it would have had -- scotland would have had a difficult time getting backre in. in >> in your view. >> not just my view, use of people like this pass prime minister, the head of commission and also, it would have to join the single currency, the shade of england because it would not have the special status that we as the united kingdom have within the eu. the 2nd part of the question is what about the future. this is the united kingdom's decision. except the result, whatever it is. of course -- >> well,well, you will make your argument in your owned way. >> i would argue to anyone in the united kingdom, in my

view, keeping the united kingdom together, but. >> i think the message to the people of scotland is, we just assume, taking this back. european watching sales.on: much more. >> ii think it is a united kingdom decision, but you will make your argument. anyone who cares is much as i do. >> message, critique.-- >> the risk. surely you must have a message.

>> the messages we are safer, stronger, and better off. we are one united kingdom. >> you and i comeauhi referendums.nts. learn anything particular do you think exaggerated stories, and eu referendum, a part of the referendum and what impact you think this is highlighted? >> i do not accept that there are exaggerated stories. honestly, i found it overwhelming. >> again, that is what was said to me. i asked him to confirm it is i was ready.

>> you said with all these and very low distinctive spillover.we have worked tog >> the scottish referendum, overwhelmingly positive about what we achieved together as the united kingdom, touched upon ourr weight in the world because we work together. a bright and exciting future stronger, safer, better off, better able to punch in our weight on the world stage. a member of civilization. that is my argument.equences ifw and are we right to warn people if we were to have economic consequences, wg oh tariff responsibilities? i think that we are.

the hundred and 24 people, say, you did not set out all the concerns and worries. and that is my message.overeign it is right to have this myth -- this referendum. and it is nothing more sovereign than saying the people will decide.oice is to sn no other agenda, as i said before, not standing for office again to say are profoundly believe for better choices to stay. >> the european union. and then with the party. you wish you had never had this whole referendum business at all. i can't hold the scottish

people in the united kingdom without the permission. i said come on, let's go unclear a decisive referendum.uld not be frighte it has changed a lot. it is time to make that choice. it should be a vigorous debate. it is exactly what i will do.ould we have done causing the tax of

$159 million a year should we have done better and removing more since they are member of the year? easier to do so. >> yes, we should have done to speed the national security council meeting, to try and speed up the exit from the uk. it is simply difficult even when you have signed. out to be easier on europe.

i would also add,. >> when the best possibility >> is that role include us prime minister? >> it is quite important. the referendum for business future alone. not about umpteen politicians. prior to the decision.t it in in or out. i will do everything i can.

>> is there a recommendation? and we achieved the majoritya command that is the mandate that i have. achieved that was before the referendum on the basis of the majorit i would argue that we have achieved the overwhelmingy amount, holding a referendum, so i am correct about having a mandate, delivering that and abiding by the result. >> we have not had much. along with your commitment you have managed seeing the numbers to make from eastern

europe. reach that? if your votes were to change , still paying the thousand? >> first of all, more. a so that i was facing people. if you do the work you don't get access to the welfare system for four years. and access, and the benefit. so those are all changed. but it is also worth looking at the international agreement that we did achieve because there is something there aboutlv stopping criminals, stopping people who are not able to support themselves.

all those need to be taken into account. going back to immigration, it is worth remembering, at that stage immigration, net migration between britain and the rest of the eu was relatively low. not the bouncing. at that stage coming in itdo was almost exclusively fromre outside the eu or i believe that we should do a lot to reduce it. we have done some, but we need to do more. i don't believe that these are unachievable ambitions. the combination of what we are doing in europe and, frankly, the economy here in the uk with tougher measures outside europe. i think this is a realistic ambition.

>> but when? >> i would set a date, but make progress toward it. of the >> of course, turkey. remrendum. [inaudible]ot >> i don't think it is remotely in the cards to mother that it will happen over decades. i think if you look at the fact, the fact is that defies reason. they said they would have a referendum.f if your vote in this referendum is by consideration of turkish membership of the eu, don't think about it. it is not remotely in the cards. i said it in the house of commons. you

actually set it in the house of commons and one of my question and answer sessions. i use exactly those words, not remotely in the cards. it is just a fact. >> when you put innovation at the heart of your economic strategy you put it in real terms. we may havewe may have to cut other budgets and make fiscal decisions. the part of that, the physical response that is seen, used to support. not taking into account the value of collaboration for science and research, especially done by clinical trial. it is reasonable for such innovative investors to have an understanding what the government is planning. now, your answer was that it was possible. your response would be put forward to that select

committee to support the arrangements. can you explain whether you agree with that? >> the point those trying to make, i think that's, some people have paid off -- made it a much bigger deal for britain outside the rulemaking powers on europe. and that, to me, is not possible. we can have our special status and maybe there is more to be built over future years, or relief. that is the real choice. read this report in detail, but i must say, the idea of coming out of the eu, pausing on the negotiations with your biggest trading partner, going off and withng to make another deal while suddenly terroristsy kick in the gate, i think

that is a really, really bad idea. [inaudible] >> let me go to that. >> there are number of countries that do pay in. free and what they found is that when they have a referendum through movement, puffed, puffed out from verizon 2020 the government tapped institutes urgently at a program. long after. fantastically successful. dictating. 93 percent of science researchers agreed that eu

membership is beneficial. i think it is money that as well spent and will posit. if we were to come out and m do so we are not in those. we cut the budget, but increase the percentage. an >> do you think it is necessary for science and

innovation sector. the free movement of terrorists aren't those who don't want to work and support. it also involves us in this funding and the sort which is fruitful. norway if we were out of it contributing, how much is spent. i think it's a bound. trying to change.

and then the other part of your question, the funding side. the easement, the effect on our innovation sector in particular. the technology committee, associate countries do not claim vip. even if we paid into u collaboration even if we paid in it would be the member states and we would not be able to exploit that research. has there been any impact? >> i was not entirely aware of that. a canadaimplications of or norway style model. i will look into that. loaded.ments are very isthe message to researchers

it would be better for them to stay campaigning for that, but in terms of the brexit plan, we --'t know what they are prime minister cameron: a lot of these questions are for people who want to leave. i'm setting up the case for why we should stay. science and research is a very good thing if we vote to leave my want to make sure we continue to support science. we've been doing so in a situation where, if our economy took a hit like the forecast suggests, we could be 36 billion pounds down. voted towitzerland restrict freedom of movement, they were instantly suspended from access to the horizon 2020. if i could gently propose, it

might be a good idea to have a contingency plan in place in case such events haven't -- happen. prime minister cameron: i don't think this with model is a good one to follow. for exactly the reasons you give. -- this was model. model is a good one to follow. that would mean not being involved in the horizon science program. the thing for researchers and scientists and universities to impose on. >> i took a look at the and took part of this a look at a speech he made 18 whats ago in which you say

we don't need is some arcane mechanism in the you that the eu that would be triggered by the european commission and not by us. this has been struck. it is a rather arcane deal triggered in fact not just by the commission, but also by the council and even requires support of the european parliament. is that correct? prime minister cameron: the point is this. yes, it is quite an arcane mechanism. negotiatingg in this one thing was to make sure you're qualified instantly and that it lasts for the longest possible time. written qualifies for this mechanism.

it is the phasing in of well. -- britain qualifies for this mechanism. in this ithasing will still be operational in 2024. that is quite -- to agree the of benefits for other eu citizens for 2017-all the way to 2028. that is a pretty powerful mechanism. for 2017 all the way to 2028. >> you are agreeing this is an

arcane mechanism. i have not asked the question yet. agreement from the commission. prime minister cameron: they've already given it. that is the point. you are agreeing that it also requires the european parliament. this deal will be done on the basis of a regulation and regulations will require their agreement. on annexister cameron: six in the legally binding thement, it says this -- european commission considers the information provided to it by the united kingdom and particular does not make full use of the transitional periods of free movement of workers and is intended to cover -- u.k. will be justified in triggering

the mechanism." that was agreed to by the council of ministers. if we vote intended to cover as it exists in the united kingdom today. and accordingly the united kingdom would be justified, and that was agreed by the council of ministers. i think the means we have a mechanism all the way to 2028. >> it took a good listen.e condc it applies to provisionsha today.ne 23. and those conditions may change in the future. >> but they are not going to change by june 23. as soon as the referendum is over, if we vote today.nd as far as i'm concerned the sooner the better go and it operates with 2017 to 2028. >> prime minister, the talk so far, and europe and

parliament may decide to do what they wish. the europ >> first of all, i was so concerned. did not need negotiations. and give you a guarantee s that the european parliament will stay in. the european parliament does not have a veto. that is what was done opposite side from me. in the discussion. >> european parliament. >> i met the head of the ecrwas , the head of the labor group. the outcome of this negotiation, i think that we

should go ahead and vote in the expectation. that is why the mechanism plus the decision is so important. >> a quick question. i have a rejoinder, but i will come back to it. >> something needs to be done. the taxpayers returning to your. can you be a bit more precise and promise that he will personally keep an eye so that farmers and others are not actually losing this million - >> it has come back to around 50 million. we are investing a lot of money, particularly for the benefit, get that money down and the new cases of

practice and procurement. so i think we're making progress. prim >> it is money that has come back. sustained. it would be simple. >> i think particularly from 2005. as i said, the argument that we need to do better, he asked all that there a case word happening. some mechanism, the presumption is spend the money that they get effectively., the capacity sit around here a lot of the time, spend money effectively. others most. >> i am very focused. mon

>> maybe that does notit does not have the same reaction. >> i will make sure it does. an investment fund, infrastructure, money that is available through innovation and action. >> prime minister, i want minister, i want to come back to something that i spoke to you about privately. and then the proposal to reverse the effects. initially very interested in the proposal. the mall was done. >> certainly. >> some inkling of it has appeared. this is quite an important thing that means we might be able to get back the body ofe

rules. but there is a problem with fundamentals this proposed is to be run out of commission which is scarcely independent. the setting, this is bound to pass. others have commented. i would just like to read you what our target has saidtelt he says, to ensure it is effective the mechanism should be a completely independent check and separate from the institutions involvement. that is to explore this proposal. >> i remember our conversations. to

having that my experience, wanting bureaucracy to be regulated, you have to make the bureaucracy deregulate rather than have someone else do it for you. when you set the targets, introduce one regulation and scrap another. that actually changes the culture and the amount of regulation, and that is something we need to do in the european commission. a >> did you press? >> i discussed it. .. is this is a very different commission than the previous two commissions when you look at people like the prime minister of estonia, the prime minister of finland, they've got strong pro-business traders in theee

commission. you see an 80% decline -- this does make a difference. >> unless we address this fundamental problem at the heart of the eu, we wil >> cameron: >> in to demonstrate to deliver to the market is not done necessary or to take the necessary steps and i think that is the challenge and we have to explain that but want to the occasions europe as those areas that our unnecessary.

and this starts to create that targets for dirty regulation -- and deregulation in. >> and you begin to mention that you had of a number of questions with respect to the negotiations but i take it would be helpful now, if you have the opportunity to explain why it eventuallyin thank you should given the reservations. >> is the huge choice for the country for a generation of horror in a lifetime. changes and they have created separate for b&l that basis

the calculation of what is best for our country in to get the stud in the world have no hesitation as prime minister tuesday we are better off putting to read me in. but i don't say that simplye thm to calculate the economic marcion safety and security but if we want a big gold britain to tackle climate or change with russia to beecher of the nuclear weapons to be in the european union does not restrain a or restrict our power to get things done but it increases it there is the patriotic case to be made that it my view does because it isn't threateningst

deshabille you walk away from that or what you want for your people your country >> what is your insert to the most powerful point with the sense of identity is obliterated? and the self-respect as a country? >> i don't feel any of that.we e end to provide aid independent and strong. a but we don't give up the national identity or the g-7

or the commonwealth. we should not walk away from institutions so there is the big bold british case to make and i will use the next 50 days to make that. >> thank you very much i do you have the previous engagement. >> en to be even better.

>> june 22nd with the former commissioner from george mason law school to speak of the independent agency in july 6 the former president of colgate-palmolive diversity luck helgi speaking about anonymity we hope all you can join us for those events

we would like to welcome of the current our c-span audience with our lady speakers:issues of a civil liberties and securities to devise the tide between them on my left and my right with the former head of the civil liberties and in my view what the lady had the most articulate in america and that is an understatement it is a frequent speaker here in a washington and around the world had to look forward to your comments.

has stated is one of the most prolific writers probably the most famous columnist in "the wall street journal" how with constitutional law and one of the the data sparked my interest and i just creatively to speak first to have 50 minutes and then we will each have ted minutes after that the real have a few questions from the audience how for the on-line viewers some hot -- send in

questions and will take them from my audience. >> also to the audience members for your time and interested this topic i am glad to share the podium with david about this issue we have talked several times its beloved. but for that intelligence squared series rand we addressed the of balding provocative question better more domestic surveillance man and other relevant? surprisingly before the debate the audience members voted against another 9/11

but for more surveillance but we persuaded almost 20 percent of the audience members to change their mind so we would win that debate. but notably with my partners on that occasion was bob carr and is notable because he was a conservative member of congress from georgia and the federal prosecutor who led a the prosecution from the world trade center bombing and other major terrorism cases because recently he has been speaking now strongly against excessive government surveillance has has others who have held counter intelligence and national security positions they may say personal privacy with the on-line communications

is mutually reinforcing and that excessive surveillance undermines security and privacy but to explain how that is why some of the former officials one is andrew mccarthy from "the national review" he is the contributing editor at his comments were treated by a recent controversy with those general points about government of limited power to this trade individual rights or conscripted private business says andrew mccarthy wrote to communicate from unreasonable searches with law enforcement capacity to intrude but yet it is their burden to fall that technological surveillance capabilities to be

consistent with our right. the constitution's point is to limit the government's up ability not to limit the scope of liberty but the capacity for intrusion. again with i recent "washington post" op-ed with mike mcconnell former director of national security of the nsa had michael chertoff a.m. and the former deputy defense secretary. for several years there writing that the chinese government poses a national security threats of intellectual property and technology they advocate ubiquitous encryption with

such cyberexpectations and they do recognize as former law-enforcement in security officials with the serious concern the fbi has raised to allow criminals to keep communications secret but they explained we believe and protected by ubiquitous encryption for three reasons. with that business information but second requiring u.s. technology providers for law enforcement will not prevent actors from providing others from ubiquitous encryption others such as tide now are the same there is no

principal bassist to resist. strategically u.s. businesses are essentials to the national security interests there for it is essential to protect from economic espionage. with that imperative may outweigh that tactical benefits to the communication is more easily accessible. let me summarize that the ban have been developing so far. the topic and raise is a complicated do once issues. with privacy and security is not a zero sum game and experts still follow a predictable pattern such as their political views or their background of national security or civil liberty. but i will quote again

michael chertoff from the federalist society national lawyer's contention from all land security secretary under president george w. bush. and i completely agree with that. he says we cannot live as if if liberty without security but we would not want to live in security without liberty. again, i wholeheartedly believed of that statement and i devoted my life to would be insane civil liberties and i never felt to be more in endangered and when i was in a country that lacked basic security while they dig up for today's debate what i find most terrifying was not only the encroachment of privacy and

free speech as noted in that quotation but imf least as terrified to have government surveillance to make them more foldable including terrorism immune to sabotage with technological dash tech but -- technology experts i am a patriot so i do not share this statement give me liberty or give me death i should be a life to enjoy my liberties. so i want to quote a brief that was fired -- that was filed, a prominent and respective group of experts sent a detailed the security risks the results from the device manufacturers to facilitate access to

law-enforcement and the fbi was seeking to do. exactly how serious the risks are exactly what the major factors are forced to do as a security expert has explained the worse case is consistent with what the fbi was arguing for. that if apple was forced to sign the custom code that the government wanted to force it to tucson and if it is capable with the same operating system. the public danger is catastrophic after all i folded my pads are not just jews by the general public but police and president obama to lead to the conclusion to undermine

cybersecurity but also fizzle security so weakening communications privacy protection to add a net negative security impact. we also see and repeated the how the government overstates how important surveillance is even with the short-term security goals including the two recent high profiles with fbi and apple it involving the i found another one for a drug dealer. but in both cases the fbi insisted over and over it could not access the data of the phones to be the

unprecedented step to commandeer apple to authenticate software to let them break it to the devices but yet in both cases the claims were unfounded. first the fbi announced they had an alternative way to access the san birdied our phone but that day announced they also found an alternative to access the of brooklyn how. but that's the dead -- metadata collection program. as part of this surveillance court they claimed that the dragnet surveillance is the

only effective means of suspected terrorists. but to the contrary the independent analysis that the end is say it does provide communications surveillance has not made any contribution to the counterterrorism efforts. those to issue detailed reports in 2013 and 2014. also the privacy of the civil liberties oversight board. that tsa itself has backed down how essential the program was and to file in the open federal courts with the challenges brought by the aclu in contrast to the

above statements what it was for the of fisa core to the open court with their subjects to rebuttal by the adversary of review by the public and politicians and the press. said that they can complement other programs with the counterterrorism efforts. the hypothetical endorsements are not exactly confidence inspiring. so no wonder said jack of limited benefit could not justify the huge cost to freedom of speech not to manage to the security experts.

so to issue a major ruling striking down the program as unconstitutional. and is a respected conservative. the supreme court has recognized that government surveillance of communication are fundamental first amendment's. and that the sp subject even read undertaken for those reasons and as the court has explained that investigative duty of the national security cases to cause initially protected speech

and with the awareness has a demonstrable chilling effect and in particular with the expression of nonconforming in one study showed ironically for those that support mass communication and to say they're not bothered by it they have not broken the laws and yet it is a demonstrable impact on the self-censorship to be the minority. also enabling the culture of

self-censorship to undermine the internet ability with open deliberation so with those it wants factors i would suggest a general analytical framework to assess any proposed surveillance measure. i'm not taking a position anymore than the united states no doubt with the strategic factual aspects of the situation with those pertinent issues we should evaluate with an unwarranted

government surveillance -- surveillance but it is completely consistent with a detailed and evidence based. with the precise than transparent that can strayed officials it must we prior to authorization. ended to be resorting to and the least intrusive means available and the benefits

gained through these measures include eight harm and finally they should be overseen with the independent civilian oversight. and it has not conform to the framework -- the framework. it has made us more free but not more safe. they key very much. [applause] >> thank you to heralded hudson to come out here today and to and let me go a

little broader for the some points that which we agreed that we fundamentally disagree but let me walk through the threat assessment. with the surveillance we are facing a serious threat region from the lone wolf attacked and to be very profound. id with the isis said research in the stations with the existential level of attack is to be lucky if

given the respects and we have massive tax from brussels and we have been fortunate with american soil and we could talk about why that is the case that would fundamentally degrade the quality of life. it even more fundamentally. they write wonderful studies about it. foreseeable of the transmission infrastructure for the united states not to have electricity restored

for days and weeks. . . threat. >> fortunately for us, we have the enemy that is operating at a military we call long lines of communication with not clear hierarchy and that we use that withing -- with un one of their

areas. they are not easy to discern and they are resilient. we have no shortage of volunteers. yes, we can degrade them overseas using drones and various other attack methods but fundamentally their achilles' heel is communication so we have to disrupt their communication and learn how they communicate. that is good news because, again, we have technology that can help us to do that. the bad news is we live in a world where people are very anonymous. not to bore you with history, but the world is much larger than the 17th and 18th century and it is much easier to be lost in this world.

they don't carry passports and many of the documents are easy to fabricate, most of us don't know our neighbors, so it is easy to be lost in places. it comes up every time you address a tragedy like san bernardino and boston. the good news is, despite this tremendous unlimiting, given the way we live by things, sell things, rent apartments, rent cars, pay for meals, pay for lessons -- there is a lot of footprints. in old times, it would be like tracking through the snow. lots and lots of electronic footprints which can be discerned if you engage in surveillance. with all do respectb about the

indiscriminate of the surveillance you need surveillance of the entire landscape. if you think about it in terms of hunting you need to look around for the prey. you don't know where the prey is. i understand in a law enforcement context you have something to start the investigation, probably cause, suspicion, i do this stuff for a living and challenging the quality of the government's warrants and whatnot. but it is irrelevant in the counterterrorism concept to say, well, indiscriminate is bad. well, it has to be indiscriminate number one. and number two, i will shock you by saying we have to surveill --

survey more. not only the metadata but i would couple it with data mining of other databases which again, had had an unfortunate name of a total awareness program that was kicked around after 9/11. i would tell you again, hopefully we will talk about it more, but the motion that you can really intelligently assess the situation. like how many terrorist plots did the metadata collection bring about? that is a silly question. it is like asking what is the role of, you know, a particular subset of your artillery capabilities?

or what is the role out of one transport helicopters? you bring answers upon a given task and energies among them. you use artillery, helicopter, troops on the ground, and you defeated the enemy. and people engaged in operation research and came up with generalizations but you can never justify anything by requiring the government to prove almost beyond a reasonable doubt as being tested and that makes sense. so again, i would combine and i will reassure in a second, but i would engage in the most wide ranging surveillance of all

sorts of public data because -- look, the good news is if you put things together, and i will tell you in a second how to do it, but if you look, for example, some of the metaphorical footprints in the snow. prior to the san bernardino attack, farook went to target practice. i went when i was young, but typically the same range because it was close it my house. but she went to multiple target ranges. that is kind of weird. that is one little data point. and let's say, you know, he engaged in other types of behavior in terms of what

establishments he frequented. what was bought, what types of phone calls are made. i am not talking about content but metadata and there is no expectation of privacy in that arena. if you put all of those things together you can get sh meaningful number of red flags. not a certainty that somebody is a terrorist. red flags. and red flags enable scarce or enforcement resources to be deployed appropriately to bring to bear, reasonable bases, to go look at things which is all you are doing. by the way, surveillance has to be accompanied by vigorous use of human, particularly in the area of resources, local police departments, fbi does it, just the question of, you cannot do it with millions of people to look at and we don't want to be

profiling people based on their religion, but in the sense having this type of surveillance is the only way to prioritize law enforcement resources. i also think that frankly even if the other benefit of doing all of this stuff is what i call virtue attrition and you are putting pressure on the other side. if you use drones, it is not just a matter of killing bad guys, but making sure they don't get together every time they want to. if you are surveying, that means they will communicate not in an optimal mode and have the same information density, they will communicate for channels with coding and decoding.

it has values and that is what the military does. it is not about killing and breaking things but making them operate in less than optimal mode and that stems from the a range of surveillance modes. one of the criticisms you heard in the past is we are assembling this treasure-trove of information and no one can make heads or tails. with metadata you can figure out one or two people communicating on a terrorist list but what do you do with that? if you look at alpha go computer and other various things that ibm and watson is doing, we are very close to the point where cognitive machines will analyze data and precipitate the patterns and say present to the

human overseers there are 50-60 signs that suggest maybe investigation needs to be initiated to look at that person or that person or that organization. as far as encryption is concerned, nadine and ai agree. not so much because of the balance of cost. i have written i don't think backdoors and mandatory encryption keys should be provided -- should not be provided because the risk of integration by bad guys is worse than the benefits of reading this information. basically that data stream is going dark, ladies and gentlemen, and it is very simple. even if you force all of the acknowledging companies, apple and companies overseas, you can

generate your own encryption algorithm so it will not work. an interesting thing however is that being able to discern that somebody is using the strongest possible encryption, that is customized, it is an interesting tall tale sign because no matter how paranoid i am, if i am talking to a friend and using the strongest encryption it has tall tale sign and why the hell is that? that is one interesting sign that be used to precipitate things out to look at. the thing that depresses me the most is the quality of the discourse of those matters. i would submit to you that there

are terrible abuses. i don't know what the hell we are talking about. there have been no abuses. the government is a -- when we talk about all of the good things the government does they don't do everything perfectly. don't deliver social services and medical care or national security well. so there are debates and disputes and people stepping on each other's toes and reports that reflect the bureaucratic preferences. but by standards of thinking about what happened bad during the world war one and two and the cold war and witch hunt what abuses besides the huge, overblown stuff by snowden? has anybody been punished?

lost jobs? tenure? put in prison? had accounts frozen? you know, the worst thing is the so-called love where it turns out our intelligence agency is operating with a tremendous amount of oversight. fbi is looking at nsa and the nsa is looking at the cia. the worst thing that happens is two or three analysts used to, you know, used a program to find their girlfriends or wives cheating on them and they were punished for it. really? i am not saying it is a good thing but that is really horrible abuse? worthy of putting a thumb on the scale of balancing liberty and order? that is ridiculous. nothing like that happened.

nothing like this is likely to happen. now, nadine probably correctly noted that there are some people who are deterred by this age of massive surveillance that the government engages in and adver adversely it impacts their speech. i am all for having the first amendment protected. i litigate in this space a lot and i get it. but if people have unreasonable fear about something. 20-30 percent of americans believe vaccines killed and it isn't the vaccine that is good. vaccines are good for you despite the risks and so is surveillance. i have no doubt there is some self censorship. but it is not reasonable.

another funny thing to me, and i do a lot of regulatory law. the government is far more able to hurt individual and companies in spaces that have nothing to do with the terrorist. security and health care violations. i am not saying i am not anti-government but the government cannot only be clumsy but it can be be vindictive. and far worse things happen in other spaces. the counter terrorism and national security is so regulated from the executive branch, congress and judicial and that is good. i am in favoring of bolstering

the oversight more, having members sign pieces of papers testing they have been briefed so we don't have memory failures like some people have. trying to be bipartisan about it but it is good to have politicians -- you have a sense the classified briefing of surveillance effort, you heard about it, if you don't like it say something now and if you are not put your john hancock here and you can say i wasn't there or here. that would be a good thing. but it is good. we have no problems fundament fundamentally here. one final point which one is a matter of policy and one is a matter of law. the notion that the judiciary should be more involved makes no sense policy or constitutional wise. our constitutional system article three says the judicial role is signing off on warrant

applications. that is it. they are not supposed to -- the war commission to investigate this or some other commission to investigate that so you can have a chief justice participating in the private capacity. and then judges, you know, good friend judge potent loves to write about national security but that is not what the jidiciary constitution does. even today it is probably operating outside of the remit when they pass judgments on the components of the national surveillance efforts. far removed from approving warrants but doing more of that is a bad idea. and the constitution aside, and in general, pretty much we are smart. having the judiciary participate

in something that is not judicial only diffuses responsibility and accountability. i would rather have the executive being accountable and congress as well. it comes from critics of surveillance, metadata collection. fifth sign on it? who cares. it was signed by the article three court and comprised of federal judges. so let's not idealize the notion that if we put a bunch of judges in there it would make a better. bottom line is there is no fundamental problem, everything is fine in the space, and we should have a serious education campaign that tells people that the problem -- and one final point i don't understand for the life of me. we live in an age where people

are almost happy to post their private thoughts and observations to facebook and twitter to show close friends but hundreds of people who submit all sorts of information to commercial entities in order to get credit for goods and services. do it as a price of existing in a modern world. there are some people that go live in the woods and don't to but that is a distinct minority. people are comfortable doing it where there is less oversight and more potential for abuse and much less dangerous than the people spying on their wives. why is this different? the answer is the government can do worse things than what you

can learn at the local walmart but you have to be reason. the government could do worst things but have they? what is the pathway? what is the avenue? are there examples since 9/11 of this happening? no. the answer is zero. thank you. [applause] >> well, i disagree with the last conclusion that the answer is zero the answer is by my right every single person in the country. more important than my rights are those of federal judge richard leon here in the federal court for the district of columbia. again, a respected conservative who granted injunctions against the nsa's surveillance programs

because he concluded the mere existence of these programs even without independent abuses, but the mere existence and use of it against us innocent citizens who are trying to communicate online was itself an abuse of the constitution. as he said, i cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than the collection of data on virtually every citizen without prior judicial individual. certainly this infringes on the constitution and i have no doubt the author of the constitution, james madison, would be aghast. and we know that above all us,

what the framers detested about the british rule and tyranny was the so-called ritz of general assistance that gave precisely, reported to authorize officials to engage in in ddiscriminate surveillance. madison and others would be rolling over in their graves if they could imagine the indiscriminate surveillance to which all of us are subjected in every single communication and association and financial transaction and health information and the full

treasure-trove of surveillance that was found unconstitutional. however, there has been specific abuse even beyond the secretive, at best, discussing at worst, existence of the program as david does, what many defenders of the program do, which is assert it was subject to oversight by other branches of the government. how meaningful is that oversight given the secrecy in which it was cloaked? the director of national intelligence james clapper testifying before congress in what he later admitted was a bold face lie and that this program wasn't going forward. we first retracted and apologized by saying well that was the least untruthful answer i could give. later on he retracted further

and apologized for having lied. so there can't be meaningful oversight without truthful information and david, from one of the pieces you wrote recently, i think we agree on this, that for the sake of making congress itself accountable, and helping congress to make the surveillance authority accountable to we the people, there should be much more information sharing back and forth about this. in terms of the supposed control that was being imposed by this super secret, one-sided, fisa court foreign intelligence surveillance court, that court is tampered by the one-sided nature of the proceedings. even the limited amount of checks that that court, which

has been criticized for being a rubber stamp for every request of surveillance authority, it has been heavily criticized because it is so strongly oriented in terms of the judges who have been appointed to it, people with prosecution and law enforcement background, so it suspecially telling that even that -- it is especially -- court without hearing the judges who have backgrounds of advocating civil liberties and even that court has strongly critiqued and sanctioned the nsa for lying to the court about what it was doing. let me quote a couple rulings that have now come to light as a result of snowden's exposure that led to the freedom of information act by the aclu and others. first i will quote a 2009 ruling

from judge reggie walton. the court imposed trivial mi minimization rules. and judge walton said the nsa engaged in systematic non-compliance with the minimization procedures going back to the inception of the program in 2006 and had also repeatedly made misrepresentations and inaccurate statements about the program to the fifth judges. conseque consequently the judge concluded he had no confidence the government was doing its best to comply with the orders and imposed a six-month sanction.

the record of failure to comply, even with the limited controls imposed by the fifth court persist persisted. so that brings us to another angry order from presiding judge john baits in october of 2011 and he found the government misrepresented the scope of its targeting of internet communications. he said quote, the court is troubled this is the third instance in less than three years in which the government has disclosed a substantial misrepresentation regarding the scope of a major collection program. so so much for the lack of abuse, supposedly so much for the effective oversight supposedly. now, to turn from an area where we strongly disagree to an area where we disagree -- or agree at least in part, i will turn to

the first point david made and that is the seriousness of the threat to national security that this country faces. i take those threats extremely seriously as a philosophical matter and practical matter. i think it is noteworthy, however, that going back to 2013 our top national security officials have emp emphasized the number one national security threat is not terrorism, as serious as that is, but it is a threat to cybersecurity. so cyber threats from, this is an article from february 12th of this year, reporting on the testimony that director of national intelligence james

clapper provided to congress on the annual worldwide threat assessment of the u.s. intelligence community. he was accompanied in the congressional hearing with other top current officials of the intelligence world. they deemed cyber threats as the top global threat facing the united states which is exactly why you see this con constiilation of past and present people saying if we allow the government to get backdoors to our communication, and to engage in accepted communication surveillance, that is feeding what is the number one threat to our national security far from making us more safe it will in fact do the opposite. i also have to say that in terms

of -- in addition to the government's intentional misleading of the american public, setting up in secret a program that violates the most core constitutional principles, not to mention legal statutes and our congressional statutes i should mention as well in addition to judge leon repeatingly holding the mass surveillance violated the fourth amendment to the constitution in the second circuit federal court of appeals which is based in new york in a lawsuit brought by there aclu. a unanimous panel concluded that the mass nsa surveillance violated congress' statute. the relevant section of the patriot act. even the members of congress who

called them the lead authors of that said it wasn't our intent, certainly the language doesn't say it, and it was never our intent to authorize this indiscriminate surveillance. so violating statue and the u.s. constitution. beyond the abuses that consist of violation of law and our rights we also have a problem of lack of government confidence to protect us from hackers, cyber criminals, and even cyber terrorists. i am concerned on the level of confidence as well. would we call this an abuse for the government to act incompetently? it certainly bothers me whatever label you put on it. just in 2015 alone, the federal office of personal management

was hacked to the tune of 22 million personal records, we are talking one year, last calendar year. the private sector has been vulnerable here and made all of us vulnerable. hackers released 32 million accounts from ashley madison, a site none of you is familiar with so let me explain. it facilitates dault adultery. hackers in filtrated anthem, the irs, and the director of the cia. so without intentional abuse we are vulnerable as a result of negligence. and david thinks the standards imposed under u.s. constitutional law and international law before the government can engage in

surveillance are too strict and i would like to ask him what standard said he would advocate instead. surely he is not going to give the government a free pass with no justification at all to engage in violations of privacy and security. thank you. >> i will be very brief. first of all, the law it is a complicated area but let me assure you the fourth amendment doesn't mean what nadine and some of her colleagues say it it means. in order for the fourth amendment to apply, and there are disputes that a warrant is even required, for any government acquisition of information which has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and i will explain in a second what that means, or is it only the case that you have to obtain a warrant if the information is or may be used

for prosecution purposes. aside from that debate, it has to be something you have legitimate cause for. there are cases dealing with plain sight doctrines and if you put out information in the public domain you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. you may have expectations but it is not reasonable. it has been brought out in decades of foolish people. if you are cultivating drugs don't put a cannabis plant in the window where it is visible from the street because when the cop walks by and sees said cannabis plant he doesn't need a warrant. it is plain view. and it is interesting to me how little people understand how much stuff gets acquired in other context. you could have a third-party

subpoena by a junior prosecutor investigating how you run your nursing business and they will get all of your e-mails and service providers and the disputes about that but they will read all of that stuff and it turns out from the e-mails you are planning a bank robbery they will get you even if that is not the purpose it was obtained. happens every day. lots more acquisition by this information. if you entrust information the service provider goes in the cloud and there are other places. there are cases where it has been debated back and forth but something you need to realize. and the irony here is nadine is much more of a tea party person than i am. government is a clumsy beast and doesn't do many things well. the degree of criticism nadine is referring to is nothing

compared to i can give you a hundred cases where this district court and that circuit, any da and every other agency, a line for cheating and not doing this and that. that is how the government works. it is really bad. people get prosecuted, fired or go to prison and the fifth judge is participating in the process. they are not oracles of delphi. they are expressing their views. they tax the minds of the most brilliant lawyers on all sides and people disagree about it. so the fact that judges disagree

about whether or not nsa complied with a minimization order or acquisition order ain't unusual. it is not a sign of horrible practices going on. okay? two final points. we have not mentioned anyone who suffered because we don't have such examples. they don't exist. and again, compared with the normal regimen of our great government, which i love, and administrations doing things only the government can do, the national security area is pretty darn clean and vile. if you don't like that, then you should go support tea party or donald trump and turn everything upside down because, believe me,

the head da vacuum cleans records from pharma companies with a lot less oversight, a lot less standards for diss dissimination, and energy companies and everybody. if you don't like this, you are absolutely not liking how the government functions. the essence of reasonable risk assessment is to look at things across the board. you cannot just say i don't like this but there are things that present greater danger. the final thing about the threat. look, there is no connection i know of, every technical person i know of tells me the simple terms of cyber threat and surveillance i am talking about. on encryption, nadine and i agree. there is no connection between the government relecting the metadata and combining with it

other information in the public domain from dozens of databases and using that to get suspects and bring in law enforcement . l i think the government should harden it up against cyber penetration but they have been doing that. the final point is this: i don't care if terrorism is number one or two threat. it is a huge threat. the government says if nothing else can be safe from our enemi enemies -- that is the number one function of the government. the only game in town we have is surveillance. we don't have, as in the cold war, our agents penetrating organizations. any professional will tell you that. and they don't defect unfortunately from al-qaeda or isis. sadly, they don't seem to be

that driven by money and believe in it. so we don't have that. and by the way, we don't interrogate folks that much these days. it is not politically correct no matter what the standards are. so the only damn thing we have to get at them is surveillance. if we don't have that we have nothing. might as well wait until me get hit the next time and next time. there is no problem. there is no crisis. i could nothing but suggest otherwise. >> i know i don't get a response but i would like to give david a little present to honor his position. it has the benefit of having a picture of president obama on it. it is a little tin showing president obama with a head phone and listening device saying nsa approved and they are lemon-flavored eves drops. think of me when you suck on

them. >> i will put it in my desk. >> i am sure everyone has enjoyed this. i have been looking forward to this debate for a long time. we don't have a lot of time. i am going to take the moderator's prerogative and ask the first question which goes as follows: if i were a martian and just landed in the united states and i wanted find out something about nadine or david or about some class of people that might be suspected terrorist or really about anything, and i had some omissions about how the world works, i don't think i would go

to the federal government to find out. i would go to any private models who is interested in surveillance. they retain information, use the information, they survey, and they know know more about practically any of us than the federal government does. what the internet has done -- one of the many things it has done is changed the way information is used and as david mentioned the government is not very good at this stuff. but the private sector is really good at that. they probably, if they wanted to monitor san bernardino and you said tell us who has been going to different rifle ranges and different things, i am sure somebody knows that. yet there is an entirely

different role in government. government is different from a private company or entity. i think the relative scope and amount of information they have is big. i wonder how that enters into thinking about surveillance? >> you are making my point. we all live in a fish bowl. if we don't, let's be reasonable about it. people don't assess a given concern in the continuum.

you can get more information about any one of us today than most people realize. unlisted phone numbers, mortgage documents, a picture of your house, it is all there. since we accept that we have to look at what the government can do as part of the same broad nar narrative of our tolerance. you have to look at why it is being done, what the safe guards are, and once you put it in that perspective there is nothing to worry about in that space. that is one of my limitations. >> this is one of the reasons i

think the tea party would not welcome be, david, despite your endorsement which is as a civil libertarian but not libertarian, i do believe government can have a positive role to play precisely in protecting our liberty and privacy from violation by the private sector entities that are not subject to constraint. the aclu and many others have joined in supporting legislation at every level of government, regulation at every level of government, to constrain the power of the private sector to collect, use, misuse, store, our private data. now, very recently the fcc announced it was moving in a

direction and i think you criticized herald about that -- and subjecting to regulations and internet service providers in terms of their ability to reduce our privacy to misuse our information. on both subjects, government and private sector ability to invade our privacy and i am not an absolute ist and i don't know anybody who is. we are asking for meaningful constraints in the government sphere meaning the demands have to be individual suspicion, independent oversight beyond the executive branch of the government itself through the independent court system. in the private sector, i think one of the most important constraints is transparency and consent. that we should have an opportunity as consumers to --

we should have to opt into affirmatively any situation that is reducing our privacy and it should be a meaningful option. we should not have to give up being citizens of the online world and choosing between that and privacy. that is not a real choice. >> we have time for one or two questions and i will start with the gentlemen in the back. >> why is it that conservatives, who generally believe in what they used to call constructionism, and now call originalism, that especially with regard to the tenth amendment, that the constitution reserves to the people in the states all power not

specifically granted to the federal government. why is it that conservatives see in that constitution of authority for the government to do things that are not spelled out in the constitution and why is it liberals are inclined to, in general, go along with increased government activity but not when it comes to surveillance? >> well, i suppose the question was addressed to me in part, but i would say with respect to being a constitutional lawyer, that is my life and my vocation. i don't understand the question. the government limited and enumerated power and i understand federalism. but the government can clearly acquire information in pursuit of purposes that are within legitimate domain of federal and

state government. the question is how, not whether, and how applies to the federal government and the states and any reasonable reading of a fourth amendment suggests back to my cannabis plant in the window analogy that if this information ain't -- if you take a machine gun and erect it in your lawn, you cannot be very upset that the local police would come and if there is an ordinance against it, actually federal law still in the books against the machine guns, would give you hard time and arrest you probably because you did it. you have a choice of whether or not to put a cannabis plant in the window or a machine gun in the lawn. you have a choice to give your otherwise private information to these sources. metadata is generated by your service provider in order to bill you.

it ain't private. it is a business record of your service provider. and the notion that the framers or madison would be upset, but if you walked out in your local pharmacy store in boston, and ordered some eyedrops, in the presence of not only your pharmacist but five other neighbors standing there, that is private information that a warrant is required for. i am talking about the intelligence and acquisition on a national level that happens all of the time in local police work. very brief. a local cop or detective goes and says i think something bad may happen. let me ask who heard what? strange people driving around and lots of money passing hands and maybe this or that. you can assemble that information.

you are talking to people and looking at things in the public domain. fundamentally all nadine and i are talking about is doing the same type of thing in a different sphere. that is it. why is it acceptable to be in a local bar and say have you seen anything strange happen? you heard people talking robbing a warehouse? who are they? that is all kosher. but doing the same surveillance through electronic surveillance is somehow prohibited by the fourth amendment. it cannot be. >> ci disagree with most of the details david laid out but i will try to go to the core of your question. your name is edward, right? which is why do so many conservatives department from the text of the constitution and the original intent and so many

liberals do likewise pretending on what the particular issue is rather than consistently trying to honor both the text and the original meaning or understanding of the constitution. and i have some comfort to offer you which is on a number of very important recent privacy cases in the united states supreme court, before justice scalia died, when the court had nine contentious individuals who facility 5-4 and were more fragmented we had a number of recent decisions in which all nine of them came down very strongly in favor of privacy and strongly enforcing fourth amendment guarantees. the most recent example being a case called the riley case from 2014 involving cellphone

churches and strikingly all nine of them held it was unconstitutional to extend to the digital word. a judge made exception to the fourth amendment that had been made for searches and seizures pursuant to an arrest when the law had been that fourth ame amendment standards decide if someone is arrested you can seize everything they have on their body and the cower said we will not extend that to cell phones given the wealth of private information available on those phones. i thought it was really remarkable that from the most liberal to the most conservative came down to really respecting the words and meaning of the fourth amendment. i will read you just one line that they agreed on. we cannot deny our decision will have an impact on the ability of

law enforcement to combat crime. cell phones can provide valuable incriminating information about dangerous criminals. privacy comes at a cost. but privacy is protected by the fourth amendment. so take comfort. >> can i add one thing comfort. the irony here, and i don't disagree with this decision and i understand what they are doing. but let me assure you that once government gets binding custody, the local police most likely, it is a fools error to get a warrant. in fact, double the number of cases where we are finding this and getting a warrant is so easy. it is not funny. the notion there is comfort in obtaining a warrant is not true. the problem is not in the

context somebody has been digging into custody. okay. you will not automatically go search for his or her cellphone and get a warrant from the magistrate. fine. two hours, three hours tops. it is not knowing which ones out there deserve the closer scrutiny. that is at the heart of counterterrorism. in law enforcement, we can afford to be more antill titill go beyond the fourth amendment, which is very leanlenient. i am all in favor of increasing the warrant standards. it ain't the same in the context of counterterrorism because the only way you can get at the

people, unless you want to wait until they strike, or you get lucky because you run into someone before they pull out the gun, not even hundreds of millions of people need to be looked at closer but there are many. i keep hearing about i will balance it differently. how would you do that? how would you know who needs to be investigated? you don't. you don't. unless you do that kind of surveillance. >> let me just point to a long history that pre-dated what has been called the golden age of surveillance. if you ask anybody now if they are better off now than in the past they would say yes, they have an infinate amount of information about us and have been successful in foiling many

counterterrorism plots not to mention other law enforcement problems through the use of the techniques that are completely consistent with the fourth amendment. indeed, right after 9/11 i remember former fbi director, william webster, who was opposing the extended government surveillance power under the patriot act before we realized the government would in secret extend that power further beyond the plain language of the provision. he said we were able to foil and listed the number of plots through using good, investigative techniques. we did not need to jump over it. i am paraphrasing him closely. we did not need to jump all over people's privacy. the bipartisan 9/11 commission which looked into what caused

the terrible tragedy on 9/11 and what steps could be used to prevent another tragedy that analysis wasn't done before the patriot act and this power was ran through with almost no debate and hearing. but after the fact, they looked into it and the bipartisan commission didn't say we need more surveillance power. no, they flagged the problem of not that we cannot gather the information but we don't have there capability and we are not investigating sufficient and human resources into analyzing this huge mass of data that we already do have. so yes, we can have effective protection against terrorism. nobody wants to be vulnerable to terrorism. certainly not me. >> respect this is not true. the 9/11 commission report is still available and talked about the so-called wall which is one

specific manifestation of the data showing that was rooted with the exception of privacy. can you say in three seconds how would you find someone like mr. farook? how would you, unless you look at my electronic footprints in the snow to see what are the tall-tale signs bringing the best cognitive and analytics possible and you will see a deviation above the baseline. how would you do it? >> you would do it as the director of national intelligence said with individualized suspicion. >> how would you know? >> data experts have said that the data mining that you are advocating david is junk science.

>> how would you know about the suspicion? a lot of these people are lying low until they freaking attack. what individualized investigation will you have? how would you get the individualized suspicion in the modern world? huh? >> well i could stay here all day. >> i was hoping an audience member would get to ask a question which is why i self-censored. >> i promised our speakers we would be done 11 minutes ago. so please join me in thanking our speakers today. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> coming up, matthew desmond on evicted. look at housing and poverty. and then conners and phil harvey on the cost of labor. and then "naked money" and a look at how cities in the u.s. and europe have revitalized their economies after loosing manufacturing jobs. next, matthew desmond on his