bill. >> he made an announcement about industry. ames vital industries like this are so important for the future of our country. good news to of come shortly. you,mr. speaker. this is absolutely true that residents following recent storlz have been concerned that england will be completely cut off. in view of that, they're content

support the billions necessary. does the prime minister that the small amounts needed are now the resilience line?e rail >> i know from personal experience how vital the link is rely on it. people so i'm happy to look at this very urgently. something i was about the bellwin scheme. they need a very big claim triggering bellwin. the assistance will be there. requirement urgent to get this right. >> order. >> you've been watching prime minister's questions there from of commons.house it airs live everybody wednesday and sunday eastern nights 9:00 p.m. eastern on onlineand watch any time

at c-span.org. tomorrow live coverage of the heritage foundation in ashington, d.c. they're expected to take part of the event that will focus on a umber of issues including digital privacy, healthcare and education. long u can watch the day sum it mitt beginning at 9:30 eastern and comment on the event as it happens by facebook and twitter. use the hashtag c-span chat. i think it's all an evolutionary process. you grow into this role and my is that you never get comfortable if you're always pushing for change and growth. in yourself but in the issues that you care about and so there's done, never a point in time where you feel like, there, i am now and i

do this the same way all the time. changing. s >> first lady michelle obama, onday night at nine eastern live on c-span and c-span three and on c-span radio and c-span.org. push official rmer ci a illiam nolte discusses intelligence. rom the institute for world politics in washington, d.c., that is little more than an hour. >> i figure you're either getting older or more important to there is an introducer the introducer. pretty good stuff. all thank irst of john and the institute for extending this it sreuttation. be here nor michelle

nd they both given significantly credible reasons why they are not here, i hope because they wanted to stay home and watch the opening ceremony. that would be very disappointing although i am in a contest to r ras the most 'em bear that embarrassing thing could happen to mr. putin. one of the things i stress with my students is that intelligence integrity-based profession. brian kelly remains one of those professionals who to me xemplifies in so many ways the integrity and the courage that sometimes is demanded of people in this field. me an s lecture gives opportunity in some ways to brian.my debt to and i should also say it's such an honor to meet misses kelly tonight. this is a man who for those of

knew him cherished him when he was alive and his memory. and i to say, however, feel my sense have of nerves oming on when the institute made this offer i declined because at the very least i am in counter t intelligence. as i said, i don't think this is idea.lly good but then john talked to me about doing this and i had second thoughts. y second thoughts were, njohn, this is a really bad idea because this should be given by colleagues by someone who has worked in this tough field and not someone who i think and time i'm proud of it has advocated attention to and greater respect for counter american ce and intelligence profession. in the end i decided to do it it's want to make it clear in that capacity as an advocate

and not an expert that i speak you this evening. with the ruggle thought that advocating for counter intelligence should be a problem. it is an absolutely integral art of any intelligence process. sometimes to engage my students i n we're discussing ns a raise the hypothetical technology has moved to the n.s. a. can do only protectts core missions ciphers of other countries. technology could do that which one would you do? they pickedsurprise the second mission and i have to tell them that's wrong t goes an incident i had. as a young historian i was day and i said something to the effect that nsa

was his named. it was the national security my and my colleagues didn't do security. david looked at me and said, the if you could only do one which would it be? nd i've always kept that either/or thought in my mind and hope we never reach the point becomes a reality. and i think that same question of counter le intelligence versus what i sometimes refer to in my classes as positive intelligence only to make the distinction clear from has that m outside same sort of quality. hat after all is the point of collecting all this information if we can't protect the sources that thods and processes allow us to bring it to decision makerers. point of a world class intelligence structure if counter match it with intelligence processes capable of protecting the

confidentiality of that those sources. the question is often asked hether secret intelligence can take place in a democratic society that places high value openness. one question that should be democratic society oversee regulate and intelligence operations should permit individuals or nstitutions to declare themselves above and beyond legal authority. start sent president either/or hypothetical, we are robably in something like the 6th decade as far as can i see in which counter intelligence been take your pick, under funded, undernoticed or disrespected. i never gotten around to researching this. to 1950 and ack before, the resources expended probably ted states came pretty close to matching hat we spoepbt on that other

aspect of intelligence. pioneers the original o it became n.s.a. thought their first job was protecting codes and ciphers. think you can even find in the popular culture some reflections of that. you look back to motion '40s and early '50s counter intelligent the good guys. how i did know that? they were always played by john jimmy stewart. that's all you need to know. ten years before they would have been played by ronald reagan or which means going after common nists which means that warner skaeuf saved a lot scripts. over time through the '70s and protagonistsnd the in motion pictures were less to

guys fair garretting rogues.s than of course al shift marked more than counter intelligence and whether one warren t with the commission or war in vietnam from the 1960s the counter view that intelligence represented an effort to spy on them of and deprive their constitutional lib earth has been strong. aside for a moment aybe for all time if we could, oliver stone's "j.f.k." i can't any institution in american life that is not conspiracy.n his take a look at something i find something more interesting and old robert redford/barbara try stand "the

were." on one level it aa love story about two people who can't resolve issues but the bark drop of that is the conviction that the 1950s represented a period which innocent americans suffered repression at the hands hysterical witch who for communists agent all right thinking people knew did not exist. let's not deal while we're going into the depths with the crucible. so didactic and so boring that i thought if i island o a tkesz either disk and my only choice was the scarlett letter discover hawthorne as masser of pros style. >> how did we get here? we had the culture shift and the counter n of intelligence was part of that. never trust anyone over 30 was a

towed of my generation along with sex, drugs and rock n' roll. the and tide of that culture swept over us and it's a still degree.o some the good news is the tide's eventual subside. tides as well. the revisionists or counter ulture views of counter intelligence would as we know benefit what for a lot of writers and screen writers was a trilogy of poster people. richard nixon y, hoover. edgar could you ask for a trio to deal with. the reality of course is that is that more subtle than sometimes hollywood makes it. hoover for one had he resigned or died in the 1930s would be of the great figures in 20th century in riminology and one of the few people in washington who opposed

of japanese was jay edgar hoover. you stay ality is if in a government job for 50 years assume it's your personal huub bris whim take over. as for nixon we know the strange wist associated with that very imbittered figure. critics carthy his ften portray him more as an evil aberration. former professor who just has long by the way, noted the mc carthy in the end produced more anti-anti-communists and i think there's truth in that. wasirst job was high school shelving books in the library.

ne of the things that fascinated was literature on the pies and it was the most nteresting thing in the world, rosenbergs were innocent and mc carthy and chambers were villain other half that said that whitaker, chambers and mc heros and national guilty.enbergs were move forward a bit here to when i was sitting in my cubical who was one of the first hires in 1930. pretty close to 80 at the time and when he uddenly tilted his head rather dramatically i thought i was medical emergency.

stein's perjury and he was reading the spoeupb of guilty, know he was don't you, he said. i reply and i thought the winestein came close to demonstrating to that. ask your boss. he walked away and i walked into boss's office and this tells you how fresh a face i was. do you r. wilson, what he looked verowna and at me like personnel made a serious mistake. said as in two gentlemen of? he said i ought to read into something called that. wilson at that point went god.t white and said oh my i said yeah. do you know someone named bill croll. withins up the phone and

a couple of days way was meeting him and cecil phillips and remark an into that system. there d several times after to declassify it within efforts ach of those failed. they failed because people assume he agency -- i with good motives insisted that to the public to estroy agency equities by releasing sources and methods. intern program one of my other did he tours in life. me if the seem to source method was if you use a you're lookinger for trouble. maybe the agency could survive particular disclosure. few years later i was at a

conference where christopher andrew giving the talk on c.i.a. and truman administration stopped and said, way, if you think ultra changed the history of the world war wait until it comes out. i found a pay phone. explanation eed an of what that is, but nevertheless, called mr. croll told him what happened. i've never been able to get him to confirm this but i know bill believe that our british of nsa had gotten tired dragging its feet and in a few declassified. what happens from that? e now know with the exception of very few hardcore, that the vidence is that the rosenbergs guilty and there were war soviet

spies and people still deny it. but when your handler wrote a book about how he handled you, denials don't seem credible. that also learned from experience that two presidents of national or so security policy were subject to historical part of a story that was factually implausible. in fact, what nsa did and i there, what we did was value our equities above the good name of the america.ates of and that's something all the need to nce services think about from time to time. counter he damage to intelligence and its reputation came from outside. self-inflicted. discussion on the atomic pies -- the factual incorrect

continued because it was declassified far, far too late. nd this should be a continuing lesson for all the agencies. that leave us now as far as the state of counter intelligence. i had moments where i thought receding.i was i was very pleased with a national f a intelligence executive, but clear decade it's very hat n.c. i.suffers from the same shortage of authority that from.n. i.suffers i was excited several years ago jennifer sims publ i thought ere and here is the intellectual underpinning and that movement to appear.

a ould hope it might lead to manhattan project as i referred to it at the time. fact, when i approached i lacked such a proposal the of interest was apparent. when i later raised this with senior n.c. i.official not i should mention not michelle i was told we need more c.i.a. training. try again to get that manhattan project going. there are other things that have boy, we're getting there. intelligence national security alliance produced a great short paper on counter couple of years ago i thought that might speed some things and that has not atched and you still see some of these instruct kherl problems. at the time of the wikileaks , losers -- disclosures

hen one asked how they were dealing with the security people involved in the case, his reply ask the ll have to security people. when i got back to my office i friend in security who quickly told me that the problem was the counter intelligence eople were messing around in what was clearly a security case. this was clearly a self-inflicted wound. i sat through a briefing even recently just before the nowden article started to appear in which the briefers said that one of the problems in counter and intelligence was dealing with of the interface intelligence.ty name blurted out if you

all those throw in information assurance i was thanked. thanked.want to be i wanted some recognition these old structures were getting in of getting it done that on e was so much turf going between these various functions ta they talk to each other. this over those last few months. mike caden onor of who is not here. i've always thought of this as former mike e shanahan -- well he's still mike shanahan but the former coach -- saying i don't have a problem with my defense. with my problem defensive line, my linebackers and my backs. got a problem with the hole, ace. that's the problem we have. we have 20th century structures

a 21sts century environment and that is not work.to 'm pleaseed that nsa has now linked organizationally it's security functions. but i don't think that has to be model for everyone. structure in the 21st isn'ttry important be less than process. you can put people wherever you structurally and communicate well and you'll get past the structure. still have these great fears when i see wiring diagrams to really a met t's for. that's a met for of an industrial model. yet we think those are very, very real. david -- john and david said that in a 21stgo contest between bureaucracies networks will win and i look at our government and our intelligence community and i

think we are far more bureaucratic than network and the cause.ot help let me add a few thoughts on the reversing the cultural way that i've spoken about. irst of all, and we all know this, the national discussion or onversation raised by the snowden disclosures will continue and i don't intend to any credit for this. you can argue that john brown the harper's fairy raid deserves credited for slavery. who didn't know shrelavery was ue part of that cow is where i would put mr. snowden. go there.

i would prefer to see an orderly national security instruments including and ligence counterintelligence. i stay in contact with a tkpwraoupld the american in washington t which is very much the staff of he former hart-ruddman commission. i look back at the reports of a or saopbd think we missed a terrific opportunity. calls for a very serious comprehensive review of our 1947 instruments rity never came to pass. at as going to be looked everyone told me in the summer fiscal 2002. then we any what happened in september of 2001. this orderly thorough look we had post-crisis all know whatd we that means. the most dangerous thing you hear in washington is

a group of congressmen around microphones in the rotunda saying we must do something. frightening y prospect. review?d we do such we could do worse than look at ruddman methodology. to deal with egy our environment the next 10 to 15 years and see if our match either the strategy or the environment. lot ofaround at an awful our national security systems of i don't see that matching they and the problems face. my two students lieutenants mike echi and christina england. that.logize for are favors academy graduates and

we have a program there to bring graduates to the school of public policy and they are very come in ts when they nd i ask them how many sorties did the f-22 fly in iraq. and the answer is zero. something is wrong when we spend billions of dollars on instruments we don't want to use. i late to pick on the air force guys a drink you later -- i think they are free ctually -- but i could do the same thing with the other military services. i think we could easily do the ame thing in the intelligence services. we are simply not adapting our that to the environments we face. the issues we face in the future, i think, are among those part re defined in large by the information environment we face. if we have not faced that with snoweden, target, who else got

hacked this week? i don't know. environment ion drives a lot of the national security environment. graham who we may remember as the whole earth catalogue. he gave an interview in wired the ine in which he said most important event the last 20 years was the playing out of law.e's ok. most important i could argue but is top five. i used to give lectures where i moore's law playing itself out somewhere around 2002 happened.nd it hasn't i see articles all the time that slow down law will because we finally reached how many circuits you can put on a bit of silicon. say i find articles that at con, old tough look nanotechnology and biotechnology

and the predictions that moore's end are oing to quadra quantitatively balanced with in for a say we are whole new cycle. intelligence and counterintelligence more specifically has to deal with the constantly changing volatile information environment. i want to talk about that within three different aspects. obvious one ishe privacy. the worst thing -- i told a group of former intelligence officers the same thing the day -- the worst thing the intelligence community can do in the light of the snowden events think this whole controversy is about us. t is not just about intelligence. it is not just about n.s.a. in an bout people living information environment that we use all the time but don't and occasionally it comes up and scares the heck out of us. period we t is the are in.

i think if i went out on the asked people and what concerns you more, the snowden disclosures or what a pened at target, i think fair number of reasonable people would say what happened at target. is something off in the ether. target affects my credit. people have been very concerned about that. several years ago we were candidates at the national intelligence council for a national intelligence position. one of the things we asked all the candidates is name the top field perts in your outside of the intelligence community. of the applicants, from a major intelligence agency, experts in ourno field outside the intelligence community. report to ws i will you is he did not get the job. several ready spent hundred thousand dollars

consulting with those people and e had to deal with serious issues, academics not wanting to come into the c.i.a. headquarters and not wanting to a clearance in part because of privacy issues. i'm absolutelygs sure of is that we in the 21st the ry are not living in same privacy environment that many of us grew up in and our arents and grandparent grew up in. look back to popular culture, tphofrls tphofrls in in 19th century or movies the first half of the 20th entury had characters escaping from something and how did you get away from that? west.mply went the chances of being apprehended were very slim. of years ago, some of you may remember an author challenged the country in effect a piece in wired magazine. he was going to go off the web $10,000 if te

anybody could attend him. computer skilled professional. within weeks there were blogs ll over the country of people coming together without any blogs do, toust as find this guy. he did a really good job and clocktwo weeks before the ran out somebody approached him in the new orleans airport and from wired the guy magazine. it is very hard to get off the these days. think about that in your own lives. suppose you go home tonight and want to get off the web, you want to lower your profile. you going to do? i can give you a lot of suggestions. everything.r don't own a smart phone. urn it off when you are not using it. don't own a g.p.s. all kinds of fun stuff. have a computer make sure it is an apple product. commercial but it is

funny at u.s. command how many apple. use if you use the internet, never llow a service to share your information. delete cookies. change passwords regularly. a password.down audience, e ask this how many of you have never written down a password? wow! that is pretty good. that is really good. better memory a than i do. because i have so many of these never -- t i could good for you. i expected no one to answer that. wow! i assume you are telling the truth. hope you don't have it deal with a polygraph if you are not truth.g the we are going to have to deal with a different expectation of privacy in the 21st century. what that is i don't know. kerr used to be the deputy

director of science and papers in did several which he talked about the erosion of privacy. if you find those articles today the internet they are all abeled as c.i.a. official attacks privacy. the . official calls for end of privacy. don kerr is a scientist. recommending anything. he was simply observing. is true. true, it we have eroded our privacy. these remarks before the president made his address to do aboutas going the n.s.a. issues so i won't in q&a we -- maybe can touch on that. one thing that struck me most by the end of march the government has to come up with to n.s.a. e solution storing all of this data that they store. we don't want n.s.a. to

store it. the phone companies don't want it. tore so, by the end of march -- that is close, before taxes are due come up with a solution to this. i describe this sort of announce thedecision before you know process as coming from the thelma and louise school of decision making. may not be an outcome at the end of this. there may be a cliff. i would say that the options for change in the next or two involve regulating hings versus overseeing them, i'm all for oversight. oversight seems to be the more flexible mechanism for control. i often describe what we are going through in the internet information the environment, as a wild west environment. a couple of years ago i was elling friends and congressional staff i wanted to see them get a major piece of through.islation i'm now far less confident of that. concerned we will

find out something and we have legislated the wrong thing or the thing we aimed at or there we ed, hamstringing ourselves. so i don't know when we will get regulation and i don't know legislation could do much benefit. offers greater flexibility. i joined n.s.a. in the late when oversight was new thing retrospect the only i think was missing was people issing block arm bands saying n. i was told so pnd many times my god we will never be able to function like this. they say things like he brits don't function like this. you know what? every industrial democracy some sort of

parliamentary or judiciary oversight. my point of view part of it i think congressional oversight of the great achievements in american intelligence history. where would the intelligence be today without mike rupersberger tch and feinstein and chambliss. glad they are on the side of 9 intelligence community at a time.clearly important i'm going to pass on making remarks about the privacy and liberties board in the interest of time but i will take questions if you want. brief on security. i already hinted that we need it the link between counterintelligence and security. gain, not necessarily a structural link but we need to know how we are going to do this in the 21st century. i have been polygraphed. i have had background investigations. i had to provide people with

names of my neighbors. anybody who has been through knows how that goes. how many of you really know your neighbors? shows up at body the door saying what is he really like, you know, you are at them.stare i have had them twice in my and r show up at my house ask my wife what i'm like. she obviously didn't tell the my h because i kept clearance. but does this make any sense? i don't think so. spend the last few minutes on espionage. there's talk of one possibility draw short of recommending that as an option. get the army prosecutors in the manning case highest marks attempt to prosecute manning under the 1917 espionage act. but if they couldn't get it done in terms of aiding a foreign think the answer has to

be that law cannot get it done. that a ave to show person is giving away classified information directly to benefit single foreign power and that s pretty much what it does, where are we these days? don't give it to a single foreign power. it to everybody. much more effective sort of thing. n the 1920's and 1930's the soviets recruited young british nd to some degree american academics and students in the hopes they would rise to high positions. if i were a soviet or chinese recruit a n't government employee. i would recruit a journalist. seriously. or somebody who is inclined to be a journalist. levels to e entrance be declared a journalist in this environment? event, i do want to take

a look for one second at you looked atsure over the wind and that is u.s.on 798 of the title of code title 18. van cleef has done a good part on this whoever furnishes or makes available to an unauthorized person or publishes or uses in additional resently to the safety or interest of the united states any classified related to code cyphers or other material shall imprisoned for 10 years or both. pending ere with any prosecutions under this? it is something of a dead letter. e have had people do this before and we declined to prosecute. if there is a flaw in the law, let's think if we need this law at all. and that came up in testimony week, not so much by name but the provisions of 798.

everal years ago i had lunch a h walter fortheimer legendary figure at the c.i.a. that they talked about having an official secrets act and discarded it. they didn't think it was needed or it would get through congress and didn't fit with our values. i continue to believe it would be difficult to craft such legislation. if though i thought what you put in things like illegality o close or malfeasance or corruption would be a positive defense. you then have such an act. i can't get myself there. i think that leaves a huge gap for us. how do we protect this that we've collected, that has been overseen by congress, by by a court from people just publishing it? how many of the

stories that have appeared in post and times and other and on the networks are relating to n.s.a. from the files really has to do with n.s.a. violations of the civil liberties of americans. up.nt them is it 2%? 5%? hen i see a story that says n.s.a.'s information is being used to support troops in fghanistan that do not strike me as a simple liberty violation. that strikes me as what do when nce agencies you have deployed forces. become to my can you go -- back to my younger days when during ther and over watergate period that phrase that members of the committee said over and over, no man is the law. and i wonder if that is still true for us. any event, i think one of the things we should think about go down the dark road of an intelligence secrets act society look at a

lawful government conducting functions in secret and how those should be protected. burke once said when you want to protect virtue in is through society than the state because we all know the state can be a very inefficient mechanism. i would hope at some point we would come to an understanding society that the government to keep ponsibility some information secret and to oversight, to do so under law, and that we should tolerate the somewhat casual information. that let me finish with one thought. saidtime to time i hear it even by very senior former ntelligence officers that the relationship between the american public and intelligence services is broken. that.'t believe i believe it is seriously

strained. i believe the intelligence a much need to do better job of explaining what it is they do. but i think this is an argument that can be won. don't see the need for holesale changes in the intelligence establishment although there are any number of 215 of nts to section the patriot act and any number of things the congress could sleep d i would lose no over. if i were back on active duty and i think most of my olleagues in the intelligence community with share this view, if these are the rules and these re the ways we've been functioning and congress changes those rules we will adapt to the rules.d congress makes the rules. it is as simple as that. the need for e wholesale change. where does that leave us? counterintelligence after snowden it leaves us in a governed by an imperfect system.

hat it is public and it is represents can change. one of the values of a catholic of ation is a strong sense original sin which virtually demands that the world is that ntly imperfect and sometimes the bad guys win. we live in an e imperfect country and edward putin's russia. who would change places with him? in the meantime we can continue dedication and professionalism of the men and women of our counterintelligence and security services and we can a day when counterintelligence is accepted here as it is in britain as a of the other intelligence services. mi-5 and e a volume on mi-5 of the prestige enjoys in a democratic system i hope we can some day achieve that. there are obstacles. for many years i asked my n.s.a. encouraged hat if i

my best intern in a given year to pursue a career in counterintelligence and very often i would get the answer why would you want to do that to career? that is something we very much have to overcome. daughter is not here this evening but i want to say in her better se i have done than put an intern in the field. she works in counterintelligence am extremely i proud of what she and her colleagues do. should beat all of us proud the men and women who work in that field. that tide i referred to is going to turn and american counterintelligence ill once again sit at the center of the american intelligence effort. that truly would be an that would honor brian kelly. until then, i hope the men and services hose understand how much we value what they do. thank you. applause]

>> questions. in response the guy who had a back in?d came are there any questions? nothing? ok, yes, sir. i wouldn't bring this up if j.f.k. butt mentioned oliver stone offered a ounterweight to the warren commission and there is a such cal public on issues as the named names on the c.i.a. [inaudible]. it really wasn't disclosed he a group that interacted with oswald in new orleans. there are apparently 1,100 in full and main here is just a disconnect and it is impossible to understand

why there would be 1,100 files withheld. >> i could go beyond j.f.k. horrible is a director. if there are 1,100 files from and period still classified we know we classify too much and keep it too long, this goes back concern we after you public dispute of this sort and you are sitting on records that resolve that dispute, i think that you do great harm the public record. i don't know that they are doing that, but that would certainly concern. >> do you have any advice on how he agency could be prompted to disclose those records? .> no >> [inaudible]. >> you may know more about c.i.a. history than i do and i really can't give you too much on how to get this done. i just have that strong view of mine. n.s.a. just

declassified a ton of records the relatively recent period and it involved some degree of risk because the file that the idea of putting eyeballs on every piece f paper was one they finally discarded and so i give them some credit for going by ategory and trying to declassify this stuff that allows them to catch up with things of this sort. not a perfect process and every agency is basically its own master. yes, ma'am. >> i'm a journalist working for bbc. with a question counterintelligence with aldrich ames there was this problem where people were looking into were marginalized. you know better than i do. not necessarily. it is a big business. worked the i never may another i do. >> i wonder about the culture

to disclose snowden that information about how it happened in terms of the culture. i have my own ideas and i want to emphasize they are mine. thing that strikes me is he pproached people and you are told don't give away your password. their oached people as said iadministrators and am working on a problem, give me your passward. walks in and looks like the village machine nerd nd says i'm your assistant administrator and by the way we do discourage you from giving way your passwards but i'm different, i have authority. i have a feeling there is a 0-50 chance i would give it to him. i would hope after wards i would say do you s and think anything about the computer failure. look like a charming

he is.an but maybe i look back it "law and order" they there was a detective would do the same schtick. he would go someplace he was not to get access and the landlord would look at him and say are you authorized to do give this would altar boy look and say we are and break into somebody's a. and a suspicion that snowden was very good at getting confidence. other questions? back.e >> i'm a graduate student here i want to thank you for speaking here. >> i have to tell you that ain't choice.a although his 31 days of oscar on tcm. >> i would like to revisit two ent points.

ne is advances telecommunication on the ability of the united states community it maintain security and more importantly which i like you of the up the knowledge process coupled with the shift brought up and gave examples reminded me of the rise left in the mid to late 1960's and had a role in that in my observation. people are not gone. e are now at syracuse with angela davis is a distinguished reception nd the general haden got when he did in was mixed.on so that leads to this question. given the impact around the telecommunications information technology and cultural shift on the united ability to maintain

security and subsequently the hele that academia played in t ulture shift as it pertains to textual nature of how information is looked at what play in d academe ma shifting that so it is more fair minded toward the intelligence what can we do to ensure a narrative is supportive of the united states pursuing its interest is more effectively heard in that area? >> wow! congressman you would be testifying and i would tell people who would have to was a or me and if it committee that vice president -- he is on and he just a very nice person to have was time forbut it him i would say while he is alking look for the question some place. because by the time -- so there of that here.t

as far as the culture of only ademic world, the thing you can hope is the tide comes in and it goes out. generations change. i think i'm lucky to be teaching university of maryland compared to a lot of other places. an interview with a student newspaper the and they never published it. a lot of or faculty have clearances. a lot of our students have parents who work or are in the work for the intelligence agencies or booz allen hamilton. is not like the university of wisconsin or some place. do hope you have reached the limit to the diversity with no diversity.school of at least intellectually in american campuses. quite, it has gotten quite oppressive.

can say is part of me says listen to a lot of b.s. from my professors in college and graduate school. degree i regurgitated the b.s. back on the paper and then i it is hermetically one-si. i don't think anybody denies that. how you change that, yeah places like this. yet individual students. we see it around the country. they basically say i am not going to the freshman orientation course. there's something quite stalinist about some of these things. policy, theylic all know what i did for a living. anything but the most cordial relationships with my colleagues. i think it is because we are a

school that deals with a process, not an academic doesn't plan. academic business plan. i can tell when i walk in that the scene has been set for this really evil guy to show up. i feel a little awkward when i the professor walks out and the students crowd around the desk year it i am sure he thinks they are telling me i'm an evil person. they all want to know how to get jobs in the cia. i think i remember how to listen to your professor, nod, write the stuff on a paper and lifet a t a finger when you feel like it. i know that has done rate damage to institutions. you just hope the tide changes. i know that sounds very pessimistic but it is not. it is a long view of history. david. i wish i had more hope for

you. [laughter] you're telling me you have no hope for me. how do you feel about that ? -- i have apartial partial comment on a question. you mentioned the u.k. as being liking mi5.ng and part of the reason for that is the long, hard, or they have had which presented disastrous bombing attacks and so forth. e a nation.

9/11 was something of disruptive and shatter that serenity and awaken does however. sorry to say, i think whether you're talking about be tirades, that can shift probably when we tides,mered -- the that can shift probably when we get hammered. >> this is one of my great concerns. the concern at the moment in the doing outwhat is nsa there? it would not take much i think to have a complete reversal of the public view. , democracyat point sometimes had to speed, do nothing and overreact. do nothingpeeds,

and overreact. ma we have the marathon bombing. that is about two weeks before the snowden articles. may we had to beat marathon bombing. that is about two weeks before the snowden articles. is -- myvorite phrase beast favorite phrase is once again you guys are not connected the dots. -- one of my least favorite phrases is once again you guys did not connect the dots. this is tough. part of it is longer histories. i really say this with sympathy. we are new at this. the intelligence services are new at this. the country is new at this. call it, we call it homeland security. you cannot live in this city if

you said let's make a department of domestic security. oh my god. take away all of our liberties. europeans understand this a little bit differently. maybe they had just been through more. look. , the guy who i commanded the allied invasion sayss into europe, americans naturally a poor the spy -- abhor the spy. i do not think you saying that is a good ink. i think he is right. -- is a good thing. i think he is right. what is the most intelligence effort between the end of the revolution start of the civil war? it is lewis and clark. remember an the sixth grade or ninth grade hearing lewis and clark was an intelligence thing? no. is a journey of expiration.

for military purposes. -- it was a journey of exploration. for military purposes. if they had a nicer name, pinkerton would not be such a bad idea. we do have that. as un-american, i do not want us to get over that. i do not want as -- as an american, i do not want us to get over that. to get overt us that. i was in turkey a couple of years ago? one of the -- i was in turkey a couple of years ago, one said professor nolte has read a lot of locke. we read hobbes. hobbes andead both locke because madison did. we try to balance these things off. it in post 9/11?

yes. i regret in 2011 we did not do a 10-year tuneup of the patriot act and the irtpa. they desperately needed them. we just do not work that way. we muddle along. i think we will take two more. thank you for the presentation. you started off with a couple of points. you are talking about america's cultural dynamic. cinema, the spies, post-wwi. then in that, how it was being presented in this genre, the multimedia, which was the media for the u.s. at the time. fast forward now to we are in

everything, the whole gamut of internet, tweeting, everything. the lieutenant general made a point about the rapidfire communication. >> he is a great guy. the rapidfire information that goes on 24/7. intelligence community, through information to the public, ever try to keep up with the pr, the very things you are talking about? public is virtually

clueless. the information is being left in that can usemedia it which ever way they want to at any moment they want to. or flipping it the other. matter.not really there does not seem to be anybody taking control for their own agency or agencies. one of the things i've talked about. i am retired. they do invite me back. one of the things i have said is , when the air force decides it is going to build a new fighter, the story is in the paper. the air force is looking for a fifth generation fighter that will go at this speed with these characteristics. in some ways you have to distinguish it from the step they want to replace. i come from a place that for

most of its history believes the initials stood for never say anything. you're going to have to be different with that. you're going to have to be different. i am not sure, and i think if you back and look at speeches general alexander may, i am fairly certain you could have pieced together the main theme of what we have been hearing. a is sucking up metadata and doing so there is a belief that says metadata is not really covered by fourth amendment stuff. i think a lot of this stuff, if you find it before the snowden period, very small stories. i have a feeling one of the things the intelligence committee may have to do is a better job of saying this is what we do for you. you're going to have to disclose the sources and methods. i am sorry. you're going to have to do some trade-offs of the benefits.

the american intelligence can only operate within the space permitted by the american public. he's absolutely right. has the space collapse because of the controversy? no. there's controversy on it. it is going to be incumbent on active leaders. look. i will go back to the washington post. they did a years ago series of top-secret america, a fourth branch of government that operate without supervision. it is like, really? really? no. i think they should have been -- much moree aggressive. my concern was that if newspapers are saying there is a fourth branch of government operating without supervision, that is an attack on the house intelligence committee, the

senate intelligence committee. where were you guys? nobody gets elected or defeated from the congress defending nsa. maybe 2014 will change that. it is not a big issue. is it even attracted to serve on one of the committees? cans not something you oppose for the photo opportunity. that is one of the reasons i'm so absolutely klees with what done.en they have been really upfront leaders on this. is a conservative republican from michigan. diane feinstein is out defending nsa. that is pretty good stuff.

be, we there needs to have to re-strike the balance between what we do in secret and what we open up. i know they're going to say there goes your clearance. it is true. by global world. the nsa has a museum open to the public. them will make it an author who has been kind of critical, there's a sense that you brought that diane? yeah. -- you brought that guy in question mark yeah. we're open for discussion. there is a nasty story about you in the post or the times. how do you think the treasury department feels? there is no immunity from having a blue badge. deal with it. go on with your life. i know some cia colleagues who actually approached me with huge grins on their face. it is so great to see you guys getting slammed rather than us.

i say, thank you for that. look. we try to do secret stuff in the public eye. i do not think people acknowledge that. until 10 or 15 years ago you cannot acknowledge in parliament or a newspaper who the head of mi6 was. i was on george tenet staff. he said there is a blog that has a photo of your house on it. my house was there. it is like that is interesting. who brings us to my wife? we do this. -- this to my wife? we do this. i think this is our tough balance. do you teach intelligence in a public university? easy. i know top-secret stuff.

you all watch jeopardy last night. he won again. he has a textbook out on intelligence. nsa.was reviewed by there has to be more systematic and less episodic. you have to be out there with a stronger public message. without were acting supervision. you're treating a new body of law. there is this thing called the foreign surveillance court. nothing nsa did was done without the foreign intelligence surveillance court approving it. a secretive court. it is not a secretive court. secretive is about behavior. it is sacred by legislation that created it. it is a tough issue. i think you have to be out there a little more and engage in the fact that people want to be reassured. i believe this.

the maryland state police, , all three of those can intrude on your privacy. which one operates under the title of supervision? not even close. not even close. operates under tighter supervision than state in local government which are still doing the metadata thing all the time with no one seeming to challenge it. google? google, really? i do have to say to my students when you apply for a job with the clearance, you want to be careful about what goes on your social network pages. some of my students, not these bright and talented people your, say -- up here, say you mean they can get onto my facebook pages?

really? if you apply for a job at sears they can look at your facebook pages. you know the little boxes of small text and at the bottom there is a box that they say check this and you accept it, the no. you gave it away. -- bingo. you gave it away. this is not one we solve. this is one you manage. --am you had, god >> i am a student at the merrick and university. university. i work for the treasury. challenges are not just security here. the feelings that the american population has about ,sa and the security community there are mirrors internationally.

do we have to sell ourselves to the american population first and around the globe so we can adjust transnational security? >> there is the degree to how we must do this. i do think what you need to get to is the point where you have bilateral agreements. i think that is the only way you can do this. germany in the united states agree on what information we are going to share. weir governments can say have this under control. we do certain things with foreign intelligence services to protect against terrorism. we do it under limits. there has to be that understanding. i do not think we can ignore that this is coming as a shock to a lot of even our ally populations. what has been funny if the reaction in more than one country where there has been a leader standing up and saying "i am shocked."

there is spying going on here. about three weeks later, there's evidence of their government is doing the same thing. letink this goes back to get comfortable with what wevacy we can expect, where can expect intrusions, how the intrusions can be overseen. i think that is a very long conversation. one more and then we will get out of here. i am a legislative staffer for the senate. i am interested if you would mind elaborating on what changes you think makes the patriot act that would be sufficiently necessary for the public to not hinder the ability? >> i really do not have any. i've not looked at the act specifically enough. what i would say is this goes back to the methodology. let's take a look at what the instruments are.

we look at the post-9/11 legislation. we wrote this. it was done very quickly. it is past the prevention act. somebody was supposed to go through and find every section acthe national security that gave authority to the director of central intelligence. you are supposed to find, i do not mean you, your colleagues were supposed to find every instance in which that occurred and put in language that said him [indiscernible] it is hereby transferred. at least for the powers of docket transfer. the powers did not get transferred.

i have some sympathy for nancy pelosi for that. i would just say go take a look at it. do we connect the dots too much? there was a lot of fear. did some of that slip into the patriot act anyway we would like to go back off from that? i did not mention this because i've gone on too long. i am a big supporter of the civil liberties protection board. i wish them well. i wish they had not made that isment that what the nsa illegal. that is not what they're asked to do. if they had said the patriot act may have gone too far in certain particulars, i would have thought that really opens up an important discussion. back at theyou look homeland security act in the extensions, i think they need a post crisis scrap. they were really done in a crisis atmosphere.