to factor in, in the ongoing efforts that we have to counter terrorist attacks in our country. every single day we have a whole lot of really smart, really dedicated, really hardworking people -- including a couple in this room -- who are monitoring risks and making sure that we're doing everything we need to do to protect the american people. and they don't get a lot of fanfare, they don't get a lot of attention. there are a lot of possible threats that are foiled or disrupted that don't always get reported on. and the work of our military, our intelligence teams, the central intelligence agency, the intelligence community more

broadly, our local law enforcement and state law enforcement officials who coordinate closely with us -- we owe them all a great deal of thanks. thank you, guys. appreciate you. >> now remarks by canadian prime minister stephen harper. he spoke to the nation about the killing of a military officer guarding the national war memorial and the shooting at canada's parliament in ottawa. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: >> my fellow canadians, for the second time this week there has been a brutal and violent attack on our soil. today our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of corporal nathan cirillo of the argyll and sunderland highlanders. corporal cirillo was killed today, murdered in cold blood,

as he provided a ceremonial honor guard at canada's national war memorial, that sacred place that pays tribute to those who gave their lives so that we can live in a free, democratic and safe society. likewise our thoughts and prayers remain also with the family and friends of warrant officer patrice vincent who was killed earlier this week by an isil inspired terrorist. tonight we also pray for the speedy recovery of the others injured in these despicable attacks. fellow canadians, we have also been reminded today of the compassionate and courageous nature of so many canadians like those private citizens and first responders who came to provide aid to corporal cirillo as he fought for his life and, of course, the members of our security forces in the rcmp, the city of ottawa police and in parliament who came quickly and at great risk to themselves to assist those of us who were close to the attack.

fellow canadians, in the days to come we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he may have had. but this week's events are a grim reminder that canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere around the world. we are also reminded that attacks on our security personnel and on our institutions of governance are by their very nature attacks on our country, on our values, on our society, on us canadians as a free and democratic people who embrace human dignity for all. but let there be no misunderstanding, we will not be intimidated. canada will never be intimidated. in fact, this will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts, and those of our national security agencies, to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats and keep canada safe here at home. just as it will lead us to strengthen our resolve and

redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries with the hope of bringing their savagery to our shores. they will have no safe haven. well, today has been, without question, a difficult day. i have every confidence that canadians will pull together with the kind of firm solidarity that has seen our country through many challenges. together, we will remain vigilante against those at home or abroad who wish to harm us. for now, laureen, ben and rachel and i join all canadians in praying for those touched by today's attack. may god bless them and keep our land glorious and free. >> c-span 2015 studentcam competition is underway. this nationwide competition for metal and high school students will award 150 prizes totaling

$100,000. create a 5-7 minute document on the topic the three branches and you are two videos need to include c-span program, show varying points of view and must be submit by january 20, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. >> here are a few the comments we received on a campaign 2014 debate coverage. >> i listened to the debate campaign 2014. it was between karl and representative scott peters, and it's just politics as usual. but we really need is for the politicians to quit making decisions based on power, money and votes, and start working together at a higher level seeking the best decisions for the american people.

i'm to the point that when there's any type of political event, both republicans and democrats and any other party that wants to get involved should organize it, should start from the get go learning to work together and at this event show their constituents and the american people that they can literally work together, reason together at a higher level, and on all the issues that americans are concerned about, and get the best decision by reasoning together instead of it being based on power, money and vote. we win and you lose. >> i'm calling to say thank you for airing a debate. i just watched the vermont governor's debate, and i'm embarrassed to admit that when i first saw there were seven

candidates on the stage, i thought is going to be a circus, but i'm glad i got over that and i watched it and i was really impressed with some of the ideas that some of the candidates, the suggestions that they made, particularly the gentleman who said that an educated workforce is to the benefit of our country, so we should be paying students to go to school, not charging them and putting them in debt for going to school. >> and now live to london for british foreign secretary philip hammond as he testifies in front of the british intelligence and security committee. is answered questions on uk foreign policy, national security and intelligence issues. we joined in progress. it started a couple of moments ago. >> we face enormous numbers of threats from terrorism, from cyber attacks, serious and

organized crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we have just seen yesterday in canada and the for a vigilance as we go about business. and we are acutely conscious of the fact that the public mood on these issues will oscillate between a preference for privacy as a security in times when our security doesn't appear to be immediately challenged, to a preference to security other times when we face great security challenges. our job i think is to keep a level head through those oscillations, and get the correct balance between security and the protection of privacy and make sure that we had here to but we have judged to be the right balance between those two paramount requirements for the

government to deliver to its citizens. and i hope that your inquiry will make a significant contribution to our understanding of how we are doing of getting the balance right. >> thank you very much for the opening remarks. >> it was results suggested that the minister on the national security council have little idea about the actual work that the intelligence agencies deal. how is assuming responsibility for a.q. and s.i.s. changed your perception of the work that the agencies to? and particularly changed your views about privacy matters? >> i understand the question. if i may, i'd like to answer it i referring to my appointment as defense secretary becausesese se think the defense secretary, the home secretary, the foreign secretary and the prime minister probably have a slightly, a more detailed view of the work of the

agencies and certainly we'll have more of an understanding of the tradecraft aspects as opposed to simply the output of the work of the agencies do. and yes, i think it's probably true to say that when i was appointed defence secretary and started to see material and have an exposure to the agencies, i started to understand much more about how they work and i have done previously, in some of my other ministerial colleagues will understand. and i understood as well the very important judgments that need to be made when balancing privacy considerations against security considerations. essentially when exercising the judgment about proportionality and necessity, whenever

inclusion into privacy needs to be a loud. but i will say that i've also seen the incredibly important role that the work of the agencies play in ensuring our security. and having that inside is clearly crucially important in making the judgments that secretaries of state make him sign wars and certificates. >> isn't a surprise to the potential of the agency is to include -- [inaudible] >> no, i don't think it came as a surprise to me. what i've seen is the very careful safeguards that the are in place, which are not just the legal safeguards, robust as they are, but the oversights they've got. there are multiple, as you will know and this committee is one of them, multiple layers of oversight of what goes on. but is also very important

safeguard provided by the culture within the agencies, which is the exact opposite of what some movies might like to suggest. the agencies are extremely cautious, extremely focused on their responsibility to maintain the culture of proportionality in everything they do. and there is an atmosphere in the agencies which is very far from sort of a gung ho approach. it's very cautious, very measured and i think they should be a great assurance to us. >> thank you for much indeed. we would now like to move into a specific question on various aspects of capabilities of agencies as they relate to your responsibilities. robin butler. >> foreign secretary, your reference to the oscillation and the public mood, do you think that greater intrusion into

people's privacy is justified when the threat is greater? >> i think that is right overblown from the i don't think we should treat that as a reason to change levels of intrusion into privacy on a weekly, monthly or even annual basis. but looking at the level of challenge that we face today, particularly the threat from terrorism, i think the mood of the public is that they want to be secure and that they recognize for a certain level of intrusion is acquired in order to deliver the security. opinion shows there is a level of intrusion that is required and disproportionate and is it justified. >> in relation to your responsibilities, targeted intrusion within the uk is normally the responsibly of the

security service and the british home secretary. aimed you of your responsibili responsibility, could you tell the committee whether there are any interest activities within the uk which you authorized s.i.s. and others to undertake? >> section 81 of warrants which authorized intrusion against persons in the uk are signed by the foreign secretary. so there are occasions when some warrants are necessary. >> the home secretary clinton has an interest in that. is the home secretary consulted when you're signing award? >> not necessarily. she will be consulted where she will have an interest, and we talk regularly about matters, both domestically and externally

where we have overlapping interest in areas of responsibility. some of the section 81 warrants that i will execute will not have any particular relevance to the home secretary and i wouldn't routinely discuss them. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. controversial aspects of the work you are doing, which is the issue of protection by gchq and relevant by others. >> you will appreciate the extensive evidence sections in recent weeks. a number of external groups that agencies have a broad range already and that do not need this bold interception. how important do you feel both at conception is to the agencies? could it be without this? >> both conception is a tool but

it's at the heart of the agencies to do what they do. i think -- described as a haystack within which you can then search for the essential needle which protects our national security. dean able to acquire data on a larger scale and filter down, and it is a very radical filtering process, the overwhelming majority of states are required will be discarded, destroyed immediately or within a very short period of time. but it does allow series of filters and cross-references to be run automatically to identify that tiny element of sin the bulk of data required which could be worth the a further analysis and filtering and ultimately offer a review by a human pair of eyes.

but i should emphasize that it will only be a tiny, tiny fraction of all mobile data required that will ever reach a human analyst. >> the develop of that haystack, the issue you're describing, also leads to concern, overly concerned that somehow we open a mass and indiscriminate -- used by several groups in recent weeks. how would you respond to the allegations that notwithstanding the fact that much as you say much is discarded and doesn't see the light of day to the human eye, but nonetheless the capability does provide something that is of deep concern to those -- [inaudible] >> well, i would reject the allegation that bulk data collection amounts to mass

surveillance. and while i think there are two answers to the question, if i may. the ability to collect, does the ability to collect both the data at least in theory provide the ability to carry out mass surveillance? the answer any country like ours is certainly not, for reasons of resource. it is impossible to conceive of the level of resource being made available that would allow even a tiny fraction of the bulk data to be analyzed or used in any way. in other countries that devote very much larger resources to surveillance, of course different considerations may apply. but in democracies where the resources available artistically finite as a practical, technical reason why this should not be

seen as a threat. but there is also of course a huge safeguard in the layers of rules, controls and oversight that is in place. mass surveillance is illegal. it would always be illegal under our framework. there are strict rules in place to make sure that bulk data collected is not used in any way. it is rigorous oversight to ensure that those rules are complied with here and even if it was practical, which it isn't a resource reasons, it wouldn't happen because it's illegal and the system is designed to prevent that kind of illegality occurring. >> so after, that would be not have mass surveillance with highly selective surveillance, as you stay within the confines of pretty finite resources. >> absolutely right. as a citizen my greatest

reassurance is the resource one. it is impossible even for the most intrusive state in the world. it is impossible for the state to mass analyzed communications of individuals because of the sheer volume popping across the global communications system. >> thank you. >> some of our witnesses would not message will agree with the facts that you have shared with the committee, but have argued the very fact that very large numbers of e-mails or other comedic haitians, most of whom belong to innocent respected people are collected and are analyzed even if only by computer. is a significant intrusion on privacy which are wholly unacceptable. how do you respond to that? >> well, i would reject that

notion. i think the automated abdication of selection criteria by computer and in the immediate discarding of 99.999% of the data collected does not give rise to intrusion. i would argue that intrusion arises at the point of interrogation of the data, not at the point when it is simply collected and filtered according to an automatic filtering process. i don't think anybody has anything to fear from that, what in many cases would be momentary acquisition of data before it is discarded as not having set aside any of the criteria for further examination. >> would you like -- >> not at all. you enabled me to take a step further i want to take issue

briefly with what you said about your assurance that civil liberties and citizens general ought to have on the note of sheer resource is bulk of it is so great that we authenticate look at all the data. and critics wouldn't suggest remote that any state has the ability to look at all of it, all at once. but what did you have the ability to do is to search through all of it in anyway that they choose to do it, unless the legal constraints prevent them from doing so. so surely the key point about all this is that whilst you say in your collection of the haystack is not a matter, or should not be a matter of concern, there are civil liberties groups challenge that, the key point should come is in what direction you direct your searches of the haystack? because you could just as easily direct them to unacceptable use as the purposes for which it

ought to be carried out. >> that is of course true, and in the case of the uk we have very strict protocols and procedures in place, criteria for the filtering and selection of data for further analysis that is set out in the warrant, as well as having to operate within the legal framework. political judgment is exercised by the secretary of state in question authorizing such bulk data collection to ensure that filters will be used, how appropriate, and to test the guidelines but the question i asked myself is not just necessary and proportionate, which they must be but for the action to be lawful, would face test of public opinion. with the public if it were able to see criteria that would be used in the way the work is

being done, would it have said this was a reasonable and fortunate thing for us to do in order to keep them separate? >> so what you're saying is if i was a rogue agent in one of the agencies and i had this haystack, there is no way that i could use that by inserting something i said search for? >> that is correct. i'm drawing a novel by briefing but is something i remember being, because remember asking precisely the question, but there are, in fact, technical protections in the system to prevent somebody who is authorized to access a victim from using it in a way that would be abusive. >> i think the united states might have saw that but sadly it didn't work. you think you can be satisfied that methods of able to gchq are effective? >> welcome if you're referring to the stoughton case, what happened of course was data

being stolen but i think -- snowden case. i think the selection criteria, which are carefully designed and are subject to political as well as legal judgment could be ignored by an agent with access to system and replaced with a different selection criteria. i think we have seen over time that we have very robust processes in place to prevent that from happening, and to invite any attempted abuse of the system. >> thank you. >> foreign secretary, may we just pursue this issue of the selection criteria for a moment. the powers under section 84 to collect overseas intelligence are very wide and those are narrowed down by a ward signed by the foreign secretary limits the selection to certain

categories. can you say, tell us anything about how many categories that are and how they are tightly drawn the art, and perhaps even give an example of the sort of category would be? for example, in certain circumstances might you be every e-mail sent from syria? syria? or would he be a more narrow definition than that? >> i think that might be a subject that we might discuss further in a different place if it would be all right. >> yes, i just wonder if there's anything you could say in open session that would reassure the public about the narrowness? >> i think whether it's to reassure the public i can't say, but i think all i can say is that we are acutely conscious of the need for a variety of reasons, public reassurance, proper application of political control, but also resource constrained.

we define criteria as nearly as possible. if you think about it, given the limited resources available come if we define the criteria to widely we are blunting the surgical instant we are seeking to use and that would actually not be in the interest of what we are trying to achieve here. what i don't want to do is give any pointers in open session to the type of selectors we would use. because we have seen already that when information comes into public domain that allows people to identify any aspects of the tradecraft used they will modify their behavior accordingly, if that makes the agencies less effective. >> that's understood. in the united states, the dashes to the agency had given us some figures about the extent to which the mass of material they collect is filtered down, and

the figures i have on the in is a have stated public that it collects 1.6% of internet traffic, which is a very large volume, but examines only 0.00004% -- i think i got that right -- of what is picked up. can some of the similar figures given for what gchq picks up publicly in order to dispel this fear that people have of mass intrusion? >> i don't think i can give any figures in the public session, but i can give more information and to close section. >> thank you. >> i hope you can expand and the close section while you were unable to get these figures public. the united states does not go through such an anxiety. >> let me make a general comment. just because something has come

into the public domain about the way the united states does things doesn't efficiently mean that we think having that information in the public domain is conducive to optimizing our national security. clearly it is i think if i'm not mistaken of the united states, the ns interstate themselves announced the figure but will have to check that out. >> chairman, i know -- simek this one has four elements. >> i appreciate that. >> i look for the chairs indulgence. it's all about the distinction between guarding communications internal to the uk or external, ma and this is obviously important because there are tighter restrictions on examining internal communications than there are on external ones. for that reason the legislation

draws a distinction in the past is quite easy to interpret what was internal and external. so a letter posted overseas or international telephone call was and external communication, but this is much harder in certain as to do with international activity. so i've got my for examples, i hope you'll help me navigate. first of all in terms of any mail, it's obvious that it's one or both of the center and the recipient is overseas. than that would be an external communication. but if both the sender and the recipient are in the uk, it will always be treated as an internal communication, even if it is rooted overseas during its journey. could we look at that one first, please? >> so you said an e-mail? >> an e-mail from me to you.

we are both in this country, even though as a result of the arrangements it may have bounced back and forth overseas. >> so i think, and i invite my colleagues to step in if i get this technically wrong, but i think you are absolutely right, because of the technology that exists, these issues become more complicated. and e-mail which originates or is received in the uk, whether both of the parties are in the uk or only one of them is in the uk is an internal e-mail. it is, however, the case -- >> i don't think that to be right. >> i think it is in terms of access to its content would require a warrant under section 8-1. >> treated as an intern communicate and.

>> if only one is in the uk it was to require section 8-1 war and to access the content -- warrant, yes? >> yes, but that is an external commission spin let me finish the kind of thought and then if i'm being unclear i will correct myself. my understanding is that because of the technical nature of the internet it is possible that in either case it is possible that such a commission could be routed through servers that are outside the uk. it is possible that data so rooted -- routed could be intercepted as result under section 84, but it would not be possible for the negation to be examined or analyzed without a

section 8-1 war and then being issued. because the persons involved are one of the persons involved is in the uk. now, if i've missed judge, then please correct me. >> yes, but the point i want to establish is that different warrants allow different levels of intrusion. and you do have to have warrants of one sort to deal with external communication. that is from somebody within the uk to somebody outside it, but if that person is communicating with someone within the uk, that is regarded as an internal negation and requires a different sort of warrants. >> my understanding is that section 8-4 warrant will allow external communication, those of

which are between two parties outside the uk, or one party -- >> one party. >> okay. but i think -- let me -- that requires. [inaudible] so for practical purposes the point i'm trying to make is that through a combination of section 8-1 warrants and section 16-3 warrants, it is the case that however it is originally collected, if any mail as a party to it, i the recipient or the sender, who is in the uk, that will require a further warrant to be issued, either section 8-1 or section 16-3 before the keynote can be examined, whereas it is an e-mail passing between persons both of whom are outside the uk, it could be examined under the authorities granted under

section 8-4 warrants. that's not an open-ended right to examine the e-mail. section 8-4 war and itself will define the filters that have to be applied for the examination of such e-mail. >> so what you're saying then is that an internal communication, as i understand it, and an internal communication applies not only if the sender and the recipient are within the uk, but even if only one of them -- >> i'm sorry. i've misled you in my use of drones. i was trying to be unhelpful but i fear i've been unhelpful. ..

>> if i read "the washington post"s web site, i will have communicated with a web that's located overseas. is that, therefore, an external communication according to the existing legislation even though all i'm doing is looking at a web site which happens to have been posted and published abroad? >> my understanding is that would be an external communication. but, again, because one of the parties to it is in the u.k., it would require what the chairman

has rightly described as a modification to be to made in order for the content of that activity to be exempt. >> now, i suspect your answer will be the same for the third example which is a particularly controversial one which is the case of social media. now, in recent evidence to a tribunal, charles farr from the home office has caused some anxiety by suggesting that facebook posts are external communications. so can you clarify the situation here? i'm not, of course, talking about posts that are made on facebook with no restrictions because, obviously, they're available for all to see. but if i or were to post something -- if i were to post something on facebook and if i had adjusted my settings with the intention of this should

with read only by a restricted group of my friends, and this is the key point, all of those friends were based in the u.k., surely that should be treated as an internal communication rather than an external one. >> have -- no, i think the case is that if you post something on facebook and the server is outside the u.k., it will be treated as an external communication. but as i said and asked my last question and you suspected i would say and ask this one, which i think means we are making progress in understanding this, it would require the issue of a modification under 16-3 to enable the agencies to look at the content of that activity because one of the parties to it was in the u.k. >> and if, if, in fact, neither party were in the u.k., then there would be a lesser level of authorization required to look at it. >> that is correct.

the authorization that was already attached to the section 8-4 warrant would define the circumstances in which the content could be -- >> so what you're saying is, actually, it's not the end of the world, by any means, if something is classed as an external communication even though the people are british citizens in the u.k., one or both of the sender and recipient, because that very fact will trigger a further safeguard in order to insure that it's not examined any more freely than if it had been classed as an internal communication. is that the argument? >> that is exactly the case. i should be clear, it's not about being a british citizen. the system is blind to citizenship and nationality. it's where you are when the communication takes place. if you're in the u.k. when the

communication takes place, then if both of you are in the u.k., the section 8-1 warrant will be required. if one of you is in the u.k. and the data is required under a section 8-4 warrant, then authorization would require a modification under 16-3. >> i think that deals with the final scenario, but just for the sake of the record, let's just mention cloud storage. >> yeah. >> no other -- [inaudible] is involved at all. it may be my decision to upload photographs into dropbox or a lot of private information into the cloud generally. would those communications still be regarded as external because they've been sent to a web receiverrer overseas -- server overseas, or would they be internal because the only person with access to them is me, and i'm here in the u.k.?

>> if the server is overseas, then they will be regarded as external, and they would be subject to the same safeguards as an e-mail sent by a person to another person overseas. >> and if i'm somebody that you're interested in from the point of view of national security, for example, would i have the same assurance of security for something i had uploaded to the cloud externally, but then the modification kicked in before you examined it as if i had uploaded it to a server in the u.k., and you used the other form of warrant directly? so in other words, with the two types of warrants -- one is looser than the other -- when you take the looser type of warrant and add the modification -- >> yeah. >> -- is it as strong as the -- >> yeah. it effectively turns the 8-4 process into an 8-1 process. it looks very similar, same

considerations will be presented in delivering the warrant to the secretary of state. >> extremely clear. >> i just conclude the discussion and ask you a particular question? it clearly is a very complex issue. you have given very detail replies, and the committee has noted that. there is a lot of public concern as to the perception of different levels of safeguards depending on internal or exterrible. is -- external. should we try to draw up some document that can be understood by the wider public as to the difference between internal and external and when one applies and when the other applies and the rationale behind snit. >> i think what people in the u.k. need to understand is that the communications of people in the u.k. will only with be examined on the basis of a specific authorization by a secretary of state either under

section 8-1 or by the issue of the section 16-3 modification where the data has been required under an 8-4 -- they should be clear that they enjoy that protection as a result of being in the united kingdom even when they are using an external, an overseas server or communicating with somebody who is -- >> it's helpful that you made that statement in public session today, but it still is in fairly formal language. come back to you and -- is it not something worth considering, whether some document could be published by government, whomsoever, that would actually explain and give examples of the kind that dr. lewis has put to you as to how the answer points in the direction that you have indicated? >> i'm certainly prepared to look at it, or might i suggest perhaps even the committee in its report might --

>> well, we can do that. sure, we can do that, but we're not the government, and it's the government that comes under criticism or the agencies that come under criticism. and, therefore, if it's worth doing can, it's worth doing -- >> i'll certainly look at whether i can say in simpler english what i've just said by referring to the different sections -- >> thank you very, very much, indeed. and a final question in this category, if you authorize gchq to examine external communications that they have gathered, would you expect this information certainly to be used by gchq, or would you have problems or difficulties if they passed some of this information to mi5 or the police to use in domestic work? >> gchq will be tough to provide information to the other agencies. they work, obviously, very closely with the secret intelligence service, with mi5 and now with the national crime agency as well. so they will, where appropriate,

pass information to those agencies. >> thank you very much. is there something you'd like to add? >> well -- [inaudible] information reports that whole of government are, of course, available to all the agencies, but there are also requirements for individual agencies to have a need to know based on the requirements that statue choir functions -- [inaudible] so they cannot access information from gchq simply because they would be interested in it -- [inaudible] >> but that does imply that gchq at least to some degree has a domestic rule, not just an overseas rule, albeit, it's a modest consideration of their concerns. >> the data is gathered primarily overseas. other agencies, for example, the mi5 security service will

clearly have an interest in data related, let's say, to a punitive terrorist plot affecting the united kingdom. >> thank you. let us now move to the legislation that governs the work of the agencies. robin. >> an argument has been put to us that one of the ways in which the internet has changed the world is that we use it in so many aspects of personal information is now available through the internet. it's grown hugely. and that this in itself justifies greater protection. do you think there is any liberty in that argument that the internet has changed the world many which we ought to -- in which we ought to offer privacy to our citizens? >> well, it's certainly changed the world. i'm not sure, and i guess it is meant that more data is generated because more data is usable. i suspect, well, i don't suspect, i know that in the past

there's been vast amounts of data, but it hasn't been readily accessible except with the expenditure of huge amounts of effort trolling through paper files and records, things like that. the fact that much of this data is now available in a sortable and readily accessible form clearly feeds the appetite for still more data. people aren't demanding more data be made be publicly available when they don't have the ability to access it and search it. now they can access it and search it easily. that clearly drives the demand for more. >> well, a particular aspect of this is that the amount of communications data through the internet tells more than it did about people's personal, personal situations. now, we had evidence from sir

david -- [inaudible] this morning that, nonetheless, the definition in rear of what is communications data is very tight in this country, much tighter than it is in the united states, and that still offers a degree of protection. are you satisfied that that, that our definition of communications data is sufficiently tight to prevent intrusion into what is content about people's lives? >> oh, yes. i'm quite confident about that. i think that the communications data is hugely important to establishing networks and patterns. but the protections around the use of communications data certainly provide a robust safeguard as to content. content is a separate matter dealt with separately. >> and dealt with by ministers.

>> and dealt with by ministers. >> whereas communications data, of course, isn't. >> well, let me just go back to the previous conversation, of course. under section 8-4 warrants, content is dealt with by ministers, but it's dealt with by ministers on a class authorization basis rather than an individual case authorization basis. for outside the u.k. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> as you probably, as you know from your own evidence, the majority of the debate about the statutory provision is centered on -- [inaudible] >> yeah. >> of course, there's other legislation, for example, the intelligence services act which does allow for intrusion. in the spirit of transparency, do you think it would be simpler for the government to make it clear the extent to which

authorization can be obtained under the intelligence services act? >> well, to go directly to the role that i have in the issuing of warrants principally under section five and section seven of the or intelligence services act, i'm clear that in issuing a section seven warrant this is specifically limited to actions that take place outside the united kingdom. and it is necessary. warrants are only issued if they're necessary, proportionate in order to protect agency operatives in carrying out the work that they do. i think, i suspect the public would be surprised and reassured to find, to understand the level of authorization that is

required even for, you know, an agency operative in a foreign country to carry out what might seem really rather trivial task. there is still a high level of authorization required under the legislative framework. >> so i think the answer to my question is yes plus, is that right? >> you'll have to remind me what the original question -- [laughter] >> well, the point i make is the public debate is centered on reaper. >> yeah. >> we've discussed the intelligence services act. in the atmosphere of transparency which i think we're all trying to create consistent with the public interest and the question of security, i'm suggesting to you that perhaps a little more discan closure -- >> okay. >> -- by the government of precisely what is capable of being authorized under the intelligence services act might help to contribute to transparency. >> well, if i may say so, i

think what is capable of being authorized is pretty clear from the face of the act and is, of course, a pieceover public information. -- a piece of public information. what is more important is the regime of not merely legal control and authorization, but political control, and the layers of accountability mean that what is authorized in practice sits well within the parameters of what could be authorized under the terms of the act because people like myself exercising ministerial control, people like yourselves overseeing this process exercising democratic accountability to parliament will tend to want to interpret narrowly the permissions that the act gives. and apply test, as i mentioned

earlier, the test of whether this would look and feel rightour constituents -- if our constituents were aware of it. the way i want to work is such that i know that what i'm doing if i were able to explain it to a panel of open-minded constituents, would have them nodding in agreement that it was a sensible, reasonable and proportionate thing to do in order to protect our national security. >> well, that's a very interesting illustration of how you see the responsibility. and i don't think it's one that around the table, at least, we would quarrel with. >> thank you. julian? >> our james bond, 0, 0 7-- 007 moment, mr. secretary, because section seven has been described as the james bond clause because it seems to provide what they would call mi6 and what we call sis with broad permission to do whatever they deem necessary. and the relevant sentence, which i'd like to put on the record for the benefit of people

watching this, is as follows: if apart from this section a person would be liable in the united kingdom for any act done outside the british islands, he shall not be so liable if the act is one which is authorized to be done by virtue of an authorization given by the secretary of state, that's yourself, under this section. so how do you reassure the public here that sis are not intruding unnecessarily into the private lives of individuals which could, of course, be british individuals if so much of their data is stored in another country under the broad cover that section seven of the intelligence services act provides. >> well, i think the answer to that is that although the scope is broad under the act, the warrant that is required will define -- and this is the secretary of state's role -- will define the actions that sis

will be allowed to carry out under that warrant. so the secretary, this secretary of state will not be signing a warrant that says, you know, sis named agent x can do whatever he likes in country zed. it will say is authorized to carry out the following actions during the following time period for the following purpose in country zed. >> so there seems to be a common theme here with what we were talking about before, about the haystack and how it's searched. and that is what you're saying is, well, it's true that the 60 intelligence service and gchq have these capabilities, but the safeguards on them not abusing these capabilities are determined by the warrantly which is signed -- >> no. no, i think it's more reassuring than that. what the act does is give the

secretary of state the power to render legal an act which would otherwise be all legal done overseas. that that's the legal framework, a wide power to the secretary of state. the secretary of state's democratic accountability, including through this committee, insures that that power will be exercised with great discretion and that individual authorizations will be narrowly defined. indeed, they're as a matter of working practice, they are -- in all the one withs i've seen -- they are narrowly defined in the application for some warrants and sometimes further restricted by the secretary of state in the grant. >> surely with regards to this particular matter, it's not so much this committee, it's commissioners who have the right to examine the individual warrant shown. >> they do. >> and examine how they were actually used. >> they do. they have the right to examine

the warrants, to understand how they were used, to look at the advice that was given and any additional restrictions that were applied. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> there's another warrant responsibility in the sa act which places the respondent on the director of gchs and the chief of sis to insure that information is disclosed where it's necessary for the proper discharge of functions. and that seems, to me, to allow them to share information with whoever. that has led to criticism from groups like privacy international who say specifically this power should be codified in statute, that these arrangements with overseas partners are too vague, don't provide adequate assurance that data shared with them is treated with the same privacy standards that we would expect in the u.k. could these arrangements be be

codified in statute, or could they be made publicly available? >> i'm just contemplating whether this is a question better answered in the closed session, if you wouldn't mind. >> can i ask this question then? would it be possible to make arrangements codified in law, do you believe? >> i mean, possible, possible is a broad term. i guess it would be possible. the question is the extent to which it would impact on the effective working of the agencies. and i'm confident that we have robust arrangements in place to avoid the kind of abuse which i completely understand why you are speculating could occur whenever we pass data to anyone else, how do we insure that it is dealt with with the same degree of rigor and discretion

that i've described here? i'm confident that we do have those arrangements in place, and in particular that data originating from persons in the u.k. is not vulnerable to any risk in this regard. but if i may, i'll elaborate further in the closed session. >> can i just ask one more theoretical question then? do you accept that public confidence in the security of this would be enhanced by greater public understanding of what those arrangements might be? >> i think the problem that we've got here is that our relationships with other agencies outside the u.k -- which are critically important to maintenance of our capability -- are relationships of trust. and however much we might wish to be more transparent about those relationships, we can only be so if there is a similar

willingness at the other end of the pipe. so we have got to be extremely careful about how much we talk about our relationships in open session. >> we have seven or eight minutes left of this public session. if we could move briefly into authorization and accountability, fair enough? >> you've got respondent for authorizing the responsibilities of gchq and sis. most of the people we've spoken to during this say young judges assign warrant, not you. what's your response? >> well, i think it's wrong. i think it's a flawed analysis. i think the system would be weaker -- [inaudible] because judges quite properly would look at the legal permissions and judge within those legal permissionings. secretaries of state, of course, are constrained by the legal permissions and will only

exercise their powers on the basis of clear legal advice about how they can do so. but also apply a layer of political judgment which is crucially important. most of difficult warrants, most of the warrants that take serious time and consideration, are not debates about whether something is legal or not. nothing should ever get to the secretary of state with an open debate about whether an issue is legal. that will be sorted out long before. it's a question of political judgment by the time it get toss the secretary of state. is benefit to our national security, to the safety and well being of our citizens justified by the political risk of the specific action being proposed? and that's a judgment that i think while judges as intelligent, thoughtful people

would be able to have an opinion on, in a democracy, it has to be a democratically accountable person that makes such a decision, properly overseen by all the tiers of oversight that we have in this country. >> getting to those tiers of oversight, the commissioners who do that -- >> they are, of course -- >> [inaudible] we've had many arguments saying that they should be reformed or replaced by a new system. do you think there are some new changes that you would like to be made in the commissioners? >> i think the system that we have in place works and works effectively, but i think we should go on challenging it. we should go on asking the question. as i'm sure you will. making sure that it is robust. but i think the way it works at the moment with a mixture of politically accountable and judicially experienced oversight is a very effective combination.

and -- [inaudible] but be i'll say it anyway, my experience is that wherever i go in the world and explain to colleagues whether as foreign secretary or previously as defense secretary the degree of direct, hands-on ministerial involvement in the process, they are astonished by the level of hands-on ministerial responsibility. in most systems internationally, there is far greater levels of delegated responsibility, and i think we have a very, very tight and effective system here which insures that we operate within the law, but we operate within the law with proper political judgment and full democratic accountability. >> [inaudible] >> ask an optimistic question. you've been -- [inaudible] more three months. would it be damaging to national

security if -- [inaudible] you had authorized in that time, and how many operations gchq and sis have carried out in that period. >> yes, i'm afraid it would. [laughter] >> in that case, let me take refuge in pragmatism and ask you to describe the scale of the -- [inaudible] and the scale of the operation. because i think, again, this is a matter of which a distribution to public understanding and public accountability not least, of course, in the light of the events in canada in the last 24 hours. >> and i can say for purposes of public reassurance that our agencies are in close contact with their canadian counterparts and, as you would expect, are already analyzing what happened many canada and the implications for us. i can't say anything about the scale of operations i have

authorized because almost by definition they are classified operations. but if it would help in terms of where your line of questioning is seeking to go to, i will expect to spend several hours in each week considering warrants and reading the supporting paperwork, questioning officials about the material that i've received, meeting with heads of agencies or other people in the agencies to discuss either specific issues or issues of broader policy that have arisen from warrant applications that i've received. >> thank you. finally on transparency, robin, foreign secretary, have you been understandably cautious this afternoon about what you've been prepared to say in public. now, the outgoing director of gchq told this committee that he is, and i quote, not e van gelically are opposed to