latest patriot act issue will probably be beneficial. the second issue is perhaps even more -- is nowden leak was one model of how some discussion, lively public discussion about intelligence collection and privacy versus security trade-off happened. sometime at the cocktail hour you can ask what he thinks about the integrity of public discussion. i think we all need to think about other models, maybe some lawful models. there's one model, which i'm sure you've seen in the usa freedom act which allows foreign intelligence court to appoint. ..

>> anyone that is involved in that has to be cleared and we have that stuff like the foreign intelligence president's board. i am thinking beyond that. we have to go beyond that. the folks on the right and left might concede if they don't come up with lawful measures there may be others taking measures into their own hands. i will throw out ideas. this is stuff i have thought up and i am not speaking for

anybody. bring ordinary citizens into three letter agencies and talking to them about what is happening. with all due respect, i don't necessarily mean ordinary people like jan and laura and bob once he goes into private service although there is a role for that. it would simply be like a jury. i know the jury has a constitutional dimension but the question is it is the overused c c cliche of a focus group. we have been conditioned to wat watching shows of people singing and grading them, text messaging for programs. there are lots of ways to harness this and none of it binds the government or the aclu or the heritage foundation. it would be a way to get some

help and maybe bob would be informed on what is being done, considered done, or input on the ways it could be done. i think that would have avoided a lot of heart ache on all sides with the revelations of bulk data collection. everybody is going with whatever you do and later on building police cars and there are public

issues and it is designed with privacy concerns and figure out the designs of this. i think a large focus on a number of responsible companies and the question is with entering into the way the government thinks about things. we have the fourth amendment, the statutory things, i am thinking of something different which is beyond the legal compliance point to figure out how are we going to operate this program or design it or what are we going to ask to go back to the last panel and what authority will we ask overseers

and having a rudimentary presentation for it. this is a fix that will not be in the headlines tomorrow but i hope they are in the next year or five years. i'm going to give a specific case study and privacy issues and the debate and the balance you will remember when the department first stood up and secretary ridge told us i don't believe in a balance between liberty and security. i believe we need to accomplish both goals at once and i think

sometimes people laugh that off a little. i will give you a case study. how can we stimulate and share information about cyber activity. they will do the work whether that is investing the crime and what their work is for us to try

to spread it out. just back out and everybody can defend themselves. the president said the legislative proposal in january and the house has passed two bills on this and the senate has a bill you heard on the previous panel they are poised to consider. there is a lot of activity in this area. now to make information sharing really work we need a new generation or revelation and everybody worked hard to get to this place and we have a lot of humans involved. we like humans and enjoy having them but it will not work for us in this environment. you cannot have humans taking

telephone calls. two problems with machine to machine sharing. one is a technical problem and how you make it work. the second issue is dealing with privacy issues in information sharing. i am trying to make it specific for you, when information is submitted to us, it could include personal information. spear fishing campaign. you will send that information in and it has a personal e-mail address and in the body it could have something about your wife and kids. do you want that? do you want your company sending

that to the the homeland security and spreading it around this broad network of whoever is connected to them. it could have proprietary information. company identifier. you want that scrubbed. you want to make sure it is a n anonymo anonymous. you will have no problem with that. you will like it because you will benefit from that too and benefit from others bad experience and learn how to defend yourself. we have a robust sharing because everyone is confidant my personal information isn't being

lifted. they want the information in real time. they want the information as it comes in. they don't want some guy who likes like he is from, you know, a picture of being from the geek squad with taking your computer and some guy is standing across the aisle and when can i have my computer back, you know? you want to take out the human because the law enforcement agencies wanted it quickly. so this is a real problem where privacy and security are clashing and we are trying to figure out the solution right now. as is often the case, there is a way to satisfy both interest. it takes the interagency that is the first thing. we are working with people all across governments, fbi, odni, and that is homeland security and we know we are familiar with

that in the homeland security context. the second thing is it takes a lot of work. the easy answer is this won't work. it does work. through dozens of meetings and 20 plus agencies. we poured over the sures over the months. what data do you need and what is critical and it do a survey. we have a survey of the guys doing day to day and what data fields they need. if takes a strong foundation of previous work. we are able to build upon a great deal of technical work that has been done for other purposes. we have a protocol for structuring how machines communicate and we have to leverage it. it takes strong stakeholder

relationships and dhs has that with private and civil liberties group and we worked over a number years to develop a number of committees and others so we have been able to leverage those is learn from people there. even though the legislation is not passed since the president's legislative agenda we have been working. in october, we are going to be able begin ingesting or receiving information. by the spring we will be able to begin sharing back and forth. and by next fall, a year from now, we will have the capability to make all of that technical work that is being done available even to those without sophistic options. there are ways to take specific studies to work through the privacy and security interest.

these issues have a real practical meaning and really play out in the day to day practical operation issues and orientation. with that, i will turn it over to you. >> can i take one question in response to your point about privacy design. we have a number of mechanisms. agencies with their own privacy and civil liberty offices and general counsel and the privacy and liberty board that is

represented here today and has a statutory obligation to make sure all of the laws take proof privacy into account. the president directed we take privacy and civil liberty considerations in concern in developing all programs. if it requires legislation we have to work with the congress. people may disagree with the outcome but it is thought like we are not trying to build on it. >> i was not suggesting there was lack of privacy by design at any time in the community. but maybe it is a rhetorical thing which is it would help bridge the used chasms of understanding of what the government and private sector does. and if they can start to talk in the ways bob is speaking.

>> the bill's idea is to protect the minority against the majority so it is going against the whole idea of the bill of rights in some ways. in the fourth amendment, not to go originalist but to go originalist unreasonable meant against reason or the common law and the broad collection of information on citizens was banned then to define evidence of illegal accident. that is what a general warrant was. when the fourth amendment says unreasonable if you go back to the context of the times it was not understood in the more modern sense which bob says we

understand what is reasonable but from the relative stance it meant what is against the common law. and according to cook and hail and hawkins it was against magna carter to give them information to collect data broadly and find illegal activity. there were good reasons. to protect anyone who is out to harm them or anyone they wanted to target they could target. but there were rights that were value valued. solitude, intimiimate relationships and values to the right.

>> go ahead. >> i just wanted to respond to one thing bob said about data collection. he made the point i adpree -- agree with. this is not a new problem. this existed before the rise of new kind of data and the growth of the global internet. but two things have changed. the scope of information that is being collected has changed and the quantity of information has been changed. that, i think, requires us to reconsider some of the intervals. i just want to read a quote from the 1978 house report when the first passed. there was a debate at the time about a decision made in the 1978 legislation to require warrants for all collection that

was covered at the time which is less than what is covered now and a number of members of congress objected to the idea that warrants would apply to the collection of data targeted at al aliens. they rejected that saying the warrant was required not primarily to protect such persons, the aliens, but rather to protect u.s. sit zecitizens y be involved with them. i think that is understanding that recognition of the risks of targeting a collection based on lower standards of non-citizens mostly broad and applied with greater force today and that is something that requires us to reconsider some of our thinking about the collection.

>> i was certainly not advoca advocating the majority should say what practices get done in the community. so my analogy to star struck my be wrong. i was saying the public needs to understand the choices better and the government and folks that make these decisions can factor that into the account. it is not responsible to suggest people in the government who have to follow the constitution and laws would do whatever the majority people say in voting. but i have one other point about majority rule. of the statutes under the intelligence community and government operate are passed by

majority rule. and even the judges, the federal judges who adjudicate these things are nominated by a president who was elected and confirmed by the senate which i am told can be a partisan process. >> i don't disagree there needs to be rules to protect the information of u.s. persons that is collected. i just don't see a way to do that other than some variant of back end procedures when is what congress adopted in title 3 when it authorized electronic surveillance to begin with. i think the privacy and civil liberties board reported on section 702 or some other document that we have released

has indicated under section 702 collection, which targets non-citizens outside of the united states, we are targeting tens of thousands of selectors. because this covers a broad scope of foreign intelligence collection. we are never going to require warrants to collect on vladimer putin's cellphone or to try to collect on what al-qaeda terrorist are doing. it would bring foreign intelligence collection to halt. so what we need to do is find ways to number one, explain what we do, which we have been doing for a couple years. and trying to put technology and legal restrictions in place that satisfy people that information about americans or information frankly about any person that is being collected is subject to appropriate protections for

privacy and not being misused. in the last two and a half years of all of the information coming out, there hasn't been an indication of people being persecuted for their beliefs. the system is working well to provide security were the information we collect. >> on the 702 point, i think it is really important to look at the controls put into place. 702 data according to the privacy and civil liberties oversight board the fbi routinely queries the database for purposes that are not what it was collected for. i would suggest there is a restriction on in the fourth amendment and if you collect that information for foreign intelligence purposes to use it to check out bank robbers in california for purposes

unrelated to a foreign intelligence purpose for which it was collected you should be required to go back to a court to query a database. i think the 702 brings up concern about the information being used, about the queries and how it plays out in the fourth amendment when applied in a criminal context. >> as you can see, we have a degree of disagreement. and fascinating. i don't know we have may time for a couple questions. i would be happy to allow you to query the panel. yes, right back here. >> i am dick hudson.

i recently remembering hearing the fbi testify about strong encryption and how leads are going dark because of the strong encryption and asking for congress to provide keys to the castle so they can get in. that might work in america. i am not sure in the globalized world. we are talking about privacy by design. if the technology is getting to the point where we can't see what is going on in any way, shape or form, and i would imagine there is a way that would make the traffic anonymous with it all going to one server and that being it. is that something that needs to be looked at and weighed in some manner? not just nationally but internationally.

there are those also who not want to help us as well. >> good question. bob you might can address that. this is a problem for law enforcement not only in terms of terrorist domestically but foreign as well. we need industry to come to the table and use the insight they used to develop the remarbable tools we have today to try to

find a solution that protects people's privacy while at the same time allows law enforcement to get information it needs when it has appropriate lawful authority. i don't think it is not able to be solved. if law enforcement can get access you do weaken encryption and the question is how much do we weaken? there is a statue right that now requires telephone companies to c configure services to permit interception of conversations.

we have a manageable risk here and the overall social benefits are sufficiently great. that will require engagement with the companies and their willingness to engage with government to work on these solutions >> i would add to the economic security and this is often missing from the national security equation. we have taken a huge bath since september 2013 or 2012 on our clout -- cloud computing. we see the data localization efforts and certain opportunities going on. to the extent we draw this as a national security issue domestically there is an economic price to this as well. that needs to be part of the discussion and part of the equation as well. not just at an nsc level but a

programmatic level to make sure interest are protected long term in the interest of national security. >> i would think at the end of the day it is a reasonable possibility that if american companies have a transparent environment where it is clear to the world what we can do and your average person is faced with a choice of am i going to go to google or microsoft or apple where i know what they are are doing or am i going to use a romanian communication system where i have no idea what they are doing but maintain the competitive advantage in those circumstances. >> i want to thank the panel and hope you will give them a round of applause. [applause] >> tonight on the communicateers, this summer marks the 25th anniversary of

digital television. the author of television vision discusses how tv has changed. >> many of us are watching in a multi-screen world. that is one of the exciting outcomes. there was a stationary green and with hd it was a screen in the living room. with the internet and wireless world extending things you have tablet and smart phones and wi-fi all over the place such that tv is not just a stationary, lean back experience in the living room but a mobile experience wherever you want to go. it is not just tv. it is also video. >> tonight at 8 eastern on the

"the communicators." the conference at the american bar association meetimg is where we are going next to hear steve bunnel talk. this is about 45 minutes. [applause] >> good morning, everything within. thank you, joe, for the kind introduction. i am very fortunate to be a successor in your position and i think all of us across the entire department continue to benefit from your leadership in our forming years. they say the years two-five are the most important in one's development and you were there

in the beginning. let me also thank josh for his leadership not only in helping to get this conference organized but working with joe and your leadership in helping to establish the discipline of homeland security law and together with joe really helping to establish a bar in this space. i think it is an important area for people to draw together the different aspects of law and policy that shape what we do. and frankly it is one of the things that makes it so interesting. the different strains of law coming together around a common set of challenges. so thank you, not only for the logistics but the thought leadership in the space. i am honored to be here today. and my plan is to start by

describing some of the top challen challenges facing the department today. given the scope of dhs' responsibilities i will limit myself to a few and provide a high level overview of four areas but i don't mean by doing that to suggest that there are not a lot of other important things are senior leadership thinks about and focuses on. and after highlighting some of the top challenges, i will put on my general counsel hat and talk about trends and themes and homeland security law although i did notice on the program it is not a cle eligible program so i am not going to say anything insightful with respect to the law. if we have time at the end, i will be happy to take questions. let me start with what we have been spending our time on lately

and when i say we i am talking about my clients and to a certain extent the lawyers. but this is really the operational policy challenges of the department. the first challenge is counterterrorism. and that was the founding mission of the department. it continues to be the cornerstone of what we do. i think it compared to what we faced in 2003, the department was established, the terrorism threat today is in some ways more challenging and decentralized and diffused. it is arguable more complex. we are concerned about foreign fighters who leave this country and travel to another and take up the fight and link up with a terrorist organization and they return home with a terrorist purpose whether to this country

or elsewhere were concerned about terrorist organizations with adaptive and skilled use of the internet to publically recruit and inspire individuals including lone wolves to conduct attacks in their country. we have been working hard with our international partners to prevent the terrorist fighters. in may the second represented the united states in an unprecedented ministry session at the united nation's security council to discuss the problem of foreign fighters and encoura encourage u.n.solution 2178 including through enhanced information sharing, border patrol expertise and other programs. we are making security enhan

enhancement do is the visa program that allows people from 38 countries to travel to the united states without a visa. we added an application we believe will strengthen the security of the program and keep up the benefits the visa waver program provides. on the domestic front, we are working in a collaborative way with state and local law enforcement and with the fbi to more quickly and efficiently share terrorist threat information and intelligence with joint terrorism task forces, state fusion centers, local police chiefs, and sheriffesherif sheriffs. we stepped up the work through community outreach. in the face of the frankly, very slick internet appeal of isis

and other terrorist groups it is imperative we strengthen our relationship with communities that have the ability to reach out with others and reach out to those vul nerable with recruitm and be proned to turn to violence. dhs held 70 round tables and events in 14 cities across the country and the secretary participated in a number of meetings in a variety of locations. cybersecurity is the second area i want to emphasize and this is something that emerged in the recent years and even months. it is one of the department's and administration's top priorities. one intarnal lea ral -- interna reflection that is the briefings have been expanded to include greater detail about cyber threats and insures the senior

leadership across the department has a deeper awareness of current security concerns in the cyber realm as well as the physical realm. the recent data breach at the office of personal management highlights the fact that our federal dot gov cybersecurity is not are it needs to be and the same can be said for networks in the private sector including systems that operate our critical infrastructure. we have been working with a renewed sense of urgency for the einstein system which is a level of security we at dhs make available to all federal agencies and departments. we are expanding the national cybersecurity and communication integration center. that is the government's 24-7 hub for cybersecurity information sharing, incident

response, and coordination. let me say a little more. 13 department agencies and 16 private sector entities and over a 100 private entities that provides information to the system. it provides on sight assistance to victimss of cyber attacks and shared over 6,000 bulletins and responded to 32 incidents and that is double to the number almost. the n-kick is also the place where we manage the einstein system. let me say our ability to improve cybersecurity is limited by statutory authorities and we are working with congress to try

to get legislation to address that and specifically we believe congress should express the authorize behind the einstein program and eliminating remaining legal obstacles. second, we must incentvise texas incentivise them to share the information in a twhhat provide protection for those who share the indicators and protects privacy. we believe we need a national data breach reporting system instead of the existing patch p patchwork of state laws on the subject. let me turn to aviation security now. much of our homeland security is counterterrorism efforts center around aviation security measures. we are constantly making

adjustments to respond to new threats and stay ahead. in response to changes in the threat environment last summer we started requiring enhanced scriping at certain overseas airports -- screening -- and we prioritized the expansion of pre-clearance expansion at foreign airports. pre-clearance allows border patrol agents to screen passengers bound for the united states at the front end protecting the plane, passengers and country. we have 15 pre-clearance sites overseas operated by more than 600 law enforcement officers and agriculture experts. the most recent one was set-up in abu dabi and since that time alone we have already screened more than 500,000 passengers and crew that were beeped for bound for the united states and we have denied bording to 785 vinyl

vinyls individuals including a number to be on the terrorist database. we are entering negotiations to expand to ten new foreign airports. the fourth area i want to highlight is immigration which is of course is a huge and multi faceted area. we have been spending a lot of time on the border security action. we have continued the 15-year trend of devoting increased resources to the border. today the border patrol has the largest deployment of people, vehicles, aircrafts, boats and

equipment along the sulkouthwes border in the nine-year history. the investment has produced significant positive results over the years. sometimes not readly apparent in the media coverage. unlawful migration in the county peaked in the year 2000 reflected by the 1.6 hillian apprehensions that year. since then unlawful migration has dropped considerably. the last fiscal year the number of aprehences was 4 00, 371. it was due to the spike in the

rio grande valley of the southern part of texas. almost all of that came from four countries and it was large number of adults with children. 53 p 3 pk3 pk% of all apprehens last year were in the rio grande sector. dhs responded with a surge of resources and personal beginning in mid-june of 2014 and the number of illegal migrants crossing into north texas has dropped dramatically. we have not seen a return to the spike from last year this year or anything close to it. in fiscal year 2014, through the month of june, apprehension on our southern border were just over 380,000. and through the month of june this fiscal year total

apprehensions on the southwest border are approximately 24,000 which is a 36% decrease. if this pace continues, scheie don't know for sure if it will, if it continues through the last portion of the fiscal year, the total is going to be the lowest number of apprehensions since the 1970s. apprehensions of uncompany -- unaccompanied children are down. it was 26,000 which is a 54% decrease compared to last year turg the surge. the bottom line is, if you take a historical perspective, much harder to cross the border illegally and evade capture than

it used to be. i think the people know that. these numbers, although they have declined dramatically, we are not declaring mission accomplished. the violence is the push factor and it still exist in those countries. we must address them. ...

>> >> immediately following detention at the border. a far better investment to help central america create jobs and help address the conditions of central america that prompts many death strip - - desperate families to send their children to the united states. in addition to those efforts , we have created this southern border to promote border security. for the first time to be put to use of a more combined and strategic way the

absence of customs them border protection and customs enforcement and the coast guard and other resources as necessary. this is part of an effort to eliminate stowe scraping where the secretary of all men security from last november to partially fix our broken immigration and system. two of them are subject to litigation the other eight are under way. over all these actions are devoted to strengthening border security to why prioritizing deportation of criminals promoting access to citizenship and high skilled businesses and the number of other things to

reform the immigration system. as part of executive actions we have enforcement priorities to provide clear and sharp guidance to the field saying we must prioritize the resources on the removal of those are dangerous criminals and a national security threat and border crossers. rather focusing resources and those of have been here many years and 11.3 million undocumented immigrants setter here in this country and more than half have been here over 10 years many have spouses and children who are united states citizens and we must reckon with that reality.

go away. and frankly know administration will deport the large population of people we don't have the resources to do that with 250 immigration judges in this country i am not sure how long it would take to adjudicate 11.3 million cases but my am confident it would far exceed the life expectancy of anyone in this room. >> i would submit the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the conservation of judicial resources is simply the only sensible option. consistent with the new priorities, immigration and customs enforcement has begun a new push in the interior of the country to apprehend and documented in grants at one dash apprehended for serious crimes currently 96 percent

of all those people detained by a border patrol and ice fits in the top two and three party as convicted felons convicted of an offense that is criminal street in getting and apprehended crossing the border or sunbathe it is suspected of terrorism or as to niger poses a danger to national security. we have ended the controversial secure communities program with the new priority enforcement program secure communities that the immigration personnel launched as day caters to hold individuals in local jails to be candid directly over to federal immigration enforcement.

when the time of police custody is over as they become of embroiled of legal controversy a legal expanding state governments there are over 200 the laws and executive orders and policies that prohibit cooperation with federal immigration personnel. the results to be notorious on the national level that dangerous for a further crime. we opted to have this program the balance common sense approach to achieve the forssmann goals to seek

cooperation and we're seeing the progress and to enforce the immigration laws with national security so that is a quick and high level review but now to go back to the legal arena to shirt - - share recent developments of a man security over the last 18 months for example, ijssel one dash isil is now

a high-profile international phenomenon despite the bearish brutalities to successfully recruiting around the globe using the internet and social media and it seeks to be an inspirational movement not command and control organization and it seeks much more than al qaeda for individuals with the new radicalized loan actor to go from flash to bang as the fbi likes to say is a serious challenge disclosures are much more

careful how they communicate with the proliferation n of apps and the encryption technology now build on the smart phones there are many more options to communicate ways that are much harder or frankly impossible for law enforcement agencies. >> with a law-enforcement wiretaps to the same extent we have in the past expanding the use of a cloud technology makes the mission more challenging back and be readily stowe word so now they may be out of reach because access is regulated by another country's laws this is particularly a

problem for companies and for us that do business or stored data is a member states of the european union so they have much more restrictive privacy laws. so with the emerging security challenges that we face and we will continue to face in the future to a the question of how we adapt as a department and a country to the emerging threats. and we need to was start adapting to them today and as part of that adaptation an important element of that is the expanded use of the chess -- dhs4 big data and

projected analytics to better align security resources to the risks imposed because frankly with google and amazon as other companies do every day how to individually advertise to each of you. and to provide an interesting overview from the future benefits of big data are how to be misused. in to become a red giant big brother operation to expect the abuses in the future but to say the challenges than the of pressures and opportunities are still out

there as a result will almost certainly see better big data base predictive tools to fill the gaps to mitigate the security risk in a cost-effective way. i will give you example every day 2 million passengers fly in n or over the united states more than 1 million enter the country by land. day agenesis to identify the variety of each person and if they pose a threat. so as not to impede commerce so with the needles in a haystack they should not be allowed to get on the airplane or maybe the need additional screening.

isn't enough to rely on the wanted list from the fbi or to do a screening in search of every passenger arriving for international travel. >> to allow us to be smarter who we send for a secondary screening. so the implications for expanded big data use i want to mention a few areas where big data is in policy issues. the first is privacy. the supreme court recognizing for the first time the purposes of a smart phone is fundamentally different were other items

at the time of the rest with the vast amount of personal data and health information and political and religious information. and much more frankly private information that a person may historically store in his entire from. in terms of the fourth amendment we saw the fourth amendment thinking and as we saw in the jones case where they recognize the gps monitoring device on a car race fourth amendment issues that is qualitatively different. rivalries feel compelled to with mitt to prove the attachment of mr. jones' car

it does seem like a good idea at the time. [laughter] so with legal doctrine of policy to privacy protection said to make it less expensive for agencies to collect and analyze more comprehensive data there is a greater focus on how that is collected and used and stored. with increased alliance will lead to a new legal restrictions. with the legal defense it involves the activities from plainview. with the surveillance camera getting on the airplane so

for it to be a safe legal position that it is governed by the third party doctrine it is part of a commercial transaction or to claim there is no real harm here because what we're doing with this data and then to analyze for patterns and risk indicators how the general public react or to predict the expanded use on whether day hsn other security agencies to internal controls of private protection if we don't do it ourselves some or will very likely do it for a less and we have been trying to get ahead of the curve how to use a big data that safeguards privacy as a

model for other agencies. part of that we have developed tagging standards they have collected from various sources to bring together the owners of the data systems with represent a from privacy and civil liberties and for each field they charted the attributes as it is from different communities after developing a set of tags they consider what additional rules and projections were needed to account for specific use limitations governed by regulation. n to the purpose of the original selection and to

track where it came from and under what authority as we implement to all the egested is important robust privacy protections how will we do that is the degree of concern with the privacy implications of expanded use of analytics. >> accursi coming activity is the umbrella of due process. with another security agency of the property or liberty interest there is always a question when the action as

classified security information every reveal the sources with the collection capability and more generally if if we leave it to the adversaries with us a differential to the executive branch and to decline the judicial review of national homeland security judgments but we start to see that change which is pending in federal court the case was brought by 13 u.s. citizens and legal permanent residents believing they were denied boarding on international flights on the no-fly less. and to get an explanation why they were denied and for

a more meaningful opportunity to challenge the determination so the ability to fly international is a constitutional protected liberty interest n thwarted through the trip through the redress process. refused to confirm or deny but they rob the no fly less store refused in the name of national security the court order them to go back with the more meaningful redress process and present to the court for review. the government has done that i see this as a big change

is the big change but part of the legal issue. with the rights of other areas to impact national and homemade and security. the d.c. circuit not too long ago found a chinese company was entitled to additional information as an opportunity to be heard. and in the immigration n area there are recent cases expanding the due process rights to individuals at various stages of the removal process that reflects a general frustration with the many dysfunctional aspects of the immigration system.

so it with a more meaningful due process so in an international dimension to big data right we need dash so that means many international data. but also the closest neighbors and the mexicans to allow us access to it with social media information and to get the international partners to share critical data will require us to raise certain extent that privacy and other laws are a foreign concept to us. so to recognize last year when he did not like his name was googled first was

of a total article of his personal bankruptcy was truthful but he thought it was hurting business development effort so he sued to take down the link and p1. said that it was excessive to maintain a link to personal information about the lawyer that was 12 years old. needless to say the notion of the u.s. court ordering google or anyone else to not have truthful speech raises first amendment issues. the information sharing challenge is to find ways to accommodate privacy concerns that they feel comfortable sharing data to recognize our system is different and to adopt all privacy principles they're also looking to make sure the data is protected the same

way as others because he uses this system have constitutional rights as others do but to give citizens six be amended rights redress with certain privacy rights to be used in congress as part of the ongoing effort to get the e.u. to agree to a framework with law-enforcement to sit through long negotiating sessions i think we're getting quite close to finalizing. the general trend is a partial conversion sub privacy laws that will be necessary so to recap, and

with death count - - cornerstone potentially soon to be expanded cybersecurity mission where we tried to push back the primitive -- perimeters are other means and in the immigration area with comprehensive statutory reform is to do what we can with the current authorities to make the system smarter. and with the legal issues as they adapt to a new threat environment with international cooperation with the increased use of big data and the technologies that will

intern will create any new or challenging issues through international law. so is a good time to be a lawyer through interesting changes through the pipeline. so please stay tuned for more. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for a couple questions. >>. >> i and a former u.s.

department state service trustee under richard holbrooke and john negroponte to name a few. and from new york. ion situation allele where a term that dave learned from the military. i have discovered my first experience i had concerns the secretary of terrorism john miller about what i had observed. last night or yesterday morning coming in from new york city grey hound they took my luggage straight

from me it was not scale and secretary hadas stop at the major nobody took my luggage is something was in their. deal also would is going on at cnn? space to in deliver a letter in person to know about the debate as a shareholder they stopped me i said can i send a certified? and then there was additional security so this hero is a former secret

service and he is in charge so can ask him as a shareholder of last the not least there was an article in the newspaper recently and it showed the structure at dhs and diluted to the fact that nobody seems to know what the other departments is doing. and i have been grateful to read united states government for the service of protecting me. so can you comment on that? prime-1 to tell all of you better here today among solid you, i kind of joke up with my gratitude and pride

because you are my stars i like to give all of you an oscar. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for your comments and your career in public service. and for recognizing one of the realities for those that work in homeland's security that sometimes the people we are serving dolefully appreciate what we're trying to do for them and that is particularly true for many of their front-line employees whether a screener add to an airport or a person of the port of entry or an attorney who tries to enforce the immigration laws. we can to get more criticism than praise. unfairly i would say.

so i appreciate you noting that. also for the lawyers who are supporting the unappreciated workforce, we year one further step removed from appreciation. i will like of a round of applause for the lawyers. [applause] i am not quite sure which part of your state me with like to address but it sounds like you just wanted 2.0 a couple of things about the department. >> what about the structure? >> we are a big conglomerate putting together that for the purpose to pull together

functions that historically have not worked in a unified way, any time you try to do that with a universe as large as 240,000 employees, you will have lots of challenges. the theme we try to emphasize is unity and effort. as opposed into mindless uniformity across the board. so the coast guard has been around 225 years they have a lot of wonderful traditions there is no reason to mess up all the good things they do to make everybody is something the same way so we tried to preserve component identity and traditions and practices that make sense. but at the same time we try to make sure that people put

aside any bureaucratic mentality to work together on the important stuff. it is more an art than science but i think we're moving forward we have only been around a dozen years so sometimes teenagers are unruly. thank you for your question. >> thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> what we're watching is

one of the more exciting outcomes of the whole digital revolution so used to be there was a stationary screed with hdtv was a big screen in the living room but with the internet and the wireless world, now you have tablets and smart phones and wi-fi all over the place that tv is not just a stationary experience in the living room but a mobile experience river you want to go. not just tv but video. o.

>> washington journal continues. ist: joining us this morning david was . >> host: we have a house editor for the "cook political report" and here to talk about the supreme court decision that certainly could affect how the house is shaped in the coming years with the headline says supreme court upholds the arizona decision and what did it decide? >> guest: then jurisprudence on redistricting it is complicated and contradictory. the supreme court has had a hard time to make up its mind on redistricting issues it was clear in the '60s

that all legislative districts have to be drawn with the coal population from the majority minority districts on a racial basis but how partisan could be allowed or deterred and in this case arizona was one of several states to employ independent commissions separate from the state legislature to draw congressional and state legislative boundaries. after the 2010 census the independent redistricting commission republicans alleged were stacked against them be independent number was a tie breaker of an average citizen to maximize the competitive sees it you

were to draw a map regular shapes that random you have a republican and leading map in arizona but republicans who occupy the state legislature sued antipodal the way to the supreme court because they argued the independent redistricting commissions are not constitutional the constitution says it shall be determined by the legislature thereof this stage so the supreme court ruling had to wrestle with interpret on a strict basis or looser basis and the majority decided with justice ginsburg wrote the majority opinion with justice kennedy with the swing vote to interpret loosely that the commission's can combat gerrymandering when it is a problem.

>> host: as david wasserman mentions article one section for the of the partition question of the supreme court caused the section that says the times and place for senators and representatives shall be prescribed - - prescribed by the legislature thereof and will alter such regulations as such it to the places of choosing senators. how many people use these commissions and with arizona how long is that in existence? did that come about by the legislature or the citizens? >> referendum. there are only a couple of other states that have similar process but there are seven that have conditions responsible and 11 states responsible and some only have one member of congress. but arizona and california

are the two states that have passed commissions that are truly independent and passed by referendum. even arizona is it entirely independent because the legislatures are part of that with the tie-breaking member but this has the potential to massively affect arizona politics as well as california because if the supreme court argued that voters cannot bypass the state legislature through referendum to set up the commission then and it could throw the maps back to the drawing board republicans could have added several more seats democrats combated seats and it would continue the pattern that we see in the majority of states that the partisans in charge maximize their own

opportunity to artificially inflate their edge in the delegation by massive proportions. >> host: is there an indication and this will lead to other states to create independent commissions? >> that is the question this is a victory for the reformers no doubt no guarantee of future success though. even though we do have seven states that have commissions but not all of them produce maps that produce competitive elections. one example is in new jersey where potentially both parties have a certain number of appointees and there is a tie-breaking member to so you do end up with a partisan map and in new jersey we have not seen a law of competitive congressional elections lately.

so how many states have the willpower to bypass partisan of legislature? or to allow a referendum to let voters decide? and who will fund the efforts from state to state? of course, democrats are at a big advantage to maps across the country because they have the terrible of the action in 2010 when republicans could redraw four times as many districts than democrats are right now they are pushing for good government reform or so they say. so democrats have to be careful of not come across as a partisan agenda to pass a law of similar commissions when in reality they know they're at a disadvantage with the status quo. >> host: from cook political reporting talking about the

arizona decision and redistricting issues in states across the country. in the case of arizona is any indication and a few is benefiting in terms of members of the house of that state? >> there are a couple of winters in the decision i argue the biggest is the congresswoman out of phoenix she is a democrat who was first elected in 2012 when the district was created they gained a ninth seat in the senses and that district was redrawn as competitive and she ran for that seat

and she has been able to hold it. but had republicans been unable to draw that to their liking you can be sure that district would be very inhospitable for a democrat. saw under the current map preserved by the supreme court she has a good chance now to stay in congress for quite a while also californians are at risk to lose their seats specifically republicans from the central valley could have been a risk if democrats and sacramento could undo the california commission so without partisan advantage, there are democrats who are pretty happy with what this does with the reform efforts in terms of the immediate political benefits i think it is pretty even.

>> host: and the dissenting minority opinion the supreme court had a law of objection to the experience the of the term legislature in that part of the constitution. >> guest: that is understandable. it is pretty explicit this is an issue for the state legislatures to deal with but it is very difficult to imagine the framers could have anticipated the sophisticated gerrymandering that goes on all over the country. particularly with levels of polarization in recede geographically it is easier than ever for mapmakers to separate into like-minded districts. according to our index, the

number of competitive races in just the last 16 years. >> host: is that because of redistricting? >> i think several things are in play. first of all, more americans are choosing to live in areas where their neighbors agree with their own political perspective and values. so we see far more states and districts and communities that plays into the hands of mapmakers to have the partisan agenda who want to maximize their numbers and minimize the other party but don't want to create competitive seats that creates uncertainty or they have to spend a law of money to win them so we have seen the two trends work in concert to diminish the number of seats with that

kind of uncertainty when november rolls around. >> host: is there any state that has the best model that on the surface is partisan? >> go what would hold up i was as a state -- iowa to draw districts. id has sell legislative services bureau pays state office. is independent from the legislature and they are in charge of drafting maps for congress and the state legislatures to minimize the variance between the most populous than the least populous and the congressional maps do not split counties. they tried to come up with a configuration and then the

legislature can reject that the traditionally they have embraced that map so you have a pretty clean lines of course, a dozen of the minority protection considerations and that other states have to take into account so there are three square counties there is not a law of jagged bines -- line so it is not necessarily applicable to another state. >> host: we go to of florida romney independent line. >> caller: hello. david wasserman has many good points.

but many of our citizens are not educated enough to understand the ramifications of the gerrymandering process and what that is. really the of problem is education of the population to understand how legislators manipulate to their own advantage and against the will of the voters. >> the caller raises an excellent point* it is a process issue is hard to get voters to care about things other esoteric like campaign finance reform but yet they are critical to understand how we elect our members of congress and state legislatures.

so the challenge for the advocates of redistricting reforms from state to state is to convince the voters the system as currently stands is rigged against them. and to pass a set of reforms over the objections of the state legislatures you don't want to give up that power. >> host: on the independent commissions such as arizona arizona, what is the election pitch and why is that needed? why do supporters say we need this commission verses a legislature? >> guest: several decades ago arizona voters decided they wanted someone other than the state legislatures to determine the districts they would run.

i think a powerful one line of that is that voters should choose their politicians rather than politicians choosing their voters that has been effective for many advocates for reform and it has a pretty robust referendum ballot initiative process relative to other states that has benefited reformers not all states have that process in place. >> host: the first time to address the legitimacy of the organizations? >> guest: it was. it came to a head because look at the commission maps that were put in place in arizona or other states where both parties had some wins and losses and democrats got the maps that

they wanted and the democrats were upset because they held the governorship and they felt the commission was drawing a map that was thwarting the will of the people. >> caller: good morning. i was interested to inquire if there is any impact enabling or does that affect gerrymandering? >> guest: say that again. >> caller: relabeling as far as the state's that our more or less that there is a benefit to having bell level of various clauses of the people that can come into a

neighborhood to live there? if we label them does it come across? i am not sure disaster to impact gerrymandering or redistricting? i am just inquiring that it could have an impact in the future how the lines are drawn on the map? >> i think the efforts of various planning boards across the country with the mix of in crumbs and backgrounds and housing has played out mostly in the urban settings where democrats have a strong majority. one of the problems facing democrats long term is voters are fostered in the urban setting and as long as they are there naturally added disadvantage in the

redistricting process because republicans can simply draw a line around the city court to preserve the district for themselves. >> host: this came out before the decision that federal judges bring virginia one step closer to renew congressional map that is a new judge has issued a ruling friday night that the law makers illegally concentrated african-american into one district bringing the state one step closer to be forced to redraw the election map the eastern district reaffirm the earlier decision the said the process would force the general assembly back to richmond for a special session in the summer. any word dog that? >> i'm glad you raised that because commissions are not the only litigated area. we're turning our attention to west virginia case and

democrats know they are not just suffering from the assault on commissions but also the republicans particularly in the south advocate for maximizing african-americans in each majority district and the more voters there are in one district that you were there are in another so in virginia were the case plays out, there is one african-american majority district that stretches from their river to look all the districts surrounding hour neighboring republic can democrats are safely republicans and the belief in the black voters for more evenly distribut republicans and the belief in the black voters for more evenly distributed said democrats could have a chance at one or two more

districts. republicans claim it was partisan is gerrymandering that we did not draw this man up motivated by race but their own partisan interest basically a bidding -- admitting. [laughter] but the three judge panel said it was racially motivating you need to go back to drive a new map and in virginia with a democratic governor this could place the court in an awkward position to have to draw a new map which is not unprecedented it isn't good job that the courts typically like to do. >> what constitutional mandate does the legislature have is it based dog population? >> yes. it is pretty well established in court

decisions that you have to draw districts that are in equal populace that the congressional level down to the person. sometimes the requirement goes overboard to have a little bit of the way to preserve that integrity but at the state legislative level there tends to be an allowable variance. >> that is based on the 10 years since this? >> cry did all fast to be based on that but there is a texas case that the supreme court agreed to hear brought by plaintiffs that the count that used should be based on eligible citizens not all people counted so that is

another angle. columbia. go ahead independent line. >> caller: good morning. i am glad you read the article from virginia. mr. david wasserman said republicans stated that they were redrawn on population and not raise i am 50 years of age do reserve my parents and family talk about how they were denied access to certain communities therefore there were not able to move out of the city's that the blacks have been concentrated in for the most part they have been because there were not allowed to move into the suburbs for decades so that is why most of the district's harmlessly white with very few blacks that live there but i do think to

not allow the democrats and republicans to draw the districts based upon race put upon who is there. we need to have a better way to do this or we will have the same people all elected to congress that does not represent drawn point of view. subject because it is impossible to separate partisan motgriation from racial consideration in the redistricting process in states with a fairly dispersed minority population that incso thades a law of states across the south. what african-american politicians really have to decide with the african-american and democrats if it is worth preserving the hyper

majority minority districts more districts across the country they see a pattern across southo henholy one district south carolina and mississippi then the rest are safely republican that no other minority candidates have a chance outside of those particular districts. this is an area of some african american democrats and republicans working together to preserve the district's and sit hltaneously benefits republicans who want to preserve the overwhelming share of the south. >> host: in this comment om twitter says arizona voters saw a graph by

legislators it did not look like how we were voting in large numbers. what panel iso henbiased so where can you find any unbiased members? you mentioned the independent member on the board? >> right. if that was the process by which we everyone is independent? yoellcan really establish a truly separate process from the legislature, as it is a total watering system which california is close to doing but in arizona you have political appointees, two from each party to decide and affair fiftal member of the b. sommet should be but after 2010 the health care administrator and democrats

like her because she was someone who eventdecilly tried to maximize the number of competitive districts which the democratso hether timately benefited from. she described herself as a former republican so it think republicaink were open to the idea of appointing her but then to a receptor on the board. >> to carry this the court because the headline is that the arizona panel will be revisited. what is leintee to decide? : to my knowledge i think the arizona map is barely settled but looking ahead the court will decide on redistricting for racial

considerations with the virginia map and north carolina map and the texas case with rgoeard to how uac guy we determine how to count for the purposes of v> host om new mexico. >> caller: good morning. i have been watching a little bit of the actgriities of the nationwide agenda better implemented so well. i think it may have changed their name. american legislative exchange council? >> caller: something like that. alec has been very effectgrie. what are their efforts under

alec or the new name to orchestrate all the various redistricts that our crazy around the nation? what do you know, about that? are they st kl very actgrie? : n alee lis a very conservative group with best practices to draft legislation for that republican-led lgoeislatures it is easy for democrats to demonize alec because they hold conferences that are not necessarily public, they provide lead democrat say cooky cutter lgoeislation they handoff to pass but when democrats had the opportunity to draw maps to their liking certainly they have taken the oas aortunity

to draw very creative districts as well. even if republicans could lo mapsean that majority after the ffage census, some pretty torturous shapes in pennsylvania and michigan and democrats going back througal the '90s were very effective to draw lines like in north carolina and illinois this time around whical was the one big state they had control of that is interestingly shaped as well >> hosbee what is the most unusdecil shape>> hou can thi. i t of? >> guest:. [laughter] maryland's third district sa bianes district stretching down to annapolis the

nickname is the upside down praying mantis and in ffa00 in illinois a 17th district northwest of illinois was referred to as a rabbit on the sular b. sommet. ressaughter] and the upside-down sea urchin district so they're all so much dash types of shapes. your office walrb looking at the map david wasserman from the "cook political report" ld toular ng t the house map tello hes this largely shaded red area? >> a law of people would be fascinated toid now that republicans hold 57% of the steep -- of the seats right now but 86 percent of the country land area that is a high water mark for either

party and to speak out concentrated democrats have become in theo he bian setting but also speovis to the ads wentage they have had in redistricting as republicans have packed them into districts to preserve their vintages. we have seen a pattern where whathower there share of total votes is 4 percent more. in 2012 it was democrats who had 1.4 million more voters than republicaink but>> het republicans won the house by 33 seats in 2014 republicans had 53 percent of the two-party vote but had dav percent of the seats so democrats may be locked out until the next redistricting

democrats made one of three things to happen they need a resettlement program which isn't happening wital is2014t terribly lgh ely or the day popular republican that is enough to give democrats back in power to think a cole steps ahead. >> ce lilemr: gd tod morning. if this was for that party affiliation of the voting of all information for politicians had>> hou thi. i t that would affect districting?

the other comment there was a person yesterday talking about theiro henion dues to fact check just a little bit. >> the caller has an interesting question in nebraska and that is one state where legislators the unicameral legislature for several reasoink it only has one chamber but they don4 r have party affiliations but yet they still draw maps that seem to provean f- preserve republican and congressional level. so that tells us with that motis wetion but that caller om crawford county pennsylvania so what the

republicans have done it used to be the thimet district of peninkve ds wenia and in the last round to put into two pieces with the democratic vote and it is safely republican now. >> host: comments from the conversation so far on twitter. >> it sounds lgh e redistricting should be legal. the founders were smart enough to keep government from becoming a pure democracy from reactiots rry emotions would rule the day.

>> and to state politicians and as mucal as the favors own on that process i don't know if they could put anything into the founding documents. argument for the majority is the founders thought deal to the source of power was with the people to broaden the definition of the legislature? >> good morning. as well as humans draw the lines there w kl always be partisanship they should

take a population of each state and feed that into a computer and let that dgriide up the state's and the district. then see what happens. i wish somebody would do that it seems so simplhad and howen the silly districts run the country. >> i am so grateful for the e voestion because of the interesting topic that now we have the capability that computerized redistricting is possible and political

ooientist said mathematicians have n of the rhythm that demonstrate what ahe lines could ld tok lgh e ithaca computer where draw the map. of course, it wasn't simply to impose a map wital a buncgr@ %f straigemo lines of rours thaãa lead shoes are administered and the political subdivisions have jagged boundaries. but there are lgh ely to be respected of three human is looking at a map is it possible for computers to aovie over the process? but showould also say it will raise another set of

concerns with the acentlity to elect candidates of choichad >> and totally focusing on the congressional districts but you write about thes mmad6 presidential election and a recent article called mapping the electorate they don't guarantee a democratic white house wital the three reasoink for optimism and if he can go through those with us. >> what we sought to do is sts rp thes mmad6 electorate with what it demographic groups make up what component of eacal day electorates' eoplecially those that our likely to be

close the goal is to try to project what percentage of latino vote to>> hou need to win in a state like florida? we're coming up with conclusions the electorate wass m0% if demo faaphic patterink hold predictive of the electorate this share will go up to 29 or 3ph democrats want almostnta/5 of the nonwhite voters and we continue to see the republican coalition shrink as a sheriff the electorate for the democrats. . .candidate needs to win in orr to win the white house.

i think when you look at the latino population across the country, it is growing and it is often said republicans badly need to do so much better with latinos in order to have a chance. most latino voters are concentrated in states that are not particularly competitive at the presidential level, whether it is california, texas, or new york. only in colorado, nevada, and florida do they make up such a significant portion that they can really swing electorate college votes. i ca root for candidates without necessarily having to win huge numbers of latino and asian american voters that they lost in 2012. 4/5: could they give up at and still win in the white house? guest: my hunch is if republicans do win