traffic control as a source of jobs. is that a message that we're m likely to continue hearing out of the administration?is, >> it is because we think next is really the cutting c edge of transportation. the intersection of technology and the way our airplanes move hold a lot of promise to not only make the air place move for efficiently and oir planes move for efficiently in the air space ratherbe but it has strong environmental benefits and also fuel saving benefits for our cos carriers g which will hopefully reduce costs. s the statistics i've seen though that next gen will reduce airplane delays by passengers for greater than 40%. o it is dependent on getting us off of a world war ii radar

system and gps technology. >> moving from air to cars.l general motors has of course re recalled 25.7 million cars in the u.s. this year and the auto industry has recalled a record 40 million vehicles.on should drivers feel safe and are regulators doing enough? >> well, look on the latter question, i have to say that e they have done an incredible amount of work over the last several years. ten i think over the last ten years there have been about 1200 plus recalls effecting 95 million vehicles. that's not counting some of the more recent recalls.'s prett that's pretty significant. our tool box is actually improved over that time in the wake of the toyota situation a few years ago we developed alont with ibm some analytics that allow us to be more predictive i

in identifying issues before they emerge. we continue to look to build a better mousetrap so i think that when it's all said and done they have done an incredible job over the entire trend line.in in terms of the autos and you whether they are safe, you know look, we have through our work on the gm issue if you are ly, e asking about gm specifically. wetr issued the most stringent penalty the agency has ever be issued. if that passes we'd be able to u pass more stringent penalties because we lift the cap from 35 million to 300 million. in addition to that, we were able to into settling with us e with some additional hat requirements that allow us to focus them on changing the culture at gm and fixing some of thee things thatth were brokena

penalty woenlt solve.ty t i have high confidence in our d teams ability to make this work. we will keep working with gm bus also to other automakers to mak. sure our system is as safe as possible. >> gm asg you noted has come under harsh criticism for the ca recalls. so far 15 people there have losr their jobs. at has anyone at nitsa been fired t or reassigned for the agencies role in not connecting the dotsh if not how do you respond to lawmakers who called the th agency's inactions the quote co nitsa shrug.ort >> i think you can sort of siteu my previous answer to this but also i would add that you know, we and i are willing to check our own math here. in i've asked our inspector general to go through and do an

afteraction on this gm situatioe to see if there's anything that we didn't do that we should have done or did that may have been done better.we wil we will learn from that report. until that time we have our team intact and we're continuing to not only focus on gm but the massive other automobiles out mv there that neede our attention. >> the new york times reported o last week in a gm failed to assess the root cause of severa deadly chevy cobalts and set ans i on crashes in correspondent ne with w nitsa. they accepted what essentially amounted to a no comment from gm on the cause of those crashes?ac >> itu disagree with the premise of the question because there was activity ongoing at nitsa tt

see if there was a data driven a reasonta to step up the level os scrutiny. as i've saidave publically befoe had we been given a timely hea s up by gm, that would have would coupled with what we were already doing, triggered a heigt heighteneden level of investigation at the beginning.a i have no doubts about it. so i don't agree that nitsa took the answer for granted. if they had the information from gm it would have been material to the outcome. >> this question asked, does dot and nitsa now consider stallinge to be a safety issue. if it does what prompted the change.

why not? >> clearly it's an issue.. it'sd one that we -- that our recent experience is giving us even more information on which n to o look across the industry t ensure that these issues are being addressed across the system. so it's absolutely something that we're focused on. >> the pace of technological change in the automotive industry is getting faster.r. model life cycles are shorter.le mid-cycle changes are more significant especially in the areas of safety. how does nitsa remain relevant e as a standard setter and driver of safety advancen mennts in thw automotive environment. >> i think nitsa is really m focused on this. this whole idea that vehicles in the future will communicate witi each other is a really big deal.

it's a big deal for safety and it's a big deal to our team because it's an opportunity to n engagega the automobile in the work of ensuring collision avoidance and not only between s potentially but also with pedestrians and there's t even technology that allows the automobile to communicate with the infrastructure around it. a few months ago, we announced that we're going to be doing a rule making on vehicle to vehicle technology. we think this will be pace setting in terms of rule makingg because it will basically ovide provide the groundth rules on which industry will then enter in and do what they do best which is to innovate. this is not an issue that we --u we think there are lots of opportunities for our nitsa team to engage in not only followingt the trends in the industry but

also setting the pace and g setting the bar high for safety in the future. terms >> in terms of that rule making you've said that you would likeu to issueld it by the end of president obama's term.is is that still the plan t in ter of the time line and what needsh to happen to make that rule ld k making possible? >> i would like to issue it tomorrow but, you yknow, the p process is what it is. we're on pace and i feel like e we'll keep working as hard as we can if we can beat it, we'll do it. >> at>> nitsa are you concerned about the perception of ath resolving door where top officials have left jobs at they agency to go work for the auto makers that they were regulating. do you think that there should be a there ban on that practice least aor cooling off period?y >> we have fairly strict ethical

requirements in this administration that really put a silencer on folks coming back io into the agency and t trying to influence outcomes immediately h after they leave. i think that's an effective wayn of dealing with the problem lem you're identifying because if is the concern is undo influence e over the agency itself, we have ethical requirements that really guard against that. rai >> moving over to rail. rail executives have expressed concern about an upcoming rude rail making which is limited tos include rail restrictions of 30 miles-per-hour. is that included? how do you balance the needs of commercial shippers and the obvious need for safety. >> are you asking me to commento on amm rule before it's issued?y >> yes. eska >>y. okay.

>> we have a new country that has a chance to build an economh in energy production. it's really one of the drivers in our economic growth today ane will be so for the near future. one of the things we recognized as an agency and it had my full attention since i came in is that in order to realize that future, we've also got to step s up our gameaf on the safety fro. without getting into details, i can tell you that what i know about this issue is that it has to be dealt with comprehensively. be dealt with -- so ou many folks out there say well, t just figure out what the tank car ought to look like. that's one piece of it. speed is an issue. that ma

there are several other components of this that matter. >> we're working as hard as we can on getting a proposed rule so the public can comment on it. i hope we get that done very soon. >> asrt part of the rule makinge are you require that producers f of oilro from the balkan region take steps to stabilize their product before it is shipped? >> i'm not going to comment on r what theul rules says or doesn'. say. i will say that what we're finding in places like the balkan unlike in parts of texass let's say where there's an buil industryt built up around oil producti production, refining, separating material. usinging all the pieces of the material that are separated. we basically have infrastructure

in north dakota that's excavating this material.n is an the question of stabilization ie an issue that's at the forefront of my mind but i am not going to comment on what our approach isg going to be on that yet. it is an issue i'm very well aware of and as an agency we're very well aware of. >> how has the oil industry responded to dot's request for f more information on the chemicae properties of the balkan crude. has dot been satisfied with thef response with the amount of th chemical dataat that is availab? >> well, the information that we've received from industry hat gotten a little better. we've gotten some information that is consistent with what we've seen in our own studies. we've seen some information that is entirely inconsistent and ap isn't apples to apples, the same

type of study that we would have undertaken ourselves. there's a fair amount of confusion, i think that's generated when the industry says well, this is just the same type of stuff that's being pulled out of some other part of the re a country because there are a couple of things a little diff different. number one youer pointed out, i some parts of the country there's more stabilization activity that occurs before it's actuallyrs transported and se secondly, there's also the fact that these trains are moving in huge units, sometimes 100 at a time. so so the sheer scale of the impacf of these trains can be a bit of a challenge.challe so we're very focused on this. we're pushing as hard as we can everybody in the administration is a working hard on this. forwa i look forward to getting something out very soon.>>

>> on biking. this questionnaire asks how do we make american cities like copenhagen for biking and do you think that's a worthy goal?um, >> okay. true confession.been i have been trying for the entire year to figure out how tk bike to work.myse two weeks ago i finally biked into work.ho i just wanted y'all to know how proud i am. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. when you have 100 million more people to move around over the t next, i don't know 35 years, 'ro we'rein going to see more con t

congestion if we're not carefult a lot of that population is ati concentrating in metro areas which usually has a city in then middle rule ari rural areas aro. i really believe that buicyclin is part of the eco system that we will need. if you look at folks who are ned younger than me whoa are moving into these communities, many are not driving cars. wh many areen trying to locate in central areas so they can actually move bicycling more. i think it's happening at the n local level. in fact last week i was with the republican mayor from indianapolis who has -- his city is so bicycle friendly that he was invited to speak to portland oregon's community.

so you're starting to see this n proliferation of communities that are figuring out how to create more bike friendly arease one of the things the mayor said to me which is instructive, he said there was a company that wanted to make a $100 million investment in indianapolis putting a new facility in place but they insisted on being near the bike path. you talk to mayors in this country enough and you find that it's happening more andpa more. i think it's happening.ore we can play a facilitate role. t that's one of the things i'd like to help not only with the growth of this but also ensuring that bicyclists and pedestrians as well are as safe as we want folks in automobiles and other modalities to be. >> we'll squeeze in a drone question. a recent ig report said the faa

won't be able to incorporate te use of unmanned aerial vehicles into the national airspace by the 20 -- maybe you know the deadline. 2015 deadline. what will you do to make sure . the faa reaches its deadline? >> as i understand it we're on track to meet our 2015 deadlinen on small uas. so we'll keep working towards that. there is another convergence of technology and transportation. it's an interesting and exciting way.olog we got to figure out how to do it safely. that's what we're working towards. any comment on amtrak removing n california from the high speed next gen procurement? now that one is an interesting question. removing california from high

speed next gen procurement. to get more clarification because that's mixing rail and air space t to . that's an interesting and convergence of transportation but i'm not sure i'm ready to m. comment on that one. okay. we are almost out of time. an i think we've covered most of the modes.co but beforen asking the last question i've got a couple of bo housere keeping matters to taken care of.i go first of all, i would ask that the audience remain seated when the program concludes. the secretary has an important meeting to get to so we will lee him exit before we all stand up. second, i would like to remind you about upcoming speakers at the national press club, tomorrow july 22, we will have dr. thomas freedan the directore for the centers and disease the control who will address the mers virus and other key issues.

on august one, we will are the f president of the republic of congo. he will discuss oil investments and piece and stability in his country. august 4th,ur we will have jab onning jacob zooma president of south africa. second, i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. [ applause ]mu >> thankg. you. it can go into your office right next to the panthers helmet. finally, one last question. i understand that your daughter is quite the constructive critie when it comes to transportation. so i would like to hear what advice, what useful ideas she'st given you lately?cr >> that'sit very good.ke very good question. so my daughter is ten and i

brought her to work one day. i brought her to work one day and she off into another part oo the office while i went and didm meetings and she came back and she said, daddy, you know, do ou you have think that you can thi influence a bill?bil shel? knows this because she's seen the school house rock stuff on how bills get made. bills i said, you know, maybe, i don't know. >> she said well, i have some ideas for you on airplanes.ome we had just come back from a ust vacation to my wife's family in baton rouge. a she said well, here is my bill.n so she handed me a piece of paper and it said number one, airplanes should not have firstn class. everybody should have big seats. number two, the bathrooms need to be cleaner.number

number three, when you land, they need to come up with a technology that prevents your yn ears from popping. so that's the advice she's given me. thank you very much it'srs been great to be with you. [ applause ] >> thank you mr. second. we are adjourned.

>> i am with the american enterprise institute. the people there are stating the opinion of themselves or their organization. this is really not meant to be a technical debate. it's a policy debate of where we a year after the snowden revelations and what we've learned and what has and hasn't kind of gone forward from there. i'm just going to ask each one of our panelists to really well written and well spoken on this topic to just give a couple of key points of their point of view and then we will get into a dialogue among of the us panelists and we will open it up so be thinking about questions. so i'm going to start with stuart baker whose a partner at step tow and johnson. were you the first policy assistant secretary. i want to make sure i get that title right at dhs which is something we've seen grow in its responsibilities. this is something you really

hadn't fathomed at the time. it's probably to know what you know and be where you are now. i will open with stuart and just a little shout out for those who are looking for a summer book read. he's got a great book. you might want to look that up. >> skating on stilts. you can down load it for free. it's creative commons license. you can give it to your friends for holidays. there's a blog that goes with it. that's where you'll find it. i was also long ago in the 90s the general counsel of the national security agency. so i know them well. i have to say i think this entire thing is -- i'm calling it tragedy if it had not been so carefully orchestrated by people who had an agenda. the folks who controlled this data are determined to cause as much damage as they can to the national security agency. they have done many of the things they accused the

intelligence community of doing. managing information, withholding information from people that -- from the public that doesn't fit their narrative. they did that with the very first disclosure when they told us that nsa was collecting the phone meta data for everybody in the country and withheld for two weeks any information which they had about all the limitations on what nsa could do with that information and on their ability to actually look at it. that has been consistent -- a consistent with the snowden journalist approach ever since. they have come as close to misrepresenting this data as they could and the only people who control this data are people who are deeply hostile to the national security agency and in many cases, the national security of the united states. so it is a tragedy.

i think it raises some interesting issues for congress. the hard problem, the problem that we are all debating is how do you do oversight of intelligence. it's got to be obvious to everyone that you can't do intelligence by disclosing your intelligence programs. you won't have any left if you do that. if you once grant that proposition it's kind of hard to imagine what further oversight would have been appropriate. it does seem to me that there has been quite a bit of effective oversight in this context. so i would be glad to talk more about the details of the oversight or how we ended up in the position we're in today. thanks. >> great. thanks. next we have kevin bankston he's the policy director of the open technology institute and previously at the center of democracy and technology. obviously you've been following

this area for a long time and probably put a lot of this stuff into perspective for you. kevin also just recently wrote an article in the washington post -- >> cnn. >> that was on the anniversary and it's a great read. it's on his website if you want to take a look at that. why don't you give us your perspective on what's going on here. >> thanks. >> so kevin bankston formerly aclu and enf so surprise i come from a civil libertarian perspective when it comes to government surveillance. but i think what i want to talk about today is the fact that however you fall on the national security versus personal privacy and civil liberties debate which is a sim plitic wplistic way to this. i think there can be a strong argument way that we need to see substantial reforms in the way we do surveillance to address all the other issues being raised by the snowden

revelations and the programs it did reveal. this is not about a national security benefit versus private civil liberties. it's about national security versus privacy and civil liberties versus the internet economy and versus the security of the internet and the openness of internet architecture. it's about the continuing viability of our internet freedom agenda abroad. the continued health of our relations with our allies and emerging governments abroad. so even if you don't care a jot about privacy and civil liberties, i think there are a lot of minuses in the plus/minus columns when we talk about these programs and how we need to respond to them. frankly, you know one point i've heard is that well, it's not actually the program's fault, it's the snowden revelation's of the program's fault. i think that is a moot point or at least a semantic one.

the fact is the information is out there. the damage has been done. the u.s. government does have to act in a way to address the credibility concerns that's it has now raised in regard to the own behavior and the security and functioning of the internet as a whole. in regard to that in addition to the short piece we did in cnn, we actually have a short paper that you can find on the desk out front and it has been handed around that actually runs through the variety of costs that have been reported on since the snowden revelations since began and runs through many of the things i just spoke about. that's in advance of a much longer paper that will be published before the end of the month. suffice too see on the impact we have predictions of billions of dollars lost to the u.s. internet industry. we are starting to hear numbers of particular companies saying things like we have lost half of our international hosting business in the past year.

there is a real impact coming from this. we need to act to address it. so thank you. >> thanks kevin. >> chris is the director of policy at the business offer alliance. i found out he's a fellow neb rask an so i'm excited about that. you come at this from a different perspective. you have a long history in doing technology policy and looking at the challenges this takes for some of your companies that are member companies. do you want to address that. >> absolutely. thanks everyone for the opportunity and for being here today. i think where i've ended up here physically not in the middle between the two of you is perhaps unfortunate but really it's where the technology industry has ended up caught in the middle of a much larger debate about really what should be seen as a new era of privacy.

we're entering a new era of technology. i appreciate that kevin came back at the end to what are at this point very real conseque e consequences for the technology industry. this is obviously a huge debate about privacy, about the balance of law enforcement and surveillance interests and national security and that is a huge debate that we have to have. it also, i think, should be seen as an economic debate because of the huge impact that this is going to have on the technology sector moving forward. >> so just sticking with you. so your companies are seeing ramifications after a year they really -- they feel like they've seen an impact. can you elaborate on that? >> absolutely. i should mention at the time bsa is represents a broad swath of

the traditional software and hardware companies in the it sector. speaking here today i'm not speaking for any one of those members and at times, i will probably be speaking for myself and i will try to make that clear. yes, it's been pretty wildly reported as kevin mentioned, there has been a real impact on this. i've seen probably most recently the news that verizon lost a contract with the german government and the german government specifically sited security concerns and wanting to keep the network domestic. we are hearing antidotally a lot of examples of countries customers, end users raising security concerns as to whether or not they should use u.s. based companies for their services. hearing questions even in companies that don't -- have not been pulled into the whole national security surveillance

debate. they are getting questions about this. so we're absolutely hearing a lot of examples of concerns from customers around the world. >> so staying on the trade thought for a second before we go to privacy, so the impact on the u.s. government's credibility, we think this is real. this is not just a posturing issue or being used as a trade lever? >> so i don't know -- a trade lever as much as a lever to influence and grow economies around the world. what we are seeing is obviously the companies that have been drawn into this debate are u.s. companies. u.s. companies in many places are the leading providers of technology products and increasingly technology services around the world. what we have here is an inflection point, a moment for

another countries, other companies to close the gap and to use this as an opportunity to really catch-up to the i.t. industry in the united states. >> that would be my sense. there is no doubt that there are some privacy -- genuine privacy concerns here but there's also no doubt that there are merchant motivations in people with cloud saying they want our stuff stored here. the desire to have stuff stored locally has a lot of motivations. one is more jobs locally. one is that we don't hear much about is all of this move, i'm sure kevin has been enthusiastic about encrypting communications and to the e-mail provider.

that has cut off access by local law enforcement to a whole bunch of information that they can only get now by coming to the united states and asking pretty please, the u.s. will give us the information. they would rather force all the e-mail to be stored in brazil or germany so that their law enforcement agencies can walk in and take it which is the general rule for most of these law enforcement agencies. that is part of the motivation in demanding that there be more localization of the cloud. it's not particularly good for privacy. it's probably bad for privacy but it is part of the motivation. >> if i might add to that. i think in some instances we agree on this stu in the sense that several of the trends that we're seeing now pre-existed the snowden revelations but the snowden revelations have hastened them have given acommuniti ammunition to those we were arguing with. prior to snowden there were

certain governments who were trying to get american companies to locally host both private data and data that the youtube videos and the like so that local governments could exert greater control over content and have easier access to data. the snowden revelations have much strength en strengthened t way that impacts human rights. one of our biggest concerns about data localization presnowden was that many of these countries were doing this not because they were trying to protect themselves against big bad americans but because they wanted to exert greater control over internet data and internet speech. we've now given them a great deal of ammunition on that. similarly, even prior to the snowden revelations, there was a big debate over the role of the u.s. in internet governance and what should the future of internet governance be. shoul

should it continue to be a multi-stakeholder model but that many are concerned has been dominated by the u.s. or should it be in the realms and governments. we've had countries like china, russia, and saudi arabia pushing hard to increase the role of governments in the global administration in the internet. that trend existed presnowden however the snowden revelations have significantly given the contours of that debate given a lot of ammunition to people who don't necessarily we want control over the internet. they can say it because we want to get up to mischief like the u.s. >> or if i can put it on a bumper sticker it would be snowden better for russia than for privacy. >> taking a slightly different point of view of that. from the idea of encrypting your

e-mail from end to end. is that healthy. >> i would say it's an enormous benefit. although it is also costly. i think the companies have had to expend a great deal of resources to do this. if we're talking about costs of the nsa programs that is one of them. i think there are a great deal of benefits to them as well. google and yahoo should have been inscriptienscriptincryptin links. we want to see more encryption between e-mail servers. this is something google published a transparency report with all the companies that weren't encrypting all of your e-mails. all of this goes to the good and hardening of the information and security against unauthorized access. >> it's also authorized access. every country has loathsome

criminals that they are quite entitled to investigate. when you encrypt everything end to end, their investigations will end up in multilateral assistance treaty requests for assistance to the u.s. government if they don't have a treaty and most of the authoritarian governments don't have a treaty that we're willing to cooperate under, they have no way of getting information even against the criminals that they are investigating if they are using g mail and yahoo mail and the like. that will create enormous tension between the companies and governments. it will lead into hacking into people's computers and frankly for most of us, if your biggest worry is the police or the national security agency, encrypting end to end has a pretty significant effect. if you think that the people's liberation army is more likely

to break into your system. believe me if you're in the united states, that is the case. encrypting end to end doesn't really solve the problem. you want to encrypt the data at rest. all of these solutions that we've been spending boat loads of money are aimed at the wrong target. >> i think it's pretty obvious from the actions of the companies increasing encryption it's obvious that the goal here is ensuring the confidence of the end users that their data is secure. stuart quite rightly notes the existence and criminals and the ability to pursue proper investigations and ultimately does that increase state hacking, possibly. i think what we would suggest and what we would propose is we see the real alternative and the real message that we should be driving is the importance of

international cooperation and conversations about this. this is a place at this point we feel governments need to be coming together to talk about how to governor access to data and to create a framework that works around the world. >> i mean, i would agree with that and simply add that much of the focus right now, i think is technically hard ening the internet against all governments or criminals or russian mafia and that much of that focus when it comes to government access is to ensure if the government does need data which it often does that they come through the front door with appropriate legal process rather than the back door. >> they are going to move the front door to brazil and germany and romania and russia and china. they are going to insist that the data be stored there, including american's data. we're going to completely lose control of any privacy standards with respect to the foreign

government access to that data. >> it's interesting. i feel like we're arguing past each other. i share that same concern but i think we have a different idea of what are the root causes of that. i think that the snowden revelations have given a great deal of ammunition to the countries that want to do that. i think that but i'm not going to accept that threat as a reason why we should not also secure our data. >> so can we unpack that a little bit. i think that's really an interesting point. so let's just pick a country -- let's use brazil. so if i have data as an american citizen now in brazil. what do you think my concern is? >> so i'm willing to bet, i know more about the european standards. >> i picked the wrong country. >> we could go to germany. it's a safe bet that the brazilians don't have a higher standard for access than the germans and the dutch and the

french. the fact is that in practically every country, law enforcement can walk in and just say would you like to give us that information. thank you. by the way it's understood you're not going to tell anybody that you're provided us with that information. >> for clarity, the law enforcement person and they in that sentence is the local -- isb. >> they will walk into -- anybody that stores data in brazil is subject to having the police come in and ask for their subscribers information voluntarily, end quotes. without disclosing because it would be embarrassing the fact of having provided that information. if you are an american who just happens to be taking a visit to the world cup and you do e-mails from brazil, there's a decent chance that under the stand ars

as they are revolving all of that stuff will be stored in brazil and not anywhere else and that your data will be looked at by the authorities in brazil for whatever purpose they want to use it for without any of the protections that we are now arguing about how to improve. >> kevin do you want to -- >> i think the more apt discussion to be having is what do others think is going to happen to their data if they store it in the united states? right now what people believe is going to happen if they store it in the united states is that the nsa is going to have relatively unchecked access to it and that is causing people to choose not to do business with american companies. it is causing governments to propose new infrastructure for the internet to limit the amount of data that travels directly or incidentally through the united states. >> i don't disagree that there are people and media with strong interests in keeping that issue alive in foreign countries and

that it is being used in some cases in good faith and in some cases in bad faith to try to get localization of data. i'm not sure that that's a completely successful move in every respect but the more we prevent governments from getting any access to this accept through the really more or less broke process, the more likely we are to inspire a determination to localize that data where we will completely lose privacy protections for my americans who happen to be caught up in that web. so i think we do more or less agree yeah, i'm just not sure what would you suggest an apology tour. a world apology tour? this is something that's being misused by governments. most of the public policy proposals that are currently before congress, let's get rid of the 215 programs. let's do something about back end data searches for americans

will have zero impact on the campaign that is being put forward. if what you would like is a international agreement that we're not going to do espionage, that's about as plausible as agreeing that we don't have extra marital sex in the future. it is simply something that is going to happen and we're not going to be able to regulate it. if we signed up to that we would be the only people who tried to enforce it on our own government. >> i certainly agree that the current proposals are focused on americans and don't hit the programs that are going to impact people outside of the united states including section 702. i think that's a deficiency of the proposals. as far as things we can do, you can look at the very back page of the paper we handed out that has a number of recommendations about how we can start addressing this issue. i think one of them is 702 reform. limiting the scope of the data

that can be collected and the range of purposes for which it can be collected. greater range of transparency. a variety of confidence building measures in regard to u.s. government encryption standards and -- you mention the process as well. this is not actually in our recommendations but i think our answer to the issue of well, how do we address if we encrypt the data, others governments won't be able to get it on their territory. what do we do about that? i think what we do about that an certainly it is the position of the reform governance surveillance program is that we do need for the 21 century for governments to international make requests between each other for data that's stored in their jurisdictions. >> i agree with kevin. i think to stuart's analogy, we don't need a world apology tour

but it's pretty clear that doing nothing is not getting us anywhere at all. there's lots of extra marital sex still going on. >> okay. >> again like whatever we do, the fact is billions of dollars are beginning to be lost. there's going to be more to come. we are seeing a -- i use the word ammunition before. we are seeing a lot of energy now being put behind things that could fundamentally fragment the internet. could fundamentally shift the l theinternet activity away from the united states. we have to be active to prevent that. >> what is the dollar impact on this and the companies? what has happened. the problem with looking at the numbers of what has happened is by the time you have a dollar, a real dollar impact, that business is lost. it's not coming back to u.s.

companies. i think that that is the danger of sitting and waiting to see how this plays out. it's hurting u.s. companies. it will hurt worse. it will hurt our surveillance capabilities worse if we let this path continue to play out by doing nothing. >> that's actually a really great point, not that i'm necessarily -- >> i want to hear this. >> well, to those who -- i mean i'm a civil libertarians i'm primarily focused on protecting civil liberties but to the extent that you chill people from storing data or communication in the united states, that distinctly impacts our intelligence capability. regardless of what you think it should be in terms the legal standards if less of that data is here. we le hawill have less of that for intelligence purposes as well. in that way the economic impact and the impact on the internet

itself is also going to have a security impact for us. >> should we be concerned that there was a recent report saying math am imagine imagine people are turning away work from the nsa because they don't agree with the dialogue. how do we say to young evaning ne engineers going forward that we still know what's going on? how do we manage this going forward? >> one of the things i would suggest is that one, if this is what we're worried about, most of the reform proposals have nothing to do with this and aren't going to as kevin more or less anni less acknowledged aren't going to change anyone's view. indeed the longer the fight goes on the more attention gets paid to the snowden documents and the

perception that nsa is collecting everything. if this is what we're worried about, we should focus on things like reform and frankly, rather than a world apology tour we should be taking some of this fight to the people who are misusing it for their advantage. high on that list has to be the european union. which has patented the business method of holding american companies hostage over some objection over u.s. policy that has nothing to do with companies. they did that to airlines over pnr. they did that over swift to u.s. collection of terrorist finance information. they are doing it now over safe harbor trying to find a way to say we will threaten all of the u.s. companies that want to do

business transatlantically with losing their protection under the safe harbor as a way of trying to extract concessions from the united states on unrelated topics. they want to regulate. they have no authority to regulate any intelligence service in europe. the only intelligence europe they think they have the authority to regulate is the united states. it's time to call their bluff over this and one of the things that frankly for people here in congress, you ought to be thinking about is the european parliament comes over here all the time. they constantly are thinking about ways to hurt u.s. companies, putting them into law and saying we're doing it to protect privacy and when they come here, they hear nothing from congress to suggest there's anything wrong with the positions they are taking. congress here needs to be as aggressive about protecting u.s. interests as the europeans are about protecting european economic interests. that means taking actions to prevent and to specify

consequences from my effort to screw around with the safe harbor over this issue which really has nothing to do with the law of privacy in europe which the safe harbor already fully vindicates. >> so i guess to get away from europe for a sec. let's say art imitates life and a company decides to become the google of brazil. is there an ability to do -- >> we call it -- >> to do sort of a check the box exercise of i would like all of my dauta to avoid a u.s. server. can the zeros and ones really do that. there's a certain element of this dialogue which is very pragmatic from a policy perspective. i don't know if all of these things are feasible. >> so i think i would rely on a

real technologist to measure the feasibility of that. the problem is only the goliaths can do that. there's a huge swath of the technology industry is not that big. it's not built that way. the cost to a lot of bsa member companies of trying to assure every customer by saying your data will be held in x locality just isn't possible. you undermine not just the efficiency of the system and value that cloud computing and other things bring but you undermine the cost. >> so when putin said a couple of weeks ago that he wanted all twitter information to be -- if they were allowed to keep tweeting in russia they would have to stay on a local exchange server or put a server locally. i don't mean to make this very

specific to one company but if you're a company at that point, do you just say good luck. we'll do our best. i realize we've had these challenges and iterations with yahoo in the past. if you are one of these edge providers who are very popular especially the social networks how much credence do you have to put to some of these people or do you just say great. russia, we wish you the best with that. >> twitter is not a bsa member. i think it's really hard to answer some of those questions from a company perspective. especially when you are answerable to stock holders. some of the markets, some of the worst parties here are fairly large markets. >> it's a business call. i think you have to decide how much is it going to cost me not just in funds but in disappointment on the part of your customers versus what it will cost you to get out of that

market. when the chinese started censoring google, google said this is not our market. when the europeans decided to sensor google, google said what do we have to do. that's a decision they have to make. you make it on a business basis. >> i just also add there's a layer technically and figuratively between the edge providers as well. if you move up a layer and look at the isps and the back bone providers, those who have the internet exchange points that carry all of this traffic, we are moving into an age where there aren't a whole lot of those. there are fewer and fewer entities controlling all of those pureeing points. you look at the emerging markets especially in countries less friendly to human rights. there are actually very few of these points and they are under pretty strict control by the government such that it's

actually quite feasible to say we don't want this or that traffic coming in or out of the country or we don't want this service to be able to reach out people or vice versa. we want to keep it internal. it's worth being mindful of that. it's also worth noting that to the extent that major isps agree we want to keep our bits on particular links. that's feasible for them to do. we are seeing this in the context of the european yun yun and they are talking about a routing program where it will not leave europe. it is technically possible. it will not be cheap. >> this is just like any other security decision. you have to decide what it's worth to you in money and in hassle. it has to be worth it to everybody who has control of the

decisions. it turns out i suspect that it isn't worth of it of all the people that would have to be persuaded for a zone to do that for the internet. certainly it's worth it for governments to say if you're going to host our data, we want our data hosted in our country. frankly that's the u.s. position. it's not a surprise. so on some things, we have the leverage and they can do it relatively inexpensively and they will do it pretty much no matter what we do for the next year on snowden response. for the rest, they won't because it isn't worth all the hassle just as sometimes it isn't worth all the hassle to have a 20 character password. we know we should. we mean to on january 1 but my

january 30 we decided it's too hard to remember. it's certainly worth it to some governments and foreign competitors. they've been very outward about talking down u.s. competitors. >> they have been but you know everybody all of their customers are also quite cynical about that and they are quite prepared to say well, okay. if your 2% more expensive we might take that hit in order to get what you're selling but if you're 20% to hell with you we're going to amazon. >> if i may jump back to another point, i do want to make clear whenever you say you've conceded a point you do need to rethink what he said. i said the current legislative proposals doesn't do enough to reassure the primary markets because the focus has been

ending the telephone records program that primarily effects us. i do want to be clear that it does do a number of things that i think would help address this problem. it would prevent bulk collection of all records if it's done right. we're working on it in the senate. it should be reassuring to anyone who stores data or has records kept about them in the united states. it also would do an enormous amount -- screeria -- nigeria.

airlines flight. this is one hour. >> welcome. this is a special event. it's a pleasure to have the british ambassador here to talk about nato and the changing face of transatlantic security. it could not have come at a more timely quick. he became the ambassador to the u.s. in january of 2012. this is his second posting this washington. he was previously the mc's downs lore for public and private

apairs. prior tore that was ambassador to turkey starting in 2002. peter his career in the diplomatic service have included postings in toronto there's a lot more to it. it's just too distinguished for me. let's welcome the ambassador. don't forget you can follow online as twitter as well. #def1live. if you want to get to more questions. [ applause ] >> thank you. thanks, jimmy. thank you so much. thank you all very much for copping down this afternoon it

is quite a time will me emt. i think as we survey the rather dramatic events going around world recently it's important to talk about the human dynamic going on and to remember the people who lost their lives when theed airplane was shot down last week. people are dying in gaza. all types of things are not in the headlines that are bigger issues. >> in my introduction how many important an vrsaries there are going on. what a hiftor rick time it is. it's 200 years since the end of the last conflict between britain and the united states. the beginning of the closest military alliance we've ever

seen. seven decades since the trauma and heroism of the d-day landings. twooif years since the falling of the berlin wall. >> 70 years ago this week british and american forces were embroiled in heavy fighting around a french town as they battled to break out of a normandy breach head. those landings involved 175,000 british service men fighting across their u.s. comrades. the brits and americans joined by canadians, new zu laealandez

dutch, it was a partnership to defeat fascism. after the war britain were instrumental in the creation of nato which has proved vital in facing down soviet aggression. the fall of the berlin wall 25 years ago as i was saying this november marked the beginning of soef yoet d. britain and america have come together again and again to lead coalitions in national security. as we did on land in the balkans and the sea of the horn of africa and the skies over libya. the september 11 attacks sparked the alliances longest mission to date in afghanistan and

throughout nato's military operations, british and u.s. personnel made up the two largest contingents fighting in afghanistan. today we face fresh challenges. the contours of the conflict in gaza are depressingly familiar. it doesn't lessen the urgency of finding a resolution. of course israel has a right to defend itself against the rocket attacks but we believe it does it appropriately to take on measur measures to keep the loss of civilian life. i'm very pleased this morning john kerry is on his way back to the region to see if he can

deliver that objective. in other parts the world, the nature of the challenges is changing constantly almost by the day. in ukraine we find ourselves in new and dangerous territory. the shooting down of a civilian airline is an intolerable out rage. it's being compounded by russian separatists to block access to the crash site. tragically, others are still on the side of the accident of the crash. >> the separatists grant immediate access to the side so those who are still there can be identified and it areturned to their families f. owe the international community can have the facts behind whose responsible for this atroegs crime. those who took the lives 298

lives can be held responsible for their actions. it looks like it was fired from a separatist controlled area of eastern ukraine. whatever the outcome of the investigation, it's already clear that russia has fermented a conflict. president putin has the power to bring an edge to the bloodshed. we believe he must do you so without delay. the eyes of the world are behind him. today's threats come from regional terism, cyber attacks and so on. some states seek to use the cyber domain. increasing we're seeing threats from nonstate actors. none can no longer be seen as fringe groups. al qaeda's core has been

deteriorated. we can't dismiss the challenge these developments pose to our national security because the rise of isis threatens to destabilize the region. we can add a third grouping. we might call them quasi state actors. we see them in ukraine. this should be a source of american for all countries. any threat to the principal of national sovereign nations. first we've got to look to stop the conflicts before they occur. whether we like it or not, that requires some discreet

intelligence gathering sometimes necessarily secret sow that we can find terrorisms before they kill innocent people not afterwards. another is our efforts to remedy the societial ills. this is aimed at changing the culture of impunity for those who commit these terrible acts. smams we ha sometimes we have to take a firmer line. until the kremlin decides to bring an end to this conflict nato will have to continue to take action to reassure its partners. we will continue to ratchet up sanctions and continue we must

economically russia needs the west at least as much as we do russia. real sanctions can have real bite. the uk has pushed for international piece and national security. meanwhile, we will carry on working through the mf to help stabilize ukraine's economy and through the osce to monitor conditions on the ground. >> through sanctions, diplomacy, negotiation, we've made progress and enough to make extending the negotiations for another four months.

these are good examples of handling problems without force. it's clear that each time our efforts to keep arm forces. our militaries must be nimble and flexible. we brits are investing heavily in new capabilities to make our equipment fit for purpose. working more seamlessly with our american allies. we're upgreating to more traditional war capabilities. we will be spending $250 billion in the next two years. david cameron announced a 1 $1/2 billion in surveillance and

intelligent capabilities. >> over the next few years we have a rejuvenated air craft carriers and a fleet of f fighters to fly from them. a couple of months ago i visited the queen elizabeth with my american counterpart in jumpsuits and goggles. the queen elizabeth ceremony with her majesty, and our most most capability is our fighting men and women. our troops we believe remain among the pest in the world. we ask a lot of them and they deliver year in, year out to an

it astonishing high level. with so many people now returning from afghanistan, we've got to take more seriously than ever the pastural obligations that we have toward veterans and their families. we're funding projects like homes for veterans and mental health lines for personnel and their families. just after the nato submit in south wails, london will host the games for wounded warriors in the u.s./uk for a dozen countries. it will be a major celebration of their troops from and their major w maj major celebrations. >> in his recent speech at west point president obama emphasized

the importance of partnerships. weigh gree with him. for as good as our efforts may be they will fall short. britain seeks partnerships beyond for example. we have strong historical ties with hong kong and australia and new zealand and singapore. where i should add even the smallest contact is valuable because it does lessen the risk of miscommunication or miscalculation in a region where territorial pursuits exists even as military powers mature.

these are at. it's in everyone's tre to try to stabilize the nations before they become a great threat. libya is an example of a state that we can't afford to let slide into anarchy. the g 8 agreed to train more than 7,000 militias to reintegrate them in society. there's another efforts to help libya, the uk is playing a major role elsewhere. we've got experts within the eu's trading mission in molly. with other governments we're actively engaged in training un peace keepers for stabilizing missions around the world. the most important partnerships however are those we enjoy with

our close allies. with the u.s. cooperation has become routine, almost operation. we've joined to the hip but it does not stop there. across our arounded forces, we enjoy a unique level of integration. hundreds are positioned in the united states along with their american comrades. the same is true the other way around with u.s. personnel in the uk. as we approach the end of combat operations in afghanistan. we're also looking seriously when we no longer have to fight side by side. last month the joint chiefs met their mettish equivalents where peace was at the top of the

agenda. we're developing a combined joint expeditionary force with france which we expect to be fully operational to 2069. which brings me to the nato summit in october. just a few months ago we were asked why we even need a summit. well in one is saying that anymore. on the contrary, there's pretty much universal acceptness of the importance of the alliance today and in the past p. the summit will focus on threats rent and tuture and will resolve around three key things. first afghanistan. afghanistan today is not perfect but it is far from the terrorist launchpad it was back in 201.

afghan troops are providing security across the country. unprecedented numbers of girls are going to school. 40% of afghans use mobile phones. none of this would have been even thinkable under the taliban. all of it contributes to a afghanistan that is for more secure today than any time since the taliban took the turn out in afghanistan's residential elections showed that afghanistans want a constitutional peaceful transfer of power which we hope leads to the formation of a government of national unit. nato will go on supporting afghanistan. thanks to the pledges we made

two years ago in chicago, the funding is there. second seem for the summit is going to be european security and the longer term implicati s implications. we have hybrid warfare that russia has been engaging in. crucially we must consider how to further deter russian aggression. last week's events underscore how urgent the situation is becoming. >> finally we will be able to future proof the alliance. we need to make sure nato has everything we need. as well as modernization, we needed to develop than that.

a system in which allies share the burden of security by pooling resources in a coordinated manner. clearly this requires all allies to pull their weight that includes states that's spending falls below 2% of gdp. we believe that security is well worth the price tag. of one of only four countries to have met the nato target. we will continue nato's efforts to building the largest partnership. almost half of the nation's participating in afghanistan. we owe it to them to look for

new ways of integrating them into the alliance decision making process. nato acted as a deterrent against depression but the alliance needs to know hae it can be equally effective in its new role as an active player on a constantly changing global security change. together, the united states and europe have played a leading role in designing international system since the world war. the system has been a great pros than ever before. more countries are democratic than ever before. around the globe, more and more societies are emerging from poverty. at the same time, security picture is more complex that at any time in recent memory. the brits, americans and other who landed in normandy 70 years ago did so to combat a clear

unified state-based anniversary. the next two generations face similarly ugly threat. today, it's far more fragmented and complex. not only nation states but also terrorists, extremists, insurgents, all pose a threat to our national security. to deal with it, we need strong traditional military, and we're working to achieve that, as i have been trying to explain. we also need a subtle array of alternatives. we need hard power and soft power, we need intelligence, democracy, sanctions. we need development and military partnerships. nato is the world's preeminent alliance, but again, adapts to new realities as it has done over the last quarter century. i'm confident that come september, come the nato summit in south wales, world leaders will be able to show that nato remains strong, united, ready to meet and defeat any threat. as we continue to adapt, we

could do a lot worse than bear in mind the important words of abraham lincoln who wrote 150 years ago the struggle today is not all together of today. it's also for the vast future. thank you very much for your attention. [ applause ] and for your applause. i'm very happy now to look forward to sitting down with you and discussing your questions and discussing whatever else you want to raise.