model. i think mandating a reduction in that, if there's a performance related issue brings in an economic element to it. where specifically in our region, in suburban -- the suburban areas around new york city, where the cost of living is very high, police officers cannot live on their base salary and overtime is a requirement. if you want to live within a two-hour drive of where we work in fairfield county. so, officers regularly work more than their eight hour shift, they welcome it. and if you're going to mandate a reduction in that, you're going to put an added stressor on the person in the financial realm. so that needs to be considered there. in responding to sandy hook, and i imagine in other crises around the country like ferguson or what happened down staten island following that, you know there's a maximum amount of time we can be out there but sometimes you can't leave. and sometimes that goes for

days. and following 9/11, officers were mandated 12-hour shifts every day, all days off canceled. that was because there was a national security issue and you just couldn't leave. nobody cared about what it did to your brain, and we're seeing that now. but, for public safety reasons you couldn't leave. so that has to be considered also. in the regular course of policing, the eight-hour shift is enough, and you want to go home after that. and sometimes after seeing what you see, it's tough to go home and have dinner with your family. and as dr. violanti said in discussing what you've done in your workday, you have to relive it. so, we're taught to compartmentalize some of the things that we deal with. but being able to open the doors of that compartment and let it out, and let some steam out of the valve before it bursts is really important. but, getting back to your

question regarding shift time maximums, i know the pushback from the guys would be on the economic and financial part, you know, our earning potential can't be limited in that way unless, you know, the performance issue is so great that we're now under a fitness for duty problem. >> i'd like to comment on shift work. i think most departments in the united states are going away from the eight-hour shift and moving to either a 10 or a 12-hour shift. this brings up the issue of fatigue. if you work 12 hours on a midnight shift, you really can't make sense of thinking straight. and it's other -- it's very difficult to make decisions. it's very difficult not to get frustrated. and to get irritated by any little thing if you're up for 12 hours doing police work. additionally, we found in our research that those who worked midnight shifts have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and are more affected by stress.

so, you know, that's an issue, i think, that's blossoming now in the united states policing. when you're on a special mission like sandy hook, or a flood, or a hurricane, those situations even get exacerbated worse. so, i don't know how to address this problem, but we do see we need more research on what the best shift is or the length of time that officers should work in a day. >> thank you. >> i was just going to say at least truckers have a national standard about how long they can work. we don't have anything like this in law enforcement. basically it's on the discretion of most departments or most jurisdictions. again, devil in the details. let's work something out that accommodates both the economic needs, the liability needs, the health needs, and the realities of shift work, and that's something to work towards. developing a national standard so that police officers don't feel that they have to fight for

a certain shift level they can simply be told this is the standard, we need to follow it. >> thank you. we're running short on time so our final question will come from roberto villasenor. >> this is for dr. violanti. i'd like to hear a little bit more about the term the psychological autopsy that you were mentioning. >> oh, sure. a psychological autopsy is basically a retrospective look at the police officer's life. one who performs this would go back and interview relatives friends, look at medical records, basically look at the life of the officer prior to his or her suicide. from that, through close relatives, for example, we could ask questions about mental health. we could ask questions about standardized measures. like stress, for example. we could look at medical records. we could go through departments and talk to coworkers. it's a long, involved process. but in the end result, we piece this together and we can essentially do a retrospective

picture of what this officer was like prior to his or her suicide. that's very helpful. because if we do many of these we can look for patterns that are prevalent in all police suicides. and psychological autopsies are performed quite frequently on suicide deaths. generally, in the legal profession, to determine whether or not a depth was a suicide, or not. we call them equivocal deaths. i think this would be very useful research to look at, to tease out exactly what led the officer to this suicide. >> thank you very much, and thank all the panelists, it's been very informative. please join me in thanking them for their testimony today. [applause] we're going to take a very brief break, five minutes. just to be able to transition between panels and then we'll resume. thank you.

>> coming up tonight on c-span four days for department of homeland funds expire. president obama speaks about the risk the shutdown pose and several governors speak about issues they discussed with the president. and later we get remarks from mike rogers on cyber security. this afternoon, the senate field to move back -- failed to move forward. it could be an impact -- [indiscernible]

tsa officers as airports and border control agent and officials of the coast guard would be wired to work or to work -- would be required to report to work stop and tsa roughly 1500 or 10% of employees would be for a load. -- furloughed. more on homeland security issues. this is 20 minutes. >> all right, gentle people's. this year we have one of the largest classes of veteran governors and some of us got in by the skin of our teeth. we have a dozen new colleagues who are relatively new to politics. i think the experiences and perspectives of these governors

will be of great benefit, not just to the individual states, but to the whole country. we look forward to working with this administration. our commitment to an ongoing and lasting partnership with our federal peers at all levels is continuous. i think that partnership depends on having people that understand the benefit of that relationship are willing to invest themselves in that relationship, and really understand how governors work. it is my honor to introduce a friend of states and governors a man who joined us in nashville, meeting to talk about the work that remains to be done. someone who has worked

tirelessly for this country. vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause] vice president biden: good morning. or almost afternoon. thank you very much. governor, thank you for the leadership you have shown. and for the introduction. it is great to be here with so many old friends. i got a chance to meet many new friends -- i hope friends. i hosted the new governors over in my office back in december, and had a chance to spend some time with you last night. i appreciate it very much. the president and i look forward to this every year. for real. we get a chance, as mary can tell you, to actually have real-life conversations that often do not take place in the city.

you guys, and women, took office to get things done. you are accustomed to making sure whatever the problem is your state is facing, actually addressing the problem. we look forward to this event every year. you know, as i said when i spoke, when i was in nashville back in july, i said then, and i really mean this, governors are the single best hope for the political process now. we will get it right and eventually back in washington. it will occur. the public will not put up with this gridlock for much longer. you are the place where it is happening. so many of you are expementing with, and moving forward on plans that are viewed here as

toxic. republic governors, democrat governors, you are reaching coensus on things like early childhood education minimum wage. i do not see much difference between a republican governor and democrat governor. you're getting things done. the other thing that i have observed is that you are used to being held accountable. held accountable for what you do. i think that focuses one's attention really closely. i got a chance to work with some of you veteran governors when we initiated the recovery act. it ends up being over $800 billion. everyone said, it could not possibly work and would not do much for the economy. and it was going to be such a wasteful undertaking. i want to thank you vegan -- veteran governors for making

it look like i knew what i was doing. i spent time with all but four of you at the time on the telephone, multiple times. you took every single solitary project and program you had, and you held it to the same standard that i did, which was if you needed an answer, you would get one in 24 hours. or if you did not get an answer, within 24 hours you got a call to tell you when you would get the answer. you implemented and made it work. at the time, it was viewed as something that was not very useful. since then, the geo pointed out that because of you and the way you implemented the recovery act, there was less than 1% of waste, fraud, or abuse. paraphrasing, someone said it was a model for the federal program.

in addition to that, as time has gone on, the vast majority of economists, on both sides of the aisle, have acknowledge that this work. 88% of american economists found that the recovery act was worth doing. that is because of you. by the way, the mayors were equally as responsive. michael greenwald wrote a book called "the new new deal." in the past year or so, i've also had the chance to be in a number of your states. i had the chance to travel with governor cuomo and governor haley in their states to talk about building 21st century infrastructure. you all know. last time we met, afterwards, i sat with you, and said, if you could take one infrastructure project in your state that would have a profound impact on the

economy of your state and growth of your state, and attract business to state. most of you cannot come up with one. most of you came up with 2, 3, 4. i don't remember how much time we spend together. we still long time talking about what is possible. this used to always be bipartisan stuff. it was never viewed in such as in terms as it is in the city. working with other governors you are working on strategies to make sure that we have the most highly skilled workforce in the world. you are doing a great job. you're using the community college and the most laughable -- flexible way that it can be used. it is working. you are actually putting people back to work and connecting them with businesses. with a little help from the federal government, a little

funding. the tiger grants, you have used every one dollar of those. you have brought in private capital, state capital. you understand better than any group of people how this process works. most of all, the thing i want to thank you for is the tone that you set. it's the one place in politics where most american people feel some sense of security. some sense of maybe we can get this right. i'm caps on you being contagious. i'm counting on you continuing to talk to -- democrat or republican -- you're elected senators and called his people to see if we can move this thing forward. we are ready to work with you. we genuinely see you as the vehicle in order to -- look, we

are gone from crisis to recovery, and we are on the verge of resurgence. we are in a better position than any country in the world to lead the 21st century. it is not just us. take a look at what the imf has projected in terms of growth in the united states relative to the rest of the world. take a look -- they go out and ask ceos, we are the best place in the world to invest. for over three decades of doing this poll, they say the united states. you know, we need two things to keep the swelling. the highest skilled workforce in the world and the best infrastructure in the world.

we are anxious to work with you. the person who is most anxious to work with you, the man that i will introduce now, who looks at you, as he said last night -- i'm paraphrasing, he said, i job that a governor does in a really big state. or something to that effect. you all have been our best hope right now. i think you can help us all change our mindset about making politics work in this country because we are so well-positioned as a country to be the dominant economic force in the 21st century. we have the cheapest energy in the world. we are at the epicenter of energy. we have the most active venture capital is in the world. we find our workers are three times as productive as they are in china. we have the greatest research universities in the world. and, we have you. we are counting on the goodyear.

we are counting on being able to work with you. ladies and gentlemen, the person who is most anxious to work with you, the man who i want to do is now. my friend, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] the president: thank you everybody. [applause] thank you so much. please, everybody have a seat. have a seat. welcome to the white house once again. the only thing more glamorous than a dinner with hall and oates is a q&a with obama and biden. we saved the best for last. i know you are excited. i want to thank everybody for being here. i will be very brief. as joe said, last year was a breakthrough year for the united states. last year, the economy created more than 3 million new jobs. that is the best job growth any

single year since the 1990's. the same was true for manufacturing growth. in fact, manufacturing jobs grew even faster than the overall economy. the deficit has been cut by two thirds. energy production at an all-time high. small businesses have created over 12 million jobs. the best news of all, wages have started to go up. america is as well-positioned as we have been in a long time. the question is, what kind of choices do we now make together to make sure that that momentum is sustained? i have talked about it before, and want to emphasize it again during our conversation, the belief that middle class economics is what works. the idea that not only do we want the country as a whole to prosper, but we want to make sure that everything a person in

this country has opportunity. if they work hard, they can get ahead. prosperity is broadly shared. not only is everybody sharing in that prosperity, but everyone is contributing to that prosperity. in order to do that, we have to make sure that everybody has a fair shot. the everybody does their fair share, and everybody is playing by the same rules. we have got to make sure that anybody out there that is skrimping and saving, trying to figure out how to send their kids to college, worrying about retirement, that they have some sense of security and some sense that they can make it. as joe indicated, i think everyone of the governors here and every one of the states of this great union of ours, cares about the same things and is doing a lot of creative work to

enhance the opportunities for advancement for their citizens. you have states like oklahoma, leading the way in making sure that we are educating our children at the earliest age with high quality early childhood and pre-k education. since 2013, 17 states have joined companies like the gap and walmart to raise their minimum wage and make sure that some of the hardest working people in america can support their families while working full-time. states are removing unnecessary licensing requirements so that people can fill jobs that they have skills for. you have states like california, leading the way in providing paid leave so that a mom or dad can take a day off to take care of a sick child or an aging parent without having to give up a paycheck. states are also leading the way to make sure that citizens have health insurance. today, thanks to the affordable

care act, 10 million americans now have the peace of mind of being covered. i want to thank all governors, republicans and democrats, supporters and opponents, who have expanded aca to millions of people over the past couple of years. i think there is recognition that it makes sense. and it is bigger than politics. as one governor said, from ohio, it saves lives. the question about it. if your state is not one of the 28 that has expanded and, i would urge you to consider it. our team is willing to work with you to make it happen. some of you may not always agree with my approach or policies that i think we can all agree that it is a good thing when a family does not lose a home just because a member of that family get sick. surely, we can agree that it was -- is a good thing with businesses have roads, ports and internet connections that

allow all of us to thrive. surely, we can all agree that when workers and management come together around helping families getting ahead, that is a good thing. it is a good thing when workers and businesses can compete on a level playing field with new agreements for fair and free trade. that will be my agenda for the next two years. congress may pass parts of that agenda, not others. i will keep on pushing for these ideas because i believe it is the right thing to do. i think it is right for america. i will keep on urging congress to move past some of the habits of manufactured crisis and self-inflicted wounds that have so often bogged us down over the last five years. we have one example of that right now. unless congress acts, one week from now, over 100,000 dhs employees will show up to work without getting paid.

they all work in your states. these are folks, who if they do not have a paycheck, will not be able to spend that money in your states. it will have a direct impact on your economy. it will have a direct impact on america's national security. their hard work helps to keep us safe. as governors, you know that we cannot afford to play politics with our national security. that said, let's try to focus on some of the things that we have in common. i want to thank governor ensley and his fellow west coast governors that helped reach an agreement to help open 29 points and keep business flowing i have to add an applause for tom perez who went out there and really made an extraordinary conjuration to the effort. that will make a big difference for the country's economy as a whole.

that's the kind of thing that we can accomplish when we put aside divisions and focus on some common sense steps to improve the economy for everybody. it is an example that i know congress follows in the months ahead. keep in mind, when congress does not act or does not act fast enough, i think we can still work together to make a difference. whether you're a democrat or republican, what i have found is that the more specific we are on focusing on problems, less concerned about politics, the more we get published. i will give you one specific example. that is in the criminal justice area. last year was the fourth -- first time in 40 years that the criminal and cost -- criminal incarceration rate and the crime rate went down.

in georgia, governor deal's have given judges alternatives. we want to be a partner in those efforts. that is what the american people expect. one of the great privileges of being president is that you get to travel everywhere. you get to meet people from just about every walk of life. what i have found is the assumption that i made that i think joe made when we first ran for office still holds true. the american people are good decent, and have a lot more in common than our politics would indicate. if we can just focus on that there is a lot of good stuff that we can get done. i'm in the fourth quarter of my presidency. of course, some of you might call it the kickoff for your campaign season.

[laughter] i think there is still a lot that we can get done together. i think we can build an america that is creating more opportunities for hard-working folks. i think we can make sure that the future for the next generation is even brighter than the one that we enjoyed. i look forward to making progress together at the federal and state levels. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] thank you. thank you. >> several governors spoke to orders outside of the white house on some of the issues they discussed included dhs funding immigration, and the keystone xl pipeline. this is 15 minutes. [laughter] >> outstand.

>> at least. one more question. >> good afternoon. i think with got everybody here. governor walker and a couple more coming down the hill. we just finished an hour and a half a very productive and candid conversation with questions and answers with the president and the vice president. as always, we came as a group of governors all over the country respectful, trying to find solutions. we are all in each of our situations problem solvers. in many cases the problems we seek and find and create are bipartisan, and that is certainly the way we approached the president. we discussed trade from a variety of points of view. we discussed the export-import bank. transportation funding, finding a long-term solution to the highway trust fund. elementary and secondary education. reauthorization.

we talked about the use of public lands. we talked about the affordable care act and what the consequences of the supreme court decision would be affecting that. we talked about the export of crude oil and natural gas. we also had a robust conversation around the department of homeland security and looking at immigration. in each of these cases, i did -- think the president was direct, candid. he did not try to mince words. in some cases that it was answers he gave before. sometimes he said, an interesting question, let's think about it and look at it in a new way. i thought the exchange was very constructive, and certainly for the president over the course of this last couple days, he has spent several hours, including last night, with the governors and that openness and willingness to have an engaging

conversation with us is very much appreciated. governor herbert, my vice-chair? >> thank you. on behalf of the national governors association, we thank the president and the vice president for his hospitality, for his willingness to show the respect to the governors that i think is appropriate, and willing to engage in a dialogue and talk about the issues that face us. the goals we have really are the same. we sometimes differ on process as far as how to achieve those goals, but that is part of the dialogue we had here today. as we talked about a number of different issues, the common theme for most of us as governors is the states have a role to play, is what we refer to as the laboratories of democracy. we like to see the states have more autonomy, the ability to do the creative work that comes with solving some of the problems, and allow us in fact to find solutions that are unique to our own respective

states. as we cobble that together, it helps develop better policy. the aspect of this dialogue in this discussion and bringing us together as republicans and democrats governors, as the vice president said to us today, the governors and the states are the best hope for america to get some things done and get good policy. i agree with that. i think most of my colleagues agree with that also. it has been a great opportunity for us talk about a lot of different issues and see what the states' role should be. it is a matter of us engaging with the congress. they have a role to play, and we need to work with both sides of the aisle there to make sure we can collectively influence for the good of the american citizens policy in america. this starts an opportunity for us. a new year, new congress, new opportunities, and the national governors association stands ready and willing to play our

part. >> the president was chipper and vigorous, and has not lost his sense of humor. questions? there will be no questions. [laughter] >> i have a question. [indiscernible] >> i want to ask about rudy giuliani. you supported the meat of his critic of president obama. he has come out with an op-ed explaining his comments, walking back a little bit saying he maybe should've taken a different phraseology. he did not mean he should question what was in the president's heart. do you think he has lost any credibility through this

exchange? >> i think the mayor should of used different words to express what he wanted to say. i did not want to throw him under the bus. the president loves america, he loves our country. there is no doubt about that. i think the substance, the point that the mayor was time to make is important. there are many of us concerned about the president's unwillingness to call out radical islamic terrorism and the threat we face as a country. i wrote an op-ed today saying the president has to cause find -- disqualified himself as commander in chief because he will not take this up to defeat this threat. for example, in his request for authorization, use of force to the congress, two things i would like to see congress change. i would like him to take up the ban of ground troops. they need to have the tools. i would like to take out the three-year timeline. i think the real timeline should be we are done when we have hunted down and killed these terrorists.

you have the administration, people in the state department saying we cannot kill our way to victory. you have a spokesperson saying we need jobs programs and better governance. this is a war against radical islamic terrorism. the central point was it would be better for the president not to want to -- [indiscernible] or point out those kinds of things rather than actually identifying the threat we face. i think americans speak -- i wouldn't have used those words. i think the president loves his country. any of us are concerned about the president taking on radical islamic terrorism. >> you said there was a robust robust discussion about dhs and immigration. was there any opposition from the governors about the

immigration executive orders or any signs or concerns about how that was going to be handled? >> the dhs issue from a variety of issues, but many governors want to make sure that that funding continues. almost all governors want to figure out solutions as quickly as possible. the president made a robust defense of his executive effort around immigration. his point was it essentially that the number of people coming into this country illegally is at the lowest level since 1970. at no time in our history have we spend more money on border security. there are 11 million, illegally. we are not going to do port all -- deport all of them. they are dressing the most serious issues, and that is what his point was. their executive efforts are to say, all right, it is ridiculous if we deported all of these people, it would have a material effect and a negative sense on our economy for a variety of reasons, it would be unthinkable. as there are limited by resources, they are deporting

the people they feel are the highest priorities, the 300,000 to 400,000 people a year. why have those other people live in terror and not be able to have a drivers license, not be able in an accident, feeling the have to flee as a witness to make sure the guilty parties are brought to justice -- all of this consequences, he is trying to address by executive order. he was not backing away from what he sees as a failed system. he wants a comprehensive solution to immigration reform and he wants to work with congress to do that. all of us want to see a comprehensive solution. we might disagree about some of the details. everyone recognizes the time has come that immigration needs to be solved now.

>> there is not any governor here that does not want to have the department of homeland security fund it. we all have the responsibilities in our state. we know the responsibility. we also want immigration reform done. it is complex. we are calling about congress and the president. there might be four or five steps on comprehensive immigration reform. let's have them work together in getting immigration reform and fund homeland security. >> is there a temporary solution

while this is being worked out? >> i would like a permanent solution. we have been debating it for a number of years. there is an executive order. that is a debate worth having. let's look for a permanent solution. >> if you would ask them to stop the filibuster senators could actually decide. >> the temporary solution doesn't address the grants.

how do they use the infrastructure to start resiliency. one thing they are relatively good at is to try and look at the bigger picture and try to work our way down to get there. >> the governor did ask that question. >> what was the answer about the filibuster? >> the president is not agree. he said he would veto the bill with the language currently written. >> are there any polls that suggest the popular move to protect amnesty? >> i don't think the president looks at it from that perspective. he is trying to find a way to do

poor people that are the highest priority and to make -- deport people that are the highest priority and make sure there is a system that recognizes a lot of people are living in the shadows. the utah contract set forward they say goals. i am not endorsing one part or another part of the executive order. the bottom line is the notion to try to make our communities safer, the notion we are going to try to keep it together, that we are going to recognize the economic vitality, that we are going to try to expand our economies. that's part of what he is trying to accomplish. >> you're nodding your head about the filibuster. why not fully fund dhs no that the administration is saying

there is action? i wonder what your advice is to continue the fight to partially fund dhs. >> there was a question brought up to the president that he might consider asking the senate democrats to go and vote on the bill for dhs, and we have a stay with the court and deal with the immigration issue later. that is what i was nodding my head about. there was a discussion about that. i asked the president about signing the keystone pipeline bill. i would be happy to stand by him . he said he was going to veto that. i asked if he would consider allowing the united states to export crude oil, and he said he was open to the discussion. i was encouraged there were some areas we could find to work together.

>> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good job, john. >> late monday afternoon the senate decided to move forward with a bill to fund the homeland security department while blocking executive actions on immigration. the vote was 47-56 with the measure needing 60 votes to pass. majority leader mitch mcconnell moved to break an impasse over funding for dhs by allowing a standalone vote against president obama's immigration order. current funding expires friday admit night. coming up next, a

cyber security conference hosted by the new america foundation. first, and as a director mike rogers discusses the impact of the edward snowden leaks. then a look at how the syrian government is deploying cyber attacks. then a look at cyberattacks posed by other countries. keep track of the republican-led congress and follow new members through its first session. new congress, best access on c-span c-span 2, c-span radio and c-span.org. on the next washington journal north carolina congressman walter jones talks about the use of military force. then sheila jackson lee looks at immigration issues and the current gridlock over homeland security spending. after that state and local

government debt collection practices. live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern, and you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. sally jewell testifies tuesday before the senate energy and natural resources committee about her department's budget. the interior department budget request is $13.2 billion, an 8% increase over 2015. you can see that live starting at 10 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this sunday, the baltimore police commissioner on the challenges of policing the city. >> it was very clear to me i still had an issue with public trust and people believing things that were said, and regardless of the fact that i

stand and say use of force is down, that law suits are down , people in communities say they don't believe it. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on q&a. >> next, remarks by the nsa director mike rogers. he discusses data collection and what he sees as damage done by the edward snowden revelations. this is from the new america foundation this cash in on cyber security, and it's an hour.

>> thanks so much. we have the benefit of some news i know you would like to talk about. a story about iran and finding out in advance and discovering a u.s. effort to continuing to attack it system and responding with its own retaliation begin in august 2012 including attacks on u.s. banks. the first question i would ask how much of alarm you did iran was able to discover the? >> i iosa have not read what you're talking about. >> it's an nsa document. let me summarize for you because it's an nsa document. assuming it's true, you can also say you have no knowledge of it but the document saying, written by your predecessor, was saying that iran discovered a program by the u.s. followed the stuxnet

virus a couple usually to infiltrate computer networks. and it in part in response to the u.s. effort did iran then carry out its own wave of retaliatory attacks in three ways of attacks beginning in august 2012 including attacks that targeted the u.s. banking system the first question, does that sound accate to you? >> again, i don't want to, if i haven't seen -- in broad terms though, if want of a broader discussion about, so did the actions that nation nation-states taken severely to responses in others question certainly understand that. you know, the united states like many nations around the world, clearly with capabilities and cyber. the key for us is to ensure their employed in very local very formulated, very resonated many. i think you saw that in the president's direction to us in terms of presidential poll is directed 28 in which he laid out about a year ago, sort the signal intelligence come here's the framework i want to make sure you choose,, the principals i want you to be mindful of. this is the legal kind of basis. speed and let me approach it differently in more general terms because the point that

this story raises and will separate ourselves from the story is a danger that a number of major including yourself, the idea of making cyberattacks more costly in order to deter them. the fall on the danger is if you're making those the tax more costly by tearing out your own attacks, are you starting in vicious cycles of attack in retaliation? do we see that with conference in a country such as iran? thagoes back even further. >> my comment with the escalation is not something -- semitism we develop frameworks over time to help us address the issue of escalation, in the market had come for traditional world, i think cyber is the same kind.

>> do you believe you have addressed it sufficiently? for instance, this event, or the other security concern that it leads us down a dangerous path but everybody is looking for ways to deter. with servicing the damage and god does not just a rental country such as china, he also sees the danger of a follow-on. accountable we have a handle on how to deter america's adversaries from cyberattacks without creating a further problem? >> i think close the concept of deterrence in the cyber domain are still relatively immature. workload on i think where we need to be. what i think we want to collectively be. this is still the early stages of cyber in many ways. so will have to work our way through this but it's one of the reasons why quite frankly i'm interested in forums like this because i'm interested brought to perspective, many of which will be interested from what i

bring to the table. i'm interested how to be collectively as a nation come to grips with some fundamental concepts like the cyber command. if you look at what he sees happening in the world around us at the threats were facing insider, continue to grow. >> no question. let's look at the bigger threat. you have iran with a great history back and forth. you have russia, source of frequent attacks both in the private sector and government sector into china. has been a couple of years in china dealing with us everywhere have enormous costs to the business community in the tens of dozens of dollars, plus we know the target government institutions and that some success stealing secrets. people talk about the coming cyberwar but when i look at

that, just as an observer and as a reporter, it looks like we're already at war to some degree a low-level war but with these countries, these are tax with real consequences, real capabilities. >> clearly i would argue that history shows to date you could name any crisis in almost any competition we've seen over the last several years and there's a cyber dimension to it, whether it's what we saw in georgia whether what we saw in the ukraine, iraq, challenges associated with isil. this is not something isolated. and i think among our challenges as we move forward is, so if cyber is going to be a fundamental component of the world we're living in and the crisis and the challenges we're trying to deal with the how are going to work her way through the? what we're trying to argue is overtime if we can get to the idea of norms of behavior, if we can develop concepts of deterrence that latest to collectively to get a sense for how far can you go, what's aggressive, what's not

aggressive, what starts to drip response thresholds, those are all questions i would argue for a spirit it sounds like we haven't even defined the concept. it sounds like you're saying we've got a long way to go. >> i think he used the word we are not mature and that's not what we really need to be. i don't think there's any doubt about that. that. >> i want to ask you, leon panetta used a phrase which i'm sure you heard, he fears a cyber pearl harbor. what does a cyber pearl harbor look like? >> the way i phrased it is my concern is an action directed against come in my case, as a member of the united states military, and action directed against infrastructure within the united states that leads to significant impact, whether that's economic, whether that's in our ability to execute our day-to-day functions as a society, as a nation. that is what concerns me. you've seen some can look at what happened with sony. you look what we've seen nation-states having to do with u.s. financial websites for some number of years now. those are all things that were they, take the financial piece with a successful, ability of private citizens, if that were

ever really contested, think about the implications for our nation and individuals. >> which states today are capable of carrying out such an attack like that? >> we briefly talked about the big players in cybercom if you will, nations we see active. we've talked about are concerned with china and what they're doing in cyber. clearly russians and others have capability. we are mindful of that. generally you won't see here's my assessment of every nation aroundaroundaround the world. >> i understand that there is to read there, china and russia. because we see them, defined that they are in some of these

smaller scale attacks, even one that went to the white house computer system, not the sensitive system but still do you find that they are on the one side kind of showing off their ability a little bit, and on the other side testing, finding the weak point? >> i think nation-states engage in action in penetrating a system in the cyber arena for a whole host of reasons, among the two you've identified, whether it be the fifth of intellectual property. i think depends on the source you want to lose as a nation i think we lose somewhere upwards approaching $400 billion the year, in the theft of intellectual property but certainly the department of defense is an issue that is of great concern to us as we watched nation-states penetrate some of our key defense contractors, steal the enabling

technology that gives us operational advantage as a military. >> if i can we've got a cyber audience here, and i want to go to the cyber audience and give everybody a fair amount of time. so if i could touch on a couple of the topics just -- first on the patriot act i want to set aside just for a moment the privacy concerns which as you know are severe from some quarters but -- >> and very legitimate. there are legitimate concerns for us as a nation. we try to get out of going to strike that competing requirement for security and technology at the same time our rights as citizens, its foundational to our very structured as a nation. it goes to who we are and what we are. >> let me ask you since you brought that up. do you think the current metadata collection, did not get that balance right? >> i think that metadata collection generates how you for the nation. i honestly believe that.

that it does generate value for the nation. now, isn't a silver bullet that in and of itself gear teeth that there will never be another 9/11? or there will be a successful terrorist attack? no. that'sthat's the creek anyone choose i would be the first to acknowledge it is not a silver bullet. it is one component of a broader strategy designed to help enhance our security. at the same time would also realize that in executing that phone records access that we need to do it in a way that engenders a measure of confidence. that is being done in a lawful basis with a specific framework and that there are measures in sight, in place to ensure that nsa or others are using their access, and that is fair and right for us as a nation. >> i'd like you to quantify the value that is generated for the nation to early on when the program was revealed, i was reporting this heavily at the time, the administration bandied about a figure 50 plus florida.

in overtime that figure was whittled down by among other senator patrick leahy to a smaller number where the metadata even doubt he would argue to zero, where the metadata itself is necessary where other programs could not have accomplished the same thing. can you identify a specific plot without bulk collection we wouldn't have been able to -- >> in a larger classified forum, i'm not going to do that. >> does one exist? >> but i will say this. i base my assessment on the fact that it to do believe it generate value for us to now, if you want to define value as in and of itself can you prove to

me that without this you wouldn't have forestalled an attack, he if he didn't have this you couldn't forestall. the criterion i would argue is if the user that then they would argue things like why do we maintain fingerprints? if you couldn't reach me by that collecting fingerprints in and of itself would forestall criminal activity, why would you do that? >> but we don't -- i would argue that's not the criteria. >> don't you think there's a higher standard because we don't think that everyone in the room. he fingerprints when you have a reason to fingerprint. >> if you look for example, at the not think the information retained -- >> global entry. let me ask you this and because the reason i started the question by saying a privacy concern for a moment, because its officials from inside the national security, not industry, but institutions of government fbi and others were concerned that they will lose the tools that they find extremely useful, tangible ability to go after hotel records, et cetera, in the battle to maintain phone metadata collection which day, i speaking only fbi officials rather than myself, say, see it as less important.

>> to be honest i've never heard that argument. we talk regularly. >> you don't, you don't think the fight over medicaid could hold up, particularly wednesday in the renewal or extension up 215, other more useful tools in fighting terrorist? >> is it possible? yes. my comment would be the value of this effort and the legal framework to continue it is a conversation we need to in and of itself. what do we think? does the progress that's currently with the limits that we are directed by the president, or changes the congress, because remember this is all derived from a law passed by congress, patriot act specifically section 215 of the act. and should congress decide as they look at them because no action is taken the authority expires on the 31st of may, 2015 in which case on the first of

june we could no longer access this data and try to generate insights a connection between activity overseas and potential activity in the united states. matching member that's what drove this in the first place. and the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, e3 the 9/11, one of the comments made in the report was look, you have in at least one instance own conductivity between one of the plotters who was in the united states and back overseas. hey, you guys should have access to this but you should've connected the dots, you should've realized that there was ongoing plots in the united states with a foreign connection. that was the genesis of the idea, how can we create a legal framework that would enable us to make a connection between non-activity overseas, either a nation-state group or individual compact within try to take that overseas day and see if there's a connection in the united states? and how can we try to do it in a

way that protects the broad rights of our citizens? i was the whole idea behind. so i would urge us in the debate on this, and it's important we have a debate, not to forget what led us to this in the first place. >> what are the prospects for renewal extension? >> to be honest, this is a glad to be a serving military officer. i have no idea. this goes beyond the expertise to i realize it's a public a issue. >> if lose it was a great -- greatly hamper your authority to thwart attacks? >> do i think if others and makes our job harder? yes. on the other hand, you respond to the legal framework that is greeted, we at the national security agency, do not, do not create the legal framework.

that is the role of the legislative branch and our courts that the introvert the legality of the law. whatever framework is developed, we will ensure that he was executed within its appropriate legal framework. >> want to turn again to counterterrorism. another issue. a lot of talk with the two intelligence officials they will acknowledge that terror groups have altered the way they communicate. that's made a difference. i just wondered if you could quantifyr just described how much expert your capability? >> i would say that is had a material impact in our ability to generate insights into what counterterrori and what care groups around the world are doing. i would rather not get in specifics because i don't want them to have any doubt in the mind we are aggressively out hunting and looking for them. they should be concerned about that. i want them to be concerned quite frankly. i'm concerned about the street our nation, the security of our

allies and their citizens. so anyone who thinks this is not i would say they don't know what they're talking about. >> d. ofd. have new blind spots jeanette prior to the revelation? >> have i lost capability bikes yes. >> how much does that continue? >> it concerns me a lot. given the mission of the national city agency, given our footprint around the world, us as a nation. we think about our ability to provide insights to help protect citizens wherever they are whether they be out there doing good things to try to help the world, whether they be tours whether they be be serving in the embassy somewhere, whether they be wearing a uniform and define us as an about it in afghanistan or iraq today, clearly i'm very concerned as well as our key allies stick out to respond to that?

sounds like an obviously sure but have you found yourself forced to develop new capabilities to make up for the lost capability? >> right. to be successful we have to be an adaptive learning organization, and as a profile of our targets changed we have to change with them. >> i wonder if i could turn again, what's again because i do want to give time to the audience but this comes back to intelligence reform to some degree. recommendations 24 and 25, we haven't talked about it. this was big news the year and couple months ago but it's been as often happens in washington -- >> i hope you know i have it memorized. >> need have i. i just -- one was splitting cyber command, military leadership, civilian through the nsa. of course, we have you. do you think that's a problem? >> no. i would argue -- a specific point as many of you may be aware, i am both the command of the united states cyber command, so an operational organization within the department of defense charged with defending the departments networks as well as if directed defending critical

infrastructure in the united states. that's my u.s. cyber command will. i'm also the director of national security. in that role to prior missions. one is foreign intelligence and the second is information assurance. given his habit and immature scene in the world around us today, that information assurance nation is becoming more and more critically important to so the discussion in the past about a year ago now about so should you separate these two, so have an operational kind of individual cyber command and have an intelligent kind of individual running nsa? the decision was made at the time which i fully supported it when i was asked what has been edited for potentially to fulfill these jobs, my comment was given were u.s. cyber command is in his maturity and it's a journey right now, it needs to get to those of a national security agency to defend critical u.s. infrastructure and to defend the department. in combining both intelligence and operations in the same what we've seen and the lessons of

the worst of iraq -- the last decade to integrating these almost seamlessly generate better outcomes. >> and the president has come to that conclusion. do you think the pressure is off to some degree? you remember the pressure and this is when you were in a seat, but this was an enormous focus from inside and outside washington. we know we have this deadline coming up june 1 but it's not the same. do you feel the pressure is off? the worst fears and concerns of either been laid or forgotten? >> i wouldn't say forgotten but i think we've gotten to a place where people say ok, so now we have seen this work under two different individuals. we seem to be comfortable of the construct is workable, generating value. but if that were to change, we would clergy have to look at it again. >> thank you very much. i'm still going to ask you questions i want to give folks a chance to ask some question as well. i know with a microphone going around. i also know with questions

coming in via social media. i will wait for those. why don't we start with the crowd seems you guys have taken the trouble of coming here today. right here in the center of the audience. thank you, by the way, great. >> admiral, thank you for coming. we were talking about the sony attack earlier, and we heard that justice department is investigating this criminal matter and we've seen sanctions from the treasury department. what exactly is your role in this? not just identifying this but do you see any action that you intend to take or have taken in response to the? >> i'm not going to get into the specifics of what as a matter of the department of defense putting up my u.s. cyber command role if you will, we may and may not be the i think of presidents comments about we're going to start with economic peace and then we will look at our time

the potential of additional options for different applications and capabilities, that the positive side i think is the immediate actions remember the hack, that instructed these occurred in late november. this is unacceptable and that we don't want this to happen again. that seems to have had at least in the near-term the desired effect although i would be the first to admit as i said coincidentally just a couple of weeks before i am testifying in the house, i said look, i think it's only a matter of time before we see destructive authentic action taken against critical u.s. infrastructure. i believe, sadly in some ways, that in my time as commander of the u.s. cyber command the department of defense would be tasked with attempting to defend the nation against those types of attacks. and realize it's against a motion picture company. >> during this one phenomenon with regard to north korea is

that china has to some degree, undron being alarmed by some events inside the political structure there. how much help did you get from china if at all knowing the internet is routed, north korea's internet is routed via china. did they help the? >> we reached out to to her chinese counterparts to say this is a concern of us it should be a concern to you. that in the long run this kind of destruction, destructive behavior directed against a private entity purely based on freedom of expression is not in anyone's best interest, this is not good. they were willing to listen. we will see how this plays out over time. the positive side were able to have a conversation. >> was the u.s. behind the retaliatory attack on north korea? [laughter] >> let's make some headlines. >> not going to go there? >> not going to go there. >> to china offer any material help other than listening to?

>> i didn't work that specific aspect of the problem. my knowledge of the specifics -- [inaudible] >> ok. over here. where's the microphone? sorry. try to get to the other side of the room. >> good morning. david singer from the new times. good to see you. >> david, how are you? >> good. >> i apologize i did not read "the new york times" today. spent only my mother reads me that early in the morning. my question to you goes to the question of encryption something that has, by recently. useful in the fall when apple turned out a new operating system for the iphone 650 basically put all the encryption keys into the hands of the users

and said if they get a request of the either a legal request all they could really handle hand over from the phone itself would be gibberish. you would have to go break the code. they have made it pretty clear in recent times even with the president was out in california last week that they plan to extend that encryption eventually up into the clout and so forth. and we've heard the fbi director, james comey, say that this is creating a dark hole that is going to get in the way of their investigation. we haven't heard very much from the intelligence community on this. i wonder if utah a little bit about this whole phenomenon of basically handing the keys to users, how it would affect your own ability, whether or not the computing capability are

building up to its ideal to try to bre that, and with the solution she might have? >> broadly, i show director comey's concern, and i'm a little perplexed is the wrong word but most of the debate i've seen is that it's all or nothing. it's either total encryption or no encryption at all. part of me goes, can't we come up with a legal framework that enables us within some formalized process, a process i would argue me the nsa or the fbi would control, to address within a legal framework valid concerns about. if fight indications to believe that this app is being used for criminal or in my case foreign intelligence national security issues, can't there be a legal framework for how to access that? we do that in some ways already. if you look at, for example, we have come to the conclusion as a nation that the exploitation of children is both illegal and

something that is not within the norms of our society. so we agreed both a legal framework that deals with things out there that would pass this photography and imagery that reflects the imagery of the exploitation of children. we've also told compass can for example, and you can screen comment by the, that's unacceptable. that it violates not just a law but a norm for us as a society. so from my perspective we've shown in other areas that through both technology, a legal framework and the social compact that we've been able to take on something like this. i think we can do the same thing here. i hope we can get past this, well, it's either all encryption or nothing. we've got to find some of the levers we could create that would give us the opportunity to recognize both very legitimate concerns and privacy which i sure as a citizen, slows i think the very valid security concerns about look, if these are the paths that criminals, foreign actors, terrorists are going to

use to communicate, how do we access this? we've got to work our way through this. >> i will walk around the other side of the rim. thank you. there have been reports from cybersecurity analysts anthony snowden documents that the united states is engaged in spyware for purposes of surveillance. how significant is spyware to the nsa's surveillance capabilities? >> well, clearly i'm not going to get into validation. the point i would make is we fully comply with the law. it is provide a very specific framework about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable your want of a guiding principles which keep in mind when we're conducting our foreign intelligence mission and we do the foreign intelligence mission operating within that framework. that's the commandment i make as

director and with a legal frame and we will follow it. we will not deviate from it. >> bruce schneider, we haven't met, hi. your other question is not a legal framework that's hard as technical primer. that's what makes the problem hard. my question is also about encryption. it's a perception and unreality question. we are now living in the world where everybody attacks everybody else's systems. we attacked systems. china tax systems and i'm having trouble with companies not wanting to use u.s. encryption because of the fear that nsa fbi, different types of legal and surreptitious access is making us less likely to use those products. what can we do, what can intelligence community do to convince people that u.s. products are secure, that you are not stealing every single thing that you can? >> for so we don't.

never two, that's the benefits of a legal framework approach. look, with specific measures of control that i put in place to forestall that ability. because i think it's a very valid thing to say look, are we losing u.s. markets? what's the economic impact? i certainly acknowledged that this is a valid concern to i iges if that's why the combination of technology, legality and politics, if you get to a better place than where we are now. realizing we're not in a great place now. >> it's not just encryption but it leads to high-tech executives, the talk by tens of billions of dollars in business laws, whether social media cloud computing, et cetera. should that not be part of the cost-benefit analysis of something like phone metadata collection, et cetera? frankly it's not really a question for you. i'm going to ask you to anyway. it sounds like your technology that broader impact have to be part of the decision. >> i think we need to acknowledge there is an impact but i would also say look, let's not kid ourselves. there are entities out here taking a vegetable is to make a better business case. there are entities out there

using this to create jobs and economic advantage for them. let's not forget that dimension at all. even if we acknowledge it is a problem. >> just to move the microphone around, do we have a question from someone from the media? do we have a social media question at all? on, we will wait a little bit. >> thanks. patrick tucker with defense one. a couple of reports come out in recent weeks about ice isis using the dark web to raise money for bitcoin, the dark web basically a bunch of anonymous computers come a bunch of anonymous users are able to find each other. can you speak a little bit to the problem in terms of intelligence collection of the dark web, what does it mean to

you and how are you going about time a solution to some of these, these really big problems of how to find people using that you want to be found that are effectively using it for fund-raising? >> well, clearly i'm not going to get into the specifics but let me just say this. we spent a lot of time looking for people who don't want to be found. that is the nature in some ways of our business. taken are talking about terrorists and talking that vigils who engage in espionage or other activity, of our nation, or that of our allies and friends but in terms of what are we trying to do broadly, i mean, first i would acknowledged clearly it's a concern to isolate ability to generate resources, funding is something

worth paying attention to. is something of concern to us because it talks about their ability to sustain them cells over time. they talk about their ability to empower the activity we're watching on the ground in iraq syria, libya, other places. so it's something we're paying attention to. it's something we're also doing more broadly than just the united states. this is clearly an issue of concern through a host of nations out there. i think it speaks to exactly what, this is an area where focusing attention on. >> as we move across here, just to follow on the question regarding isis am because when we speak to counterterrorism officials, they talk about isis supporters here in the u.s. different level of the problem that you have in europe, and certainly in the middle east. since the web web is the principal form of radicalization for a lot of these, particularly lone wolves, folks who travel, it must be pretty easy to track, is it not, if it's happening on the web, et cetera, can you identify pretty quickly and easily someone who was going down that path? >> i mean, it's not quick and easy.

renewed out at the national study agents we are a foreign intelligence organizations agency, not a domestic u.s. law enforcement or surveillance organization. so when it comes to the home-grown kind of come in the u.s., that's really not our focus to our focus is on the foreign intelligence that i'm attending to find a connection overseas. and then quite frankly parting with fbi and others to see if we generate insight about activity we're seeing overseas, hey, how does tie into the kitty that we may a minute able to detect in the united states? as my partnerships are so important because we are a foreign intelligence organization. >> it's not as easy as it sounds but -- >> it's not easy but if something would pay attention to, something we track, where we have partnered close with the fbi. we have seen this, it may be a

u.s. connection, it now becomes a law-enforcement question. >> right here. >> as director of nsa and united states cyber command, do you think we are positioned effectively to address the cyberspace as a new domain? and how does that differ from land, air, and seek with the think we need improvements and in what has been? >> so do i think we're where are where we ought to be? no. part of it is just my culture. you're striving for the best striving to achieve a check to. you push yourself. i would say we're in a better position in many ways and the majority of our counterparts around the world. we put a lot of thought into this as a part of the u.s. cyber command, for example, will celebrate our fifth anniversary this year. so this is a topic that the department has been thinking about for some time. in terms of what makes this challenge and what makes it

difficult, is let's look at this from defense. one of the points i like to make is, so we're trying to defend and in the show should have been built over decades literally and most of which was created at a time when there really was no cyberthreat. that we're trying to defend infrastructure in which redundancy, resiliency and defensibility were never designed here. it was all about building a network that connects the and the most efficient and effective way with a host of people and let's be too much. you didn't worry about what people -- when we designed concerned that people's ability to penetrate, to manipulate data, to steal data really wasn't a primary factor. so there's also a component in the department is looking to change our network structure something that those are really

coordinated statistics but so that's a chance to we are trying to work our way on the offensive side. kind of ghost one of the questions that was asked, how do we do this within a broader structure that jibes with the law of -- remember, when you look at the application of cyber as authentic tool, it must fit within a broader legal framework. thnorms that we have come to take for granted in some ways in the application of kinetic force dropping bombs. we've got to do the same thing that clearly we are not doing it. >> this gentleman has been patient over here. >> admiral, i'm a retired navy cryptic office among other things. >> a fine man. >> i was a mket with another colleague that we were having the same discussions 20 years ago.

there has been progress. there's cyber command, there's the fbi. but why is it taking us so long to grapple with this compare to, say, the advent of nuclear weapons and that the national city act of 1947? >> my first comment would be, i got was a cryptologist 20 years ago i don't remember having that conversation. in terms of, say the last part about again. why has it taken so long, right? >> i do not want to minimize the progress, and your position idea of progress, but it is taking us a long time. if it's not 20 years, then it's 15 and that convicted much more compressed timescale for other cataclysmic changes in national security in the middle of the last century. >> take for example, the nuclear example. we take for granted today the nuclear peace and something with berries established norms and he

become well-established principle of deterrence. my comment was did how long -- we take it for granted now because we look at over almost 70 years since the actual development of the capability. we taken for granted now but if you go back in the first 10, 20 years, we were still debating about what are the fundamental concepts of deterrence? this holiday of mutually assured destruction. it didn't develop in the first five years, for example. all of that has taken time. cyber is a different. i think among the things that complicate this is the fact that cyber really is unsettling in terms of the way we often look at problems but if you look at the military can we often will use geography. it's we have a center command one at the european command, a southern command. cyber doesn't recognize geography but if you look at the attack from north korea against sony pictures entertainment, it literally bounced all over the world before got to california.

infrastructure located on multiple continents in multiple different geographic regions. cyber also doesn't really recognize this clear delineation that we as a nation have generally create overtime about what's the function of the private sector, which the function of the government, and how does this whole national security -- cyber tends to blur that because the reality is, for example, if i go to work and i'm using at work literally the fact same software, t same device i'm using at home on my personal. it just has blurred the lines so that makes it very, very complicated. but i share your frustration in the sense that it's not asfast as i wish it were.

but it isn't from a lack of effort and it's not from a lack of recognition. [inaudible] >> thank you, admiral, for coming. i'm with yahoo!. it sounds like you agree with director comey that we should be building defects into the encryption in our products so the u.s. government can decrypt -- >> that would be your charterization. >> i think bush schneider and all of the best public cryptographers in the world would agree that you can't just build back doos.r it's like drilling a hole in the windshield. >> i to world-class doc rivers at the agency. we agree we don't -- >> ok. we will agree to disagree on that. if we're going to build defects, backdoors our golden master key fothis government to think we

should do so, we have but 1.3 billion users around the world should we do so for the chinese government, the russian government, the israeli government, a french government, which of those we give backdoors to speaks on that point, the way you frame the question, response be deeply we should build back doors for other countries? >> my position is i think that one this is technically feasible. it needs to be done with on a framework. i'm the first to acknowledge that. you don't want the fbi and you don't want the nsa. what are we going to access and what we going to not access? that should be for us. i just believe that this is achievable and will have to work our way through it. i'm the first to acknowledge there's a national relation to this. i think we can work our way through this. >> so you do believe that they

wished build those or other countries you think that pass laws? >> i said i think we can work our way through this. i said i think we can work our way through this. >> ok. nice to meet you. thanks. [laughter] >> thank you for asking the qution. is going to be some areas where will a different perspectives, and it doesn't bother me at all but one of the reasons why quite frankly i believe in doing things that is, i say look there are no restrictions on questions but you can ask me anything. because we've got to be one as a nation to have a dialogue. this simplistic characterization of one side is good and one side is bad is a terrible place for us to be as a nation. we've got to come to grips with some really hard fundamental questions. i'm watching a risk and threat to this while trust has done that. no matter which are due on the issue is or issues. my own, would be that's a terrible place for us to begin right now. we've got to figure out how we can achieve that. >> for the last technological knowledge but which would only described in this room, just so we're clear, you're saying it's

your position that encryption programs, there should be a backdoorbackdoor to low althin a legal framework presumably approved by whether the congress or some civilian body the village to go ain backdoor? >> backdoor is not the context i would -- when i use the phrase background, that's kind of shady. why would you want to go in the front door? we can create a legal framework. this isn't something we have to hide per se. you don't want us to know about it. but i think we can do this. >> you want that capability. i do want to get to the back but do we have a social media question? [inaudible] >> fantastic. we have 13 minutes to go. i see you in the back so we will get there as well spent first i would note that according to the internet and some of our fine profile twitter users we are now 20. so newamcyber is now ending. >> what are we in relation to

bergman? [laughter] >> ok. so here is a selection. based on the previous comment about backdoors for russia and china, christopher, by the way i made pronounce half of these things incorrect, the question is, our foreign governments spun on cell phones in washington d.c.? our phones secure, and if so what could be done? >> i did near the beginning in our foreign governments spun on our cell phones in washington, d.c.? our phones secure what should be done? >> to i think our nation's is run world attended to generate insight into what we're doing as individuals? i think the answer to that is just. the second question was doing think -- >> what do you think we should

do about it? >> well, one thing, remind people is don't assume that, there's a reason why we have unclassified system in this department. there's a reason we have classified systems and unclassified systems. so for dod users i was reminded will, we are potential targets make sure you're using a cell phone, for example, in an appropriate way just as i make sure i use mine. otherwise the standards of encryption we talk about, get a not arguing encryption is a bad thing. nor will you hear me say secure it is a bad thing but i'm a u.s. person, a u.s. citizen. i use cell phone. i use a laptop. i want those systems to be ever bit as if myself and my children as you do but i as you do to understand figure out how do we create a construct that lets us work between two very important viewpoints. >> ok. so the question i'm sure came partially out of the concept of encryption of commercial cell phones.

so on that point from russell thomas, what can be done institutionally to make collaboration between the private sector and the government marginally better on cyber sector be? >> clearly i would second the thought. i think clear this isn't a significant improvement. i think on the government side we've got to semper fi things. one thing i constantly tell my counterparts is look, let's be honest, if you on the us and looking in, india and cybersecurity, it is a complex. we've got to simplify this. we've got to make it easy for our citizens, for the private sector for us to interact with each other, to ultimate ghetto subsidization we can share information real-time in an automated machine to machine way. given the speed and complexity of the challenges we're talking about in cyber that's where we've got to get and put got to work our way through how we going to do the in the u.s. government homeland security the department of homeland security 30 place a central here. our capabilities support demand of u.s. government partners in our attempts to do that. >> on that topic as a journalist

i've asked the nsa whether my cell phone communications have been monitored in any way. i submitted through proper channels i got a response. we appealed. and we got a stock response. i'm a journalist, as part of the work i spoke to people who i would imagine you might want to listen to. why as an american, a law-abiding american can why won't the nsa tell me if you've looked at my phone communicate and? >> first, if you ask me to record, i don't know. >> but it's a policy because they told us the same thing. >> look, it is a matter of law. to do bulk collection against the u.s. person i must get a court order. i have to show a valid basis for why we are doing that. is there a connection with a foreign nation? i.e., the u.s. person is acting as an agent of a foreign country. yes, that does happen.

is that u.s. person part of a group, sai isil as an example, was attempting to do harm bikes i have to show a court a legal basis for the why. and it can't just be we don't like journalists. >> i wouldn't -- >> that's not a valid legal reason. >> but if that were to happen you would've had to that a court order to put that something you wouldn't tell the person who wasn't old? >> no. >> i have one more -- >> then we will go to the back. >> so from john, the question is based on last weeks announcement or research that they've announced there wanewss hat firmware hacking. has the firmware of routers or repeaters been similarly hacked? and if so, with this compromise the architecture of the internet? >> my quick answer would be no. but in terms of, i go to the

first part. i'm aware of the allegations that are out there. but i'm not going to comment aboutthem here but in terms of based on what i've read, does that lead me to believe that the >> am a professor of internet studies at georgetown and recently started working for a company that protects millions of companies around the world. i was at the cyber summit the white house did a week and a half ago and one of the topics you kept hearing was about how american companies are very uncomfortable sharing information with the u.s. government if they cannot share that same information with dozens of other governments. i will be curious to know how we can decide which government are ok to share with and how we deal with the fact the belgians and the french and the turks and everyone else wants to know what we are sharing. our customers want to know that, too.

>> it is where legal framework becomes very important. i certainly understand. do not get me wrong. that idea is not unique to cyber, for example. you name the business segment and just because we share some thing internally does not mean we do so automatically everywhere around the globe. i would argue cyber is not exactly in this regard, nor is the challenge. the private sector needs to cyber. -- needs cyber. >> there is one way in the back. we have to be g geographically fair. >> listening to the conversation today, one thing that is fairly clear, we need to decide what

the social norms are around policy and legal framework. listening to you all the social norms are not worked out yet. what is the process by which we get the dialogue going so we can figure out what those norms are which have to proceed figuring out what the policy and legal frameworks are? >> i think interaction like this are part of the interaction with our elected representatives. they are the ones who create the legal framework. so i encourage all of you, all of us citizens to articulate our viewpoint to help them understand the complexity of this issue and help them understand just what our viewpoints are as were trying to work our way through this. the other thing, at least for me, i'm trying to do outreach as well in the academic world. one of the things i'm struck by is, and to go back to your question, if you go back and look at some of the foundational

work that was done in nuclear terrence theory, for example much of that back in the '40s and '50s was done in the academic arena. much of the original writing kissinger and others, there was a strong academic focus on so how are we going to understand this new thing we call the atom bomb? i'm trying to see is there a place in the academic world for the king of discussion? how do we get to the selective of a social norm and what are we comfortable with? >> way back. >> thank you. sputnik international news. question -- >> leeann? >> leandra. >> i'm sorry. i could hear you. i apologize. >> i'm with sputnik international news. russian press.

so you've addressed the report and said you wouldn't comment. there was another report on the nsa hacking encryption keys in sim card provider. can you respond to that? i mean, you have said that we need to have a discussion, a public discussion, so how would you get that started by addressing these allegations speak with the first comment -- >> i've heard these allegations are some period of time. i don't think they're unique. and again my challenge as an intelligence leader is even as we try to have is dialogue which i acknowledge we need, how do i try to strike the right balance between engaging in that

broad dialogue and realizing that compromising the specifics of what we do and how we do it provides insights to those that we're trying to generate knowledge, who do harm to us as a nation. so as a general matter of policy i just said look, not in an public classified forms get into the specifics of the very specific things like you reference. i'm not going to chase every allegation out of there. i don't have the time. we need to focus on our mission but making sure we did it within that legal and authority and policy framework. that's the promise i make made to all of you. that is what we do. >> when private companies make these allegations against you, can you address that impact generally? >> i'm not going to get into the specifics. >> we have time for one more sensitive cyber conference and we are trending. do we have another one on the web? [inaudible]

how about right here in the front? this will probably be our last one. >> joe maurer. i will not ask you about encryption. wanted to ask about standing up cybercom. you said earlier you think at this point cybercom and nsa had to let people in the service have said a lot of the process of building up cybercom has been shifting people already are working in the field over to cyber mission forces. are you concerned that you are not bringing enough new people, new cyber experts into the mlitary and your take away some needed cabilities ought to be in the services? >> the short answer is no. i say that, remember in the job before this i was also in my previous job before these two, i was a navy guy. i was the service guy

responsible developing the navy's cyber force. i've lived in that world about how you man, train, equip. i find myself as a joint command with global responsibility across the department. our ability to recruit over time i was concerned about how we can retain them. a decade later collects i was pleasantly support -- a decade later, i was pleasantly surprised. i was glad we were able to gain access to the people we need >> with thed. we will watch this closely overtime to see if that changes. there is no doubt about that. >> final thoughts? >> thank you for your

willingness to engage in a discourse. there are important issues to us and we are able to do this today without yelling and screaming at each other or pointing at each other and making accusations against each other. we have to as a nation come to grips with what is the balance here and there is going to be a lot of different perspectives out there. i understand that. be grateful that you live in a nation that is willing to have this kind of dialogue. that is a good thing for us. are there tensions along the way? yes. it's not unique to cyber and it's not the first time we had challenges like this and it won't be the last. but if we are willing to sit down and have a conversation, we can move where we want to be. with that, i thank you very much for your time. [applause]

>> on the next washington journal, north carolina congressman walter jones discusses a new authorization for military force being debated into house committees this week. then texas representative sheila jackson lee looks at immigration issues and homeland security spending. after that, state and local government debt collection practices. washington journal is live every morning at 7 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation with your calls and your comments on facebook and twitter. now, more about cyber security issues, including how the syrian government is targeting people and the everyday risk to personal information. this is one hour and 10 minutes. [applause]

>> good morning, everyone. it is a little bit cold today but we have to go through it. i believe to get hacked in the west is the same way to get hacked in europe. we go through kind of like -- my personal story and why i am here in the u.s. today. so back to 2011, i used to live in damascus. at that time, the civil movement at the beginning of 2011 -- a lot of people joined the movement when it was peaceful. most of these people were really aware about how the government is really strong regarding the civilians and the technology they had and still have regarding surveillance and all control for the internet and the

infrastructure. at that time, the syrian government used to block all social networks. only the people with background knowledge or the knowledge about cyber security had access. in a very smart movement in march to 11, the government moved to block all of it. these people joined the social networks and it became a really huge movement. it was good for the government because they were collecting information, but it was not only for collecting information. it was not only for social engineering, but it goes deep into cyber attacks. back to june 2011 in old damascus, i got the chance to meet a journalist that came to

film a documentary about the movement. sean mcallister worked for channel four. he asked me if he could join the training back at that time to teach people how to protect themselves online. he is telling me that and there was an agreement between us -- i will allow you to film this but you have to encrypt your data. let me teach you how because you are here as a tourist. they can arrest you for any matter. i taught him how to encrypt. he filmed a lot of people for the movie. very important sources. october 18, 1 a.m. night, i

received a message from a mutual friend. sean mcallister got arrested in a coffee shop. they got his storage is an backup. they got access to everything. he did not encrypt anything and it was like underestimating for the power of the government back at that time. he was sitting in having conversation with other guys and both of them got arrested. he is still in jail until today. she was arrested for three months and they released her and they removed her from the country because she is not syrian. if you're talking that cybersecurity for activists, actually it is important to know that technology date is really

helping. technology is playing two roles and there are very to the important rules to it is connecting people to the other side a lot of technologies that they are helping governments to accept information. i believe now in the new modern movement governments get access more to the information than before. a lot of companies, blue coat which is a u.s.a. company, i mean, it was the main provider for technology for the syrian government, which allowed the government to get access, even to know the encrypted data that we were trasferring between, transferring in syria. for example, a very simple face recognition technology that facebook uses, imagine that technology are actually in the hands of the syrian government how powerful that can be.

today, isis, i don't know if you've heard, isis -- between assuring government which they started developing malware after six months of their social engineering. isis started with the malware recently and here they are, very active. they have access more than the syrian government because they're not under sanctions. so, here we are. i moved to the u.s. it's a group of engineers trying to connect people on the ground with technology makers here in the u.s. in different places. explaining to them that this technology is good to use but you have to improve this technology to make it better to help people. at the same time we are trying to protect people on the ground by teaching them. i just want to mention it's not

only syria. it's half of the world that's been ruled by governments like the syrian government and many other governments. so today i can see the threat is not only, they are not only threatening syrian people but threatening everybody outside. we have seen recently how isis was active online at the same time the syrian army was active online. technology is so fast. i see a lot of growing up in a technology that at the same time i see there is a missed connection between all of these departments. that's what led us to problems that we face in syria. so i hope conferences like this event, like this will bring people from different places of the world and understand better. thank you so much. [applause]

>> many thanks. i would like to invite the first to now join us on stage. [background sounds] >> good morning, everyone. my name is setaepena gangadharan, i'm a senior research fellow with new america's open technology institute. for the past three and a half years i've spent a great deal of time working with groups and researchers on the topic of the digital divide. and today's discussion entitled "is cybersecurity the next digital divide?" will have us thinking about the concept of

cybersecurity in a more everyday context. what does the common person experience and think about in relation to digital safety and security? it's not often as anne-marie slaughter was mentioning, that we use this term in relation to the potential for misuse or access to information. my information as it transits from one person to another. in addition to thinking about the common person, we will spend some time thinking about society's most marginalized members, people who don't have access, not just a technology but to many basic needs. and we're going to do that by engaging three panelists who have thought long and hard about

what it means to be secure, how to engineer a design for security, and what's at stake. joining us are tara whalen staff privacy analyst google and nonresidential fellow at the stanford center for internet and society. seda gurses, a postdoctoral fellow at new york university. and daniel kahn gillmor, technology fellow with the aclu speech privacy and technology projects. all of you have a background in computer sciences, computer scientist by training, and have been involved in policy debates thinking about security and privacy. so want to dive right in. as i mentioned, i spent a lot of

time working on issues of the digital divide, looking at the long-term unemployed recent hints of public assistance typically older adults, perhaps individuals who have limited english thinking skills, low levels of literacy. for example, and low access to the internet. for example, the national telecommunications and information administration reported last year that 30% of households in america still do not have access to the internet, access to high speed broadband. are these individuals were on the quote-unquote wrong side of the digital divide, are the more secure because they are not connected to digital services or

digital infrastructure? >> well, so access to the internet and broadband is only one piece of the puzzle in terms of connection to the digital infrastructure. many of the people who are in these households most likely have mobile phones, and certainly surveillance can take place on the mobile phone network as well as the internet. in terms of people being more safe because they don't have internet access, i think there's surely no guarantee there. and for the population that you mention, people who are in positions of employment, people who have other demands on their time, often things like a mobile phone that has to be on all the time and survive some level of tracking and other kinds of surveillance concerns, they simply they have to submit to them in order to go about their everyday life. so the lack of access to internet itself i think is not doesn't provide any sort of security guarantees for those people.

>> seda or tara? >> i could add also people want to get themselves involved, they want to build a group to get -- and being connected help you build a kind of group. you were not only able to put much of which are vital but you can have -- information was to be put on about you. it may be harder for you to become engaged with the productivity which doesn't help with your security as well. >> maybe it's interesting in addition to the digital divide make a distinction between surveillance divide and the privacy divide in the sense that some communities are more likely to be subject to surveillance regardless of whether it is

based on the devices or surveillance of the community, cameras and the police, and i think we know from studies that women are also more likely to be subject to surveillance or harassment online. so i think there's a divide as to what surveillance means to different communities. there's a second bite into the privacy divide in the sense of who has access to an understanding of what it means to protect their privacy and to claim the rights with respect to privacy. i don't think these groups necessarily overlap. >> so we will come back to that idea of your community connections and security, but i actually want to ask if you can describe to me what does it mean to be secure? if i'm walking into a public library and speaking to a group of people who haven't accessed technology very frequently, or on their own terms, what does it mean? >> so, i think there's some basic things that you like to have for communication security like making sure that your communication is only readable

by the person who sent it. acting anonymously, being able to be part of communities that are not necessarily under direct surveillance by an adversary. all of these sort of things are ways to think about securing your communications and the communities that you live in. not just the individuals but also communities. technologically, provides encryption, anonymity services but it also has to do with sort of behavioral patterns, patterns of thinking about where are the two forms of surveillance like seda mentioned, where those show up in terms of the other pieces of surveillance that you may not be thinking of. >> is that your same take on what technical security meets? >> you have done some great work to show that the fundies are

absolutely insecure, and there's been a great failure and the market of the parties responsible for getting the phones to us to make sure that they are secure and not just making us vulnerable in fact he said a lot of the for a lot of communities their only access to the internet is going to be through the phones actually makes them more vulnerable to these kinds of security weaknesses that are embedded in our current system of information. but i think we need to maybe take a wider look at what it means to be informationally secure. i think that one thing is to make sure that the data that emanates from the individual is somehow security through the phone or communications, possibly using encryption, make sure that the eavesdropping. anonymity means they can use services without nasa identify themselves. i think we need to go beyond. data breaches is also a matter

of your technical security, and the companies that have breached databases should be reporting back and letting the individuals know, and i think there are serious concerns with some of the new information sharing legislation leading to let's say removing some of the liability and what the impact of what that will be on these communities. i think information security is also being informed about how your data is collected and having the choice to use services without having your information collected. and i think it's also a lot about how information is used to profile individuals or used to let's say design their environment. what we see right now is a lot of data mining and data being used as an access to truth and a way of making decisions in policymaking. data becomes kind of the lens through which we look at the world, but we know that especially for communities that

don't have a good representation, that the impact of data mining on them could be very different than on those communities that we have a better understanding of what the data points are, what they mean, what they stand for. so there's a different impact on different emerged that we are not even able to properly articulate it. i think this is also part of technical security. >> if i could add just a little on to it, about the impact on communities. so you talked about people unemployed, so the information security that plays a broader level of security i think in people's lives for things like job security and physical security, the information about you for your communication, and maybe think you put on a social network that you did know how to configure to allow the groups you want to see certain information see it. this can go beyond just as information into your broader lies. a strong impact on someone who is in a mobilize community. >> so it sounds like what you're talking about is that technical

security is really not a sufficiently to think about security among vulnerable communities. >> it's a precondition. having a device that apple insecure which her bones, you can talk about that in detail maybe later them is basically a bad precondition for having anything about that. so it's a precondition. >> let's actually talk about that now.

what needs to happen to the technologies, the devices themselves? you know, what constitutes a secure mobile phone? >> i don't know that we have one yet. >> so in your ideal world what does it look like? >> well, they should not just the devices so that the network is connected to. and so to save we can make a secure has hesitant if the handset is build the networks in such a way that allow access to one group of people that think are the good guys and simultaneously keep out the actors that we might think are the various. to these were quick to have

networks that have security built in at the level of the way we define them. >> so that's interesting because when i thought about the question of making cybersecurity more accessible to members of low income communities or vulnerable populations, the thing that immediately comes to mind is the question of usability, right?