that's live at 10:30 eastern on c-span. and former president bill clinton is in new hampshire today campaigning for his wife hillary. one of his stops includes an event in the town of exeter. we'll have it live at 5:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this month marks the second session of the 114th congress. the house is back for legislative work on tuesday. on the week's agenda is a budget reconciliation bill approved by the senate that would defund planned parenthood and repeal parts of the health care law. the senate returns monday, january 11th. their first order of business will be consideration of a u.s. circuit court nomination for pennsylvania. that same week we also expect a procedural vote on a bill from kentucky senator rand paul that would require an audit of the federal reserve. as always, you can follow the house live on c-span, the senate live on c-span2.

>> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year our student cam documentary contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all the details about our student cam contest at c-span.org. >> next, a look at the balance of government surveillance and civil liberties with kristan stoddart from the university of wales. he discusses the nsa and how edward snowden's revelations have heightened the debate over privacy. from westminster college in missouri, this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> it's working. all right. i think we'll go ahead and get started. everyone having a great first day of the symposium? yeah? fantastic, yeah.

we've got some wonderful speakers beginning this morning with dr. donahoe, and we're going to continue this afternoon. it is my pleasure to welcome dr. kristan stoddart. he comes to us from the university of wales where he is a teacher and researcher in the department of international politics. in 2012 he was appointed lecturer in cybersecurity, and in 2014 he was made senior lecturer. he's also deputy director of the center for intelligence and international security studies. he's a member of the project on nuclear issues run by center for strategic and international studies out of washington, d.c., a fellow of the higher education academy and a fellow of the royal historical society. he's spoken at a wide number of conferences nationally and internationally, and for various forms of media including the bbc. dr. stoddard is the author or co-author of four books -- four, really? overachiever, all right. [laughter] his current and future research deals with the protection of

critical national infrastructure against cyber attack. today's talk addresses and expands on many of the points made in this morning's plenary session, the outstanding talk that we all enjoyed, i think, about the civil liberties and historical context of the government data collection. specifically, dr. stoddart will talk about edward snowden and what his revelations about the surveillance mean for you in the 21st century. i will also add we grew up about 200 yards away from each other in wales, so he has been a good friend of mine for 40 years. it is my distinct personal pleasure and professional honor to introduce dr. kristan stoddart. [applause] >> unfortunately, he's shown our age. >> [inaudible] >> it is hard to hide. harder for some than others. [laughter] i would like to thank professor

bolton for that wonderful introduction. i'd also like to to thank westminster college more -- and the hosting of this event which i think has been extraordinarily good. if you'll bear with me for just a second, my pc is off. it's surprising that -- well, a little bit surprising to me that edward snowden has been mentioned so frequently in the course of these last few days. it is, of course, a matter of record now that he was the main whistleblower of what are known as the revelations which have been a source of much speculation, controversy and general thoughtfulness by both the united states and in some of the partner nations that engaged in the program. this includes, of course, the united kingdom, but a number of

others -- [inaudible] so let's look at the gentleman himself. i will say before i start, obviously, we've got some details up on the screen, that i find when i looked into his background as much as you possibly can some of the ways he found into the intelligence service -- community, i should say, and the ways he was recruited and the things that he did and the level he achieved to be somewhat mysterious. i would ask you to look up, when you get a chance, an opportunity, how he managed to get into this position of authority and was able to exfiltrate this data. i think that in itself is reveal aringing of a number of systemic -- revealing of a number of systemic issues in this community post-9/11 when intelligence sharing became very, very important to the intelligence community.

as you can tell, he had a family background of public service. his grandfather was in the pentagon on 9/11. when he was interviewed by the guardian, he was at pains to point this out, that he didn't vary very much, didn't see himself as a traitor. quite the opposite. he felt he had a public duty to disclose these activities to the wider world for both the american public and the wider world to be able to scrutinize some of the decision making that went on. he wasn't a high achiever. which may surprise some. he also didn't have a college degree, which might surprise some more people. he also tried to gain entrance into u.s. special forces. he went through basic training, suffered two broken legs which ruled him out of military service. but the important thing from him

point of view was he tried. he wanted to serve his country. now, it would be interesting for me to know from you at some point what your views of him are. it very much is a matter of opinion, i think. whether you see him as a whistleblower, a traitor or a patriot of some color. he was only 29 when all this happened. he's a very articulate speaker, he's obviously a very, very bright guy. but this is only ten years older than most of you, ten or eleven years. it's nothing. it's not a large period of time. some of you will go into the security services. the world you may go into may well have been changed by the snowden revelations. and by the sort of resulting

debates that have accrued through what's happened. he was, apparently, allegedly, only a systems administrator. but the systems administrator role in computer security gives you almost unprecedented access because it is where computer scientists deal with the very highest levels of classification, beyond that even those with top security clearance might necessarily see. it's almost subverting the system. this is a computer system, not necessarily the intelligence collection and dissemination system. but what i found interesting was how he managed to expill trait the data. -- exfiltrate the data. you cannot walk in and out carrying a data stick.

you cannot gain external internet access. they are what is called air gapped. they are sealed off from the internet. this is primarily to prevent exactly what happened from happening. the exfiltration of data from secure sites. one thing is also interesting, how much data was exfiltrated. there were some estimates it's up to or over 1.7 million documents. that is not a small number. given the fact they were likely in the form of text-only documents, very limited pictures, jpegs, etc., probably almost no video, you could do that on sd sticks, and certainly this is how he passed it to and from the journalists he was speaking to when he flew to hong kong from hawaii. and this was a big story for both guardian and the washington post and, ultimately, "der spiegel" and a various variety of other newspapers, all of whom

allegedly now hold this data. he himself, when he ended up in russia and the united states seized his passport, i think before he boarded the flight, didn't have in possession those documents. that's what he claims. of course, the counterclaim is the fsb and the russian government would be very interested in what he had in his possession or what he had up here. similarly, there were the chinese. they, too -- to the untrained eye, maybe -- [inaudible] america's two biggest adversaries. not at war, big trading partners but, nevertheless, adversaries of a different kind.

to illustrate some of the context, part of what the national security agency does is analyze all source intelligence on foreign threats. it's signals intelligence agency. what has been argued is they didn't just target foreign, but also domestic traffic as well. some of which was routed to and from the united states. the argument being it intrudes into your private life. it's a massive -- [inaudible] it scoops up everything in its path. so everything you say and do on the internet carries a digital foot print. your history and e-mails, headers, content, potentially telephone records.

depending on your usage and utilization of computer technology, you either have a fairly minor digital footprint, or you have a giant digital footprint. and this produces data, huge amounts of data. known as metadata. ah. [inaudible] thank you. what is also interesting about edward snowden is he didn't work directly for the national security agency. as far as one can tell, he was a subcontractor. worked initially for dell who are responsible for installing computer systems and for maintaining and running them in a classified environment.

apparently, a lot of these are legacy systems, dating from upwards of 25 years old. they can't be modernized very well. it's a very important job to keep these systems running. in addition, he then worked for booz allen hamilton which is when he decided to flee to hawaii. ..

as a result of the revelations because it was revealed that it was told of including e-mail traffic and e-mail exchanges. and in addition, our connectivity and communications are global. they may be local in terms of package information to someone who sits next to you in the other room, but that can be transmitted around the world. they take the shortest possible route from one destination to another. so when you think local, think at the same time global.

the data that is harvested and analyzed by various other agencies across this globe can produce highly accurate pictures of individuals as well as social, economic, medical and political. this is called analytics. it is one of the most remarkable things that you will ever see. if you want to look on youtube or google and do your own version of analytics you can. the amount you find on your family, associations, backgrounds, patterns is phenomenal and a trend that will

grow particularly in small technologies really come on to the systems. say they control the power in your house and tell him individual who may or may not be monitoring monitoring the wind are you coming home, when you were on vacation, when you leave for work, what's in the fridge, whether you are married, not married etc.. it can be a huge amount of detailed information about each and every one. if you are happy with that, wonderful. how many when you sign up to social media services. okay. two or three of you.

i saw your hands. that's fine. >> i don't have time to read 30 pages of terms and conditions three i was saying to someone earlier. i kid you not. it is into the cloud you don't own the ownership of it, you lose ownership. passes to google and facebook and yahoo! and skype and so on. it's not private. think about every time you step onto a computer. it's public information. it may be producing a mindset

and over the generation it doesn't affect your concerns. i don't know that i would be interested in finding out. as someone who worked previously as the nuclear weapons historian i always kind of assumed being tracked and traced in part because the people we were talking to you but if it is one of my students communicating to me about something i am teaching and it lights up these keywords which goes into the search engine's as good analyzed by algorithms and sent into databases that goes into the draw of an analyst, then maybe i

would be concerned come even more if i get a knock on the door over e-mail that says what you like to have a chat with us about what you have been doing a think think that is unlikely that what it does say is in in the non- liberal democracy the capacity is there. i would worry less about the united states and less about my own country but i might worry more of the state because one of the things it does is allow able to talk more openly without fear of persecution or fear that someone will knock on the door of a gun behind it to take them away. it does happen and it has happened for good reasons. there were good reasons for non- intrusiveness to think carefully

about the principles underpinning all of the data collection programs. part of the releases are the disclosures was the presidential directive 2012, which i would invite you to look at. it's laid out in other things defensive cyber affect operations. the military dismissal of acronyms is an alphabet soup. it is in a legalistic and

diplomatic language and it's been said that the existing legislation has been extended to cover things maybe it wasn't intended initially to cover. i've heard from the legal and political standpoint and that isn't the debate we should be having and it's one we have been having since these releases. what you should notice from this is that it required the cooperation of the companies who own and operate cyberspace. these are the ones you and i use on a day-to-day basis, some of which were cooperative and some of which had reservations about the cooperation because of what

it entailed. the debate has been happening backwards and forward whether the service providers and what should actually be part of the incident. another reason there is no overarching global police force to look at these issues. it's part of the police but also about whether or not you believe in something and that freedom whether or not you want them to be regulated and largely uncontrolled by the nationstates into the bottom-up process driven by you, the individual users and whether there should be an involvement and if so what is the level of state involvement into the role of the private companies.

involving in the things that we deem to be illegal it also encourages terrorism and is a method of recruitment and also a matter of communication, which is a way of targeting individuals involved in the terrorist activities or who run counter to ideas of national security and it's partly in the dilemma of wanting to protect yourself from the bad guys, the bad people and are you prepared to give up your privacy.

at what point do u.s. individuals say stop, enough? we need to discuss this and it needs to be thought about. if it is a piece of legislation have seen it is time limited because technology changes our histories. we need to be careful about where this is all going. where the technology will head in the next five years. biometrics will come along with smart technologies in artificial intelligence would increase. it's already been used its booth in both in the public sector and private sector.

they would combine to do something different and changed again with the pervasiveness it is in each and every one of us will be remarkable. either that or we opt out. turn off the internet, turn off the lights. there is so much to consider if you are an analyst looking at it from the protected side of the fence. this diagram is from david coproduced by the ministry of defense. it did so in partnership in the communications force. it is an alternative way of

thinking. it is cleared and tiered and expanding into the contracts human interactions as well. but if you're going after someone at some point in time enough to find them in some cases you can either have to kill them or place them on trial and for some jurisdictions that will be impossible.

there is so much we can talk about in terms of how many of you have cell phones, i assume most if not all of us. it would be surprising if we didn't. the cell phones that we produce can have data that helps our locations which makes us very vulnerable in some senses. but that is a method that uses very different methods of tracking, trailing in the use of social media. they were enabled by the laptop and book all of this was used to build up certain pictures we

also know that the nsa and other agencies through partnerships agreements have secretly attached the fiber-optic cables to bring this world. these are the architectural backbone of the internet and the key enabler of the satellite technology of the global technology and the conductivity that we take for granted. this provides a high degree of access communications and also is a method of subverting potentially over civil liberties and freedoms. edward snowden told the journalist at the guardian that he didn't want to live in a world where everything i say, everything i do, everyone i talk to come every expression is

recorded by using metadata, using the vast resources that generated the internet and this runs into the data everyday. everything you do, say, speak can be recorded and played back. it can be analyzed and produced such a picture of your life is incredible from cradle to grave. there are examples of people are now understandably putting pictures of their child to the two children on facebook, sign in and of itself and then you find a baby to those independents the first birthday birthday, too, three, four, five, six. then they do it themselves. did it themselves. i think the age of facebook is designed for something like 60 but certain people i know have children who signed up much younger. it seems the benign thing to do.

but what happens is that produces such a detailed picture of someone's life and it's something a future employer, whether it be government department, mainstream business can look at and analyze and interpret and decide whether you take the job or the employee or whether they don't. they may not like certain things that they see. like i said earlier, nobody reaches the terms and conditions. the danger is not in the request to take it down or have it taken down or whether or not you will be able to. if not for the love whether you want an employer to see a picture of you dancing. maybe doing something you shouldn't do. maybe something totally incongruous but they decided on the basis of that so i just

don't like the look of that that's because you did something for or five years ago from one night, for a moment that it's captured. it's someone else taking our picture and they put you in it. it's not you per se, it's not representative of you. but taking with the analytics and the depth of the data that is found on facebook, twitter and so on and so forth. you are happy about that and thought about that, fine and good. it's the success of the companies to be the excellent partners that go through the process and the governments including your own, including my

own. if you haven't thought about it, even better. there are many dimensions. some of them are classified and not being revealed and some of which have been moved on and it's based on me talking to people in the intelligence community. and it gives some insight into

the technologies are capable what the technologies are capable of giving into the acts reveal in the score. that is in the targeted database system and is a form of data mining. somebody tried finding information about you actively and given the amount of information that is put out there and i myself put out a great deal of information can be found about you. another can be used. this is perhaps private. like i said, nobody reads the terms and conditions. and the legislation is being used to move into the space.

it's other countries and to my mind this has to be thought about more in terms of the issue i would suggest this is more about the national issue, more than a national security issue to discuss in the context of the internet governance debate. it's all part of the package to accept a measure of policing and if so, where do the boundaries lie. that's probably the main take-home message from this talk. where do these boundaries lie in the policing control regulation and internet freedom.

to give you some of the justifications for these kinds of programs, one you need to look at the 14th anniversary of 9/11 it's a little like the kennedy assassination. everybody remembers where they were. it's something nobody wants repeated and it was preventable. that was a big deal from the report as it was preventable we could do something to stop this. and we know dred bombings took place place and we see it on a dalia basis now there are these bad people in the world but

don't necessarily respect the rules. but we also expect our values and value systems and this is a scale of the justice justice and the degree of freedom and liberty. but to prevent what is being described by leon panetta as a possible cyber 9/11 which is part of what i deal with in my project it's a very high-end level threat and its delaware order the intelligence agencies are trying to stop and prevent. the general chief alexander. these programs together with

other intelligence. it's over the globe 50 times over since 9/11. but over in the 20 countries around the world they added i believe we have achieved the security in the relative safety in a way that doesn't compromise the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens and they are critical to the intelligence community's efforts to connect the dots. it's those connections between them that present the programs along with human analysis and the trend will accelerate. nobody wants to see another 9/11

but, where is the balance? what you want to see your data including the audiovisual chats, pictures, data and images taken of you wherever it might be coming you can see on facebook across the globe we know where you are are and who you are with and what you are doing. it's very short steps to produce a very detailed life from that but if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. there are cascade effects we

need to think through as well and mitigate. like i said i don't think it is just a national security issue but if you look at examples of climate change and proliferation and global health, we don't seem to have the tools and this is something we need to move forward with a belief. there've been works not only in the united states but across the affected countries between new zealand, australia, canada, germany particularly has been shocked by the revelations into the depth of the data mining that went on and largely perhaps

still goes on. whether or not the national system of the judiciary provisions through the act is enough oversight for you as a people and for the as a community and that the global commons is a valid question. for some it has gone too far. to give you an example, a member of the government can and this and this is one of the nations in the long-standing agreement noted that the u.s. may be able

to brush aside the diplomatic fallout, but it may not be the case for australia, china and other countries who may respond to some ways but they wouldn't in washington. it's also judged to have a much greater impact. they are all parts of the same package. those that expose it in the freedom and they shouldn't be secrets between the government and citizens. this is the debate that we need to have. >> the revelation is regarding the intelligence gathering and

analysis and the trust between the u.s. and uk governments in other nations and also in key elements of the private sector and in the. we need to better understand and share information and to protect that information. also if snowden showed anything as if they were right and while. for the agencies in various companies in order to obtain access to the business on the systems or the data from malicious purpose. risks for the private sector for government and for us as individuals will grow in our growing the capability.

this is part technological to terminal is on. we can see the extent, but we don't see everything. and we don't know necessarily where all this is leading. as i said, technology, this is a snapshot of where we are now. if we don't have an informed debate where we want to be five years time coming you can find yourself in an uncomfortable position. >> your privacy can be extremely limited. in a way it is already compromised. but if you are happy with that, i'm happy with that and if nobody says anything or nobody knows that it's probably a bigger problem and a bigger issue. >> threats not only emanate from individuals some of which were

organized into some of which were based in the jurisdictions they also can be and are. from industrial competitors, the foreign services or simply don't like to find out what they can do. we do to would draw political and ideological rationales that are with each and every one of us. the attacks see an honest growth it was considered as the cyber attack a year ago now incorporated into a downloadable

easy to deploy intranet application requiring little or no expertise to use. in the systems they look at the infrastructure to look at shipping and look at the airline passing overhead that is widely available. it's looking at the case that's out there and having a great understanding in the snowden program have had. understand the context.

they are not unique. germany, spain, russia. the amount of information that you gain from it is incredible and insightful and penetrating. it's almost orwellian. the data analytics into social engineering can produce such a map from cradle-to-grave but is this the conductivity the world

demands? it so you give it elements of personal freedom and pay for it one way or the other and we pay for it through the reduction of civil liberties and privacy more likely and also there will be a financial cost of the divide within the states and the divide between the states. but to but the ticket and availability and low income of technology will decrease over time and the take-up of which would decrease we are all in it together. it's like a brain it is an incredible series of connections it's the greatest human accomplishment potential. i can think of nothing greater. it's precious.

it's the capacity to learn and understand and see things and comprehend and the extent to which this is a bottom-up driven process and the extent to which the nationstates should be able to regulate and you should be thinking about and i should be thinking about into private industry should be thinking about. one aspect of this is deeper and stronger and more powerful. i will leave you with some questions.

if you've done nothing wrong should you be concerned about what i've talked about today in the revelations in the pattern from cradle-to-grave. that stretches deep into wide. would you want your one-to-one communications, stuff you think is private only for me and the intended recipient because that's what you're doing by giving your data to the cloud

where the service is to use the data. they say they need all the data to help prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. these are important questions. this is your generation at a time to agree with it or change it. thank you very much. [applause]

one more opportunity certainly i debate with anyone has questions that would be the time to ask them what anyone like to stand up and ask something? first of like first of all thank you for a very interesting lecture. my question would be if the government wants to enforce stronger regulatory policies for their own gain or companies who would hold the government accountable for the information they have access to and to

protect the national security? >> you can stay there or sit down it's up to you. it is and has always been a process of the democracy through the democratic channels. you elect officials, we elect officials. they are held to account and we call people in. i would question the existing legislation with a sound to take a look into the existing legislation capable or that has caught up with the existing technology in the psychological trends or whether we need to revisit that legislation and have a more informed debate or just don't think it is possible

in such a case and all the different services. it's incredible. and i don't think by the national supernatural law, international law has thought about it. spin it how are we a democratic country that the country knows everything we do how are we free if the nsa is watching us or

they can monitor anything we do in general how can we classify ourselves as democratic and go around preaching to other countries when our own government does everything a citizen can do? spec very provocative question. it's a question i would like to see you put your senators and representatives because that is how you hold them into account. this is what i was mentioning earlier it's almost a nightmare where everything you say and do is monitor and manipulate it in turn and you lose your civil liberties and freedoms.

the trouble is it's not only your own government doing this if someone were to hack into your computer or switch on your webcam and see what you are doing, the technology is so readily available at if the government is happening to do this. whether it is on behalf of the citizens into the notion of the social contract of protection of the citizens. do your self included think that it's gone too far but it's a debate you should be putting to the representatives because it won't stop. >> thank you for coming to speak with us. building onto this question is

if the citizens of that the citizens of the united states or the government of the united states to be responsible for our own cybersecurity whose shoulder should go? >> misconceived with a fantastic question. ms. conceived of the post you are wrong because the internet is borderless and doesn't respect borders. it can't reflect nationstates. it's not a cheap graphical entity. to think of it in terms of protecting national cyberspace is a misnomer. it's a nonsense with trying to protect companies within national borders. including sony from north korea likely, paypal, amazon, the list goes on and on.

very much much it is a mix of defense and offense of operations. it's between the nationstates that includes russia and china to stop the espionage against one another or help. you don't go off the health care systems or take to the grounds. it needs to be established for cyberspace in the form sentences

it isn't a geographical conception. is that okay? i think this is very sad for the world and for where we come from because it makes our own countries distrust the united states in particular because we feel like snowden is running to russia and china and we got those are the people we should be outlining with. okay the danger that our private life being out there poses is there any good news coming up to have any positive response from the people you talk to is there any hope?

thanks. >> very much. the impression isn't all certainly do me the clue, far from it. the internet is beyond -- we are the alphabet, then we have the printing press into the internet. it's precious, it is a great tool it's one of the things we have. it's gone so quickly and rapidly if i did i would communicate with it. i never have that growing up. my parents and grandparents never had growing up. it's fantastic.

from a practical point of view we need to think about where our private boundaries are and how far the government should be able to regulate and police, whether it's the chinese or the russians or the united states is partly depends on the political system. these aren't easy things to sulfated never have been. there were debates that go on in the government for them to be part of the conversation. either individuals taking part in the discussions which we are all entitled to own or as a part of the civil society. don't you think that they have been sidelined and i really hope to god i'm getting the impression that it's looking over the shoulder.

it's almost too big to be able to control people in the way that it's been indicating in the conductivity and technology to come but we also have more responsibility that needs to be defined and to be questioned a little >> thank you for taking my question. before i feel like i can ask my question i just want to restate something you said in the end you asked if i've never done anything wrong do i care about security and checking into my life and you mentioned two others but before i get into

those, they define how you define liberty and security and from what i learned and understand throughout the symposium right now it feels like there is a very inverse proportion between liberty and security into seems like once a security goes up it seems like liberty goes down. is there a world we can live in where they are direct where one goes up and the other goes up as well and in order to be able to achieve that, what we have to look at the definition of the two acts thank you >> and nx to define a. when i was growing up we lived in the shadow of the cold war. i was ten, 11, 12, all the way until i was 18 and the

government seemed very distant but people never understood were talked to. i would never. and i didn't know who was making those decisions that were affecting my life. my liberty and freedom. so it is one of the things i looked at the historical record and i started talking to people when i was picking the decisions coming up and it seemed that they were not cold or calculating and they did have my best interest at heart. i might not always agree with them and i quite often didn't, but they were not that people.

and at the national lawyers into the police and all of them on a regular basis but they are not bad people. but at the same time, they end of and the elected officials who make policies still needs to be held to account. we still need to have an informed public debate about the extent of surveillance activities, about how far we are prepared to go and in addition how far the private companies should be regulated. the intrusiveness, pervasiveness, things that you're not conscious of. if you make an informed choice, maybe then you are protecting your liberty and freedom. if the choices are not important in the sense that seems to be most extent and i think the key

elements are to be better understood. we need to know what they are signing up for. it's not just where we are now familiar in snapshot moment. it's where the technology is going to head ten to 15 years by the time you have children and by the time your children have children themselves. we need to try to look a little bit further into law and the regulations and the political understanding to grow with it. and that's going to be a long road and difficult road. no more difficult than where we were at the end of the cold war. but i believe and hope and i believe that there is a great enabler and i believe in a future and i believe that things will result if that is the message i would like to take. >> you can continue the

conversation. thank you again for your time today and all of you for attending. [applause] >> former president bill clinton's first campaign trip for his wife hillary clinton takes him to new hampshire today. a series of grassroots events. he will be in new hampshire at 5:15 eastern to talk about family and economic issues. live coverage starting at 5:15 this evening followed by phone calls and comments. and according to reports, president obama is expected to issue an executive order on guns. the white house press secretary will likely have more on this at the briefing today that starts at 12:30 eastern. we will have more coverage. house speaker paul ryan released a statement this morning that