arena, is actually much less than either collection under 702, which i'll come to in a minute or section 703, it is not that broad-based a program in terms of what gets collected and analyzed and how. so what the president did here, he basically adopted in a limited sort of way, the review group recommendation, which is to say, moved the program outside of government and allow it to be queried with an order of the fisa court. the problem is, that's actually very easy to say and very hard to do. so what he did, which it's clever, and the question is if it is too clever by half. he said, well, we'll implement part of it now.

which is to say, we'll imentpleement the number of hocks people can take on their own. he also said they can do on their own if they get an order from the fisa court. i actually don't think that is right. i will be interested to see if the fisa court buys that. i think the fisa court will say we have no statutorial authority to investigate these issues. then he says he will investigate how to move the data off site for the next couple months and then we will work with congress to figure it out. what that bhacecally means is reforms ono do minor my own, and if congress can design a system, or we'll give em some guideans, but -- guidance, but if not, we can keep living under the existing authority.

so i think at one level, this is an adoption of the review group recommendation, but at another level, it does not seem to dramatically impede the ability of the agency, at least in the short term, to collect and query when needed the appropriate recommendation. 702 strikes me as a bigger win. 702 is a massively important program. it is a bread and butter collection program devoted to overseas intelligence targeted at nonu.s. persons. cam is absolutely right that the president for the first sometime -- and it is a very important statement at a kind of spiritual level that we acknowledge that non-u.s. persons have privacy rights in the context of our overseas clecks. it is very hard to overstate the

sort of spiritual importance of that statement. the practical importance of that statement may be dramatically less than the spiritual importance. and the reason is that the fns community actually doesn't collect and dissemimate llie-nilly stuff about overseas targets that has no value. they don't not do it because it is illegal, but because it is a total waste of their time. when you have a program and you limit it and you say now foreigners have privacy rights in belgium or tejekistan and we're going to have minute zation rules that only cause us to disseminate intelligence value, i suspect that is not going to cause big problems in any foreign intelligence agency that's doing its job with inimal competence.

so i think this might be an area where the spiritual significance goes a long way without changing very much. it will be interesting to see what documents, if any, get to proceed over a more granual level. finally, one of the big surprises in the review report, because it wasn't a feature in any of the snowden leaks, involved the f.b.i.'s issuance of national security letters, which are demands in national security communication tozz turn over basic information. these are done without perspective judicious review and they are done at a very low level of the bureau. they are quite controversial. they have nothing to do with the snowden leaks.

and the review level, i think it was the second recommendation quite high up in the review group reports said this stuff needs to be subject to prospective judicial review. this did not go over well at the f.b.i. and the f.b.i., unlike the 215 program, a few hundred queries a year, this is thousands and thousands and thousands of requests. so this is really part of the daily bread and butter of f.b.i. there was a real interagency squabble over this, and the bureau won. and the president actually sounded a lot like -- in his speech sound aid fair bit like the f.b.i. director did in a discussion that the "new york times" reported on or some other media reported on a few weeks ago and basically said it shouldn't be harder to get these

phone records for the f.b.i. in a national security investigation than it is for a u.s. attorney or an assistant u.s. attorney to get bank records in a criminal fraud investigation. i think this was an area that was a little lower profile and doesn't relate to snowden but ended up in a dispute and the agency came out pretty much where it wanted to be, i think. so i'm going to stop there. if you have questions, hold your hand up and wait for the mic to come. sir? >> thank you so much. martin from the "german weekly." bruce i heard you not mentioning the nonspy agreement means

actually an awful lot. i do agree, i just listened to the speech at the justice department. but i have a question. what does it mean, the extension of privacy rights to foreigners? what could it mean? you said the spiritual effect might be bigger than the practical effect, but what could it mean to foreigners? are they thinking of the privacy act of 1974? what could it be? >> well, there are several procedures outlined in the , sidential policy directive inute zation data re-- minimization data related implications. basically, by implication at least, limb takes on how data

base yizzes are queeried where e operative -- bases are queried where the same policies will areply to u.s. and non-u.s. persons. that's where the operational significance will be. because that is t.v.d. it is delegated to the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, to put those procedures together. i guess what i would add in the sort of broader structure of things is that one of the recommendations of the review board that the president adopted is ensuring that considerations of privacy and civil liberties, commerce, international trade, internet policy, are part of the discussion.

that's embodied in the p.p.d. i can tell you as somebody who ove was the one raising those issues in discussions here that that's -- that is a -- an enormously valuable thing. it is not that the people in law enforcement aren't receptive to these issues, but they are not built into the discussion. now they are. now they are as a result of the substantive criteria in the p.p.d. and they are there as a result of the review procedures looking at the intelligence gathering at the priorities at the targeting, you know, through the national security council, deputy's commi committee and principle's committee approval by the president. that ensures that a wider set of yes and considerings go into

the implementation of intelligence gathering. those, i think, are important tems that -- you know, but to at pen said about this intelligenceat the community has done, is one that is looked at from the perspective of those other issues, i think this came out in the right place, you know, in terms of the structure, in terms of the limitations. it's not everything that the review board recommended, or that some have advocated. where i think i do differ is on the significance of meta-data. it is potentially highly

significant. one of the rich avenues of research these days is what you can learn from social networks. we came back here, one of the leading scientists from m.i.t. is going to be here to talk about his new book "social physics." but what's key here is what do you do with that data? how will you manage it? that awill be made more robust. but i think the validation of what the intelligence committee is doing, because there has been a strong set of protections in place. qumming from a different perspective. at the end of the day, i would not structure a lot of the privacy protections that in the ly if i were i.s.a. making those decisions.

really, because there are a robust set of proteches in place. they are being made more row bufment they are being broadened in terms of the scope of who they recover. in that sense, it is a validation of what has been done. >> i just want to -- >> please identify yourself. >> rick rempert, merits professor. i want to mention that the devil is not so much in the details here as in the bureaucracy. i spent some time at the department of homeland security, n.s.f. to give two examples.

obama issued an executive order on class identification which in essence said we were classifying too much and that we should err in the direction, if you will, of openness. i certainly have not seen evidence that the bureaucracy picked up on that districtive in any realistic way. second example -- and this deals with the implications of applying u.s. privacy law overseas. d.h.s. in fact did that. at least in some experience i had, there was research we wanted to do, which would involve the collection of p.i.i., personally fiblee final information who said it was great to do this research. there were great delays. i think given if they really are

applying to u.s. privacy act and its rules about what may be collected and held, there could be more significant effects, particularly in the relevant issues that hlm of would affect us. >> i'm just making comments. this is the end of the comments. i throw it open. if you want to question how is the bureaucracy going to be able to transform this or will it be able to transform this? will this be accepted and followed? >> to clarify on the privacy front. the review group did recommend a d.h.s. like policy level plication of the privacy act to the extent of a policy matter to non-u.s. citizens. the president's speech does not do that. at least not as i read it.

it talks about recognizing that nonu.s. persons overseas have privacy rights, but it does not do it with reference to the privacy act. so i think it is actually a bit of a step back from the recommendation of the review group. >> if i could add one thing to that. i think it is an interesting question about bureaucracy. the big winner is the enhanced power of the d.n.i. when we think of it in historical terms, when the d.n.i.'s fiss was set up about a decade ago, it was clearly intended this was going to be a small office with a small staff without its own building which would largely be a coordinating role. here is one more step in the increase of the d.n.i.'s authority. the d.n.i. is on par with the

attorney general in establishing all of the bureaucrat mechanisms this.ind of flow out of which means that the d.n.i. is not going to have a small staff, he is going to have a big staff. he's going to get into privacy issues he has not gotten into before. it is, as you said, it comes down to how does the bureaucracy implement this, and i think it comes down to how aggressive will the d.n.i.'s office be? will be it able to work with other agencies? will the n.s.a. listen to it? i think it will. is a winner at the d.n.i. office, in short. >> gary? > we bring -- let me bring the microphone over to gary while ian is talking.

>> the bureaucracy is going to be under a lot of scrutiny. the idea that commercial interests will be brought into the decision making. everyone accepts that will be a good thing for u.s. power more generally. but it is more important in this some perhaps, than 34 others. the private industry has to be convinced this is happening and if not in theory. if they don't, the u.s. will not be able to operate through the soft powers that the u.s. tech sector delivers. and that will be important in delivering some of its national security network through. similarly, i think the international community will be watching some of this very closely. i think obama has given himself the opportunity to change the nature of some of that

international gay debate and move things forward. but if the sense of what is happening is not what he has promised, then they will move back from that and that will move without progress. so i think there will be a fair ability -- amount of scrutiny on this and that will keep them on their toes. >> changes in the bureaucracy, one other thing that the p.p.d. does, is they say in will be a privacy officer at o.m.b., and the l office will appoint someone who will coordinate with d.n.i. that's something else that ensures there is additional perspective and brings one of the main points of contact with he tech community into the

intelligence discussion, the intelligence oversight. >> i'm derrick mitchell and i write "the mitchell report." i want to not let a comment that two of the first two of you on he panel, bruce and ben, made. i want to check. -- at you did a kind of the outset said, you know, doacht write this in ink. i'm going to need some time too think about this and my views sometime down the road may hange. i want to ask whether there is more than a sort of generic, wise, this all happened this morning, i need to get ready for e afternoon observation or

whether, and perhaps i was a, prized, and b slightly swayed by or well he did what he did, were there components of what he touched on that raised some yellow flags for you? i think pen specifically talked about fisa cord jurisdiction relative to skks 215 as one example. so was this sort of generic, were l hold on, folks, or there some places where yellow signs might be flashing. >> it is a very per spentive question, at least in the psycho analysis of me. i can't speak for bruce. so in my case, there are a mber of areas that i am at

this point aware that i have not analyzed with sufficient thoroughness to know what my opinion is actually going to be. let me flag them for you. i'm not i'm entirely sure i understand what the implications of the privacy rights -- acknowledging privacy rights for nonu.s. persons overseas is. and i'm not sure we will understand that until you hold 12333 against existing minute minimization procedures that they are going to have to write for this. and there is this phrase in there, as cam pointed out, these have to be the same as the minimization of u.s. citizens to the extent available. until you put all these puzzle

pieces together, and i understand how feasible it is consistent with national security, how similar and how different they are going to be, i'm going to be a little tentative in how i react to that. in is also a part in the speech where the president says he 702 ts some reforms of vis-a-vis the use on non-u.s. persons. l give more nformation, but he sort of punts it. i would like to see, are those privacy rights essential or are they sort of unimportant?

but you are going too see -- you chapter of see the headings here. what you see in the granularity of practice is different. it is also possible it is clear what it means, i just don't understand it yet. >> i'm not going to psycho analyze myself. i think what ben said applies. i would highlight two other points. there is a fair number of places in the document where there is language which you could drive a truck through. for example, they can't seek out except in an emergency situation. what is an emergency situation? it is a judgment call. one of the points the president was saying about this whole thing is, we don't need to just think about the judgment of this president, we need to think of the judgment of the next

president and the president after. when you have a lot of those rather loose formulations, it is a subject for worry. what would a next president do on something like that? then i think there is the other question of throwing into the many congress, and maybe i'm just influenced because i'm reading bob gates' book right now, but his character zation of the congress as the uglier it is, the closer you get the more ugly it is, certainly applies to our current situation. and the notion that this congress is going too come up with creative solutions to some of these very, very difficult problems strikes me as the triumph hope over experience. i just don't see that happening. that is the worry. we could find out that instead of a path forward, that is a

path to nowhere. >> i'm not going to psycho analyze either ben or bruce, but i would say, i have had two very similar conversations, but one after the event, and one with people there or and another with people preparing for this discussion both trying to parse exactly what the president said about the 215 program and where it is going from here. that's going to take some many onal analysis of the -- lng of the speech, and some further explanation as well. >> other questions? >> yes, thank you. i'm with the u.s. department of state. i used to work with cam kerry. i continue to work on a lot of these issues. it is good to see cam again. i have a question again i'm voicing on behalf of bureaucracy, because i am a

career federal bureaucrat, and it really goesing to congress' willingness to reform. to my experience, oversight costs money, transparancy costs money. if the president issues an order to improve trans transparancy but the size of the office doesn't increase, you get preath pretty lack luster results. judicial review requires more judges and more people to argue in front of those judges. so we are hearing man zates on some of the very people that awork on some of these issues now. some of these people are working on furloughs. the independent review dwrupe was forced to stop working because of the government shut down. so from the congress, do you see any recognition from them that oversight -- the desire for oversight can be expressed with commitment of resources or is there a danger that we're going to see a new set of unfunded mandates and a requirement on

remany assert the deck chairs in hoot way. >> the short answer is no. the congressional oversight -- and this is a very dangerous point in this area. because these are highly eelaborated, highly de -- they very dense statchtri schemes that were put together with enormous care over many, many decades now by congress -- congresses that worked better than the current congress does. the care and feeding of the fisa regime which has gone through a great many rewrites over a long period of time, current following changes so quickly, it actually requires regular

revisiting not just for the oversight reasons, that you the be, but also because technology changes and it bhoims out of date. the point bruce made about congress is, it is -- it can be devastating. it becomes harder and harder to reach a point where the congress with work in a bipartisan fashion, and this legislation always has to be bipartisan on a technically dense area of enormous legal complexity. when you create these oversight issues that the executive has to a work with, it creates

huge burden, and it is actually an enormous problem. caps cans captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp 2014] >> the situation doesn't bother me, access bothers me. i had access to the information before. d.n.a. felt that the ow is from booz allen. we gave them too -- are we giving too much power to rporations to have the information? >> i was just handed a question from brandon andrews that says "do you think americans feel safer with information in the

hands of private agencies or the u.s. government, and if so, why?" i throw that to any of the panelists. >> let me begin with that. as one of the a. tickets one of the administration's consumer privacy bill of rights, i certainly would like to progress ove forward on that.

we do have a sig consultant issue with the private sector. i think maybe now we can put some of this in the past. we can't put all of it in the past. there are a lot of other documents out there that will have the report next week, and other things that will continue this discussion. at least we may have reached a point of deflection. ?ow do we manage that selection

how do we ensure that that is appropriately protected that meets expectations and ensures that our choices that people want to make in their lives on't get affected. >> are you safer at fort meade or are you safer at target? >> i think the answer to the question is you are a lot safer at fort meade in what matters to ost americans. unless the congress of the united states is prepared to enhance the career resources, most of these will be out-sourced to contractors. we will see more and more security evaluations and more

and more data collection handling in the hands of contractors. i think if there is one lesson from eric snowden, that is a mistake. that is a really big mistake. how did a junior officer find a way to download the top intelligence community information and nobody in the office seems to notice he is doing this? the congress us should have long ago called up boos allen and asked them those questions and made them answer them. unfortunately, i think congress is part of that contractual world, too. when congressmen and senators move on, where do they move on to? he board of directors.

>> so the speech was mainly in reaction to snowden. do you see the speech having an impact in terms of giving the u.s. government a higher moral ground on this debate or do you see it being likely in the long-term? do you have thoughts on that? >> i do. i think probably the u.s. is moving away from basing it on moral authority in this particular regard. what i think the speech will do, least in the context of

internet use and international issues is provide a basis on which the government can now proactively stop engaging in a way that it felt prohibited efore. there is enough in the speech that allows other governments to engage with the u.s. in a way that they can self-act to their own public. i think how that actually translates into outcomes depends takes the administration it happens in england the u.s. has an enormous

scale when it comes to the internet debates, for example. the values on which the internet has been built and driven the success of the global internet sort of opened the freedom of a multistake holder is far more attractive to people in countries around the world than the more authoratarian model of government with lots of overnment regulations. but i think people have been stepping back from the united tates because of snowden and hopefully the dialogue will open up willing a coalition around taking a step forward. >> i agree with what ian said. attempting to answer the request

gives more moral authority. the greatness of america lies not in being more enlightened but in our ability to repair her aults. i think in this discussion, now you need to set procedures that create better transparancy that the president has established a model that really puts it to other countries around the world. i think he was quite pointed about that. certainly one of the effects of the snowden disclosures and i think has tempered some of the international outrage is that the press in other countries has been asking the question, looking at some of the snowden documents to find those answers, what are our countries doing? what are our governments doing?

and so certainly a number of countries have had disclosures about their own activities that to look, and namely brazil. that is enormously helpful in the discussion of norms and governments. you know, de la rusa said at the u.n., we need a system of multilevel governments. it happened. it just happens to be a nongovernmental one. many countries would like to put this under government control that is more respectful of government interests, more respectful of borders. this helps, i think, to move the discussion back to a better model of governance.

>> i would like to gently disagree. i think it is worth drawing as sharp a line as possible, and it is not really possible, between the internet questions which do rely in a profound way on moral authority and espionage, which is a deeply moral exercise in which we pretend to be outraged about the things that are done to us and pretend great moral outrage lies behind our pabblet ability to do it to the other guy. i think at the end of the day, there is a lot of feigned anger as well as some real anger. i don't believe that the loss of moral authority in the espionage space was ever quite that great.

and i actually don't think that this will do much to restore it. again, braketting the internet side, which can be hard to braket, the reality is a whole bunch of stuff got found out that is embarrassing to us and not ad van tageous for us to have out there. that is not fundamentally a moral issue, it is fundamentally an embarrassment and unpleasantness and diplomatic ram fantastics and business ramifications issue. you had a question, sir? > tom curry with nbc news. when tom kerry spoke, he drew a recommendation that the panel made that he said hpt gotten really any notice at all, and

that is to expand n.s.a. authority and give it emergency power when a terrorist suspect who has been under surveillance outside the united states enters the united states for the first 72 hours and gives n.s.a. authority to track that person. did the president address that? and how significant is that? >> so the president didn't address it. i think you can assume that the reason is, if you are giving a speech about, you know, imposing -- by the way, asking for new authority in the context of that speech is disonan with the larger message, as it is in fact disonant with he larger review report, there is a group of news reports from n.s.a. that suggests that the problem of what are called roamers, who are people of

legitimate subjects of intelligence collection overseas, and you wake up one morning and you find out they are in cleveland, and all of a sudden the intelligence and collections are illegal. and what we do, is we shut them off and those show up asclines issues in the u.s. it is a fairly complon cause of compliance problems. so one possible way to think about that is to say, well, ok, there is no problem. when it turns out that that surveillance is illegal, we shut it off and notify the f.b.i. the other way to think about it is there is huge problems and the n.s.a. is behaving illegally and they are doing all this illegal surveillance, which is the way the press has covered it. they capped it as illegal surveillance. the other way to think about it is, hey, it is a security problem. we are turning off legitimate

argets of oferse collection. the review group took that position toward it, and i think rightly, and i suspect the president will not talk about this much publicly, but if you look at it, i wouldn't be at all surprised to see the house intelligence committee take a look at that recommendation. >> would that require legislation? >> yes. >> we have a couple questions that came in over the transem. which are the most serious recommendations that the president didn't mention? ian these go to sort of the moulten core of what you were talking about. what is the most significant thing in the internet governance indescription -- incryption space that the president didn't

say and what do you think he should say about it? >> i actually think we have good cryption.n the en i think that may be why neither are the panel nor the president got into that space. where i think he did engage on a whole group of issues is on the future and the structure of the .s.a. and we have potentially an opportunity with general alexander moving on to do a number of structurally different hings. either to split the n.s.a. and give it a more implicitly intelligence function taking away the military use. you could, in support of the detante, ernational

you could take the n.s.a. out of review -- >> and there is a separation of information assurance. >> absolutely. and i think what you have in the speech with the popt saying this would have a short and medium-term operational impact which i'm not willing to take, but i don't think the presentational advantages of that are necessary given the other things that i'm doing. it remains to be seen. if you think this is basically an endorsement of a number of arrangements to modify key constituents, we will have to

constituencies respond to that, but i think they will find that they need to move a little closer to where -- he needs to more closer to where they are. >> how significant are the reforms that the president proposed to the f.i.t.s., the foreign intelligence surveillance courts? i can answer that. f.i.t.c. s that the should reform, and that is significant reform to the metta-data program, and depending on how much it brings down the requests, it is actually a significant workload t.c. to the f.i.

l a former judge wrote this week that the review courts are a massive work loid load burden, and some of them you shouldn't give us, and f some of them if you give us requires a lot more judges. so the team is relatively small. it is -- there is an institutional impact there. the more significant impact, the president endorsed a public impact before the f.i.t.c. he was intentionally vague about what he was endorsing. there are two basic visions of what a public advocate could be. one is to give the f.i.s.c. the authority to appoint amicus when it argues against the government when it feels it needs an

adversary briefing. they want the judges in control of that. the more expansive vision, which has been in some of the legislative proposals as well as n in some of the review group, s in having a -- basically a standing office of public advocationy to get them to intervene when it wants to. the president said rewards can be sort of read to leave that question up in the air, and i think that's one of the things he's punted to congress basically, how significant it is institutionly is largely a function of what congress does with that. >> mathy perez, competitive

price institute. there has been a lot of discussion about how this -- congress doesn't seeve a lot information about intelligence agencies, that they are very object secure. what is left -- >> does anyone have thoughts on that? >> i will take a shot at it. >> congress has said if you don't answer the question in the right way, you get a misleading report. secret intelligence agencies collect secrets to have a secret, not to give them away. the congress of the united states has not established a track record on very sensitive

secrets that leads anyone to a great deal of confidence, other than to see if they can maintain that secret. strong bases in pakistan is it one example. i think one of the things the president has done here, by endorsing the n.s.a., biby -- ing him the 21st century by he says we have new documentation that says that is legal. and we're going to tell you what we're doing. the problem of getting agencies to answer the question, even if the question isn't rightly phrased, is usually, not always, but usually, been a bigger problem with the sfraltbs -- intelligence agency than the national security agency, because national security l

programs are, for the most part, ones that can be articulated to congress fairly simply, whereas a lot of c.i.a., especially covert action programs, there are elements of it which are if g to be at risk, misinterpreted or loose lips put them out thrt there in the public domain. >> mike nelson with microsoft. one of the things you haven't talked about is the president's promise to have a high-level group led by john podesta looking at big data. i'm curious what two or three questions would you hope that group would try to answer? and do you think within the year we'll have another obama speech on the broader question of big data and privacy and will we have a brookings panel on that

speech? >> on second thought -- >> we have had many panels on that subject, and i'm sure we will have more. does anybody have thoughts -- cam -- on this? >> well, i'm very interested in that inquiry. it is frankly not clear either from the d.b.d. or from the speech exactly what the scope of that inquiry is going to be. it is apparently a short timeline to address those issues. this is important to have on the government side and the private ide.

we are at a stage in this world where we can't focus on the issue of collection. it is going to take place in ways that are beyond all of our conception today. and as you know, it is expanding at an enormous rate. i think on both the government side and the private side, we can't just say, stop the ollection. we can't just disregard data that's available. replays we areth dealing with in baseball. it would be nice to say we want to disregard the information that's available. but there are going to be times when you wish you had access to t. there are enormous gains, enormous risks, and we need to focus on how we manage that data.

we h certainly had a discussion with the president on that dodd, and i want to see the discussion move forward on the consumer side as well. >> we have time for one more round. why don't we take questions, and just we will go down the panel for final thoughts. so if people have questions, let's get them out on the record now. >> hi. my name is anwar. i'm a student. throughout the years we have groups of color and muslims, do we see moaching forward -- moving forward, do we production of racial profiling reduction moving

forward? >> ok. one over here. oms thomas stephenson. i'm also a student. would cyber-command take over the -- like if the n.s.a. was removed from military operations? >> ok. anybody else? fore we close the question floor? n a brief wrap-up. >> one role of the n.s.a. is to look after the security of the deprks o.d. networks. the other two being commanders, and the third, which is somewhat difficult and challenging is to defend the nation. so do they have that responsibility? i think the challenge that would

arise from splitting the two is at a lot of the intelligence that cyber-command needs to do its work comes from the n.s.a. side, and splitting the two out would be highly inefficient. that inefficiency would be worthwhile in the long run but in the short term i think the judgment is -- the benefits do not justify that inefficiency. general sort of wrap-up comments, i think what's not being commented on too much, is one of the interesting aspects of the speech is president obama directly confronting the international aspects. so when you have the d.n.i. sitting in front of congress saying this is only affecting american citizens, however

factually accurate that might be, over six billion people rpped the world say, i'm not one f those. the way the president came out and directly confronted these issues is helpful in taking us forward. >> so on the question of profiling, one of the principles that the presidential polling directive has made explicit and made universal is that the united states shall not collect signals intelligence for disadvantaging persons based on their race, gender, sexual rientation, or religion. i think that, along with many of the other things here, i go to the point that we have here, the president speaking out on these

issues. when the study disclosures comes up, the president said he wanted to have a national and global conversation about national security. it is a conversation he wanted to be engaged in as reflected in the choice of a review board, people that are very trusted by the president. he has not endorsed all those programs, but he has certainly taken that on board as a vigorous conversation, and i think that can be a tipping point to move forward in some very substantive ways on the broad set of issues we have here.

>> i think one of the contributions the president has made here today is this image of he out-of-control or rogue national security agency. i think that's an important step. the two things i'm looking seeing next, one, what happens when there is another terrorist incident, like a repeat of boston or something like that, has been rightly put down. the president acknowledged that. i think he's acutely aware of this. he has been very lucky for five years. very lucky. his luck is the going to go on forever and ever, and our luck collectively isn't going to go on forever and ever. then the question is, why are we wasting time going to courts when we know there are terrorists? that is a matter of time. the other thing i'm going to be looking for is what's the next oe to drop from the edward snowden apparatus. what are we going to hear from his network of supporters?

in the course of his revelations so far, there has been a patter of orchestration that has been quite interesting. you know, you get a leak about germany, just when we are about to go to germany. you get a leak about brazil just when the brazilians are about to come here. i think he tried to get the similar effect. i don't think he got much of a bounce. and the question is, we will see, is it really edward snowden doing this, or is it a larger apparatus. i know many people in the community who are looking at this issue now no longer regard edward snowden ads -- as a thief or traitor or those things, they regard him as a defector who has gone over to another foreign intelligence agency. that's a good question, that we don't have a good handle on. let's see what comes next out of

moscow. >> i very much agree that a lot of the next few months will be conditioned by additional disclosures. have we reached the point where each additional disclosure has less and less impact on the debate? in which case, i think you could really imagine this presidential speech combined with a certain apathy in congress or a lethargy in congress beginning to be the set of tail end of this scandals or possibilities. the other question is that, the disclosures continue, and they maintain a certain fevered pitch both the egments of conservative and liberal bases

that really condition the congressional politics and keep can be ve in a way that very unpredictable and i think sort of dangerous, if what you're trying to do is bring stability to our understanding of what authorities will and won't exist, should and shouldn't exist, and what should be written in law, what should be policy, what should be fluid, nd what should be fixed? finally, and i will close here, the other big factor is the fact that the patriot act authorities, including section 215, do sunset in a little less than 18 months. so in the short term, if congress doesn't do something, what happens is the president maintains all the authority that vis-a-vis ncluding

215 subject to whatever additional constraints he puts on himself, some of which he did today. but in the longer term, and the longer term really isn't that long, that default switches. and if congress doesn't do something, the 215 authority actually goes away in, i believe, may of 2502015. so one of the questions, i think we'll leave it here, is do the politics settle enough that you could have a congressional enactment that says, this is the portion of this program that we ,ill endorse beyond may of 2015 and does the review group recommendation as articulated by the president today embraced sort of by the president today provide a formula for that longer term stability or not?

the picture strikes me as very different if you think that that recommendation and the president's discussion of it today provides a basis for settlement of that issue than if you believe it doesn't. thank you very much for coming, and come back. [applause]