and if there level re any norms that are going be invoked to limit it, they will probably be in different levels. sitting here in a city where there's an ongoing conversation now with the police innovates with security, and a federal court protect when there are costs imposed. i the point that i think want to make is that first of ll, cameras are so cheap now hat in public places, if what you're concerned about is the filmed, game be over. we now are going to be living of record in public spaces. >> everything you do in public youtube at some

point. >> it can be on youtube. omeone has to be interested in it. >> i've watched youtube. that's not true. >> you don't like cats. >> correct. >> okay. issue that's the going be crystallized in public pace isn't privacy in that world. it's dignity and autonomy. regulating the way in which power is used rather than removing the power. and that's going to involve obviously. issue s not a technology so much as a human relations and issue.al you got to be comfortable with it. disagree.t it's both. human relations and technology.

if i can just respond -- i work police chief all the time in toronto, canada. e has a slide he uses with the police officers saying that we have to take a positive sum approach to policing and privacy do both. of course there are cameras. there are ways to do it. of course, they're everywhere. by the it's done you can do state, the use. >> what about when it's not. everybody is talking about google glass? >> the big issue is it can do all these things. camera where the person being recorded has no notion that you're doing it. ou don't have that notion with google glass. light entified certain fixtures that come on.

so s there a way to hatch you don't get the red light on if you don't have it. >> point-counterpoint. they're aware of the issues and measurestrying to find to make it transparent. >> trust me, somebody will have a glass soon that's not transparent. even if it's -- >> it's not that you can't up the ante. it's not ant is that zero sum game. >> it's security. security is something that their assigned to their governments to handle. safe street, governments police. overnments are being the monopolist in security space and they are in all except cyberspace. given the have not responsibility in cyberspace to keep us secure.

e look at the trends and technology, on the one hand, we have an intelligence community it's 1947 and information is hard to get and the technology doesn't exist. powerful companies have demonstrated the highly reliable, highly lucrative, --ortant >> right out of time. >> you have to question. f we asked the people in the audience how many times they read a terms of service all the way through before they click have a small uld show of hands. addicted to these technologies and we're arguing today about the battle between sister brother or little are using our data. what's the role that the public debate?y in this what can we do ousts to insist on a mode of behavior, not only and little er sister, but among ousts to can ensure the privacies and security.

use that as gets to their final answer. to me that seems the question is about the use of technology is a power. but it is used in human and so the s politics of sorting through its going to be a dignity of individual in power relations. >> jane. >> it's the accountability that'ssm of this country in the hands of the people that mechanism powerful keeping the government honest in evolving in a complex situation. have a strong ou voice. speak out and let your politicians know what you want ever, 6 out time of 10 meshes, every since of 10 happened, 6 out americans have rated privacy and

more liberties are important to them than public safety and security. that's never happened before. the government that you expect transparency, openness on their part, and hold them accountable. that's because 6 in 10 take security for granted. >> i would challenge that completely. rivacy has traditionally been relegated to a lower category. now, with all of the evelations, as to how much the people don't know about what the government is doing, people are astound and they don't want that and they're fighting back. to do.what i urge you >> that's our next panel. thank you. let me welcome two people who lines of this.t thank you all very much. thank you.

22 >> reactions to what you just heard? >> you got your command center. how that works and tell us the concerns you have about privacy might invade and cause people to react against you. down a bag in grand central. >> not the command center. the coordination center. it has both public and private stake holders, police officers, nd representatives of major companies. >> tell me what it does. >> what it does is it monitors array of cameras now

about 5,000 cameras. many of them are smart cameras. not all, but by smart, i mean analytics on eo these cameras. to go tance, if you want 28 days, you want to see shirlt, wearing a red you can through algorithms put the information up and it will quickly. 28 days, after 30 dayings, it erases automatically. voluntarily.n we worked with privacy advocates. e knew there would be some concern as we put in the mayor system.in the erasesin a protocol that after 30 days.

i don't think -- i haven't heard concerns raised as a result the security initiative. that a lot of it was forestalled by working with before we advocates put the system in. >> tell many a little more about technologies you're using and give me a couple of xamples of how it worked even though some people might have concerns about it. >> as i mentioned, we have the cameras that have license plate readers that are now all over law enforcement. they're really amazing pieces of equipment. because you can drive down the 60 miles per hour with licensed readers on the patrol and read the license plates on both siefdz the street. tool.an effective we have radiation detectors now aren't actually worn as pagers which will tell you specifically let's say where the active material is moving.

of is now sort of a state the art something else we may be working with is facial recognition. hat is very much work in progress. we have solved dozens of cases emerging official technology capabilities. we have software now that to a whole hoels of things. of an eye insert. you can see someone whose eyes are closed. eyes in. mirror imagining, half a face. you can do the whole face. that is moving along. > and the earlier panel, frank jud said that if instead of having stop and frisk, there was m automatic way, ou could detect people with ?uns, that's less invasive

>> we've been looking at omething and looking at it for several years. metropolitan police and the d.o.d. research component. called terra hertz technology. emits tera hertz radiation. and what it does is enables you carrying a ne weapon. so far that the big.e developed is too range.n't have the rake we know what technology is like 1986. that would be a major reakthrough as far as finding weapons on the street. >> could you imagine ten years now that technology being deployed around the city, just like you have cameras recording people go, you could

notice that somebody with the gun is moving in a certain neighborhood? >> not without a major fight. i think our lawyers are looking at the issues of -- fourth are involved es there. but this is -- this is something increments.in and i don't know if ten years from now you see them, you know, over.oned all you have to develop the technology and i think they concerns raised by -- by privacy. >> if you have privacy concerns manhattan, you have advocates sitting with you, how do you do that? do you have in your department specialists and privacy and issues? >> we don't have privacy down there. but we do have attorneys that the protocols that we put together by our attorneys. obviously, we live in the mostly wor-- us city in the

litigious city in the world. to be aware of ongoing litigation. privacy issues are among them. commissioner davis, walk us technology help after the boston marathon. >> i was there before the bombs went off. fter they went off, i recognized that there were thousands of cameras there. not just cameras along the basically ch were owned by businesses. the city had very few cameras in area.articular but we did have thousands of iphones taking still shots and video of the finish line. what i ation based on was seeing that no one could move through the crowd without being observed. off, ourthe bombs went immediate focus is on retrieving video as we could get. the video with the business is extremely important. theent to crowd sourcing on internet and asked people to send us every clip and video taken.hey had they came in so quickly that the

fbi computer crashed. to rely on twitter and facebook to retrieve some of the photos. we got them all compiled in a post.y set up command it started with one computer. the end ats there at 12:00 going through that information. said you asked people to send them in, did you collect privately-taken photographs people's permission but doing it from public sites such s twitter or facebook and others where you could say, okay, these are people who marathon, he boston let us post those photographs as well? >> we did everything possible. do you have concerns about eople saying have they taken photographs and put privately on the facebook accounts? >> the state of law is what we operate under. that's missed in the

conversation. ay and i operate off of what's constitutionally acceptable. the supreme court said if this information in the public place, in a deo information public place, we can look at that. it's a little less clear as you to facebook and twitter, right now, there are places that we can go legally and we go there. the problem with our profession is that unlike the medical rofession with medical emphasis, we don't have that here. we operate off of a supreme decision that always happens after the fact. always behind the curve when it comes to change like we're seeing right now. we need to -- we need to look at that. e need to start a conversation among police officials in the community to talk about what's right and wrong. 20 years off.ut it's come at us so fast, no one knows how to deal with it. boston bombers, afterwards, technology kicks action immediately.

was there a way to use technology more effectively to actors se are bad planning something? >> you know, i think we have been focussed externally. we looked at the security apparatus in the federal government. tremendous job here in making italo call. if you're dealing with boston, ome grown extremists radicalized on the internet, a system has to be thought about. debate of what the public is, the role of local police should be in that environment, clearly a threat that we're facing right now. we need to do more. i wish there was a computer that we could find that would say these are the guys. but it's more about connecting having community and good contacts in communities city.ghout the and being transparent and open that. >> transparency and openness,

it's come up three or four times. let me ask you a question. to pose all of that in instead of edward snowden revelations, the government just said, here's what we're doing. we're going to make this public right away. we're doing these type of things. like it, call your congressman. would that have been a better way to approach it. i believe so. i said that previously. i think the american public could accept the need for that. actually this was made public in a sort of bizarre sort of a way. t was -- well, you should have known about it. and we know how restricted it was in terms of access to the public. mismake.that was a it seems like, well, these things are -- trying to be very transparent without compromising operations? and >> obviously, we're not going to breach confidentiality as far as investigations are

concerned. but we have people such as this group here will come in, take a the equipment we have, the processes that the -- that we use. groups.many community muslim advisory council i meet with. and strategiescs committee made primarily of leading the members of the in can-american community this city. so we have a -- i think a a very as dialogue as far processes and procedures. >> we have a good dialogue with the federal government now? we do. >> but we have some problems with the sharing? >> there's always going to be some friction. it's not necessarily a bad thing. job done. i think your agencies want to do good work. they're proud of the work they do. and sometimes it creates tension. tension is not always a bad

thing. i think you want to see behind the curtain. think we want transparency as far as the federal government is doing. has an opinion on it. if, in fact, there are things going on in your city, then your mayor and your police chief or police commissioner should know about them from the federal government. should be a regular exchange of information. agree completely. >> but what commissioner kelly done is expand more than most city police departments a unit of your sm own where you even do interviews say in new jersey famously enough. you learned from that? and do you think you ought to in nd your counterterrorism boston so that you're doing things that normally is given to to do? >> it relates to home grown violent extremists, yes. there are people in our community that we should be sort of keeping

an eye on if they pose a threat. hat's part of our responsibility to keep our citizens safe. however, we need to be about what we do and i don't think there's any agencies in the country more ransparent than the local police agency. we have "the boston globe" and the boston herald in our lobby checking on what we did overnight. community groups are marching to the police station every time a problem. it's a very dynamic environment local level. the mayor from portland talks bout cameras on their eyeglasses. i'llthat happens, it will, put the federal investigators back on the street. >> when that happens, will you to be arrested using google glass? >> that's an important part of this conversation. that information we're ollecting right now is exculpatory.

everybody is looking at this as to use it to put me in prison. it's going to clear a lot of people. in time if you want to pursue the goals of time do what point in you stop that, what point in ime do you get a license plate connection that might clear someone of a murder charge. this cuts both ways. that.e have to understand >> you wouldn't have problems if normal citizens videotaped olice at all times in their action using google glass or phones? >> not at all. we have a court case on it in boston. i sent out a directive to my anybody hat if videotapes you with public information, you can't do a it.g about >> one other quick things. the f our crown fellows of institute created a shot spotter, is that right? ames bell vick, a friend of mine, how does that work?

acoustic collection device. they hear the report of the gunshot, they try hang later and give you a precise location as to where it happened. effective.ely d lives and led to arrests. >> opening it up for questions. commissioners?he i can't see well. but -- >> great. true in new york about people who videotape? and is it exculpatory? you encourage citizens to videotape your police in action? >> we don't discourage them. the past.issues in but clearly it's the public domain. and it can be done.

we've had some issues because i topography of new york city has the effect -- >> yeah. new technology is the most effective coming down the pike that we don't know about. well, you know, the cameras are great. frankly. the first thing that police officers do when a crime is committed is to look and see if camera is in the area as was said before in the previous time. wait. o they're -- you know, they're virtually everywhere. every commercial establishment. >> can you monitor in realtime are about crimes that to happen? >> that's a very expensive do officers. ave police >> you need human eyes to do that or can you do it -- yes. >> with artificial intelligence? >> you can do some of that. live monitoring going on in our public housing that's going on on a

limited basis. but generally speaking, the used for e retrospective investigation or examination. >> yes. hi, my name is emma green. i'm from the atlantic. how do you kelly, feel about the verdicts that came down. do you think of the new york precinct going forward? >> i didn't hear the second part is how first do i feel about -- >> how do you feel about the down on stop ame and frisk. nd how will it change new york policing moving forward? >> disabled veteran. don't hear exactly what the question is, but stop and frisk. stop and of all, question. sometimes frisks in less than half of the cases is frisk. is a limited pat down. -- the e that this case

decision by joe shinnedling cries out for appeal. think the findings and the ndictment of the entire police department calls for indirect theal profiling is based on flimsiest information. the experts had in this case million stops over a decade. the expert on the plaintiff side that 6% of those may be unjustified. >> the judge himself looked at the -- took testimony from the case, i s in this believe there were four plaintiffs, it involved 19 stops. she, herself, found that ten of the 19 stops were constitutional. the criteria that they use in my judgment and a lot of other people's judgment is totally census tic and involves

data in a particular area. taken to the natural conclusion, have to stop more women. women because w the law -- the codified law says you can stop someone in a public place who you have reasonable ispicion is about to commit, committing, or has committed a crime. the majority of those cases, of course, are males. we had the most diversified in the world. born in lice officers 106 countries so it's kind of omewhat strange that we're found to be guilty of indirect profiling. majority/minority in the police officer rank. o the 97% of the shooting ictims in this city as are the

perpetrators. the criteria that was used as i goes up census data against the one we believe should be used and we brought in the corporation to 2006. racial appropriate profiling is ongoing is that the descriptions given by the crime of the violent the perpetrators of violent crime. government is left out of it. now, in that case, in those 70% to 75% of the perpetrators of violent crimes are identified as being african-american. our stops traditionally had been 53% african-american. stops obviously or certainly comport to the description of violent crime. now, what we're doing in the gentleman think this alluded to it, it's working

here. the bloomberg years, the 12 -- the 11 years, yearsmost 12, the 11 full of mayor bloomberg's tenure, you years it to the 11 previous. you have 12,000 taking office. 5,000 murders in the -- in the subsequent 11 years. murders in 3 fewer this city over that period of time. any guide, theis vast majority of those lives of color,young people mostly young men of color. for a variety of reasons, this case cries out for appeal. t may not be appeal because of the city's change in the the administration. may or may not decide to go appeal.with the and i believe that would be a major mistake. yes.

there. following up on that, i'm thoughts on your the mandatory sentencing for violations, how it works, and ramifications for that as well. a a mandatory sentencing? in the gun violations and how that works in terms of racial issues? like mandatory sentencing. i think that in very few should we have mandatory sentencing. i would leave it up to the judges.on of the and so much of the process of the judges. -- not in favor of >> my understanding that here here are -- that the state of new york, if you are illegally possessing a gun that there's a three-year mandatory sentence -- >> the application doesn't work. hat happens is the people were led to plead guilty to

possession, or some place in the process, there is a negotiation that takes place. speaking, it's in y judgment not worked politically well. >> what do you think has been the most important effect here new york? it's remarkable. >> i think a lot of things that we're doing. the most you one of recent programs that we put in he last year, year and a half, is something that we call crew cut. in the analysis, we determined about a 30% of our shootings coming for what we called crews. and a couple of crooks below. these are loosely affiliated. have about 300 in the city. we put in a program to take them on directly. size, we double

the size of our gang division. advantage of the fact that these young people can't but brag on es social media. media put social component, each one of the gang units, put an attorney on each units because we have five district attorneys in new york city. us to have es liaison directly with each one of the district attorney's. we put a uniform component, uniformed police officers in that had a precincts roblem with crews and they're there to disrupt and intersect in the acts of violence. we're the things that sensitive to is retaliation. well foras worked very us. before, last d year, we had a record low year for murders and shootings. year, we're running 25%

below that. said that professor something -- he talked about the reduction in murders. years ago, we have -- 23 1 million we had fewer people living in the city. in the 7.3 murders million population. now we have 8.4 million people at a rate now ng that will bring us in at about 320 murders. commissioner davis in. what are you doing that's most effective. >> we're following the same policies. >> the shootings are occurring among gang members. at our is looking numbers just like they did in new york. the initial findings are that we're making ops are when people are involved in criminal activity. they kept records and the people we should be paying

attention to. but i find it remarkable that in has been re ray kelly able to reduce the homicide rate conversation is allowed something else other than giving him the credit that happened or what's here. 7,000 lives are saved over this of time. i give him a lot of credit for that. >> yes. way back -- >> hi there. i'm sara goodyear. i'm with the atlantic cities. even as homicide have continued to fall in new york ity, traffic, violence, continues to be a big issue here. 148 pedestrians killed by cars last year. there's a perception that the don't get prosecuted for criminal activity. do au think the nypd could better job of preventing traffic street? on the how can they do that? >> we can do a better job in every area.

we're down 6,000 police officers rom where we were 13 years ago when this administration came in. we've done a variety of things. closely with the commissioner. doing a great job. we have just significantly changed or reformed our investigation of the practices. e have the collision investigation squad which uses the state of the art technology. but we do have 8.4 million here. we do have a daytime population that's over 10 million people. going to have a lot of traffic and accidents. some people are saying that some are not arresting a lot of people for reckless driving, that kind of thing. to have to -- you have

observe the violation. many of the advocates, i assume, of them, want us to make these determinations when we haven't een -- observed the violation. it takes in depth investigations takes mination, it witnesses. it is much more complex than you might think. cameras,technology and do they help? >> asking me? they do help. crams in the patrol cars right now. highway patrol cars. help our technology to our investigators go to the scene of the accident and doing the investigation more effectively and quickly. >> last question. >> police departments -- >> identify yourself?

>> rick hull, deputy mayor, city of los angeles. water used to be the back in many cases of the local government, typically less than folks in other departments. now you're far more ways than ed in many most of the other departments. technology, cated training, web of interconnection etween the police agencies of all levels. ow in the budget battles and you're looking at the overall health of cities, how do you see beginning to balance what you do in keeping crime and cities safe with the other elements that are necessary for healthy city that in turn support the prosperity, the revenue, and the quality of life that makes a city safe and attractive. that and repeat it. did you get all of that, okay, great? question. a great

the mayor has made it clear that we'll work with other city departments. success in of our boston, his designation was the great city.ic for a it's been based upon the fact that there is connectivity the various f branchs of government. so i know that arresting people is not going lower the crime rate. arellsed fewer and fewer people every year for the last seven years. working with that the inspectional services alcohol t, with the beverage control department, the regulatory agencies in city have a direct effect on crime and reduce crime hot spots immediately. used that sort of wholistic approach for a long boston. me for the last seven years. it's only through cooperation and coordination in the full mayor.on of the the mayor plays ape nowhere mouse role in making sure the people work together. happens, it can be

extremely powerful. >> no more innovative mayor or leader in this country than michael bloomberg. he's done phenomenal things here. verything that goes forward in this city, certainly anything that is progressive in nature has to be public safety. it has to be a feeling that you streets safely and you don't have a fear of being and in your neighborhood he's made a commitment to that. i'm concerned about the priorities. some parochial. safety, the staffing of the police departments, and comes port that's needed first. into placeelse falls after that, in my judgment. >> thank you all, before you eave, you're both leaving

office in the foreseeable future soon. travel to go on vacation. when -- >> i'm going back to italy. wife made it clear we're going to make another trip there. is, he truth of the matter i have an offer for a fellowship little nt, i'll do a teaching and looking at other opportunities. >> what will you teach? politicings.ute of >> what subject? >> criminal justice and politics, i haven't gotten the course. november.d out in so i'm looking forward to it, though. >> what are you going to teach? to be a greeter at walmart. >> all right. >> see you there. >> see you there. [ applause ]

what's going on today is fundamental transformation. obama's words. if you look at the constitution or the power of the president, does the president have the to fundamentally transform america? of course not. nd why would you want a fundamentally transformed america. you don't like america very much, do you? like capitalism, property rights very much. ou don't like our constitutional system very much. when you keep hearing this

transformation, change is hard. we need more time for change. we need to understand that this a direct attack to our constitutional system. that's what he's talking about. means. what he >> sunday, january 5. best-selling author, lawyer, administration official and radio personality mark and e will take your calls questions in depth. live for three hours starting at noon eastern. tv's in depth, the first sunday of every month on c-span 2. on-line, for december's book tv book club, we want to know what your favorite books were in 2013. throughout the month, join other readers to discuss the notable year.published this go to booktv.org and click on book club to enter the chat room. week, former guardian journalist glen greenwald estified before the committee on the nsa surveillance programs and privacy issues.

is the journalist that ecorded documents from nsa leaker edward snowden. the hearing on civil liberties, home affairs is an hour. >> please welcome to the session of the committee of inquiry of the european parliament. we have an hour of this session. to invite you to do your presentation and then have full -- ll we'll take questions and answers. have you with to us here today. give the floor and the

radio link, rather, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon. hank you to the committee for convening this inquiry and inviting me to speak to you as well. there has been a virtual avalanche of stories and reports six months t regarding else by image and electronic surveillance by the nsa and its partners and each of the stories has been extremely important. think that the quantity of endangered etimes he ultimate point from being obscured. so i wanted to spend a little bit of time discussing what i revelation, primary the crux of all of these stories that ties them together and i is the most important thing for us to realize. the ultimate at along with nsa is

its most loyal one might say partner, the nior when it gencies, gchq, comes to the suspicion dulled.ance is being the objective of this system is the ng less than elimination of individual privacy worldwide. glance, that might seem like it's a bit hyperbolic, melodramatic, but it isn't. literal description of what the nsa and the surveillance partners are attempting to achieve. and the reason i know that's what they're attempting to achieve is because this is what over and over and over again. on occasion, they say it they sayand repeatedly it in their private documents, hich were written when they thought nobody was able to hear what it was that they were saying. where keith tances

alex can'ter, the general who is nsa has made he the nts along the lines of all signal communications between the unis. ried to dismiss it as a literary illusion or a joke. it's no joke. a oughout the n, is documents, there appears all sorts of references to the fact that the the phrase, collect it all. hen ever the u.s. and the surveillance process meets each the surveillance partners in the uk, canada, new constant here are inclusions of slogans like or ect it all, know it all,

exploit it all throughout all of these documents. this is actually the mission. nsa.he one of the ways you see the ission manifest is there are numerous programs that the nsa develops and pursues that have real purpose other than to pockets of few communication that still exists n the planet that the nsa has not quite successfully invaded. obsessed s exist that lly that are impervious to the invasion to try work every day to rectify what they see as this problem. being on the planet that human communication can collect, storing, annualizing the communication.

example evoted to the of trying to understand how the wi-fi nvade systems on the airplanes, based the e concern they can use internet, mobile phones for a few hours in their lives and not susceptible to their surveillance set, there are discuss ways in the means to be able to communicate to one privacy in the nsa. t was not just the creation of basic in history. we are faced with that. it's beyond that. it's an institution that has mandate, the he mission to ensure that the human communicateo longer

with one another electronically privacy degree of simply through the inertia. there's an effort to collect everything. six months, past i've done a lot of reporting in any different countries about espionage targeted at many different populations. i where i do the reporting, do it with interviews with newspapers, television programs i'm ose countries and always asked why does in sweden, in whatthey so interest the people who are swedes are discussing, or why is -- obsessed with collecting all of the communications of brazilians or any number of the other countries. they give the answer that comes that he document which is don't need partners any specific reason to collect anybody's communications. just the fact that human beings are communicating with one

enough for theon nsa to decide that it should be ollected and stored and monitored. they don't need specific rationale. that only rationale is nobody should be able to communicate without the nsa eing able to invade the communication. every one of the stories we've done, every one of the specific tories driven by the overarching theme. and i think it's fair to say of the significance supporting what mr. snowden revealed to the world really overstated. if governments are devoted to of privacy ion worldwide, the u.s., the uk, and three partners are clearly doing, that has profound consequences for everybody who communicates which is most people on the planet. and at the very least, it's be thing that well ought to discussing, debating openly. the t figuring out how stock -- >> the second point i wanted to make is i wanted to discuss a

some of t about what the reaction has been. in are reporting about an pe and it reveals important point. late june, five months or so, reported the st nsa that the nsa was targeting germans by the hundreds of millions for collections of telephone a of their records. the reaction of the german government was muted. here was symbolic gestures to objecting, but by in large, it was very restrained, the reaction. very much of an effort to do anything about it. asn't to reveal the ordinary germans but even the german chancellor angela merkel was the target of the surveillance system. the government react with genuine indignation and decided that it had to do something it.ut and i think that's a pattern that has repeated itself in sort of an as well,

apathy and indifference when it's revealed that the is targeted with mass surveillance but true anger when themselves find out they're targeted. and part of what explains the the esting dichotomy is fact that political officials often tend to be concerned about the own interest and not interests of the citizens they're representing. but i think the broader point the idea that as long quote/unquote only collected, then we can live with that level of intrusion. but when it comes to listening o people's cell phone calls or reading their e-mails, that's hen genuine outrage was warranted. i want to spend a moment addressing this point. it's the single greatest report thatn in the we've been doing. if you talk to surveillance i know you're doing, what you will hear i think

lmost in census at this point, around the world, is that almost ass not simply invasive as content and reception or even as invasive. meaningful nd most census in collection of metadata is more invasive. it's the nsa itself throughout the documents. metadata is the upreme priority of the agency, not because it protects people's privacy, but it enables the nsa people's privacy more effectively than the interception of content. easy to understand the abstra abstract. you can imagine, for example, a woman is going to get

abortion, if you're listening in on your phone call, what you her calling the clinic, the clinic will answer ith the generic-sounding name like east-side clinic or something like that. ou will hear the woman who you decided to target for surveillance, ask for an appointment tuesday at 2:00. appointment tuesday at 2:00. get to the phone. you have no idea why she called clinic she of called or what kind of purpose it was. but if you collect the metadata, see the phone number that you called, you will be able to identify it as an abortion clinic. you won't know how many times she called that clinic. you can see somebody who has hiv, calls a doctor specializing hiv once every three months as hiv patients do, if you listen to their phone calls, you have no idea what kind of doctor you're calling, but if you

their metadata, you know their medical condition. someone calls the suicide hotline or drug addiction clinic, or someone who with someone who is not their spout late at night. ut other types of intimate activities that human beings engage in. will apprehend reading their -mails or listening to the telephone calls that you will instantly be able to understand by collecting their metadata. are eyond that, there sophisticated, increasingly ophisticated tools for analyzing metadata when it's collected en masse to be able to only who your targets are speaking to, but who to andeople are speaking then who those people are speaking to. and then to develop a very of the nsive picture network of association and of various individuals society. of the

a very invasive understanding of associations, the private thoughts of people whom under surveillance by collection of metadata. if eally is the case that you're somebody who values privacy, almost preferable at nsa point to have the listening to the phone calleds e-mails for the collection of metadata over the course of years and link it to and dy else's metadata analyze it in secret no restraints as the g stshgs a and gchq and the surveillance partners are doing. make, point i wanted to nd talk about briefly is that the individual privacy, there's ften the sense that i think had rn governments have people accept that privacy value, really have much

that it's essentially a luxury. that if you've done nothing nothing to hide. all of the sorts of cliches that been manufacturing and to get populations a custom. ithough there's a perception, think in reality, it can work, seem to d because we instinctively understand why privacy is vital. they put pass words on e-mail and social media networks. their y put locks on bedroom and bathroom doors. they put video cameras in their homes to monitor everything they're doing. react with repulsion. human beings understand that critical component of what it means to be a free human being. it's worthhough, that spending a moment to underscore why that is.

think we all have this understanding that when we know e're being watched by oh people. when we know that other people judgmental a examination upon our choices and ehaviors, the behaviors are much different than when we react in a private realm. make cases to conform to orthodoxies that are designed to behavior deemed to be shameful. e take choices to fulfill the expectations that other people on the broader society have on us. conformists, we conform to norms. we have a realm we can go into where we're confident we're watched, can we test boundaries, can we engage in creativity and dissent. that's the realm in which human freedom exclusively resides. we can decide for ourselves what kind of choices we want to make. nd a society in which the

private realm is abolished, in they're an beings know susceptible to being watched at any time. that is the key. read, but ey can be they can monitored by some agencies just the knowledge that behavior is subjected to the possibility of surveillance is a society that breeds conformity. t's a society in which range uals will have the of choices restricted. tyranny, despot, every oppressive government loves a surveillance state, because it eliminates waste and breeds conformity and reduces the ly amount of freedom that as individuals we have. beyond is why i think the political implications or the theoretical or legal serious ons, there are consequences for what it means to live ree individual

in the state like the one we're oving to which surveillance is -- sible and yeet yue pibipick yet ubiquitous. the final point i wanted to make by saying that hat i'm glad the committee has convened the inquiry and we're able to have the opportunity to these issues. i wanted to remind everybody that therese only one reason to have the discussion that we're having today. and why we have the knowledge and information that we now about this system. oh the one reason is brave panned quite self-sacrificing decision of my this story, the edward snowden, to risk that he g in his life had, career, stability, and personal

there are governments all over the world -- in fact, most governments all over the world who are extreme beneficiaries of mr. snowden's choice. human beings all over the world consider him a hero, governments have been able to realize how their privacy is being invaded, to take steps to reform the abuses that we now know about, to convene investigations like the one we are here to participate in today. all sorts of people, all kinds of governments all over the world exploiting for their own interests and their own benefit the very great sacrifice that mr. snowden made. i am glad to see they are doing it and i'm gratified that governments are taking seriously what it is he has shown them. although governments have examined the choice is made and the sacrifice and bravery he has