doing a good job of getting the american people to forget about it. what are the politicians not campaigning on bringing manufacturing -- why are the politicians not campaign on burning manufacturing back? does nobody cared? -- bringing manufacturing back? does nobody care? guest: that is a good question. when the economy is bad you hear about nafta, trade with china, practices and other countries. you hear about lost manufacturing and a lot of politicians will pay attention to that. the difference is, will they follow through with what they claim in their television has? i guess time will tell. your point about democrats -- about the republicans using the obama is a fair point, but democrats will continue to use president bush. it is a fair fight.

host: in making a pass the primaries, what does that say about analyst? guest: i do not know the whole story of behind the voting mechanics, and he obviously did not run in the commercials in the primary. it may have just been an alphabetical thing on the ballot, but stranger things have happened and will continue to happen with or without a pundit and advertising. host: thanks for your time. we will continue talking about politics tomorrow at this time at 9:15 a.m. eastern time. thanks for watching today. it will bring you to an event on capitol hill looking at the myths and realities of muslims in america. >> the first event we had was in the wake of the danish cartoon

controversy sweeping across europe, and much of the world. we screamed a documentary of " legacy of a prophet." it was to offer information about what was going on. the one happening now is on our shores, as americans. for those of us who grew up here, we can speak about it directly. we're honored to have this distinguished panel to have this larger conversation have been in america. it is rather complex. in a "time" magazine poll -- 61% opposed having a mosque near ground zero. the two statistics in the same poll said, would you favor or

oppose a mosque in your own neighborhood? but a 35% margin they said it would favor one in their own communities. the same asked if most of you as muslims are patriotic americans? and they said yes, that most muslim-americans are patriotic americans. so, it is a complex issue. the conversation has happened in america many times before. mr. suhail khan worked on capitol hill -- he is our moderator today. and he began a friday prayer in which every friday muslims from all parts of the country come to pray under the capitol dome. we have had this for more than a decade. we have had visitors from around the world to this. we have had visitors from the muslim-majority countries,

countries where they cannot pray in public or near a government building. they are amazed. regardless of the adversity that we face at home -- stifling at times with the violence and desecration of mosques -- we are no doubt blessed to be americans and to be able to practice our faith in this country. without adversity there can be no progress. it is progress that we're seeking in this conversation here today with the panel we have assembled. i won't take any further time. i want to introduce our moderator, mr. suhail khan, who worked on capitol hill for many years and was a major figure in the bush administration. he is now a senior fellow at the institute for global engagement.

he is not only a good man, but we have bipartisan cooperation. suhail khan. [applause] >> thanks. good morning. assad very ably led up the issues -- the controversy surrounding the park 51 center in lower manhattan has sparked a national debate on many issues beyond just that. many questions have come to the national conversation. what is the role of osama bin laden, who are muslim-americans? some of the tougher ones have begun to surface, including the role of terrorism and -- as their relationship to terrorism and islam? our muslims inherently violent?

these questions for us in the magazine article two weeks ago. and more questions related to the role of women in islam. what used to be on the fringe in chat rooms on the internet has come to the mainstream conversation, where somehow muslims are accused of not being loyal as americans, and may have inherent conflicts in their faith. so, we thought we would assemble a panel of experts to take on some of these myths, and a challenge them, and should live on some issues. i thought i would introduce the panel will each speak for between 10 to 15 minutes, and we'll get to question and

answer. i want to remind folks since are live, if you could turn off cell phones and pagers. i will introduce our panelists. the first is dr. salaam al- maryati, the president of the muslim public affairs council, with offices all over the country. he has been a champion for issues related to the muslim- american community for over two decades. he lives in los angeles with his wife, but is a fixture here as well, working with the executive branch and on capitol hill. he will discuss issues related to the basic overview of the role of muslims, their life in the u.s. -- challenges, are the unique different?

and next, we have dr. azizah al- hibri, a professor of law at the university of -- law school. she will be able to address issues related to islam and the law. we have many questions related to sharia. i would say it is like when you are kidding you learn a dirty word and you want to repeat it. about five or six years ago, people wanted to repeat a certain word. everyone was ohabbi. now the new dirty word is sharia. professor al-hibri can address some of the questions related to that and what it is and whether or not muslims want to impose on

everyone else. next up, dr. james zogby, the founder and president of the american institute. jim has been working for over 30 years in the trenches, trying to empower americans of all backgrounds allfaiths. he is unique in that he is arab-american, but also irish, and catholic. i thought he could provide an historical context of some challenges we are facing. with that, we will start with salaam, and proceed down. >> thank you, and good morning. i will be talking about the muslim-american community and islam, and try to tie it into the park 51 controversy. another of many questions that arise from it.

first and foremost, the nomenclature of this particular controversy began as the ground zero mosque controversy. by now, everyone acknowledges that the place is not at ground zero, and it is not a mosque. it is a few blocks away for you cannot even see ground zero, and is a community center that was intended to develop inter-faith understanding. that is important because a lot of muslim-american institutions now are doing exactly that -- reaching out to fellow neighbors, christians and jews and local committees and developing intra-faith understanding, and tackling poverty, homelessness -- any kind of injustice. trying to develop a better dialogue between the abrahamic

faiths. but, the fact is it was called the ground zero moscow -- that caused a lot of consternation. we have to distinguish between truth and fact. it is not a mosque. it is a community center. as you repeat fax, they become a reality -- as a realityfacts. moving away, you see demonstrations against mollu sques and muslims across the country. we have to be very concerned uran day onng the qu'

9/11 in gainesville, florida for the will be a christian religious leader who will sponsor it. and this is obviously a major issue for us, but as muslims we have told our con aggregations -- congregations to ignore it, and to keep doing your good work. but as americans we should be very concerned. first and foremost, i think people need to understand what that koran is. it is what many muslims consider the revelation of god, just as jesus is the word of god. within the but there are stories about abraham, about ismael, isaac, jacob, moses, and the

children of egypt -- israel, against the pharaohs of egypt and against the attorney there. and how they were liberated. we read about jesus and his mother mary. the biblical profits are also those of islam, and i don't think many americans are aware of that. we take responsibility of not presenting that kind of information to people. so, we have, as a result, this burning of the koran day, and we're telling muslims to ignored, and if someone is burning anything in your neighborhood -- first of all, call the fire department because it is a hazard. obviously, the images of that cause even greater problems for us as americans. could you imagine in afghanistan and iraq images of americans

burning the koran? that is propaganda and recruiting material for al qaeda and other extremists. a-muslim sentiment in america is basically a mirror of anti- american sentiment on the global arena. -- anti-muslim sentiment in america is a mirror. as the one speiss, you can imagine a spike of the other. we have several terrorism experts talking about how it undermines our efforts throughout the world, and puts more americans in harm's way. the issue of islamophobia has to be viewed as an american problem, not just a muslim problem. 7% of the american public has either an unfavorable view, or no opinion on islam.

here i think the problem is that the extremists are able to tell their stories more effectively than the muslim-american committee can tell its story. -- 70% of the american public has either an unfavorable view, or no opinion on islam. if some guy in some cave in a faraway place makes a video that talks about hating america and bombing its public -- if it is bin laden, or someone else -- if the tape is made, instantaneously you get the video played repeatedly in all the u.s. markets. yet if we as muslim-americans, talking about our efforts -- and we have a paper today called the

"building bridges" --we continue to do the work. we have had several conditions of terrorism throughout the years, even before 9/11. that story is still not told. in the broader sense, there is a problem between religious nationalism and religious pluralism. nationalism as when a few, a small group of people, exploit religion using its popularity to serve the selfish interests of the few, and to create violence , anarchy, chaos, and they exploit religion -- and the religion becomes something without justice. that is then exploitation. they want god to serve them. they do not serve god.

religious pluralism on the other hand is we have the belief in the one god, and believe in the one human family. to believe in one god means you have to support human equality. whether or not people believe in god, he meant equality is critical to the notion of believe in the one god. therefore, god's will is one of racial and religious diversity. the koran says to each of you we have made among you different laws. it's as therefore, don't worry about your differences. just compete for doing good work. this diversity is very important for muslims to understand, and for us to explain to others. itefly, in terms ofsh'ria, simply means that the road,, the way, or path to god.

it is a general term. -- in terms of sh'ria. one person made a famous statement -- he was a student. he says when there is no justice, there is no sh'ria. so, if we're talking about that which we see in the middle east when there is bias against women, oppression, and violence against the weak and vulnerable, that is not sh'ria to us, and not what we want here in america. we will be first to stand up and that opposition against that kind of islam. for there is no security, there is no islam -- where there is, that is where islam is. america is the best place for muslims, and we will work to

preserve our constitutional rights. [applause] >> good morning. i really did not intend to stand before you and talk about sh'ria law. it puts a lot of you to sleep because i treated as a serious, legal discipline. i thought i would begin by making comments about american law, and muslim-americans in the u.s. feel free to ask questions. the got very interested in the founding fathers of while back. i went to monticello and other places and looked in the papers, and looked in the library of congress letters. i found a lot of interesting stuff along the way. not only as far as the founding fathers, but the whole mood

i was very surprised to find out that there were plays written about attempts to liberate muslim women who were oppressed, talking about things like the harem. there were all sorts of suspicions expressed the bell muslims. i also found out there was an attempt averaging change in tripoli, north africa it in the 18th century. there were writings that jefferson was aware of that called the islam of false religion. all of this has happened for a while, not just yesterday. it is time to talk to each other, and ask how we will relate to each other. what is the foundation of this

historical misunderstanding? i do want us to push anything under the rug. let's have an honest and healthy discussion in a country which believes in the process of law. this is what protects all of us. it is not just about an islamic or muslim minority in, but about all minorities, and about the conscience of the majority. another shock i received as reading about the history of this country -- i walked along a campus to the historical baptist society, and found out that their leaders in their own time suffered quite a bit. onlyct, they're not the group that has suffered. jews, catholics, and many other minorities that have had it

difficult getting stabilized in this country. so, i guess we'll go through this. but hopefully, as we mature in terms of our understanding of our constitution, the process will become more dignified and less painful. i want muslims in this country to understand in some way they're not single out. everyone else had to go through this one way or the other. the other thing is, thankfully, the founding fathers had introduced to the insistence of a lot of religious groups who are christian, and atheist, and other religions the first amendment which has its origins in the bill of rights of virginia. i teach in virginia, and am proud of that. is a doubleing for request. one, reassert our commitment to

the first amendment. throughout history it has shown that is a very valuable part of what the u.s. is about. in fact, i think this is one of the major attractions of the u.s. to emigrants who leave their countries, because they truly believe here they can have a free and dignified being that they have missed elsewhere. the supreme court throughout the years has again elaborated and exercised the basic principles of the first amendment. in one particular case, but chief justice rehnquist and the saddest the political devices alone cannot serve to invalidate otherwise permissible conduct. whatever we might feel about the person sitting next to us, they weve rights, even wiif

politically disagree, it does not allow us to infringe on those rights. furthermore, the first amendment implies that the legislative powers of the government could reach actions only, and not opinions. it is wonderful we can all sit here, and i'm sure some of us will disagree on certain aspects, but we are protected by the first amendment in doing that. about the situation that has arisen lately with all sorts of broad statements about islam. i would like to point out that that information not only comes from non-muslims, but also from muslims.

many muslims themselves are misinformed about the religion. i feel a major part of my responsibility here is to educate muslims about what the koran releases. for example, since i am a woman, and committed to women's issues about liberty and dignity, we run classes in which we teach about the rights guaranteed to women, guaranteed by their own religion. surprising is that most women we teach our surprised they have all these rights. there is a very negative stereotype about islam. it goes around even within the muslim community. they did not see it as negative. they didn't understand that the koran basically has the

principles of the first amendment in its. historically, a muslim committees have practiced religious tolerance. it is nothing new. it did not begin in the u.s. cannot but began many hundred years ago it may not have been as well-practiced as in the u.s., but it was done in a historical era when no one else practiced it. when islam was tolerant and welcome diversity, and used it to develop society us opposed to fight progress -- islam -- did that, what did we forget all these important achievements deaths instead, we went to an authoritarian structure. understanding that has caused a

lot of pain for us here, and elsewhere. my message today is we really need a serious conversation about islam, and i include the muslims in this country and those are. not based on the demagoguery of someone telling us what they think islam is, but a serious study of the text of the koran which shows that democracy is at the heart of islam through a concept, and through the separation of powers, and through the election of the head of state. we do not see any of this today in muslim countries. that is why i think that salam says this is the most congenial country to be in for muslims, because represents more principles that we believe in.

i would mention one of verse, paraphrase by jefferson -- it could be that jefferson thought of it on his own, but you know that he did own the a koran. it says there is no compulsion in religion. it is the freedom of the exercise, so everyone is free to choose what they believe in. the koran also advocates the equitable word with other religions. even if someone acts in a hostile way toward you, return the bad deed was a good one. so ultimately, this person will

one day become your friend. humans are in the end, good people. i would like to see a serious conversation started in this country. the word has been bandied about as a threat. why is it being discussed as a threat in the u.s.? but you can enlighten me during the question and answer session , and i would be happy to answer. -- the muslims came to this country before the 1600's.

will not recent immigrants to this country. we should guide all our actions -- this is chapter 14. a goodly work is like a tree -- slut as all strived for the good word. [applause] >> good morning. my daughter mary-margaret used to tease me about 10 years ago when i was 55 -- she would say it must be fun being 55. you get to meet new people every day. she introduced me to her friend

one day, and a couple of days later the car was over again. a couple of days again she said you met kelly. and i did not recall. and she told me that i did. i get that feeling when i had this discussion because it seems that every time there's a crisis we have to begin again talking about what it is all about, who these people are, what the religion is about. it will begin to dawn on me that there's something we need to know and pay attention to, but do it one more time. i was invited by the clinton to nyu to a panel shortly after 9/11, similar to this one. americans were in shock and have a lot of questions they wanted answered. we recognize the importance of doing that. we began to talk about who

muslim-americans were. before i went to the session i called a lot of friends to get some anecdotes, and poured over my mind in the 30 years i have been doing this work, got a doctorate in islamic studies, and have organized arab- americans for as long as i can remember. i told some stories about a young woman who was a pre-med student, an idealist who tell me one day -- and i'm not going to be like my father. i want to practice my religion by opening a clinic for the poor. then there was a guy in cincinnati that reminded me so much of my father as he took me to the mosque he had helped to raise the money to build. was so proud of the billion.

-- of the building. he showed me he had this from syria, that the native from lebanon -- all these wonderful artifacts. reminded me of my father and uncles who built the church in utica. the pride that emigrants get it in building their institutions in the new world. a couple of years after he died a got his son an internship and the white house. on his first day to work, he said, only my dad -- if he could see me now, he would be so proud. this is why he came. there were other stores, a young yemeni girl -- and the middle of ramadan there was a fight.

the principal insisted that the kids had to go to the cafeteria during lunchtime. the kids asked to go to a study hall. he said no. during the lunch time, kids were throwing a ham at muslim students. it was a provocation which ultimately turned out to be a fight. this 14-year-old girl at a town meeting said, i have the solution. i went to the principal and told him, the problem is that we do not understand each other. she said they do not understand my culture. if you would help us, maybe we could explain our culture to them. he snapped back at her, my job is not to have you teach your culture, grow. it is for you to learn my culture. -- girl. she continues to fight, and continues to do the work she set out to do at 14 as a full-time

cultural communication expert. it reminded me of my own background. people like us are americans, those with pride in their heritage, who share the american dream, and value the values of america. it is an american story, a community not unlike others. the and it does tell that story, but our polling does as well. we have pulled not only arab- americans and muslim-americans, but also ethnic americans such as irish-americans. i put it together in a book a few years ago. we learned about the diversity of the committee of muslim- americans. the single largest group is

probably african-american. next,arab-american and south asian-americans, but growing numbers of those from african countries, and from iran. each as you meet them remind you of the emigrant story of every other group that has come in terms of values and aspirations. you talk to the guy who has a big job, but also has a nice job, and has three kids, and will tell you with enormous pride of what they're doing in college. that comes through in the polling that we have done. what we learn is the values of muslims in america track closely the values of other ethnic americans, particularly catholics. like catholics, they lean progressive on a number of

fiscal issues. for example, supporting health care or strengthening social security, or school funding, or funding to clean the environment. but then they lean conservative on social issues, like family values or abortion, or tough on crime. this might be interesting -- tough on the laws that would fight terrorism. the income of muslim-americans is slightly higher than the national average. mosque attendance is about the same as church attendance. the value of those who are regular attendees track closely with those who are regular church attendees, and likewise with those who do not attend on either side. this is the story we told after

9/11, and again today. president bush got a complete rewrite. the problem is not islam. the problem are the people will be used islam to commit violent acts against our country and people. what happened is that a cottage industry of those who had been axed to grind against the religion of islam against muslims and begins to arabs ended up providing most of the answers. they read books and get them published. they testified before congress and dominated airwaves on radio and television legal i will never forget in a hearing held in the senate on islam featuring three guys -- if you have the reverse in three muslims testifying on the nature of judaism, you would your whoops

and yells -- but this was acceptable. the allies and bigotry that they told and spread was horrific. the people in the audience -- that is all the retold. that is all that they were prepared to hear. these guys have done enormous damage. surely after 9/11 we hold overall america we found that people still had a very favorable view over islam, but today when we polled, they do not. back then, three-quarters of americans felt they needed to know more. they wanted to know more about islam and muslims, and today less than half say they need to know more. the fact is, unfavorable views have risen, but bad information has increased as well so that people think they know.

that is the dangerous thing. the ignorance and certitude are probably the most dangerous combination of all. you talk about sh'ria. we went into iraq monica, yet a month later people were talking as if sunnis and sh'ias they knew the difference, and other groups -- if you could put two words in a sentence, you became an expert and on tv to talk about. if this were not enough, this cast of characters organized not only information campaigns, but also politically. they stopped the academy in new york city, and are now park 51 organizing park. this is the danger. it is a danger to the image of our country abroad. it flies in the face of the wise counsel offered by george w.

bush. it is a danger to our values, but also at danger to the very social fabric of who we are as a country. a few years back i was invited to speak in warsaw and prague and other places in europe to talk about the difference. people wanted to know the difference between america and europe, and why your communities are not alienated? i have the risen to the top? in ways they have not done here? i began, and i spoke about the fact that we as a nation of belize been different. we have been different in the sense that america as a concept is different, and as a reality is different. no ethnic group defines who we are. their religion defines who we are. the bigots have had their way over time, but in the and, ultimately, the notion of america as an asorptive entity

that transforms people. you cannot just get passport. you get an identity. you can be a kurd in germany for three generations and you will always be. are you can be pakistani in london, and you will always be a paki. you can get citizenship -- it is an effort, but you never get the nationality, never the sense that i'm part of this people. as a kid when we studied lewis and clark, i went with them. when washington crossed the delaware i was on the boat. there was the sense you had that it was your story, not someone else's. that is who we are as a country. what troubles me is that what is at stake in this park 51 story

is not about a building or place. it is about the narrative of who we are as a people. if these guys win, whatever the outcome, then america will not be america anymore. the story of the muslim committee here may very well be like that of the muslim community in france or germany. that would be devastating for the social fabric of our country. i will leave it there. i thank you, and hope we don't have to have this discussion again in this way. [applause] >> i know that we have a lot of questions, and before we get to them, a couple of ground rules. make sure that it is a question, not a speech. if you want to make a speech, you can do your own panel. i respect for our friends from c-span, they have a boom mike.

there will make their best effort to get its near you so that you can post your question. let me pick up on the first that dr. james zogby talked about -- post 9/11 the country seem to pull together. where there were incidents of retaliation not only against muslim-americans, but people perceive to be as well the did why is this coming up now nine years later? was there now the call to stop the construction of mosques in the country? the population of muslims has grown. why is it coming to a head now? >> there is a general mood afoot

in the country. it is part and parcel of the broader social unraveling taking place. we saw it began last summer. i think some of it has to do with the fact we have elected an african-american president. some folks just can not interested. there is no question that the economic distress is part of it. at the same time, eight or nine years of dis-information has taken a toll. if the social conditions were not there, if this unraveling were not there, i don't think we would see it in exactly the same way. it is classic, xenophobic

nativism. we have seen it in our history before as with the anti-asian backlash in the early part of the last century, surely between the two wars. we had an anti-southern european where the italians got lynched, and there was a push to deny immigration. our folks or called trash because there were anarchists or socialist threat to america. then we had that anti-german wave. in periods of economic stress this begins to happen. it has been filled by bigotry and ignorance. another factor is, the president himself is in a bind. george bush was able to speak out. if barack obama speaks out as forcefully, you have 20% of the

public who thinks he is muslim already, and hold that against him. in some ways he is in a bind. it puts the rest of the country in a bind. where those leadership come from on this? it is a terrible situation. we do need political leadership instead of fanning the flames as some are, we need leadership to do the right thing. and to put this out. the very social fabric of the country is at stake here. salam? >> i agree with everything jim has said. i think we are at a crossroads in our society in terms of how we define america. is america and exclusive club, or are we going to live up to our values of pluralism? when people start questioning the christianity of our

president, i think that is a form of religious nationalism. they are using religion to say even religion now within america is part of an exclusive club. this expedition of the truce that is used also for political purposes -- of a truth -- since this is an election year in november -- muslim-americans are the easiest targets. because we do not have the reach, a lobby, a pr every structure. while we are responding to everything, the other side obviously has the microphone. it is the other side of extremists. my mentor always said something very telling for us as muslims, as americans, as people -- the world is not divided into

muslims, christians, jews. the world is divided into stupid people and intelligent people. >> on that note, who wants to be the first to ask an intelligent question? >> you and i have discussed this in the past. that is, that while we know the great majority of muslims embrace and endorse the founding principles of the u.s. and want to be good americans, unfortunately there are those who do not. and who profess to be acting in the islam name the. one of the difficulties is there is no central authority or definition of what a good muslim is. is there any effort within the community to uphold an america affirming islam, and to

marginalize those who want to kidnap islam? >> i think this call for a centralized figure in american islam to tell people what islam is, what is right and wrong, is misguided. we do not have a pope, and will not let one for the united states. we believe in democracy, and structures were people even within islam and not just outside it would hold it different interpretations so long as they are consistent with the basic principles of the koran. what we really need is a council of scholars, not people who call themselves scullers. especially not patriarchal scholars. -- not people who call themselves scullers. we need people islam who people what's this about, can think and write about it, can come together and evaluate the

trends in the u.s. and evaluate them in writing. for example, recently, a lot of people came to me and said, what about the story of the stunning in afghanistan? law? that applying sh'ria -- about the stoning and they afghanistan? and thet sh'ria law, people who committed that act are guilty. we do not need a central authority. i will move away from it as a woman, but as for order and responsibility and for legal authority in the sense of understanding the religion to educate muslims as well as non-

muslims in the u.s. >> it is not just the issue of what the scholars are same, but also what people are doing on the ground. the strongest frontline against any type of alienation or isolation, is the work being done in mosques, youth associations, community centers. people who promote civic engagement, and promote the principles of islam. there is no stoning in the koran, yet amid this perpetually. the path ofh'ria, god, and the principles are mercy, justice, and human dignity. the goals are five that are accepted by all the scholars. they are the rights to life, free expression, faith, family,

and property. so, if there is any violation of those goals, then it is a violation of sh'ria. so that common understanding among the common muslim is the goal our organization and other muslim-american organizations are pursuing. >> i will take another cut at that in a different way. i am a catholic. all priests are not pedophiles. i work with italians. they are not all tied in with the mob. i am married to an irish woman. she does not drink. i remember saying after the christmas day attempt to blow up the plane in detroit that we

learned from that that we did not connect the dots in our intelligence community correct. the danger is to wrongly connect the dots and think that you have come up with the picture. one of the problems is that they concluded every single incident that has occurred, and drawn a portrait of islam. some have chastised me for using the word bigotry, but let's understand what it is. bigotry is win you take the characteristics of a few and generalized them into the behavior, or to be it that then to the whole. this piece, that priest -- and you attribute that to the whole. unfortunate, the only stores we read about priests are that.

yet we know in our own heart of hearts and experience -- we do not know muslims well enough yet. we more exposure, need to know more about it, need to retain what we know. we need not to connect the dots in a way that is not warranted. i think that more than a religious authority there is more experience in the change of heart. that would be helpful in dealing with this problem more than -- if you had the muslim pope said he is not a muslim for what he did, you would still have people saying he is not authentic, not speaking for that particular fellow. i remember one time in the new yorker now speaking at the first anniversary of 9/11, when tom brokaw invited me to speak in the round to families of survivors. it was a painful day for them,

and a difficult experience for me. the first question was, why did they do it? i said nothing justified it did absolutely nothing to justify it. next question -- what you say nothing justified it, and then say but? >> i said i did not say but, i said that nothing justified it. i understood their pain, that it had temporarily closed their ears to listening. the reality is, for the rest of america, we did not have that direct pain. yet too many still closed barriers and made a judgment that all muslims thought this way, or that, or are inclined to violence, and you need to have muslims speaking up yet twinned spoke up, and others spoke out repeatedly, no one heard them. >> [inaudible]

we need a mechanism by which responsible muslims can be heard. >> while we're having this wonderful discussion, we not yet agreed on the definition of sh'ria law. keep that in the back of your minds. >> what role do you think that the press plays in showing the muslims in a negative light, versus the positive light in terms of stoking prejudice and stereotyping? i work in the middle east peace movement with a group of muslims, arabs, jews, christians -- i felt that there is intra- cultural peace movements not only in washington, d.c., but in every city around the country, in israel, and palestine. the mention of these organizations in national media. why is that so?

how can we change it? i'm jewish, but i'm not a billionaire. but if you look at the press, all jewish people are all rich. this stereotyping goes on with african-americans. with lots of other minorities. how we change these images? >> two points. the nature of the media is that they only cover what is a conflict. so, moderation and bridge- building is not newsworthy. it does not make the news when we get to a dozen people in chicago at our annual convention, or in los angeles. we bring government and all sorts of civic leaders and talk about how we as americans of all different faith that grants are

working together for justice, against any kind of extremism, for peace and security for those in the middle east. it does not make news. so, unless there is a conflict -- and usually, if you look of the stories about muslims, it is usually about their religious holidays. or it is an issue where there is a discrimination story about a woman who wears a head scarf, or a man who wants to wear his beard. that is reductive it in terms of what the muslim-american community is all about. when it comes to the head scarf, and not has become very politicized, especially anomalies, and now here in america. the head scarf has become a political football. a woman who decides to where it is not oppressed. in her own mind she is liberated. it is her choice. we should not be imposing on

women how to dress, telling them they must take it off. we should be pro-choice on that issue. the other issues of discrimination -- and looks like muslims are only concerned about entitlements. but the second problem for us, our responsibility is that i don't think we have a effectively answered questions our fellow americans have had about islam. we tend to just talk about worship, but they want to know what is our social interaction? in 1988, we had about 100 people, muslims, christians come arabs, non-arabs go to the democratic national convention. we felt we were part of that american experience. we felt we were contributing in terms of the policy discussions

and interaction. now we find those people attending those conventions, unfortunately, within the muslim-american committee. there needs to be more civic engagement. -- within the community. more stories could be told with that. it is about the mainstream voice. . .

gues>> the next day an article appears. it really tough for an american to be a hizbollah. a couple of days later i was invited to speak at the pentagon, to abide the muslims and the military. -- sponsored by the mizell a mosqmuslims and the military. crinkly -- frankly what troubles me is not only their web sites, which can't college professors

and urged students to spy on them and create information campaigns about muslims and arab-american leadership, and what troubles is mme is the dege they end up dominating on fox news and aniston bc when it comes to talking about these issues. -- and ms nbc when it comes to talking about these issues. -- msnbc when it comes to talking about these issues. i do not want to debate with these guys. it does become a bit of a problem, and i think that where the media has responsibility is to fat in the rolodex is and be more responsible. >> it is not just that we are invited to go and debate them, we are invited to deny the accusations. the cards are stacked against

us. you just look like you are in denial, and it goes back to the media? -- how come the message is not getting out? the only time you are invited is to say you're not terrorists. we were also called part of the wahhabi lobby. we're not lobbying anything. we're here to educate people about who we are. not because it is an issue of legality, but we have decided that we wanted to stress the muslim american identity. we wanted to be financially and philosophically independent from the middle east. obviously we did not subscribe to that in thinking, and it gets

repeated enough times that is all that is on people's minds. to go i just want to make one point. -- >> i just want to make one point. i got my doctorate in religion, and post doctorate in how religion is used. when ending's -- remembered george carlin had retained where he had words and talk about how they were used? it was an interesting lesson because of it was the meaning of a word and how it is used in the sentence. the point is that today the language of is, used by both this cast of characters we're talking about, but also the terrorists are identical in that they are using language because of this block of content. the guy who gets on the plane

and was the plane of is not making a statement about his face, what he is doing is making a statement saying i really hate you guys or i am really a great. we could cycle analyze what he is doing, but severely the guys -- i remember on the playground people calling me names. they're calling names and the names they choose to call is the one that has the most evocative preference. basically it is a way of taunting, because the board has it locked its contents. -- because the word has evocative content. i'd think we need to understand the use and abuse of language in this context, and understand that these guys that are throwing names of about two the

truth value of it means nothing. they are looking in their dictionary of what is the worst word i can use right now. i think i will call him this. that will work. >> let me just say again that there is nothing new about this. i made new friends every day and new arguments. jefferson, believe it aeronauts, worried about this. -- believe it or not, or read about this. this is a problem that america has that it needs to solve not only with respect to muslims, but with respect to media in general. my approach is that instead of complaining about it, which we have done enough of that, let's look for a solution. the solution, for me, is there are lots of muslim and doctors,

muslim business people in this country, but muslims in the past have shied away from being lawyers, reporters, and so on. now there is a generation of young muslim lawyers that i am very happy to see around the country, and where are the communication people? if you want your own often boyce to be heard, where are you? if you are sitting in the paper and someone here is your objective about the news you are about to publish, maybe you will be able to modify that view. let's now move ahead in and do our part in correcting it. >> you have already referred to the media appeal of moderation or interface work and that that does not necessarily play, and we know psychological research

says when you respond to someone's arguments you almost solidify the opinion of the viewer so what are we supposed to do? what are muslim americans opposed to do? >> number one, the rhetoric of hate is like this, on top of water, it will float away, but the good work that you do that as of substance will remain on earth that will benefit humanity. it tells you to ignore all of the rhetoric and noise -- it will always happen. it has been happening from the beginning and continues to this day. the good work, even though it is not sensational and not going to get the media today, the relationships that we are building is creating energy, is

creating a movement toward change, because the people we get to know-ho the rev. ed baco jeremy binani -- these are great people, great americans. in terms of being more media savvy, what we have is giving in to the media. it was called in justice cannot defeat and justice. it was basically a group of muslim scholars talking to young people and saying do not be fooled by the extremist

rhetoric. those efforts are getting significant media coverage, but as we know, it is only within people's memory for a short span. the next week as a whole new story. you have to keep thinking about telling that story over and over again. we will do some 9/11 service activities for example. there will be health clinics are all the mosques on 9/11. it is just a shame that part of the industry that jim was referring to is trying to divide the victims of 9/11. people of all backgrounds were in the world trade centers. we're all attacked as americans. telling that story is important. we will be having a commemoration and vigil on that day.

we will get some coverage, but we will have to continue working at that. we are retreating are open a bit in the words th -- we are creating our own media in such way of facebook. we have a lot of opportunity and getting the word out. >> not all the ways to respond to this situation are necessarily equiglitzy. a lot of muslims said it says this, and they say prove it. we have to be prepared because we cannot with these articles of than air. we have to take a long time studying them and analyzing them. it sounds very academic, but

believe it or not i was in a country where i thought it was unfair to women and arguing i think they need to change it, and the legislators looked at me and said show me the footnotes. that is what he asked for. scholar work is very important. >> i would like to first of all said that i am grateful for the situation, and i am proud to be a muslim. i am proud to be african- american as you can tell. i am also a veteran, as well as health care in disabilities attorney. it always surprises me, and you asked -- i am asking you -- >> we can change the narrative by making sure that our spokespeople are also a representative of the full diversity of the muslim

community that many other african americans, even latino and european americans, who as you know are the most increasing population of muslims in this country, who are more than committed to be involved in this conversation? my second is to you believdo yoe should take the history notes of the african american example, after we get the reconstruction in the war that there was a rise in anti-african american sentiment resulted in the lynching and all types of horrible actions across this country, so do we not see the same parallel? not so long ago we were looking

at the arizona law. some of anti-islamic rhetoric -- don't we see there are entrenched interests? >> let me address your terminology. the way we see it and teach it in my organization is that it is akin to the nit a controllingti. we are not new immigrants. if you speak about emigrants, you are forgetting the other wing of muslims who are the native in this country. not only do we see a continuity, the experience you are referring to is our experience.

the question is how much within the muslim community do we identify with each other? i think that has become more conscious question more recently, and we're trying to deal with its. >> i think the more we stress the muslim american identity, then the more we will naturally have diversity in our representation of defense, and our presentations and telling our story. yes, i agree with you in terms of having that diversity, and their problems that we're dealing with internally in terms of that issue. where are we in terms of the civil-rights progression? i think we're still in the very early stages of that. we are not at the time of martin luther king in general. african american muslims can contribute positively to understanding where we are or

where we should be of american rights in society, but i think as american muslim community we are still in the thought stages, the status of marcus garvey or developing the ideas for the community. defining home as not we're ancestors came from, not more where my grandparents lived, but where my grandchildren will be raised. no matter what background clear from, this is very important. lastly, god wants us all to be thinking leaders, not blind followers. i think that is the message and is very important we have to stress. >> we have about 10 minutes. i will ask for quick questions and quick answers. right here and then over here.

>> thank you. i was interested -- i have two questions. the first was what contemporary muslim country, which operates under shariir'ia operates here today? which muslim groups of spoke out when it was discovered that is e international religious freedom reported they're talking about murdering? >> , i would like to answer the first question. it is very simple. our belief is that there is no moslem country now that is fallinowolling shir'ia.

one reason is because the election by the head of state is not taken place. where do you go from there? i am not standing here to defend any muslim country, and i hope that within the united states i can be of better muslim then i can in some of the muslim countries. it is like what degree do to lift or for it to make it th nin begnin? i do not like that term. the only issue is whether they are applied or not complied. there is no muslim countries that applies it. there are tons but claim they are applying it. the use it to oppress the people. they are trying to tell the people build walls are by divine

will. we need to tell the people this is not true. >> it goes back to the question , do you want to validate the accusation that muslims do not speak out? that fact is we have spoken out at every instance. it gets ridiculous how many times things keep coming up, to the point that we do not even know the cases that, whether they are valid or not. the commission that the gentleman refers to, some of the commission leaders have questionable views in terms of religious freedom in america. when it comes to anyone saying that we should be murdering christians and jews and we

denounce any groups -- >> this is one of those those who love is to see and ears to hear stories. -- those who have eyes to see and ears to hear stories. i was asked about the story and said it is gross, despicable, and wrong. when i was invited to saudi arabia by the u.s. ambassador who had not been able to have a guest or a visitor to the country in a long time and wanted me to come into a luncheon at the embassy and invite a number of saudi business leaders and speak to a number of groups around town. one of the groups he invited me to speak to was a group called whamy. it involves a lot of young

business leaders in saudi arabia. the ambassador took me to the event and sat with me at the event. i spoke and they drove it back to the embassy when it was over. i got a question about pat robertson and some other u.s. preachers preaching hate about islam, and i said condemn it. we work really hard every day to fight these guys. when you are working harder than you can imagine to deal with the bigotry in america, but let me remind you that you have people in this country that are saying things about christians and jews that are deplorable. i said are you fighting them? they all nodded guilty and we had a conversation about them. obliquely reich got back into the country and one of the characters i mentioned a moment ago wrote an article that "zogby

speaks at whamy." i challenge them on the bigotry. the point is a lot of groups condemned the book when it was first released. the saudis did the job of getting rid of the book. pay attention to what is done, what is said, and i think we do a lot better in this conversation if we did just that. >> question over here. >> [inaudible] i it as a muslim have trouble as if we have to add a word first before adjusting muslim in this country. i would like your input on this, because unless you are not wearing a head scarf or do not

go to a mosque or local, then you are moderate muslim, but if you're wearinyou go to a mosquet qualify for that term. the trouble with that is seeing people in leadership positions advocating that those of the people we need to talk to, regardless if they are non- practicing muslims, so i would like to hear your thoughts. >> i would like to approach this label of modern muslims and a different way. and in islam there is nothing wrong with saying that someone has interpreted is, with accordance to the society they live in. it is acquired effort that muslim scholars, when they lived in a society say american or european, that they look into

the circumstances of the society and explain the rules and the basic principles do not change, but the rules and secondary laws in light of the society so that when they are used and applied because of positive results instead of negative ones. the general rule in islam is that god made the laws and public interest. yes, there are scholars here, including myself who are looking at the american society and who are trying to understand is, calls within the context of our society, and that as very traditional approach and accepted approach for what we do. what you are talking about is something more political, and i will let the others answer. >> first of all the acheron -- first of all the profit warned against any kind of extreme

somisom to the left or the righ. within their religion it promotes moderate drinking and progressive thinking. it is this responsibility of muslims to promote that. the term moderate muslim has been highly publicized amines a person who agrees with the status quo. the only people who are the moderate spokespeople who are people who have left the land. there is a paradox in that. it is ridiculous that these are people that are now the moderates. or people who support policies of certain industries. the support work -- that is a

moderate muslim. they support policies of the state of israel against palestinians or -- they are moderate muslim. it is a muslim or mainstream muslim. and to promote terrorism into our criminal. now they will question whether you are a muslim or not. tacom>> what should we expect fm our elected officials, what role should they play in this atmosphere of is, a soviet? -- of islamaphobreia?

>> they should be responsible, and they are irresponsible these days. it was a terrible loss the school thought that it the way it did. nevertheless it was the same cast of characters that are playing this out, and some national political figures got into the mix and decided to exploit it. one by one you had it becoming an issue. and you have candidates in states where there are basically almost no muslims being asked what is your position on the moscoque? or why are they doing its? that are defaming hollowed ground. it became an issue that had nothing to do with states and

cities and congressional districts across the country. politicians behave irresponsibly. why should it happened on the part of media and how your political leadership is we should have called them out early on and said you are being irresponsible. what we learned after 9/11 is the measure of our patriotism was the degree to which we were true to the values of our country and that we would not let the terrorists win. tragically i am reading the signs from the marches in new york and listening to the rhetoric i am sharing on some of the television and radio shows and listening to what some of the political leaders are saying, and the terracorists won. we're sounding in this country know better than abroad. this is irresponsible. if it's a shame. george bush was right.

-- it is a shame. >> i think you might agree with a very short sentence i will tell you. what i would like to see is for politicians to put the interests of the country ahead of political interests. that will serve as quite a lot. >> on that note, we are out of time. >> thank you all for being here. we always run out of time and never have enough space, but i was thinking that only in america. we have a public hearing where anyone can walk in. staffers always claim you do not need an appointment to walk around the halls if you need to. we are on c-span, an entity dedicated to the discussion for the american people.

we hope to have many more in the future. let me thank the panelists, moderators -- the brainchild behind us. let me introduce some of the executive board of the commercial muslim staff association. i want to thank the house science committee for giving us this room. you can follow the activities on our website congressionalmuslims.org. thank you for being here and we hope to see you in the future. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> president obama is on the road today. and he is going to all paso, texas, to talk with troops. -- he is going to el paso, texas, to talk with troops. their role is to train the iraqis. the white house says president obama pulte thawill thank fort troops for their effort in iraq. president obama will get a life speech tonight on the economy.

>> president obama speaking to the nation tonight to end the formal withdrawal from the combat troops in iraq. that is at 8:00 eastern. we will follow that with calls about your reaction and comments on the speech. we will host a 64 and today in washington. they will discuss pilot training and high tech training. live coverage on c-span2. that will start at 1:00 eastern. at 3:00 eastern and discussion on middle east peace talks here in washington. the washington capitals' -- institute will look at the prospect for solution.

>> science and knowledge to week continues on "book tv" primetime. julie des jardine and walter isaacson. tonight on c-span2. mark johnson delivered a speech on friday on the future of the british broadcasting corporation. it is the largest news corp. in the world. this event is about 50 minutes.

>> thank you. good evening, everyone. you need ander. if you can manage it, rate. -- you need anger. if you can manage it, rage. you need a villain. sometimes it is called murdoch, though fascinating, never went a lecturer is called murdoch. once the professor send out to be lady elizabeth how will and a

standing commission. at that the audience were really quaking in their boots that year. i am dodging obvious. we all know who the usual suspect is, the time and time again when the lecture comes to that fateful moment, the moment when the most point the finger time and time again they puj choose the bbc. should i follow in that noble position? i'd think we will wait. you need proposals. they can be uttered in the certain knowledge that by the end of the wheat they will be long forgotten and the only then people will remember is the nasty things to set about top the bbc -- you said about the bbc. if you can, you should find a

way to insult your audience. there is a british television industry and there were quite a few people nodding and agreeing. you really should not encourage james. he was so pleased on his attack on the bbc that a few months later he decided to sink his teeth into a few other forces that links in the undergrowth of our national life. the british library. >> know what they do at the british library? they get their books together and discourage theencourage peon and read them for free. the sixth. -- the sick bastards. [applause] [laughter]

the british army, the british jews awards -- we await with interest. i am afraid i did not have any of that for you this evening. i do not believe the british way of doing television is the worst in the world or unhappy in every way. i think it is silly to pretend that it is. i didn't believe it is threatened by the lens or that the young people of today no understand the value of great public service broadcasting or any of the other negative . sadr peddled about our industry. i believe the real secret is is aboabout how good it is.

it produces high-quality television and radio made anywhere. it is not that we do not face issues. the impact of digital on audiences, the need for larger scale reform across the industry, and perhaps the biggest of all -- the looming shortfall and the money available to invest in the original production. this is something that will happen by united action, and should not blind us to the central fact -- which is broadcasting is a british success story and the barriers to entry are falling around the globe, we have a real chance of making a creative and economic world leader. there is a battle going on, a battle for quality and for the culture and conviction and for the money that makes a quality possible. it will need investment,

creative focus, the right to strategies. it will be prince broadcasters that work together, but it is not a battle that will be decided by the number of early evening regional news magazines or by the finer points endlessly fascinating that people find them of the governments of the bbc. over the past decade we have with the vast quantities of breath on topics, which if you just that a couple of steps back, look almost commonly applicable bridgette commonly -- comically parochial.

as for channel 5, i do not think i can do any better than the daily express. [laughter] i must say, in this very nice to see a chance of being positive about tb for a change. instead, we should concentrate on what matters most and on the issues and actions that could make a difference. we should think big, not small. we're so good at talking down our own history that the proposition that tv is any good at all is in itself rather novel. let's begin by sharinhearing the british public on the issue.

to be honest, they're not over generous in their markings. whether it, scenery, for public transport neck and neck. apparently toilets and driving is remain strings. not necessarily at the same time, but the way. of all of the topics covered in the survey it was a british television that score the highest. 62% said they thought to be was better here. only 8% took opposite view. i am not suggesting for a moment that the british public think that tv is perfect, far from it. one of the reasons to be has developed the way it has is because we hypocritical and impatient audience. they want the best and when did all year long. -- and want it all year long. although we would not be british if we did not sometimes called

back the british programs of yesteryear, but the trick is programs is that a high, your ship is up, it -- viewership is up. the global reputation of british broadcasting is as strong as it has ever been, if not stronger. global reputation was made first by journalism, but also by outstanding news documentaries, which stretches far beyond that bbc to include channel 4 and sky. for decades our reputation beyond news was pretty narrow. it is a different story today. actual programs in formats of

every kind, entertainment, x factor, "dancing with the stars" playing for many viewers. in america, a british comedies and dramas is beginning to make serious inroads. appetite is there. it is interesting, because unlike much of the american distribution deal, it is a level playing field. today, a year after relaunched its in competing with the biggest american players, where a top-10 provider is of programs anin itunes. 15% of the u.k. revenues already

comes from overseas. opportunity in the future should be even greater. we want to rise to this challenge. within a year we aim to launch an international rival to the iplayer. we should not delude ourselves about how much would have to change it british tv was to be a real economic success stories around the world. almost every other country in the world, other than the u.s., we are a net exporter of television services, but the scale is still pretty small. in 2008, net exports of tv services was just under 200 million pounds. management consulting was over six times that much. computer services 18 times as much. and do not ask about the

banks. the small figure is because today we have an industry that is mainly focused on the home market with a program and channel brands, many completely of which are unknown and the rest of the world's. who is our competition? disney, time warner. we will remain what we are today, a very talented minnow. now i believe it is the time to put that right. the only reason we can even have this conversation and drive a much more international revenue and it does today is because of the way television works here in the u.k. the reason british tv produces exceptional results is because the system itself is exceptional in four ways. the first pillar is the funding

model that has allowed us original production. more than twice as much as countries like germany and france. it is really on the u.s. who spends more than we do. it is this exceptional investment that has made the whole equation possible. originations throughout the year, an independent sector as well as significant in-house productions. a world-class concentration of tv and radio production in london, but sustainable that works in scotland and other nations. and in other major cities. exceptional per capita investment in production has meant we have a far bigger position and the most expensive forms of tb, original drama, comedy -- than any other comparable nation.

it is unnecessary condition. as everyone knows, much of our investment drives from direct and indirect public intervention. some claimed that if you eliminate this intervention, the market would fill the gap. look around the world. you will find plenty of countries where public intervention is a going away, but in no country and where has the market stepped up to replace the lost program investments. in a year or so there will be a debate about the future level of the licensing thfee. many different arguments will be made. for the bbc, i believe this will be a moment for realism. do not believe anyone who claims

that cutting the licensing is a way to grow the economy or that the lost program investment, which would follow a substantial reduction in the bbc funding, could be made up from somewhere else or -- it just would not happen. a pound is the pound out of the u.k.-created economy. once gone, it will be gone forever. funding and the economic original production are critical. the british exceptional is and does not rely on investments. it stands on the second pillar, which is a broadcasting culture, which is also very different from other countries. we have an audience who are not just critically astute, but hungry for fresh ideas. we have broadcast institutions with a very particular strain of public-service broadcasting, pulsing through their arteries.

it is opposite of that right and lifeless view of public broadcasting that is prevalent in america. at its best, a british public ublic broadcasting wants to share these ideas with everyone. to bring the artifacts to lifeless such conviction and creativity in their reach deep across a society. coltrane pessimists are trying to convince us that this great tradition is dead and all of the bbc and all of the others carried frigid care about sensation and rating tasting.

not only is alive and well, some of the best broadcasting is been commissioned and made today in mor. more than 80 years, britain has never made it more exciting programming. this tradition has always been embraced popular forms as well as more demanded once. more origination, less entertainment than in the past. an offering quality entertainment, especially on a saturday remains one of the key things the british public expects of us. on the tuesday after the general election a few months ago, over 70 million viewers to join us that evening to see events unfold. gordon brown's resignation speech. the formation of the new government. they came because there is very

strong instinct to come together through broadcasting to share a great national moments, with something only are broadcasting can make possible. they also can do bbc because it remains one of the nation's courtrooms. -- front rooms. they go there because they are used to going there. in large measure that is because of the popular programs. which in their own way celebrate our national life and culture. the enemies of public broadcasting want to split so called market failures, from commercial ones. they say it is all about the programs. yes and no. the clue is a good title -- pulte lispublic-service broadca.

it is about the service didn't. just like the wicked old british public library, it is founded on thithe belief that there is room for a place that is to be either government or state north funded by commercial transactions and which everyone is entitled to enter, where they can share and swap experiences. there was a belief in the possibility of a common culture, one that could transcend differences of wealth, geography, and kennedy. one that would not segregate the public. one that will not seek to put anyone on the wrong side of an encryption war. one that will treat everyone as being of equal value. that is what we mean when we talk about public space.

not programs commission and produced either to appeal only to a cultural elite or to bring in the biggest possible commercial audience, are programs that evoke the mind, programs that are open to all. as well as funding and public service coulter, there is the third pillar on which bbc rest, which is a long history of cultural independence. this independence has been every bit adefendants as commercial broadcasting. iat the moment, and despite some of the anxieties expressed of the past year, the independence seems secure. new coalition government has been explicit in supporting the independence of the bbc and the

charter, which underpins that independence. the cross party support, which is sustained the independence of the british broadcasting system, appears as strong as ever. we should remain vigilant. the same commercial and political forces which are undermining the independence of the public broadcasters and other european countries, italy and france brings to mind, are at work here as well. . .

italy knows that this proposal has nothing to do with the public interest and everything to do with an agenda weakening and undermining why. in the u.k., the sentiment is often loftier, but the purpose is often the same. there is one last pillar that underpins our system. indeed, this fourth pillar underpins the other three, underpins everything. it is the primary support of the english public. without their support, and i do not mean historical support. i mean, living support today, there would be no licensing, no

bbc, no channel four, certainly, in its present form. but that is not what the british public wants. support for the license fee is high, if not higher today than it was in the 1980's. then, there were four channels. now there are hundreds and hundreds. but perhaps, when britain is fully digital then the british public will not all logger before today. -- no longer be forced to pay. over 90% of the u.k. already have digital television. over 70% already have broadband. in other words, they are already living in a digital britain, and yet, their support for license fees is higher than with analog 25 years ago. the purists have spent a generation making the free market case for public license

fees and the british public agrees with them less than when they started. nor does any of the public have the slightest enthusiasm for the broadcasting on channel four, or the many of the other schemes that the hard-liners have come up with over the years. but of course, you would not know any of this if you based your assessment on public attitudes over british broadcasting in the newspapers. since the taxes are nothing new of course, the first organized campaigns began back in john reid sunday -- but the scale and intensity is different. you can get an idea of the intellectual weight of some of the attacks from the freedom of information request that we get in. bbc believes has a public body, we should be as open as we can

be. but i have to say it is painful to spend public money that would be investing on programs in an attempt to answer roy -- answer weighty questions like, -- and these are real, by the way. how many toilets do you have at the center and how many accidents happen in them each year? what is your policy on biscuits? and does gordon brown have two fully functioning ears? he does, by the way. when they work on a story, they know the story that they're working on is going to be wrapped up, distorted, or just plain nonsense. but as one of my colleagues said recently, it does not matter about the facts. they just want to trash you. that is what i call professional honesty, not the public interest, not accountability, we just want to trash you. what is the effect of all of this negativity? the sometimes it clearly affects

the political debates we are broadcasting, not just because the politicians of all parties find it hard to is -- to resist an easy headline. "i only give one quote about the bbc per week" won mp told me the of the day. overall approval for the bbc and the scores are solid and hide. scores for solid originality are going up. and that is true even of the readers of those papers, which are consistently high style about the -- hostile to the bbc. 71% of the people surveyed said they are glad exists. among readers of the daily mail, 72%. the times, at 83%. the sunday times, 85%.

what is going on? why should it be the case that they are not reflecting the view of the public, or even their readers? each day, the public switches on or switches over to the bbc some 175 million times across tv, the radio and the web. they would not do it, given the competition available, if they did not love it. andthose daily benchmark os that contact is the foundation of something rather rare in british life, a relationship that is not mediated or controlled by newspaper proprietors, politicians or anybody else, a relationship which is simple and direct and which is, therefore, very strong.

but if free of the pillar system, public support and culture all field relatively secure. the same cannot be said for the mixed funding model. the problem is real and immediate. and it is this, the total money available in the u.k. in the original bbc production is shrinking and may shrink further. it is not only the u.k. producers, many of them in this room, or that u.k. audiences will suffer, but also, at the very moment, british talents around the world are greater than they've had ever been and we could havmissed an opportuni. it could be that those be on the bbc are fishing in a stedman pool of advertising. without new creative -- stagnant pool of advertising. without new creative advertising, the total amount of

money for new talent and new ideas may reduce further. between 2004 and today, the estimated decline was from around 2.9 billion to about 3.6 billion. that is 300 million pounds out of the system. even then, most analysts believe that the budget systems could be much slower in real terms than a decade ago. that is decided. it is not armageddon. given the sheer talent we have in our industry, given our global competitive advantage, it would be tragic if we just stood around and waited for it to happen. that is exactly the assumption on which this has been predicated, that we must just accept the decline of money available for quality television and published this dwindling resource as best we

can. why? to me, this is the question that politicians should be grappling with, not struggling with the symptoms of decline in investment, but identifying steps that will put that investment back on the part of growth. it means consent -- confronting a need for change in our industry more radically than anything we have seen before. and at the bbc, we have to recognize that we are not somehow exempt from all of this. on the contrary, radical and rapid change inside the bbc is itself an essential part of the solution. we are not starting from scratch. over the past six years where has been massive change. thousands of jobs that have gone up to bbc and many of these splendid old top jobs, director ions have been scrapped or merged.

asked indies in beginner how -- in particular how bbc's negotiations compared to other contractors. achieving a smaller, more efficient, more distinctive bbc is inevitably a painful and often contentious process. right now, we are going through one of the most painful changes of all, confronting the fact that the current pension arrangements of those inside the organization are no longer affordable. we made arrangements that are reasonable, fair, and apply evenly across the bbc, no matter how senior or junior you are. we are in the middle of a consultation at the bbc with everyone about this. and if we can make adjustments in the light of that consultation and still hit the test of affordability, we will do it. but if the test of affordability

we must. -- hit the test of affordability we must. am i saying that the reform of the bbc is, in fact, nearly complete? kfar from it. this spring we published -- far from it. this spring we published that although we have achieved a lot already, when you look at the sheer pace of change in media, when you look at the new financial context of the bbc and that -- that the bbc and the u.k. find themselves in, there is a vast amount still to do. if you will see the rate of change and reform at the bbc go deeper and faster. 90% of the budget is spent on commissioning great content. it is critical that the bbc

spends as much of the license fee as possible on high-quality content. but to achieve that, the bbc will have to become leaner than it has ever been before. overheads are around half of what they were in the 1990's. to hit on target, they will need to fall by at least another quarter. expect to see a radical change to the structure of the organization, fewer structures, of your chairs, fewer management boards. if we can go further, we will. if we will look for reduction in every level of organization of to and including the executive board. the bbc does need to compete with that -- for the right people, but we need to recognize how much the extra context has changed in the commercial media and public sector. by the end of this year, the total if senior management paper

will have reduced by almost one quarter. it review of pension arrangements right now means that top managers will see their total pay fall not by 5% or 4%, but much more. and you can expect further reductions in top pay as well. and we will take the money that we save by all of these measures and invest in the central mission of the bbc, which is to commission, make and distribute the best in british content to the public. second, we have to rededicate ourselves as an organization unswervingly to that central mission. the public wants a range of programs from the bbc, including popular ones, but they do not want abc that is driven at all by ratings or commercialism -- they do not want a bbc that is driven at all by ratings or commercialism, but only to be the best.

the bbc needs to make a further significant shift -- shift toward distinctiveness. this is not a new theme, but given the changes in the rest of the broadcasting landscape, it is right that we go further, both to protect the range and diversity of what is available to the british public, but also, to create more room for other players. the bbc must do much more to create -- support creativity across the industry and help make the industry shift to digital. here in scotland, it is not just find words. shererotland and std now partnerships across -- share partnerships across the nation. we want for the partnerships across the uk. we share the same public space and we know the partnerships with shared leadership and shared creativity can sometimes

fall the public access to science knowledge. look at neil macgregor's world. without the bbc, ptt would have failed. instead, there are now nearly 19 -- 19 million homes using preview. this year, it has high definition and next year it will have iptg functionality as well. it will also help other broadcasters and producers find new ways of monetizing content, and by doing that, i hope it will encourage more production -- investment in bbc production. when it comes to platforms, we stand firmly on the side of open standards, a plurality, and choice. we want to share our fortress with the rest of the industry.

finally, the bbc needs to look hard at its own scale and scope of its services. the public does not want to see fewer or thinner services from the bbc. indeed, we have seen proposals for me been niche services that can show public dismay. we need to test them to be sure they really do fulfill the public charter. if we are in the middle of a certain exercise intended to increase the focus and clarity of our website. we expect to cut its footprint on the web substantially. and to reduce the amount we spend on it by 25%. we have a daunting program for change at the bbc. delivery is going to require not just the right strategies and skills, but clarity about what bbc is there to do, as well as an extraordinary level of commitment and energy. can we do it?

i believe we can. the passion for creativity and quality i believe is as strong today as it was when i joined the ec more than 30 years ago. the idea of public service -- when i joined the bbc more than 30 years ago. the idea of public service is still has a drop. the public says they are proud of the bbc and i have to say i am proud of it, too. some give everything to make our services what they are. i also believe we can do it because in my experience, the bbc as far more capable of change and flexible than it sometimes knows. finally, he might ask, do i have the commitment and energy to lead the bbc to where it needs to get to next? my answer is a very clear yes. the stakes have never seen higher, yes, for the bbc, but

also we have a tradition in broadcasting. the prize has never seemed more precious and i, for one, am of to the fight. but the bbc is a not the only thing that needs to change. if british television is to achieve its full potential both in its home markets and around the world, it also needs to change. we need a strong itv and a strong channel 4. in the short term, we need policymakers and the competition authorities to look hard at the structures of the advertising market and the effects of the main competition remedy, the crr. the u.k. needs an advertising market that functions effectively, but also one that can be confident of commercial

success if they invest in quality content. this investment in programming will not serve anyone, not advertisement -- disinvestment in programming will not serve anyone, not advertisement, not producers or the public. crucially, can this gives the chance to maintain this model themselves. the scale and success of british independent production sector points to another area of a regular review, the way in which independent producers' trade with broadcasters. a good job was done in helping to strengthen the in the sector -- the indie sector.

but the current pace of change affecting broadcasters, together with the scale of the independent sector, means it is a right time to take a fresh low to steve -- a fresh look at whether it is fit for this purpose. independent producers will have to work much harder together to plan the value over the whole life cycle and across different tv markets. we desperately need more investment from the broadcasters. we may need more flexibility from the producers. finally, i want to turn to sky, already burdened's biggest broadcaster by far. -- bridgton's biggest forecaster by far. it has an annual revenue of 8 billion and that is well over a billion dollars -- 8 billion pounds of more than the bbc.

and many believe that it will get a bigger portion still and it dwarfs the bbc and other stations. a year ago, its leader was able to lead this guy out of the question altogether. skype is already more powerful -- sky is well on its way in this country. if goes through, it will -- if it goes through, it will not only be bridgton's dominant broadcaster, but it will be one of the biggest publishers. it will be a concentration of cross media ownership that should not -- that would not be allowed in the u.s. or australia, the other two most important markets. i will not question the new court's dominance, but i do want

to talk about sky in relationship to british television. it has reached its pre-eminence in britain's telecast -- broadcast industry because of its flexibility and its ability to get close to its strongest customers. these are the reason why it has grown so strong today and why british tv is a better because of them. sky is not the enemy of quality british television. in fact, it is an important provider of it. when it comes to investing in its original british productions, that is a different story. when iptv was a player, it poured money into original programming.

in the 1990's, it did a better job than the bbc with drama. it is great that sky is going to make an archive and it is great that it is going to make additions in comedy, but it is time that it started investing much more in british talent and content. sky doesn't declare its annual investment in an original u.k. non-sport event, but its origination is about 5 million pounds. despite the fact that its total turnover is more than 15 times that. sky's marketing budget is larger than the entire program and budget of iptv1.

its investment in original british content is just not enough. people sometimes say to me, aren't you afraid that sky is going to start spending more on the original british programs and is therefore to bbe competing head-to-head with you? that is what should happen. it would be good for the bbc and for the public. backing these programs with occasional talent, but with a week in and week out program of a wide range of television. here's another idea. in britain, you will recall sty paid nothing for the -- sky paid nothing for the channels.

let me quote someone who thinks and investing content should get a better deal. a "asking cable companies and other distribution partners to pay a small portion of what they make by reselling broadcast channels, the most watched channels on their systems, will help ensure the health of the industry in america." the point -- and it is a simple one -- they have the most content and are the most popular networks in the u.k. and satellite environments. they should not be made -- they should be made to pay for them. the man who made that argument is rupert murdoch and is working in america. the fox is now able to receive

those fees. just to get to his starting point, consider that fox the originally asked time warner for $1 per month per subscriber in an exchange for the fox network. at that level, sky would be paying 100 million pounds per year to get something at the level of fox. james murdoch may -- and james merrill may quibble with rupert murdoch's logic. i find it interesting. [laughter] it can sometimes be a little inward looking. you heard me say tonight that i think the debate about broadcast has somehow been too inward and defeatist. yes, we need to embrace reform and change. yes, we need to reverse the decline in program investment.

but i believe we can't achieve that and procure the other three pillars -- -- can achieve that and refer the other three pillars. what would success look like? strong creative and commercial revival in iptv 4 and 5. british producer is succeeding in international markets not at the expense of quality, but because of it. a bbc that is fit and ready for this new world, that is more fit and aware of its purpose and its goals. a bbc that not only leaves the room for others to succeed, but do -- does all of cans to help

-- all it can to help the whole industry thrive. headlines in july about the possibility of reduction and the license fee and big cuts in bbc services resulted in an extraordinary rash of twitter feet, e-mail campaigns and letters. some of those of twitter feeds were the top five in the world. it is time for us to agree on what really matters, and then to take a leaf out of the public's book. they care about british television and, if necessary, will be prepared to fight for it in the thousands, and who knows? perhaps in the millions. if you think the battle is worth winning, then now is the time to

stand up and for you to be counted as well purify off thank you. -- for you to stand up and be counted as well. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> airline safety form -- the airline pilots association is fully in airline safety forum starting about 1:00 p.m. eastern. and here at 3:00 p.m. eastern, a discussion of middle east peace talks this week. president obama speaks to the nation tonight to mark the formal end of the u.s. combat mission in iraq. we will have live coverage of the president's remarks from the oval office. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern, followed by your phone calls and reactions to the speech. later, john vader on the same topic. -- john boehner on the same

topic. >> yesterday, i signed a disaster declaration for the state of louisiana. this morning to my side is -- i signed is a disaster declaration for the state of mississippi. >> look back at how the federal government responded to the crisis. >> a panel of cyber security experts says the u.s. government needs to take decisive action regarding cyber threats. the heritage foundation here in washington holds this discussion. it is about an hour.

>> today, we have mr. paul rosen flak, who is leading our panel. he is the founder of read bridge lot and consulting, and mr. rosenflag previously served as assistant secretary in the department of homeland security. please join me in welcoming paul rosenflag. [applause] >> thank you very much, jenna, and thank you to the heritage foundation for hosting panel today. our topic today is cyber security. if cyber is hot. is the only time i have ever been able to work in a hot

field, and that makes me cool. i have always wondered how that makes you cool, but cyber is, indeed, hot. if you read the news reports in the last couple of days, you have seen that a number of people, such as the deputies hagerty area of defense, our publishing -- deputy secretary of defense, are publishing about cyber security. why is that? because the threats are real and the benefits from using seiberg are real. as to the threats, we now know for sure because it has been declassified that some foreign state actor intruded into the computers of our central command and there is a bunch of

data from those files. we have seen research by nation status about how to cascade failures of electronic grids, and perhaps more importantly, from our law enforcement colleagues, the suggestion that the range, the value of data that is stolen every year from american computers is on the order of 20 to $100 billion worth of information. it is a real problem. on the other hand, it is a real value. if you have been watching -- if you have been on amazon lately or ever purchased anything on e- bay, or you have a facebook account, you understand that the expansion of information through the seiberg domain has been truly transformative of our social networks today. that is why there is a lot of money.

there is a lot of talk about cyber, but as yet -- at least here in washington -- there is no solid. as to what we should do about it. -- no solid theory as to what we should do about it. come from the cyber domain while avoiding the worst problems. we will have two panels today to begin talking about some of the ideas on the table for discussion. i do not think we will get to any answers but i do think we will raise interesting issues. our first panel will focus primarily on the civilian side, looking at private sector responses and the interaction between private citizens and the civilian government authorities. our second panel which will come in the second hour of our discussion, will look more at the official side and then nature of government the responses, particularly military responses and non-military. that is gonna be outlined.

let me introduce the other two mammals of the -- members of the first panel. immediately to my left, dr. jeffrey cohen. he works for elysium digital, technology litigation consulting company that helps lawyers and technology-related cases. phd in computer science from duke and also holds ab the woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs at princeton. areas of focus include program designed and java programming. prior to joining elysium he worked for ibm, it did it general, can't generalize -- anybody who is anybody in computer field. i first met him when he first participated with me at a national academy of sciences study panel on american policy toward cyber deterrence. to his left is jay stanley, the public education director for the technology and liberty program at the american civil

liberties union. i would note with happiness that a member of the aclu has walked into our building and the walls have not fallen down. [laughter] which is remarkable. i know that. we had to reconstruct it after the last visit. he writes and and it's a large number of aclu report on privacy in technology issues. if you have read anything by the aclu in this field, you have seen his work, whether credits it or not. he was the co-chair into thousand nine of the biggest computer freedom and privacy annual conference held here in washington. prior to joining the aclu he worked for a technology research firm. he is a graduate of williams college and holds a master's degree as well from the university of virginia. our plan would be for each presented to give about 12 or 50 minutes of discussion and then we will follow it with a q&a step -- peace at the end before

we transition to the second panel. >> thank you very much. thank you to paul for inviting me and for putting together this event. i think it is really interested and i am glad i got to participate. paul introduced me. so i did not have to say much. i will say that what i am talking about is an outgrowth of work i did on the national academy study on cyber deterrents and there is a publication for coming from that. how technical the audience is -- paul warned me probably not everybody would be technical so i thought i would start with a very quick technical the deduction. internet is a series of tubes. for the people at home -- a picture of a series of tubes. i should say that little bit in that introduction that most of the pictures from my slides are actually from the library of congress but no collection. you can see the notches in the

upper right corner, but not code that tells the developer what kind of film it is. i am told this is kodachrome b something from the early 1940's. i think ted stevens probably got a bad rap, maybe more than one, but everybody uses metaphors to talk about the internet. it is inevitable. you have to use metaphors because the only thing else like the internet is the internet. an internet is no less a series of tubes that the information superhighway or cyberspace or the matrix or any of these things. metaphors are enormously helpful to let us reason about things but they are also misleading. we always need to be on guard that we are not using a metaphor that traps us in a certain way of thinking. i see a lot of that in the current discussion. people say it is cyberspace, therefore it is like space or some physical space weekend dominates, for example. that is dangerous thinking.

through my talk i tried to warn people off certain metaphors when we are talking about certain kinds of things. the internet really is a series of wires. what is interesting to remember about that is it is all physical objects. they are all owned by somebody and they are all within the control of some nation state. everything, every inch of the internet, every component of the, is a physical object somewhere that somebody has control over at least. so the idea that it is this new domain that is independent from nation states in a separate dimension, is really false because some country has control over every router, every table. if there is nothing in the internet that is not part of a nation state. -- there is nothing in the internet that is not part of a nation state. it has huge implications for our ability to control its or regulate it. if i had to use a metaphor to talk about conflict within the

internet, i think it is more like urban more for -- warfare and space or naval combat. every block is owned by somebody. there are countless civilians. no way you can dominate. you do not even know the state from minute to minute. it is very difficult to identify what is going on. if any -- someone is shooting at you, you don't know where it is coming from. a very different kind of any kind of conflict, then example a fighter up at 4,000 feet where you can see all around the curve of the earth. this is another test for how geeky the audience is. this is a cartoon -- small children sitting around a campfire, when they traced the killers ip address it was in the 192.168/16 block.

i think most of the configure out what the joke was going to date -- if you did not know it refers to the loop back from the local machine. in reference to the classic movie "silent night, deadly night." the point to this is that many of the threats -- in fact, there was an article yesterday, they apprehended a new russian hacker. was flying from france are something. it is rare -- very attractive to talk about the bad actors overseas and it is certainly there. no question there are russian hackers extracting huge amounts of value from the united states. but everything that happens to u.s. people comes three u.s. facilities. it comes through an isp based in the u.s. and probably went through a domain registrar based in the u.s., may be used as a ticket authority based in the u.s., went across wires on by

verizon or comcast. on a computer, probably running microsoft. so the problems that are going on are in many ways deeply rooted in the u.s. infrastructure and decisions made by u.s. companies by regulatory authorities at every level of government. we should not say it is not a threat. this is a great photo that i think from 1905 to 1910. german scientists with a detective camera. amazing that cameras that small in 1905. when i was looking for pictures i found this one and i like it so much. there is espionage. i don't mean to say that it is not a threat, that it is not real. but i want to focus a little bit more on different kinds of threats. this is one threat, and espionage. for that matter, before i leave that, i think understanding

cyber-conflict within the view of espionage and intelligence is one that makes a lot of sense. i think we can see what is going on in government right now is the idea is whether cyberspace is more like intelligence work or military conflict more like tom clancy. the tomkins -- it will predetermine a lot of the judgments we make about how we think about it. these are two cute puppies would have a valentine's day cards. just in case you have noticed, valentine's day is coming soon, don't forget to get flowers, keep present or nicely designed valentine's day card and make sure you grab the kit and get started -- download the death kit. probably everybody got this e- mail. hopefully of it -- it was filtered out upstream. maybe you did see it in this in box. hopefully none of you downloaded

the valentine's decade because what you did, it was the virus, successor to storm worm, over 1.5 billion >> messages a day -- 1.5 billion spam messages a day. these are not computers owned by hackers in russia. these are people at goldman sachs, the pentagon, at home. these are people's computers sending out spam which, incidently, the money went back to russia. if they manage to do identity theft and grab your credit card. that was a real threat and it was a threat that honestly is not that hard to detect. finding an infection on a computer is not hard. isp's know which addresses are sending out those spanning pact. it is not prohibitively difficult or technologically challenging to know that your network has been compromised. the problem is the highest fees don't know what to do with the

information. they don't want to be accused of spying on the customers. they don't want to get hurt by electronic privacy laws that regulate what you can look at. i think a lot of ways the ideas. 's are begging for guidance on what they should do -- isp's are begging for guidance. i think palm mentioned already, this is a picture of the f-35, joint advanced shrek technology fighter, america's most advanced fighter. close to my heart. my very first job out of college was working for the congressional budget office and we were doing cost estimates on this program back in the dawn of it. the files were this that were down loaded -- according to open sources, i should say -- i have seen estimates of terabytes of data downloaded by possibly somebody in china. this is going to be the main aim of our air superiority for decades and probably somebody in

china has terabytes worth of data about. the first big lesson i want to say -- and hopefully the walls will not collapse -- cyber security is a classic market failure. other than smokestacks, you can put in economic textbooks, it is an externality that people who make things like software operating systems, computers, they do not get the direct cost of security failures. in fact, a lot make a lot of money because they are selling in sufficiently secured operating systems and such. the knowledge on how to deal with it is highly distributed. a bunch of reasons. but the market deals with cyber security terribly. there may be some parts week in these markets for but relying on the market has failed and will continue to fail. the news of not necessarily all bad. this is a law professor from stanford, now at harvard. incidently, he clerked for both

richard posner and judge scalia so hopefully have some credit in this room. four forces -- the law, norms, the market, and code. and all of those different things can constrain action. you can use any of these as lovers. at the weekend solve this problem, we will have to use all four. some market things where the market hopefully -- hopefully we can shake the market to reward cyber security. but we also are going to need new laws. we will also mean no norms of behavior. a lot of what is going on with isp's right now is developing what are called best practices. no one is required to do that but as publicly issued standards of best practices, what do you do if you know that a customer has been infected with a virus.

this says -- i am told, access denied. this is a screen shot from "green dam," the chinese government software that they mandated be installed on all personal computers in china. i have introduced a problem. what you do to solve it? this is one approach, as you say. everyone has to install it and it will make sure that everybody is safe. the problem is, of course, it so it was insecure and had they deploy did it would have created the world's biggest botnet, so thankfully they did not. but that is one option that you can impose some sort of regulation on end users. the open problem is always end users especially for botnets, can you control their behavior. a lovely photograph. what of my favorites from the library of congress. the point here, a little plea for a detailed matters.

it is all well and good to have a 12-minute discussion on cyber security. hopefully i will finish up. i have two minutes left. details really matter. he can't really have an informed discussion without understanding a lot of what is going on. which means you need to know what it is about the gateway protocol that route between pure networks that is insecure. the chinese telecom isp use that intentionally or not to shut down about one-third of the internet by accident because they issued out all routing tables that route but most of the internet through them. they were not actually able to do that so anyone who accepted the routing table basically just cut off all of their use is a from the internet. it may be a mistake but the fact is not everybody knows you can do it and most people accept that table. you have to understand that bugged, and that is one slice of the problem. a little please -- i do not think necessarily people in the

audience, but in general, maybe people watching, i do not think computer scientists have engaged in cyber security enough. not enough real academic research. thinking of a parallel being strategic defense. strategic defense basically created the field of software engineering. started doing analysis in the mid-1980s about the use all software problems. we need something like that for cyber security. or we can do more police regulation -- computer fraud and abuse act, a lot of instruments that exist now to try to regulate the computer activities mostly around the idea of copyrights. and we don't even have stopped that good for regulating security problems. you can't send a take down notice for somebody hosting malwware but -- for someone hosting avatar. we need better vaccinations, anti virus software.

we need more protection of the end point. so that we can create better perimeter -- the distant warning -- early-morning live from the nuclear standoff days. pushing out the defensive perimeter so we can see what is coming and from inside the house. thank you. >> perfectly timed. excellent. not at all. jay? >> the aclu, as a civil liberties organization, our primary concerns are about free speech and privacy issues when it comes to cyber security. it and the internet is of course the primary place for americans to exercise their rights of free space. it is a newspaper, entertainment medium, research library, reference work, it is a soapbox, a debating forum, the closest

we've ever had to a true free market of ideas. and a lot of the success and this vibrancy and is blossoming and blooming is because of its open architecture. everybody can contribute. the architecture is neutral. but that same open architecture obviously makes it vulnerable to security problems. can some ways the internet is a reflection of the human cycle -- psyche. all the wonderful creativity but also the dark side. the question is, how do we address the security problems that we are experiencing in the internet without killing the goose that has laid many golden eggs and has made our country much more wealthy and powerful than otherwise would be pared cyber security is a vast and complicated area with a lot of very technical areas. and a lot of the areas in discussion don't really have any implications for our rights. but some do.

and there are many legitimate roles for the government in cyber security. regulations governing security standards for power plants and other critical infrastructures, public education and exportation, research -- perhaps encouraging a greater academic vibrancy in that area -- procurement standards to try to address the market failures that goeff talked about. a push for greater openness and dissemination of -- it is the decentralized medium. and a larger managerial problem of the government getting its own act together and getting its own security practices up to snuff. the basic level of corporate america. but are some areas and some proposals that do raise a lot of questions about our liberties and raise questions about

whether we might be flirting with destroying the goose that laid the golden eggs. i will talk about three recently. einstein program, so-called driver's license for the internet, and emergency authority over the internet. let me start with einstein 3. which we did not really know enough about because it is shrouded in a lot of secrecy, but the program is an effort to protect government computer networks in a centralized way, more or less. einstein two, which is currently under deployment, it uses database of signatures to protect malicious code a entering or exiting government networks. einstein 3 would add to that -- it would be more anticipatory and conduct real-time inspection to try to try to make a "threat- based decision making" based on signatures and scenarios. which might include personally

identifiable information. on traffic to and from government networks. it would be unlike -- unlike feinstein two, it would be placed on the servers of telecom companies, private internet providers. talking about the balance between the government side and the private sector, this crosses a line into the private sector which raises a lot of issues. for the aclu, when you talk about nsa and at&t joining together to stand traffic, it raises flags given the history the last 10 years of war and as a wiretapping that anyone who cares about the rule of law should care that no law was flagrantly broken by those two organizations -- that the law was flagrantly broken by the two organizations. the concern was that the government was -- would be placing its own filters over the private sector crosses the line. in short of the short term, one

of the concerns is whether it would sweep up private traffic. president obama in his cyber suffered a speech to say we will not be monitoring the civilian networks, private traffic. i have no doubt that he meant that. but security dynamics and in paris is have a light of their own. security institutions are bigger than any individuals and they have their own bureaucratic -- bureaucratic imperatives. so we do not trust that it will remain true. this idea of a threat signatures and scenarios, being used in a very pro-active way, raises questions about how that will be implemented and how -- whether we are going to see sweeping algorithms that cats far too broad a variety of threats. what we don't want is a watch list for the internet. we have seen in the airline

context, which have been kafka- esque to abroad, swept -- it let true suspects through. they are based on a sloppy lists and questionable computer algorithms. people are not able to remove themselves. we don't want a computer internet version of that. the question is what this einstein three exactly looks like. and what it means extended to the private sector. moving from einstein's three to the broader issue, there is a lot of talk about how does the government's cyber security efforts, and how they interact with the private sector where much of the internet takes place. there's a lot of broader talks that should raise concerns among americans about the government's role in the internet. nsa director keith alexander says we need real times situational awareness internet works. former nsa director and director

of national intelligence said we need to develop an early warning system to monitor cyberspace. the -- they could be referring to person -- perfectly rational basic security practices or to grandiose visions or imposing a government role on the internet the likes of which we have not seen. it raises questions -- what is the role for a centralized top- down command and control approach to cyber security when the internet itself is a distributed thing, internet problems of this debate, software is distributed among millions and millions of computers. in what way does it make sense for there to be a centralized command and control response and in what ways is it really a distributive problem where openness and disturbing information about how to combat threats is the best way. in particular, what should the role of the nsa be? role of the nsa be?