employer, whether it be a government department or mainstream business, can analyze. they may not like certain things they see. like i said earlier, no one reaches this decision of being able to take it down because sometimes you can't. whether you want the employer to see the pictures of you dancing, or maybe doing something you should not do. maybe it is something benine. that is because you did something four or five years ago

on one night for a moment that captured us. it is a picture someone tagged you in. but taking the data found on the internet your life is revealed in totality. you have to be comfortable with that. if you would like to question your government about this, that

is your democratic right. it is one i suggest you exercise. there are many dimensions to prison as you can see from the picture. there are some programs within the programs. some still classified and some not being revealed and some have been moved on partly as a result of the stone revelations and technology moving at such a pace and this is based on me talking to people in the intelligence community. this reveals the targeted

database system is a form of data mining. someone trying to actively find information about you. given the amount of information out there, a great lot can be found out about you. a great deal. it can be used along other programs that examine facebook chat and private messaging. nobody reads the terms and conditions. this is not private. and the legislature is being used to move into the space. to move into social media. if is not the nsa or others it

is the chinese or other countries. this has to be thought about more in terms of a global issue. you can look at it through the lens of the other programs, but i would suggest this is more than national issue or national security interest. the greetedm of the internet or due to the measure of the life. that is probably the main take home message from this talk. where do these boundaries lie? from policing, control, regulation and internet freedom and your own personal and civil liberties.

to give you some of the justifications for these programs once needs to look to a few days ago and the anniversary of 9/11. everybody remembers where they were. it was incredibly shocking. it was preventable. that is the big take home point. it was preventable. we see it on a daily bases now. there are these bad people in the world.

this is a signal of justice and the degrees of freedom and liberty. but to prevent what is being described as a possible cyber 9/11, an attack, which is part of my project, it is the very high end level threats. it is these others of a lower order that the intelligence agencies are trying to stop and prevent. general alexander, the commander of the u.s. cyber command and director of the nsa pieces these programs together with other intelligence and protected the united states and other terrorist from threats across the globe over 50 times since

9/11. it is over 20 countries around the world and he added i believe we have achieved security in a way that doesn't compromise the security and stability of our citizens. it is critical to connect the dots. it is those desperate thoughts that make the connection between the prison and its programs along with human analysis. this is what a human being will do. this is what artificial intelligence will do and these trends will accelerate. nobody wants to see another 9/11 or worse. but what is the balance?

would you want to see your data including chats, e-mails, connection logs, pictures, and data and when an image is taken of you you can see on facebook across the globe and know where you are, who you are with, what you are doing. from short snaps to produce a very detailed picture of someone's life. but if you do nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. there are cascade effects to think through. i don't think this is solely a national security issue. i think it is something that

needs to be discussed globally if you look at global change, global health, we are not graded in it. we don't have the tools of the recovery. we need to know if the oversight is sufficient. there have been collections that

are valid questions. to give you an example, a member of the australian government, and this is a free standing agreement, noted the united states may brush aside, but it may not be the case for australia, china, malasia and

other countries. it is also judged for having a much greater impact dramatically which brought wikileaks leaks in the lime light. they kind of were from the same package. those who expoused it left the freedom and they should not be secret between the government and citizens and those who want to drop the boundaries for the protection of you, me, and us. this is the break we need to have. the prison intelligence gathering and analysis has shaken the trust between the u.s., the uk governments, and other nations and also in key

elements of the private sector and in civil society. we need to better under sharing of information and to protect that information. we also need to be careful of insider information. if snowden showed anything it is they are alive and well. on foreign intelligence situations, they would attempt to install agencies in various countries in order to obtain access to business information on their systems or treat the bases for malicious purpose. risk for the private sector, for governments versus individuals, will grow faster than we can track. this is partly technology

determi determine. we don't see everything. this technology, this is a snap shot of where we are now. if we don't have an informed debate on where we have to be in five years time you could face a very uncomfortable position. your privacy could be extremely limited. in a way it is compromised. if you are happy with that, if anybody says nothing, that is probably a bigger problem and issue.

there are groups like anonymous that share information for purposes but they tend to be a younger generation that control political and ideology rationals. the complexity of the attacks is seen quoting from one of the intelligence services what was considered to be a cyber attack only a year ago is now incorporated into a down loadable and easy to deploy internet application requiring little or no expertise to use.

they are widely available on the internet. i would not suggest they are looking for them. search engine defines looking into at aspects of critical infrastructure and shifting and electal grids is widely available. it is interesting to look at. it can be used for nefarious purposes as well. increase your awareness. increase your knowledge base. have a great understanding of the issues that snowden released and the prison program have had. understand your own lives and the context. they are not unique to you.

we pay for it through a reduction of civil liberties and privacy more likely. and also there will be a financial cost. there always will. there are digital divides within states. partly generational but not solely. and daft difficult divides between the states. the technology will decrease over time and the take up rates will increase. we are all in it together. it is the greatest human accomplishment potentially. i cannot think of nothing greater. it is precious. it is not solely the internet. but the collaborations it produces, the capacity to learn,

to understand, to see things, to c comprehend. the extent of this being a bottom up process and the extent in which nation states should be able to regulate their police is the place you should be thinking about and i should be thinking about. this is a deeper, stronger and more powerful tool. i hope i will leave you with some questions. those would be if you have done nothing wrong and nothing to fear should you be concerned about what i talked about today?

should you be concerned about the prison program and snowden revelations? what it bother you if is a part of your life was created from grave to grave, not only for you to see, but for everyone to see, and for your government to see. that stretches deep and wide. that includes medical data and various other metrics you can use. would you want your one-to-one communication, the stuff you think is private, only for you and the intended recipients to be one for many? because that is essentially what crow are doing by giving your data to the cloud, by giving your consent to these services to use your data.

it is only one -- it is turning one-to-one communication into one-to-many. they say they need this to help prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. in order to find the needle in the hay stack they need access to the whole hay stack and you and i are part of the hay stack. this is an important question. these are is your generation. it is your power to agree with it or change it. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you very much for an interesting lecture. i appreciate the information you gave us. my question would be since the government is trying to or wants to enforce stronger regulation policies for their own gain or companies, for them to get access to more information, in this case, who would hold the government accountable for pulling the information they have access to?

>> the first instance is we the people. it has been through a process, in a liberal democracy, through democratic channels. you elect officials. i don't think the legislature is catching up with the technology running at such a pace and the capabilities and the amount of data. the internet and all sorts of

different services, i barely touched the surface. you would be amazed. i don't think that other nati national and international law has really thought about it. not in the in-depth way. that is a very good question, actually. thank you. >> how are a democratic country but yet our government knows everything we do? how are we actually free in a sense 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 how they need to be democratic when our own government knows everything thing that every citizen can do? >> very good. very provocative question. this is a question i would like to see put to your senators, representatives, and so on because that is how you ought to attend. this is what i was mentioning earlier. everything you say and do is monitored and you are manipulated and you lose civil liberties. by not -- the trouble is it isn't only your own government who is taking to doing this. if someone wants to hack into your computer and take control

of it or to switch on your webcam and see what you are doing they can mot. technology is so ready and available. whether the government should be doing this on behalf of its citizens and the notion of protection of the citizens is a real question because a lot of people, judging by your question, you yourself included, think it has gone too far. but it is a debate you should be putting to your senators, representatives, and questions worth asking. >> thank you for coming to speak with us. building off of his question, is it the duty of the citizens of the united states, or the government of the united states, to be responsible for our own

cybersecurity? whose shoulders should that fall? >> it is not an entity and thinking of it in terms of protecting national cyber space is a misnomer and non-sense. paypal, ashley madison, etc. we are not capable of policing

in that sense. it is not like defending national borders. it is very much where people need to be talking about. it is a mix of defense and offense and cooperations trying to defend that space. it is what needs to change. this is where you get into establishing rules of the game between nation states that includes russia, includes china, to stop espinoage against one another. you don't go after critical infrastructure, health care systems, flights on the ground or in air. we have certain respects and tat needs to be established for cyber space. it was founded in a geographical

consensus. >> i think this is very sad for the world and sad for where we come from because it makes our country to try for twest and united states in particular. we feel like since snowden is running to russia and china we will like some of the people we should be aligning with because it is terrible. so my question is since we have seen all of this and had all of the horrible, the danger that our public life or private life being out there pauses, is there any good news? have you had any positive response on the people you talk to? is there any hope? >> i absolutely believe it. i would hope so. very much. the impression it is all doom

and gloom don't look back. far from it. the internet is free. it is beyond the printing press. it is precious. it is a great tool. it is one of the great things we have. i don't have my cellphone in my pocket but if i could i would connect with anyone globally. i didn't have it growing up. my grandparents and parents didn't have it. that is hope for itself. it is fantastic. from a practical point of view we just need to think about

where our private boundaries are. how far governments should be able to regulate and police and whether it is the chinese or the russians or the united states. it partly depends on the political system. these are not easy things to solve. these are never easy. there were debates to be solved. either as individuals taking in part of the discussions or as part of the members of civil society. many, many good deals have been issued with regulation and deregulation and have that conversation. be part of the conversation and the process. don't think that you have been sidelined. you know, i take things out like this but i hope to god i am getting the impression they are looking over your shoulder. it is not so much -- in a way it is too big to be able to really

control people and the way it seems to be indicated. i am a big believer in the hope and the enabler and the connection of all of the technologies here and those to come. we will have more responsibility and the level of thoughtfulness that needs to be refined and questioned a little bit. >> thank you for taking my question. and thank you for coming out to talk to us. before i feel like i can ask my question i want to restate something you said right at the end of the three questions you asked. you asked if i did anything wrong, if i care about security and checking into my life and two others were mentioned. but before i want to get into those what i feel is asking those questions define how you define liberty and security. from what i learned and

hopefully understand throughout this imposium is it feels like once security goes up liberty goes down and vice versa. is there a world we can live in where they are proportional? where one goes up and the other goes up? in order to achieve that would we have to look at the two together? >> that is a good question. i will bring in an anti dote. when i was growing up, we live in the shadow of the cold war of nuclear destruction and there were conspiracy theories about the government all the way up until i was 18. and the government seemed to be distant.

i would never interact with my life. the people who were making these decisions when i was growing up seemed less distant. they were not cold and calculated and did have my best interest at heart it seemed. they were not bad people. that goes for people like snowden and the intelligence and security communities and governments and the international lawyers and police.

we still need to have an informed public debate about the extend of surveillance activities, about how far we are prepared to go, and in addition to how far private companies should be regulated and stopping intrusiveness, things you are not aware of. if you make an informed choice maybe then you are protecting your liberty and freedom. if your choice is uninformed in the sense of i salute you who actually breeds 30 pages of admission. i think the key elements of that need to be better understood. we need to know what we are signing up for. it is not just where we are now.

it is where the technology is going to head in five or ten years. by the time you have children, by the time your children have children themselves. i believe in it as a great enabler. i believe in the future. i believe good things will result on the whole. that is another message i would like to take away.

here on cspan-2 the "the communicators" is next with gary sh shop. and then later a discussion on the >> host: gary shapiro is the president and ceo of the consumer technology association. he is our guest to talk about the future of u.s. technology also joining us is tony rom