resistant vehicles. we have a situation we have officers in ferguson running around in camouflage. i mean, why do they need camouflage in the inner city? they have these huge toys that have been collecting dust in the warehouses so they are looking for any excuse to bring these weapons of mass destruction out. so they have taken the war on drugs, used the war on terrorism as an excuse and are using these things, you know, against our people. there are measures in congress right now. they're speaking about measures to limit the use of military-style equipment in domestic police forces. we need to look at this. this isn't just coming from progressives. we have conservatives such as senator rand paul who has been speaking out against things like this as well. this is very, very important, and my time is up, but there is a definite connection. they're all related, and we need

to make sure that we connect the dots. [ applause ] >> thank you, sister. brother jasiri, a fashion not young hip-hop activist. tell me whhow the hip-hop community has responded to ferguson and what are they doing to keep the memory of ferguson alouf within the artistic community? >> first, the word was spread through social media, and really the word was spread by the young people in ferguson that witnessed what happened to mike brown and took pictures of it, that put it out. they began to organize on social media. naturally when it began to be spread on social media, kind of hip-hop artists stepped in. you know what i'm saying? one, young jeezy actually had a show in ferguson -- i mean in st. louis the next day.

he said he actually wanted to cancel the show or either wanted everybody to donate the money to the show to the family. wasn't able to get -- to convince everybody to do that. he put a mike brown shirt on. he went to the kwik trip after that. j. cole just went to speak to the community. they were so happy. you know, when i went with david banner, the people were so happy to see him because not only is he, you know, an actor and hip-hop artist, but he was defending the community. defending them on cnn. and one of the things that somebody said to him was, they said, you know, we didn't want al sharpton or jessie jackson to come down. we wanted you to come down because of how he was representing that community. so it's gn a lot of people, myself included, that have used our hip-hop to raise awareness of this issue, t.i., john legend was on twitter just ooethering

folks. there has been quiet from some of the biggest hip-hop artists right now. a lot of white artist that is co-op black cull to make millions of dollars and then they don't say, you know, but when something happens to the black community, they don't say anything. and i say this to say as consumers, we need to be mindful of that. and we need to hold those artists accountable. if you're not going to speak to us when we need your voice, when your album comes out and you want to start tweeting and facebooking and having questions, then we're not going to support you if you're not going to support us. [ applause ] >> all right. thank you, brother jaziri.

we're trying to get brother danny glover on the line here. hello, danny, can you hear us? sisters and brothers, we will have to keep it down so we can hear danny. this is the only way we're going to get him to participate. [ inaudible ]. >> hello, hello. danny, hold on. go ahead. can you hear him? no. i tell you what, let's see -- right. how can we do this? this is up to the max. all right. try it again, danny. hello, hello, danny. danny, try it again. [ inaudible ]. >> not going to work. that's what i think we'll have to do.

danny, hold on one second. we're doing to try to solve this technical problem. sisters and brothers, bear with us. brother danny glover is on a film set in utah as we speak and is taking a quick time-out from filming to call into the town hall meeting. we're going to try to hook him up through the system. in the meantime, why don't we do another housekeeping -- couple housekeeping matters. the yellow cards, sisters and brothers, that have been circulating, please instead of giving them to -- there's just too many people here. on your way out, there are baskets at the door. please just put the yellow -- filled out yellow cards into the baskets. we also encouraging everyone here to tweet the event live. the hash tag is #ibwhandsup. all right. we're still -- in the meantime,

i would like to take this pause to recognize is number of specially invited guests, community leaders, religious leaders in the d.c. area, and i'm going to call on them to each stand as i call your name and to be recognized. dr. -- reverend dr. joseph evans from the mt. carmel baptist church is here with us. attorney jocelyn mccurry from the aclu. brother salim dafur from the national black united front. reverend -- >> can you hear me?

>> do we have it now? okay. >> hello? >> yeah. can we get danny on now? >> hello? >> yeah. >> terrific. >> hello. >> yes. >> hi, danny. >> you on. you on live. >> i'm on live. thank you, thank you, everyone. first of all, if you can hear me, i just wanted to, first of all, like so many there, i have not had an opportunity to listen to the program. first of all, our condolences to the family and the community in ferguson. and i know how important it is.

unfortunately, i cannot be with you today, but i'm certainly there with you in spirit. as you talk about ferguson and beyond, and as the information that is available to us, information that we uncovered over this period of time since august 9th. hopefully that brings us into focus, a clear picture of the work that we must do. but we cannot do the work unless we understand the historical significance of this moment and understand clearly, clearly the culture and the history around racial violence in this country. without that here now, we're [ inaudible ].

we tend to compartmentalize things within our own reaction to what is happening. we don't often [ inaudible ] these incidents with regard to the historical and spatial patter patterns. the police are a primary force, a primary working class force who act as agents for the state. their responsibility is maintaining some sort of social control. and having that authority they use force with impunity. also to understand that they also understand that they have -- [ inaudible ] in that sense. to maintain control.

and it's expressed in a book. she outlines the history of control and here we are right now at this particular moment. we have to understand the context of this control when you have an economy that's stagnated and that has dispossessed all those young people. the form of control that that we see exercised are because of the potential of that -- of those people. we saw it months before. we know self-defense grew on and was argued around issues of community control by the police and self-defense.

around education and health care and we understood that. we witnessed a young man, bret hampton, with the chicago police. we see the form and attempts to attack young people and young black men. we see it through the civil rights movement. understanding where we are at this particular moment is a liberal paradigm -- [ inaudible ]. not only use resources to educate our young man but resources into the mobilization of the police forces. so understand that role and how they sustain that pressure. that's why we're here today. this is why we're here. use this moment, use this in an expression of outrage and horror, condemnation and outrage as what's happening.

at the attorney general of who said it happens in many places around this country. there's a distinct pattern and we need to understand the historical connection for that pattern and how they find themselves resonating in the 21st century where we live under the conditions we live in with this endemic poverty. we have the school system that has not been able to flourish and allow our children to grow. we have the lack of opportunities available to us. we have to understand that we live -- not to be rhetorical, we're living under a place where we see just constant threat and fear perpetrated on our community. that's what we have to deal with. understand that and as we move across the opportunity we have

this unique opportunity to use this moment to mobilize ourselves and begin to attack the police force. what should that police force look like in that sense? we have to be the architect. we have to be the architects and define the narrative and the presentation of that narrative in a sense. because the narrative is right in front of us. case after case and understanding it's important for us to move forward. i'm sorry i couldn't be with you. i know that there will be many opportunities to be a part of this. [ inaudible ] thank you very much. >> thanks, man. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> we want to say a special thanks to brother danny glover for taking time out of his work

schedule in utah on the set. danny, thank you so much, brother. all the best. all right. so we were in the middle of recognizing some of the community leaders who were -- have joined us this evening. i'd like to recognize minister abdul mohammed of the nation of islam. is he around? [ applause ] brother courtney stewart from the reentry network for returning citizens. [ applause ] brother tyrone parker of the alliance of concerned men. [ applause ] dr. pat newton of the black psychiatrists of america. [ applause ] brother malik burnett of the drug policy alliance. [ applause ] brother leighton watson from the

howard university student association. [ applause ] sister marsha -- sister dr. marsha coleman of the no fair co coaliti coalition. we also have carol schwartz, candidate for mayor of d.c. is here with us this evening. and we have several members of the color of change organization in the house, and they've asked me to make this very important announcement, that tomorrow at 5:00 p.m., color of change and their allies will deliver nearly 900,000 petition signatures demanding justice for michael brown and they are calling on president obama to define his legacy by putting policies in place aimed at ending racial

profiling and racially motivated police violence. and they're inviting all of us to meet us in front of the white house. of course, 1600 pennsylvania avenue adjacent to lafayette square tomorrow at what time? 5:00. excellent. all right. we also have a special guest in the house, reverend dr. tyrone pitts. and reverend john relles. they are from the progress sif black baptist convention. we will be getting back to the panel. we want to wrap up things here with wrap-up statements from each of the panelists and then we are going to invite some

members who are our special guests to be respondents to what the panelists have said with very, very brief comments of their own. i'm going to start from the opposite direction this time. nkechi, if you are ready to give your final remarks. focus on recommendations, action items, what is to be done in the days and weeks ahead. first sister nkechi. >> thank you very much. i just want to say for a system to be just, the public must be confident that at every stage of the process, from the initial investigation of a crime by the police officer on the beat to the prosecution and punishment of that crime by prosecutors and the judges, that individuals in like circumstances are treated alike. today our criminal justice system trstrays for from a that

ideal. we have to look at the recommend d dat dations the unified civil rights have pointed out. i would emphasize the use of body cameras. we don't have to rely on people with their iphones. it should be part and parcel of the police department's system. i want to thank the sponsoring organizations. bus boys and poets for providing this vehicle to really excuse to the world what we think needs to happen. thank you very much. >> thank you, sister. brother ron hampton. >> thanks. i'd like to thank the institute of the black world also. in every movement i think there should be a strategy that community begin to organize themselves. i worked with a brother who resides in durham, north carolina. his name is daryl atkinson, and

daryl is involved in a project where they're organizing, they've done their homework, done the statistical work, they've looked at what the police do and don't do in durham, and they're organizing this community of durham to back the police out of their community. in other words, to take control of the public safety issues and concerns that affect their community. we can do that. we did that -- i'm old. we did that a long time ago and we can do that again. and what that does is it gives us the control of the kind of things -- [ inaudible ]. >> our community --

[ inaudible ]. daryl and them backed the police out of there. to do the kind of things that arm the community with the power to do things. some form of restorative justice. some form of -- [ inaudible ]. let me give you this quick thing about -- you know, we have a -- in the history of the juvenile justice system -- [ inaudible ]. they have never, ever, never, ever, been a white juvenile in the juvenile justice system. what that is saying is that that white juvenile -- [ inaudible ].

and we all know that's not true. the essence is it can happen in a different way. when the police pick up a white juvenile, they call their home and take them to their home. when they pick up a black juvenile, they take them to the precinct. durham's idea of organizing the community, taking control of the issue that is are impacting our community, creating our own criminal justice system, juvenile justice speedometystem community, so when they call the police they can concentrate on doing the job they do and not devastating our community with the kind of criminal justice policies we have experienced in the paths. i want to put that on the table for serious consideration because that's an important strategy. if we want to do this, we have to have something that will work for our community and our people. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i just want to let the audience know we do have someone who is very capable of taking cogent notes of what the panelists have said and particularly of their recommendations and their action items. and we will publish those in the next day or two on the website. j brother jasiri x. >> when i went to ferguson i specifically wanted to say this to ron daniels. this is a conversation he had live, mr. daniels, about the intergenerational divide which may be the worst i have ever seen. one of the issue that is the young people have with their elders is when nighttime came and they had to face off against tanks and tear gas and snipers, the elders left. the elders weren't there. what was there was basically

20-year-olds and younger, most of them teenagers. they felt abandoned by the leadership there in ferguson. and you turn on the trve and you continue standly get themselves being diminished to the role of looters. so they need to hear what you spoke on today, brother daniels. they need to here that's panelists and then they need to hear you challenge these other elders that are constantly devaluing the resistance struggle that they showed us. secondly, let's support these young leaders. there are young leaders on the ground. like i said, they're united. you can go to hands up united organize. there's other national youth-driven organizations on the ground like the dream defenders, like black youth projects. let's support -- they need lawyers. they need medic.

they need resources. they need money. some of the young leaders, they quit their jobs. they quit their jobs. one dude had just got out of jail after being arrested for three days and went right back to work. they're strategizing. they have an orientation for people coming in. let's support them. let's not try to overtake them and i say that to say i was sent to ferguson. i was send to ferguson by harry belafonte and an organization. harry belafonte met with 40 to 50 to give us advice. he's not trying to grab the mike and get on the mike. he's using his wisdom and guide tones guide and direct us. i was at a meeting with minister louis farrakhan where he's giting and directing us to use our art to raise the

consciousness of the community. support the young leaders on the ground. guide us and direct us and back us and we will win this thing. one more thing, plaque people. we have the god given right to defend ourselves. i say it like this, when you put my hands up, i put my hands up like this. best believe it, y'all. peace. >> jaziri x. thank you, my brother. >> mrs. barbara arnwine. >> yes, a couple things my brothers and sisters. a couple things. first of all, again, vote. you should be on the phone calling every single person you know in every state you know making sure they vote on november 4th. in ferguson, 12% voter turnout.

ferguson, 67% black. 1 black city council. mayor white talking about how his sister has no racial problems. the school system, everything is an example of the immediate for us to fight back. fight back with what we got. we got the vote. fight back with our economic power. fight back, so it's very important. the second thing is i saw that special that many people saw last night. "fix my life." and i tweeted the following, you cannot think that by preaching a gospel of personal responsibility that you can stop systemic structural racism

problems. you can't. you can't. as we take on the police, there are problems with the school system in ferguson. as we take on the police, there are problems with unemployment in ferguson. as we take on all these issues, they're all related, my sisters and brothers. systemic structural racism has to be dismantled before justice will ever prevail. we got to understand that. that nobody is safe. it doesn't matter what your title, doesn't matter what your accomplishments. so going forward every single one of us, let's make the following pledges. that we are in this to win. we are not in this for the moment. we will make sure that we are doing something.

don't think you can just change it from sleeping and wishing. it's got to be moving and unity. so join the movement and make sure that you work for these recommendations. get the unity statement. go to lawyers committee.org. lawyers committee.org, my organization, and get the unity statement. follow me and all of these great leaders on twitter because we're dropping knowledge constantly about everything. and lastly, i want you to say this is my pledge, my pledge, to leslie mcfadden. my pledge to michael brown sister, my pledge, the same pledge i made to sabrina fullton, the same pledge i made to judy mcbeth, when the cameras

are gone, when people aren't seeking interviews anymore, i will be there. i will have the back of the black people who have been shot in tergson who are in jail. i will have the back of the 350e78 who are calling my line and burning it up for legal representation. i will have their back because this is not about them. it's about us. my heart can't sleep as long as these injustices are taking place. so next month the trial starts of donte servant. do people know who he is? he's the police officer who shot and killed rakiva boyd. the sister who was innocent sitting in her car and he shot and killed her. these are the people who we got to be there for.

let's not forget every community where there's a need that we lift up the struggle, that we are their voices, and we're making the change. i know i will. thank you so much. >> thank you, sister barbara arnwine. finally, brother hilary shelton of the naacp. >> thank you all for bringing us together to have the conversation we need to have in the family. let me say it is clearly time for a new paradigm. a time for a new paradigm. it's a new reality and new expectations of what we have under the circumstances we're living. the challenge is we've been able to go through a process and describe all these victims of gun violence at the hands of police officers. all these victims of death, but yet we keep coming back and hague the same conversation over and over again. i remember having a conversation

about an african standing in the vestibule of his apartment building in new york city. over 40 police shots, hit over 20 times. the only thing he had in his hands was his car keys. as we talk about what happened with michael brown, new paradigm, must be a new set of expectations and new rules of engagement. what that means, we must change the law from the bottom up. at the local community. we have to talk about how we screen or in these cases do not screen those who would be police officers on our streets. we have too many cowboys with police guns and police cruisers. we need to make sure we have the protections in place we must have very well video cameras. yes, there's a video camera for a gun called a gun cam. from the time you tyke take the out of the holster within seven seconds, it begins recording everything in front of your gun.

we need body court of appeals. we want to make sure we see what you're doing. if you're an official representative of the united states or your local community, you have rights that other people don't have, including the right to kill. we have to make sure those rights are being observed and very well we have to monitor what you're doing. we need body court of appeals. we need dash court of appeakams. you see what's happening in front. we continue to monitor police from that side as well. every local community needs a police accountability review board with the kind of power and independence that should pay for the investigation. we have to make sure when the police accountability review board finds there's a problem, they don't go to the police captain to ask permission to move forward but can convene a grand jury in which criminal charges can be brought. we need police accountability review boards with real power in d.c., in ferguson, and every place else across the country. we have to pass, we have to pass the end racial profiling act to

make sure it is very clear what racial profiling is, that it is illegal, and if you you'utilize strategy you will be punished and kicked off your police department. we have to pass the end racial profiling act. we have to make sure we're clear on what the acceptable use of force is and the apprehension of a criminal. we have a bill now pending called the law enforcement trust and integrity act. what it does is set the standards and says not only what is legal but what is illegal for police to do in these cases and we have to have everyone and hold everyone accountable. finally, the issue was raised about the number of people that have been killed at the hands of law enforcement officials and how there is no central manner in which we collect that data. that has to end. we know the strategy is and the reality is in order to manage a problem, you must first measure it. in order to manage a problem. you must first measure it. that means every time a police officer kills someone or anyone

working in an official law enforcement capacity, that data must be collected. the death in custody act passed the u.s. house of representatives at the leadership of congressman bobby scott and is pending before the u.s. senate. we must not allow the congress to go home until we have the most basic of tools to collect the data. and finally, there are two websites i want you to take a look at in addition to the wonderful sites being shared. one is the naac p's website. it's hard to remember but the website address naacp.org. naacp.org. want to make sure all of that data is there. and finally here locally there's a great process going on now being led by patrice salton. we're trying to collect the data here and close to home atw

ww.dcpoliceproject.com. www@d cpoliceproject com. you can make sure as these issues move forward not only do you show up at programs like this one, but you're engaged every step of the process. politics, process, procedure, determining who gets what, where, and how must always be driven by us. it is not a spectator sport. thank you very much. >> thank you, brother hilary shelton, director of the naacp's washington bureau. sisters and brothers, let's give a warm applause to thank our panelists for our wonderful presentations this evening. [ applause ] when we at the institute of the black word ld decided to put th forum together we wanted to make it a town hall meeting and give

an opportunity for not only these panelists but for other voices to be heard. we are asking several of our special guests to come forward and make very crisp, succinct reports because time is moving on. i'm going to call first on young man, brother leighton wattsson o is representing the howard university association. if you can come up to this standing mike right here and make your comment, very crisp. >> good evening. my name is leighton watson. i'm the student body president at howard university and i want to make one thing very clear. if you couldn't tell by the hands up picture, if you couldn't tell by the vigil that we hosted, and if you can't tell

by this friday when howard is going down to ferguson with 50 howard university students to do voter registration, howard university stand by michael brown and our university stands by the city of ferguson. the second thing i want to say is i'm very impressed but i'm not surprised at the number of great ideas that came to this pam. i want everybody to clap that up because that's incredible. but my thing is the discussion is one portion but i think we have to have a second part to this discussion which is where we talk about how to merge our individual efforts into one collective effort. >> yes. >> that's the second half of this conversation. i know as students what we're doing is we're hosting the hvcu conference. we're going to have students do sessions and then go to capitol

hill to lobby on voter registration, voting rights, and this gun violence. the one thing i think about every time that we go through this is that the enemy, they're counting on the fact that we can't take the next step. >> that's right. >> they're counting on the fact that we can't sustain this effort. they're counting on the fact that honestly, that we can't get over our individual logos and get over our individual egos and actually come together and make something happen. we are -- we have to be very, very real with ourselves. we're 13% of the population as african-americans. 13% of the population. we don't have room for division. we don't have the luxury to have individual separate efforts. we have to come together. i thank you guys for this conversation but there definitely is a part two and

know that howard university is ready to be a part of that part two. >> thank you very much, leighton wats watson, howard university student association. i'm going to call now on dr. pat newton from the black psychiatrists of america. nana, can you make it up here? >> i want to thank dr. daniels and ibw and we want to say that the black psychiatrist stands on the vanguard of the immediate and the long-term healing. there are damages that are going to be well into centuries after this ferguson experience, and let us not forget as one of the council people said, we've got to be in this for the long haul. the black psychiatrists believe that police should be screened before they're ever hired. and they have to have screening that also includes cultural sensitivity and cultural

diversity. not just a little jive psychological test but we also have to make sure that we put the kind of men and women behind that damage who will serve us well and serve us in terms of etiquette, in terms of compassion, and in terms of caring for our people. so we want to recommend that our relationship is not over because we have post traumatic and acute traumatic stress as a result of what has happened, and these children are going to be damaged for a century, and the next generation. and we already just got the data about how trauma affects people into future generations. so we're looking at talking about civil issues related to not just the criminal side but what you're doing to do to defend and bring community effort and money and economic resources from both the federal and state level to make sure

that they get treated. and so we want to partner with the black police association to make sure we develop the kind of tools that are needed to save our people and stop this from reoccurring. thank you. >> thank you, dr. pat newton. let me just say very quickly that the black psychiatrists of america is one of 23 national organizations that comprise the black family summit which is a grouping that ibw, institute of the black world, has fulled together. for more information please visit our website ibw21.org. i'm now going to call on brother salim of the national black you a nighted front. >> thank you. first i want to say black power and that this issue right here on the ground is the issue of reparations. the police killings is another reason why people of african descent are owed reparations.

we know justice is not going to take place in the voting booth. justice is going to take place in the streets and a combination of the voting booth. with that being said we're going into eighth street this saturday to shut down eighth street. if there's not going to be no justice, then they're going to have no damned economic peace. if we can't get no justice, they won't have no economic peace. last week we shut down chinatown. this week saturday august 30th, we're going to meet at union station, 7:00. we're going into h street and shuth street down if we can't get no justice. there won't be in economic peace. thank you. >> thank you, brother. brother salim of the national black united front. i'd like to call on brother malik burnett of the drug policy alliance. [ applause ] >> thanks so much for having me. my name is dr. malik burnett. i'm a medical doctor and a policy manager here in the office of national affairs of

the drug policy alliance, the nation's leading drug policy organization. and i wanted to offer something, my good friend thnkechi offeredn idea to think outside the box. this is an outside the box idea. this november 4th we have the opportunity to legalize marijuana in the district of columbia. marijuana is the major input to the system of mass incarceration across the united states. here in d.c. 91% of african-americans are -- 91% of drug arrests are of african-americans and 50% of all drug arrests are marijuana. so first you got to register to vote. it's critical that everybody registers to vote in the district of columbia and then secondly you have to vote yes on initiative 71. again, vote yes on initiative 71 on november 4th. thank you so much. >> thank you. next i'm going to call on

reverend graylan hagler. >> thank you. i want to thank the panel, which you did all a tremendous job in terms of breaking down the issue. one of the things i want to lift up is as we talk about the militarization of police forces, we need to talk about also the training that goes into the police forces, that you have foreign governments training police departments on how to occupy communities. now, let's be clear about that. that's what's going on. when the idf and brother jaziri x was with me in palestine in january, and so he knows that there is this training that goes on with every single police department in america on how to occupy, how to make your presence known, which to brutalize a community in order to keep a community contained.

when we talk about demilitarization, we need to talk about also home growing those who can go on the police force. in d.c. and other jurisdictions, in d.c. you got to have two years of education to be able to qualify to go on a police department. you can't come out much high school and apply for the police department. but you can go to the military with just a high school diploma and by coming out of the military you can go on the metropolitan police department. does that make sense? when we got 40% unemployment in housing projects, we need to open up those opportunities to women and men can go on and serve their cities in the community in which they grew up in and therefore there won't be this fear that permeates the police department when they come into a community and occupy it and are scared of their residents. >> thank you, reverend hagler.

i will move on to our final two respondents. let me see here. reverend dr. joseph evans of the mt. carmel baptist church. >> thank you thank you. first of all, give it up fori bw. come on, somebody, give it up. the most significant on the edge organization that has brought us together is ibw, and if you're outside, still outside, please join it. i ibw21.org. there is a combination between race, economics, and politics and it continues even today. and we are talking about ferguson and the physical act of murder, but i want you to know something. they are still lynching black

men today, and one of the most significant places you can go is the nation's capital because the current mayor has not been indicted for anything, no charges have been put against him, but it was a banana republic election because gentrification is real in washington and if you can get that brother out the way, let me tell you, all the dominos will fall. so make sure you understand i'm not talking about politics now. i'm talking about a black man who has been lynched simply because he's a black man in charge and they're going to get rid of every one of them so that this city will no longer be a majority black people. wake up, d.c. it's going on right in front of you every single day. i'm out. >> thank you, thank you, reverend. we also want to recognize brother stalib kareem.

>> thank you, brother don rojas, you have been one of our mentors in the technology and science space for the past 20 years. i want to say how grateful i am and give it up for the all the distinguished panelists and also brother andy shallal. i know he's here. we have an extensive conversation about a week ago right after the tragedy and one of the things we realized and we had brother keenen keller on a call is that until we deal with the issue of reparations, we're going to continue to have these types of things happen time and time again. one of the things we particularly pointed out is that because black men in particular are stereotyped by the media every day, it's stated that a child has seen particularly in the black community an average of 20,000 murders before he reaches first grade, right? and most of the murders are committed by people who look

like himself. so what we did, brother don, is we challenged comcast and yahoo! and google because they're now owning and distributing content, we challenged them to put together a fund. we believe there needs to be at least a $3 trillion fund put together to not only provide once and for all reparations but also to give us a better selection of content. no more should we only see black people as villains but we should see beautiful brown and black and red and yellow people being scientists and technologists and physicians and mathematicians. and so that's what we're challenging all of our colleagues who are on capitol hill to rally with us on the 24th of september. we're having a stim showcase and forum at the pepco gallery. for more nflths information vis

stim4us.org and i salute you for all the great work you continue to do there, brother. >> thank you so much, brother. abdul mohamed and the nation of islam. can you come up to the microphone? and after minister abdul mohamed, mr. marshall coleman. >> first of all, i want to thank ron daniels for awill youing us to come in and gather today at busboys and poets. to get to the point i want to thank this panel who brought us a very welcoming and a great discussion. what do you think? [ applause ] >> basically the young people today have spoken. we need more that's in the

streets. one thing we left out, and that is to stop the black on black crime among the young brothers in the streets. if we could take the leadership over to some of the projects and get them to stop shooting each other every night then i know the plan. the plan is they are going to try to come in with the national guard. once we start killing each other it's automatically wipe out the black community. let's unite together. let's stand together, let us work together as one common cause, make sure our people are free and doing the right thing. thank you very much, god blessment. >> you. sister dr. marcia coleman. by the way, this is the sister who organized the protests at the department of justice today. give it up for her. >> hands up. >> don't shoot. >> hands up. >> don't shoot. >> thank you so must have.

i want to thank dr. daniels and this incredible panel. it was incredibly enlightening. i want to thank everybody who participated in the demonstration today. we took it to the street today. we took it to the street today. we're going to take it back to the street today. tomorrow and the next day and the next day. also, by the way, we have made it very difficult for the attorney general to say that he doesn't understand our demands. because we forced the department officials to receive our petitions today. i have to give you three demands before i sit down. the immediate arrest and prosecution of police officer darren wilson. we're not going to negotiate this point.

we also want the end of mass incarceration. boys and men of color and to release those -- this is very important. it's not just stopping mass incarceration. we want our sons and our brothers and our husbands to come home who are in jail right now. that's not negotiable. we also want all military personnel and equipment withdrawn from our communities. we ask you to please come out, support us in front of the department of justice and let's bring down this government. if it doesn't support us then we are not going to support the government. we need to bring this thing down. thank you. >> thank you. dr. marcia. >> before we bring on dr. daniel -- o yes. brother andy. look at this.

>> we are opening the program and closing the program with a gregory. >> hello, everyone. we are ready to wrap up the program. since we opened the program with iana gregory it's only fitting to close it with the father dick gregory. >> thank you, thank you. let me say thank you all for being here. i wonder how long are you going to have to look at what you're looking at before you see reality. ferguson. those of you that know me know i'm from st. louis. i have been saying for 50 years

when you go to st. louis, is it your watch back three hours. i cannot believe you looked at what you looked at and really didn't see it. the cop that said i will shoot you in front of the canvas. don't be stupid. no cop will say that unless he's under mind control. that's what you were watching. four blocks away, the whole world watching. two white cops kill a black man with a knife. you look at something that's all that's planned. that's what it's about. all that's planned. if you look at the most important thing. even more so.

they left him there four and a half hours. listen to me. stop being emotional. if somebody killed three children and we run over there and they pulled out and we killed them, we have to go in, turn our gun in, take a drug test. huh? and an alcohol test. that's why he disappeared for three days. keeping up on some -- emotion. they put p it right in front of your face. then the cop came out, police chief, and said wait a minute. we have a video here of him in the convenience store. even if it's the truth he didn't

have a gun. that's shoplifting. every now and then they get dumber than the government wants them to be. they released the video. he had on nikes, white socks. on the ground, he's got flip-flops on. see what happens when you get so emotional? then as we examined that. a friend of mine called me from london. p picture was dated june 6th.

y'all be better off cutting the tv off, going to bed. what they show you. what they show you is they are showing you that for a reason. if a cop called in that he just had a shootout, the folks downtown don't know if he's been kidnapped. every cop car within a 50-mile radius. you didn't see no cop cars. he laid there for four and a half hours. you didn't see one cop car pull up. that didn't bother you? all at once we had kent state all over again.

we are talking about kent state. it counted when it was kent state. then we can go in and do the right investigation. and at kent state, the national guard was there. one of the students in the crowd. the students chased him. he went right to the national guard. he was the thashl guard. they spent almost $50 million in lawsuits. $50 million in lawsuits paying off. the press is there talking. not one person on the press talked about how he could lay there there for four hours. the mother came up. they wouldn't let her see him. then -- how many of y'all are aware that four and a half hours they took him away in a black

suv? with no markings on it. then we check it. the police department have no record for the call. where did they take him. that's what you looked at. you didn't see it because the press -- they're not as stupid as you think they are. they tell you what you are supposed to see. huh? >> somewhere when we sit and look at this, then i'm on the radio all over the country. they're telling me, rebellion. y'all are the biggest fools. a rebellion is something you plan. you pick the timing. a rebellion ain't something you wait until the cops shoot a black man. that's a riot. but y'all get so embarrassed. in 1968 when them cops beat up the white children in lincoln

park they called it a police riot, not a rebellion. always trying to cover yourself because somebody is going to -- who cares? you have never seen a cop put a choke hold on the mafia, a drug pusher, a pimp or a ho. so why do you get all embarrassed? this is a game. they are getting serious now. when you saw them tanks. the teargas. tell me y'all know. that's preparation for wartime. somewhere, just go back and sit quietly.

review what you looked at because it was there. where is he? where is the friend that was with him? you cops in here, some of you came because it's your job tonight to be here. if i'm a cop and i'm chasing you and this is your partner, what made me think y'all ain't together? why am i going to assassinate him and not you. why leave the witness? where is he now? he's under fbi witness protection. what do he know? so tonight, if you just leave here and get into your -- you'll

see things that they showed you. they know you wouldn't see it. a big old bag of money came in there. from this town. where do you think that mom and pop got the money to hire forensics and all that? the town has 50% unemployment, 70% black. everything that counts is white. the police department got 50 people on it. three of them are black and two of them are women. and they're getting ready to shut it down. how many of you read the paper? what's the name of it? >> isis paper. >> now the biggest block of

terrorists in the planet is named what? >> isis. >> out of all the crap that's going on on this planet, here's some little punk that nobody know where is he come from with billions of dollars and his name is the same as what the sister named her book. i just say thanks to the brother for always opening up. for us here. always opening up for us here. somewhere i say to you, i watch this. i know more about it than anybody. i had people from britain, cops calling me. you know what it is. the day they stole the plane. i knew it was in garcia. they knew i knew.

greyhound bus ain't never disappeared. never. so i leave you tonight. i'll say thank you. thank you. thank you. [ applause ] >> let's give it up for dick gregory. thank you, brother dick. hope to see you. sisters and brothers, it's been a long evening. we're going to wrap it up with final remarks by dr. ron daniels, president of the institute. with a round. >> how is everybody doing? is everybody all right? we're in a fighting mood? we're ready to resist.

y'all don't sound like it. ready to resist? let's give out up for andy, the busboys and poets. ips. let's give it up. we want you to just wait a few minutes. we are almost done. i want to say a bit about us working together. because the brother from howard university spoke to that. >> yes, he did. >> let me say this. on this panel, we do not belong to the same organization. but we work together. there is operational unity. we don't have to give up our individual organizationer or identities in order for us to, in fact, work together in collaboration. in fact, this is one of the things i'm doing specifically. i used to say it's not winter time.

that's the focus. it's building on collaboration. so we can all cherish knowledge. it's absolutely right. that doesn't mean we have to do the same thing. different people can take different pieces of it. we have hillary shelton, naacp washington office. y'all think about what's happening with legislation. those two right there, they got our back. no question about it. you come back to the stuff about voter suppression. you hear that right there. that warrior woman has our back. we need to figure out how we speak to each other, communicate in a more effective way. civil rights organization put out an agenda. i'm sure we agree with almost everything. we need to coordinate together in that regard. in the final analysis, anger without an agenda and organization is futile.

they said the people must be organized. >> yes. >> over and over again. he said the people must be organized. so we must end the disconnectedness. the disorganization in black communities as well. that's one of the things we do. we have collaboratives in washington, d.c. we have organizations that meets at his church every three months. how do we collaborate? they haven't given up identity. we figure how can we work together to be more strategic and focused. in moving forward. we need similar structures all over the country. we have philadelphia. working in pittsburgh. the jury knows it. working hard to do baltimore. we must be organized. it's part of the summit.

these are professional organizations. psychiatrists, they have not sold out for a paycheck. they are here to work in the community. they do it. we have to respect them, connect with them and work with them. the next point i want to make is we have to use every tool at our disposal. we have to have an inside-outside strat gichlt we were talking about the legislation. maybe we have to march on capital, sit in until they pass the legislation. we need to get ungovernable. we have been too tame. too much november cane in the movement. let's march on capitol hill and sit there. we've got right time

reactionaries. the tea party could care less about us unless we force them to understand what we are about. we have to do that. civil disobedience. 1.2 trillion dollars in our hands. we need to use economic sanctions, boycotts. they talked about this in ferguson. the stores and shops often owned by people other than us. they ought to be contributing to us. if they can't they need to be out of the community. with trayvon martin, we are just a little organization. we don't get the opportunities. with trayvon martin we needed to let mickey and minnie play with themselves for a change, have an economics sanctions campaign. we could have went up against

the koch brothers. how to do that? we'll spend billions in florida in terms of the hospitality industry. to ft. lauderdale alone the money we spent. orange juice. again, mickey and minnie. we can withdraw. let them play with themselves for a while. if we had done that, they would have changed the stand your ground law. we would have been going up against one of the most powerful forces in this country -- the koch brothers. we can defeat them. the people united will never be defeated. they have to be organized. i'm going to say it. no national civil rights leader would call for the economics sanctions campaign. the people on the streets were ready for the economic sanctions campaign. we could not get it. nobody called for it.

you look up at the conventions and sponsorships coming from all the corporations. all these corporations. these are my friends. i love them. they are great people. but at a certain point the economic benefits from this chump change people are giving us is not worth taking the fire out of our movement. we need to be on the aggressive movement in terms of economic sanctions as well. finally, i came here tonight to stress this point. it is time for young leaders to take the lead? >>yes. >> young leaders must take the lead on this issue. i say that because it's a matter of principle. those being most affected. those being stopped and frisked, shot down in the streets and harassed are mostly young people. since they are the ones being affected they should be at the

center and in the lead. so i'm saying that, you know, i'm a lifetime member of the naacp. i support the urban league and other organizations. they are on the case. believe me. i'm saying this constructively. without them, we would not be where we are today. maybe they should step aside, move over. the december 12th movement out of new york has called for a gathering. i don't know whether that can happener oh not. the theme for the night should be young leaders must take the lead. reverend sharp ton, i understand, is contemplating another march on washington. reverend sharp ton does really great things. maybe we need two marches. for sure whether it's a gathering or a march we need one that's exclusively led by young people.

young people must take the lead. young people must take the lead. we must support them in that. i'm going to make this point as an example. at the historic march on washington commemoration, there is a brother named philip agnew with the dream defenders. he got up to speak. a lot of people's microphones were cut off. i'm sure it was accidental. but how is it that the most powerful movement, one of them, two movements. moral monday and the dream defenders. how do they end up not being allocated sufficient time to get their point across? how is it that philip agnew didn't get a chance to talk. well, it was accidental, probably. if you have young leaders-led march, that would never happen . we need to stand back, step

aside, move over. let them speak. let them organize. let us counsel. let us advise. so philip and the dream defenders step up. he's already stepping up. harry belafonte mentored hundreds of young leaders ready to move forwardment the hip hop caucus. she's out there. the grassroots movement. against mass incarceration. salim is in front of us. leaders of a beautiful struggle. the algebra project. we have a group in new york called the isms group. the conscious ones and the howard university government association is in the house. they are organizing students all over the country. so let the word go out. move over. step aside, reverend sharp ton and other civil rights leaders. let the young people take the lead.

young people must take the lead. i close with a quote from malcolm x. "we declare our right on this earth to be a human being. to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights as a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day which we intend to bring to existence pi any means necessary. we say freedom by any means necessary. freedom! >> by any means necessary. >> freedom! >> by any means necessary. >> freedom! >> by any means necessary. >> let's get it done. >> all right. brother ron daniels. long time that warrior in the

struggle. not only here in the u.s. but around the world. we have come to the end of our program. we want to thank you all for attending, being patient, listening, participating. give yourselves a round of applause. i want to thank the people outside, too. dozens of folks out on the sidewalk who have been patient, listening to us. finally, if you would like to the view this again, and for those not able to catch it tonight, this entire program will be archived on the ivwf site in the next day or two. please visit us online. as we used to say, brothers, forward ever, backward never. thank you.

>> on capitol hill today the house and senate are back after a summer recess. the senate working on the confirmations of jill pryor to be a judge on the 11th circuit and a number of members to the social security advisory board and a procedural vote dealing with limiting campaign finance. naming post offices. a measure that would boost federal penalties for i.d. theft. votes in the house after 6:30. you can watch live on c-span. the senate on c-span 2.

the house rules committee will look at are restricting the epa's attempt to define which waters it regulates under the clean water act and another to condemn congress for not giving advanced notice of the prisoner exchange. live to the rules committee meeting at 5:00 eastern on c-span 3. >> tonight on the communicators, michael cops and robert mcdowel discuss proposals and other issues before the fcc. >> the issue with consolidation is you have huge companies not only in control of distribution but of oh content, too, increasingly. they are getting hammer locked on the news and information infrastructure that we as a democracy rely upon to govern ourselves. >> the adoption of smartphones is faster in minority communities than in suburban --

affluent white communities. they adopted such -- improving the human condition. allowing people to have the benefit of new information. it will change their political expectations. all in a positive and constructive way. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span 2. . >> the american bar association held its ninth annual homeland l institute with attorneys and scholars looking at privacy and security and capitol hill staffers talking about legislative initiatives. >> we'll round out the conversations in the back of the room and get started.

we get started now with our next panel. this is our first breakout session of the day. we are going to go to other breakouts as we go past our lunchtime presentation. reminder about lunch. you should go get your lunch in room 207 and then resume. calling the sergeant at arms to arrest those of you in the back of the room that will still talking. that will happen in another lifetime. this topic is one that i know was familiar to many of you that practice law in government and in the private sector. particularly in washington, d.c. that's striking the balance between privacy versus security. and again this year we are honored to have congressman

turner from texas as our oh moderator. served with distinction for four terms in congress. he has a military background. formerly a captain in the u.s. army. jim won praise from both parties for his work on homeland security issues and the time post 9/11. before congress jim had a distinguished career in texas state government. both serving in the house and senate in texas and he's a university of texas law school granule watt. what jim is a leader and a lawyer. if anyone this this room needs help on any issue in front of congress or with the executive branch. it will be successful. with that let me turn it over to you. thank you. >> thank you, joe.

really appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the panel. i want to thank joe for all his many efforts. this year and in previous years to organize this program for the aba. in this panel we are going to be discussing, as joe mentioned, the tension that exists between civil i liberties and national security. we have a very distinguished panel. i would like to introduce each of them to you. first to my left we have the assistant professor of law, american university, washington school of law. jennifer is an assistant professor of law and she focuses on criminal, national security and constitutional law. prior to joining the washington college of law in 2013, she was a national security fellow and adjunct professor at georgetown law center. are from 2009 to '11, she served

in various positions in the department of justice including as counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security and served on the secretary of defense and attorney general-led detention policy task force. she's the founding editor and contributor to the recently launched security blog and is a graduate of brown university, harvard law school and cambridge, university. to her left is chuck blanchard. chuck is a partner at the law firm of arlen porter. where i have the opportunity to see him frequently. he's in government contracts and national security practices at our firm. chuck held several senior government positions over his 28-year legal career. chuck served as a general counsel and chief ethics officer for the air force. served as general counsel at the

u.s. department of the army. and he served two terms as a state senator in the state of arizona. in 2003 he was named interim homeland security director for a former arizona governor janet napalitano. he graduated first from harvard and holds a master in public policy from the jfk school of government. next to chuck is bob litt, a name i'm sure you have come across often in the last few months. and newspapers. bob is the general counsel at the office of oh director of national intelligence. he was unanimously confirmed by the senate in june of 2009. prior to joining odni, bob was a partner at arnold and porter and served on the governing body of aba's criminal justice section. as an advisory member to the standing committee on law and

national security. from 1994 to 1999 bob worked at the department of justice as deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division. then as principle associate attorney general where he was responsible for national security matterers ranging from fisa applications, covert application reviews and security. bob has his be bachelor's from harvard and master's in law from yale university. the score on the panel so far is two harvard graduates, one yale. >> even odds. >> we are pleased to have the distinguished panel. i'm going to let each of them brief introductory remarks. then we'll discuss the issues laid before you. of course, i hope that it will spark some interest from the audience and allow you to ask our panel some questions as we

proceed. first, jennifer, i will let you lead off. >> thanks to the aba for the wonderful program, for inviting me here today. thank you for the kind introduction. i believe we are going to focus most of the discussion on the surveillance regime. and the many disputes about it. i want to spend a few minutes talking about the legal underpinnings of the government surveillance programs. to suggest that some of the doctrine on which the government relied is shifting under its feet and this creates a range of opportunities and challenges for both going forward. i want to talk about two aspects of fourth amendment doctrine. what's known as the third party doctrine and territoriality doctrine which is a long standing presumption that the fourth amendment only applies in the united states and outside it applies solely to u.s. citizens

and persons with significant voluntary connections to the united states. i believe probably all of you know that government's argument with respect to meta data collection under the 215 program and presumably other meta data collection programs as well is premised to some extent on the idea that there is no fourth amendment issue involved because there is no search and seizure of meta data information turned over to a telephone company. this is based largely on the third party doctrine which stems in part from a 1979 case, v. maryland in which the government recorded telephone numbers called out of a particular suspect for two days and in the course of his criminal trial he challenged the collection of the information because the government didn't get a warrant. and the court said there is issue. there is no search or seizure because this individual had

already turned over the numbers he called out to the telephone company and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy in those telephone numbers. this has been relied on to argue there is no expectation of privacy in all of the numbers called in and out and has been the basis or part of it for the meta data collection program. i want to suggest this understanding of the third party doctrine is challenged. and is being challenged most recently by the supreme court ruling in reilly v. california which came out late spring, early summer. at least the supreme court's ruling and reasoning cast doubt on the validity of the doctrine going forward. so for those of you who aren't familiar with the case, the facts were that two cases were joined and in one case the government seized a smartphone of an individual during the course of his arrest. in another case the government

agent seized a flipphone, the old phones none of us use anymore. they don't record much information other than the call log. the cases were joined. in both cases the defendants claimed that the search and seizure of the phones was impermissible and the government claimed it is valid. we don't need a warrant. the court ruled unanimous ly tht the seizure of the phones was not justified as a search incident and arrest. the court disagreed with the government's arguments about exigencies, said there are ways to preserve the information if you are concerned about it getting lost. the court disagreed with the claim that there was a safety risk associated with the phones.

the court disagreed with the idea that there weren't any legitimate recognizable privacy interests in the phones. and the wealth of information that could be scored digitally on the phones possibly providing more information than is uncovered during the search of one's house. the court distinguished both quantitatively and qualitatively between the health of information that can be seized and revealed through the review of one's phone from tangible evidence. the court concurred with justice sotomayor in which she defined gps monitoring as creating a precise record of a person's public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, sexual and social relations. what's interesting about the ruling and the reasoning.

is it didn't just apply to the smart phone which reveals a host of information about us, but it also applied to the flip phone which doesn't tell us that much more than the call log detailed. who you called, who called you and for how long the call lasted which is about what's collected in the meta data. this strongly suggests the court will be highly skeptical of the claim that the third party doctrine can be applied in the new context. that it means that when the government collects the telephone metadata and other metadata as well there is no fourth amendment application. i think we'll see a shift and a new focus on a question about whether or not and to what extent the foreign intelligence exception applies and new pressure on the special needs

doctrine which justifies a range of searches that require less than reasonable suspicion. sometimes suspicionless search based on compelling needs separate from law enforcement needs. then we have agreed to speak shortly. so i won't get into the details. i hope we can talk about the ways in which i think data challenges the very foundation of what i call territoriality doctrine. the idea that the fourth amendment is circumscribed and only applies in certain places and as to certain people. the difficulty of effectively distinguishing between u.s. person information and nonu.s. person information ought to cause us to at least re-examine some of the foundational principles on which some of the collection programs rely.

>> i agree that recent concurrences from the supreme court as well as the decision of judge leon in the district of columbia in the case which is challenging. whether it will be limited. first it's important that you understand that the fourth amendment decisions that have come out of the court have largely relied on the third party doctrine as rational for why there is not a fourth amendment issue. there are statutory issues in play. even if the third party doctrine survives i think the debate will continue to be, going forward on

the more regulatory and statutory governance here which may ultimately be where the action will be. but as jennifer said, there's been recent decisions. i think the first one worthy of talking about is the jones decision that involved gps trackers. the majority opinion really went off on they looked at a 21st century problem and came up with a 19th century solution. they ignored the technology and just focused on the fact that there was a trespass on the car in order to put the gps system on. that was enough for justice scalia to find a fourth amendment problem. returning to the way the law was in the 19th century. there were two concurrences there are important. one by sotomayor which is one

she did by herself. she did a frontal challenge to the continued viability and wisdom of the third party rule in an age where a lot of data is in digital form is out with third parties. our financial data. our telecommunications data and a host of other information. she raised the issue of whether it was time to reconsider the third party doctrine. if you ask, people have a sense of privacy interest in the information they send out to third paerds. so she put up a frontal challenge. the other concurrence was by justice aleto joined by kagan and briar, i believe. didn't directly assess the third party rule but did suggest, similar to what justice sotomayor mentioned, that in a modern digital internet focused

world maybe we need to step back and rethink the doctrine of the third party rule. i don't think the reilly case which dealt with cell phones suggests much more than in that case it was a concession that there was a surge. the focus was more on what the scope of the search could be. i don't know if you read as much into that. that case, too, rejected an argument at least that there was no search because all that was on the phones was the kind of data you could get from a third party. their argument being, no, it's not a third party. it's a person's phone. the third party doctrine doesn't apply. where is this headed? it's hard to tell. the third party rule is important to recognize. it's not a narrow fourth amendment doctrine. it has wide applicability across fourth amendment doctrine. it's been used as a line of

separation between what's protected in the home and what's not protect ed so bank records, financial records. not the context of the letter but who you wrote to has been held for decades. not protected by the fourth amendment. there was an interesting article trying to defend the doctrine. this is more about consent than a doctrine about anything else. the concept is when you take information and put it outside yourself to a third party, we can draw the line to give you less fourth amendment protection. his other argument is interesting. the third party rule has the advantage of not being a technologically driven rule.

you don't have to completely change it every time the technology changes. because we have various ways we communicate is ever changing. his argument was that the rule actually is technology agnostic. it's an article well worth reading. where are we headed? we are headed for clearly comfort on the supreme court by the third party rule. in the present form it likely will see some change. i don't think it will be completely rejected. i do think it might be truncated. the best way to maybe approach the third party rule is by focusing less on collection and more on the digital world where

everything is ones and zeroes. it's like quantum mechanics. you don't know what's there and to actually look. once you look then the damage is done. privacy is done. it might be the best approach which is similar to what's being done in the regulatory and statutory side. to put more control on when you can look at the data that's collected. and instead put less em if a session on the collection. with that i will enjoy the conversation. >> as jim noted he and i were law partners for a number of years. if there are congressional staffers in the audience nothing in my behavior should be attributed to anything i learned from jim. i have thoughts on the third

party doctrine. i thought i would save them for a later discussion and step back a little bit and give a slightly broader framework. i reject the idea that it's a trade off between privacy and national security. the goal should be how to achieve both. if you read the newspapers it's easy to understand the importance of national security and the importance of intelligence to protecting the nation and citizens. not only in the area of terrorism but in cyber security and the behavior. also in a way that preserves fundamental privacy and civil liberties. we have to accomplish both and not say, well, there is an inevitable zero sum between them.

some of the legal discussions. during the cold war it was pretty easy to identify our targets. if you wanted to do surveillance you did the equivalent of clipping alligator clips on a telephone wire and listening in. the communications generally flowed over wires. today with digital communications and the internet it's different. the communications we are interested in are mingled with communications we are not interested in. traveling over the same wires broken into individual electronic packets. they are not physically separated the way they were. this made him feel no matter how much we try to directly target our activities at appropriate foreign intelligence targets we are going to collect and look at communications of uninvolved people. not only because they may be

talking to the foreign targets but also because they are all traveling together on the same wires. we don't have any interest in this information. we have absolutely no interest in what mrs. jones or her foreign counterpart is cooking for dinner. but in targeting and collecting foreign intelligence information, we can't avoid collecting irrelevant information because of the way the communications flow. one of my colleagues at odni phrased it as there is no such thing as immaculate collection. there are two ways to deal with this problem. one is to say the risks for privacy are so great we ought to bar certain kinds of collection all together. the other is the approach to say we are going to permit the collection. but we are going to impose stringent regulations on how to

use data to ensure it is not used inappropriately. it probably won't surprise anybody in the room given my current position that i favor the latter approach over the former. i think it's unwise in the current security environment to say that the power of government is so great and the risk of surveillance so substantial that we should bar and prevent us from collecting this information, particularly since we know our adversaries aren't so restrained. we cannot designate portions of the global communications infrastructure as entirely off limits. i think the preferable way to do it is so say, yes, you can collect this. but we are concerned about the possibility of misuse. so we are going to have legal policy and oversight regulation to ensure to the greatest extent possible that you don't misuse it. that is, in fact, the approach we generally take now. by and large it's worked. all of the collection activities at the intelligence community

undertakes are authorized by law. to the extent they are conducted under the foreign intelligence sur ray lance act they are approved by the courts. made known to the appropriate committees of congress, subject to strict and multi layers and interagency overthe sight within the executive branch. we don't conduct surveillance of political, religious or activist figs because they disagree with public policy or disagree with the government. we don't repress citizens of any are country for their beliefs. we don't target ordinary citizens, americans or otherwise who aren't of foreign intelligence value. in fact, the information that's been leaked over the course of the last year as well as the considerably amount of additional information that the intelligence community has affirmatively released as part of our desire to be more transparent about what we do has borne out the regulatory approach. in all the information that's

come out, it is important to know there's been no indication of any kind of systematic abuse or misuse of intelligence collection capabilities for improper purposes. there have been a few instances where individuals have gone into collection databases and used them for personal purposes. those people have been caught and dealt with appropriately. there have been problems with the program. those are self-identified, reported and collerrected. we are abusing the collection authorities to improperly invade people's privacy. this leads to the last point i want to make which is about technology. when people talked about technology many the context of surveillance they have tended to focus on one of two concepts. one is the extent to which technology enables surveillance. the incredible capabilities the national security agency has.

people often fail to mention that nsa only use it is capabilities as authorized by law. for example, to the extent they work on breaking encryption techniques they do it not to read your communications but read the communication of terrorists in foreign governments using encryption to try to avoid surveillance. through encryption or other techniques. there is a third way in which i think we should think about technology in the

authorized and trained people have access to signals intelligence collection only for authorized purposes and there is no information disseminated except when appropriate. >> we would welcome the genius of america in providing additional tools we could use to more precisely focus our collection and proserve the operational capabilities we need. the president directed the national academy of scientists to provide some guidance in this regard to look at whether there are ways to use technology to precisely focus collection. i think we have to rely on strong controls on use and strong oversight as the best way

to achieve both national security and privacy protections. >> thank you, bob. it's interesting as you listen to bob's remarks and i, of course, come are from a background that's sympathetic in the sense i served as the ranking member of the homeland security party and had the opportunity to receive numerous classified briefings from time to time. i know that it is interesting that we are at a time where we are talking about a subject where, in fact, there is no examples that anyone can cite where the government has abused the powers given to it under law. much of what we are talking about today is of the nature of oh what edward snowden did. he decided to violate the law and disclose classified

information because he disagreed with the policy. there is the underlying distrust of government that even though we can give give assurances as bob did that there will be systems in place to ensure proves is protected to get the trust of government people don't think that's enough. i would be interested after listening to jennifer if jennifer in any way disagrees with the solution that bob proposed or where there is new protections for a u.s. citizen against the type of surveillance that is conducted. >> so i largely agree with what bob said. i think the one place where it's

worth. what i focus on is the way in which the united states distinguished between the collection of non-u.s. persons. as bob pointed out as we heard, the intermingling of data means even if there is strict regulations on targeted collection of persons with regulations, the fact that there is much looser regulations on collection of non-u.s. persons means that because that data is intermingled, we are collecting incidental communications of u.s. persons and we ought to at least at the collection stage acknowledge some of the fiction that the distinction between the rules on direct targeting of u.s. persons and non-u.s. persons create and acknowledge that we are collecting a lot of information of u.s. persons

through our rules on non-u.s. persons and think about whether or not they even make sense given the way that the data operates. i think that there two distinct moments we need to focus on. one is the moment of collection and one is the moment of use. i think they are most relevant to the discussion. the concerns about abuse not just by the government, but by private individuals who get access who has the possibility of revealing a wealth of information about an individual make people nervous. that's a legitimate concern and that we shouldn't discount the concerns. that shouldn't mean we shouldn't collect, but we ought to have a frank and honest discussion about it as well. >> i would -- the abuse by the individual is probably as great

in the private sector as at nsa. in that google and a lot of the other companies and the private individuals can release. so i don't think we want to eliminate the great value we have from our collection efforts because of the fear of individual cases will be abusive. it can be abusive and damaging. the real challenge is the globalization networks in such a way that it is true in collection. the distinguishing between u.s. and non-u.s. collection stage that becomes typical. some cases you know we are collecting and we are largely collecting from overseas. in other areas, given how the internet package that i may send to a friend in san francisco may

end up going through 15 other countries, similarly between vladimir putin and someone in the disputed areas of the ukraine. it might go through the united states. that global nature of the network they think creates problems. the only alternative you have is ensuring you have a robust oversight at the use stage. that could be a more empowered fisa or review, but that's where the real value in protecting

privacy can be. one thing that bob did every year was get them all together in a large room so we can talk about all of these issues. i started attended those in 2009 and the thrust, the focus, the concern of -- this is well before eric snowden did anything. how we deal with privacy interests and u.s. values. this is not an issue that only caused concern in the intelligence community. it occurred long before and it has been an obsession i would say with lawyers in the intelligence communities. one lawyer thinks lawyers are ruining the effectiveness and have ruined the effectiveness of the u.s. intelligence agencies because we have told the clients

to be more careful than he thinks we ought to be. >> one thing that comes to mind is when we talk about the judicial precedence in the area, when you go back to smith versus maryland, you are talking about the old standard, what's the reasonable expectation of privacy in the age of big data. what is the meaning of a reasonable expectation of privacy. after all the average citizen doesn't really know what the government are the private sector is collecting. the kind of things that all of us share on the internet. whatever we think might be reasonable or the lack of understanding about the capabilityings of the government and the private sector.

is it an outdated standard? >> is it an opportunity to weigh in on the topic? i think it's important to understand that there is a reason why it's called the third party doctrine. it's not being obtained from you. it's given to somebody else. if i have a conversation with you, i have given that information. i lot of my privacy. the first taste that is involving bank records. a subpoena was served on a bank for somebody's financial records. it's far more revealing and the courts said no, these are the bank's business records. you gave them this information

and the same is true. that i think is the critical difference between the situation we are talking about with respect to intelligence and the reilly case. to what extent can you get information from that person? the third party said once you have given the information to somebody else, under what circumstances can you get it from somebody else? having said that, i think there doctrine can't be a an agreement with chuck. f1 o chuck. particularly the context

entire life in the cloud. difference that courts will draw a difference between the types of information that you are giving to a third party. if the type of information is the type that you used to formally keep locked up in a file cabinet at home and now you keep it locked up at google, they will accord one level of protection, but if it's the sort of thing that we always provided to third parties, maybe they will provide less protection. that will be worked out in the future going forward. >> one could be they distinguished between information that really is just being stored by a third party versus information that is work and needed for the purposes of that third party. with bank records, they need the records because they are performing a service. they are the records of the bank. similarly, the meta data and a

telephone call is needed by the business records by the telephone company. the content of the phone call is never subject to the third party doctrine is not kept or stored and even though you use it to provide that content, putting your stuff in the cloud, amazon which provides cloud services doesn't care or use or do anything with what you put in the cloud. so that would continue to be protected. that was truly business records of a third party and what is being stored boy a third party might be a line that can