the dynamics. night,er: and saturday the criminal justice system. 'sd then portion of this year idea festival. >> we have got to banish the word he is helping at home. w is not actually taking the burden off you. you are still figuring out what needs to be done, and you are asking him to help. he is not the agent. he is the assistant. if we are going to get where we need to go, men have to be lead parents or fully equal coparents. announcer: for the full schedule, go to www.c-span.org. c-span takes you on the richter the white house and into the classroom. contest our student cam

asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from presidential candidates. get all the details about our student cam contest that www.c-span.org. colleger: westminster hosted its annual hancock symposium looking at security versus liberty. next, kristan stoddart on edward snowden and the balance between surveillance and civil liberties. the remarks are just over an hour. get started.ill have everyone having a good first day of the symposium? it is my pleasure to welcome i'm pleased to have kristan

stoddart, who is a researcher of international politics. in 2012 he was appointed lecturer in cyber security. in 2014 he was made senior lecturer. he is deputy director of center for intelligence and international security studies. he is a member of the project on nuclear issues. a fellow the higher education academy, and a fellow the royal historical society. he has spoken at a wide number of conferences and for various forms of media, including the bbc. he is the author of four books -- really? overachiever, all right. his current research deals with the protection of critical national infrastructure against cyber attack. today's talk addresses and

expands on many of this morning's points. specifically, he will talk about edward snowden and what that means for you in the 21st century. d that he and i grew up about 200 yards away from each other in wales, he is been a good friend of mine for years. it is my distinct personal pleasure and professional honor to introduce dr. kristan stoddart. dr. stoddart: we're showing our age. it is hard to hide. it is harder on some than others. [laughter] dr. stoddart: i would like to thank you for that wonderful introduction. i would like to thank westminster college for the

wonderful organization and the hosting of this event, which has been extraordinarily good. it is surprising, well, a little surprising, that edward snowden is being mentioned so frequently in the course of these last few days. it is of course a matter of record that he was the main whistleblower of what are known as the prison revelations, which have been a source of much speculation, controversy, and general thoughtfulness by both of the united states and some this includes the united kingdom, but many others. right. so, let's look at the gentleman himself.

i will say, before i start, we have some details up on the screen. i find, when i looked into his background, some of the ways he got into the intelligence service -- community, i should say -- and the ways he was recruited and the things that he did and the level that he achieved to be somewhat mysterious. i would ask you to look up, when you get the opportunity, how he managed to get in this position of authority and was able to access this data. that in itself is revealing of a number of systemic issues in the intelligence community post 9/11, when intelligence sharing became very important to the intelligence community. as you can tell, the family

background of public service. his grandfather was in the pentagon on 9/11. when he was interviewed by the "guardian," he was at pains to point out that he or he did not see himself as a traitor. quite the opposite. he felt he had a public duty to disclose these activities. the american public, and the wider world to be able to scrutinize them. they can scrutinize some of the decision-making that went on. he was not a high achiever, which may surprise some. he also did not have a college degree, which might surprise more people. he tried to gain entrance into the u.s. special forces, he went through basic training, suffered two broken legs which ruled him out of military service. the important thing from his point of view was that he tried. he wanted to serve his country.

it would be a mistake for me to note at some point what your views of him are. it's very much is a matter of opinion, i think, whether you see him as a whistleblower, a traitor, or patriot of some color. he was only 29 when all this happened. he is a very articulate speaker. he is obviously a very, very bright guy. this is only 10 years older than most of you, it is nothing, not a large period of time. some of you will go into the security services. the world you go into may well have been changed by his revelations. and the resulting debates that accrued because of what has

happened. he was, apparently, allegedly, only a systems administrator. but the systems administrator role in computer security gives you almost unprecedented access because it is where, if you steal the highest levels of classification beyond those with top security, it is almost subverting the system. this is the computer system, not necessarily the intelligence collection and dissemination system. but what i find interesting is how he managed to access the data. many of you work and secure -- many of you work in secure sites. you cannot walk in and out carrying a data stake. you cannot to gain external internet access. they are what is called airgap. they are sealed off from the internet.

this is to prevent exactly what happened from happening, the x filtration of data from secure sites. exfiltration of data from secure sites. one thing that is also interesting is how much data was actually affected. there were some estimates that it is up to or over 1.7 million documents. that is not a small number. given the fact that there were likely in the form of text only documents, very limited pictures and etc., probably no video, you could do that on sd card and this is how he passed it to the journalist he was speaking to when he flew to hong kong from hawaii. this was a big story for the "guardian" and "the washington post" and various other newspapers that all allegedly hold this data. he himself, when he ended up in russia, and the united states seized his passport, did not

have in possession those documents. that is what he claims. of course, the counterclaim is sb and the russian government would be very interested in what he had in his possession. similarly to the chinese, maybe some dubious destinations. america's two biggest adversaries -- not at war, big trading partners, but nevertheless adversaries of a different kind. to illustrate some of the context, part of what the national security agency does is

analyze intelligence, it signals intelligence agencies. what is being argued through prism is that they did not just target foreign, but also domestic traffic as well, some of which is routed through the united states. the argument being that it scoops up things from your private lives, and everything else in its path. everything you say and do on the internet carries a digital footprint. your browsing history and e-mails, contents, potentially, telephone records -- depending on your usage, and authorization -- utilization of computer technology, you have a minor

digital footprint, or a giant digital footprint. and this produces data, huge amounts of data known as metadata. it's broken. thank you. what is also interesting about edward snowden is that he did not work directly for the national security agency. as for as one can tell, he was a subcontractor and worked initially for dell, who are responsible for installing computer systems and maintaining and running them in a classified environment. they are a legacy system. they cannot be modernized very

well. it's a very important job to keep the systems running. in addition, he then worked for allen hamilton, which is when he decided to flee to hawaii. he only worked for him for three months, a very short time, but he did that to gain access to more data and to be able to leave to hong kong. it is a question as to whether the security procedures in and of themselves are sufficient as well to prevent this from happening in the future. one of the issues you might want to consider yourselves is that of encryption. since the snowden revelations, the use of something called

-- which is partly funded by the navy, which encrypts data, has grown exponentially as a result of the snowden revelations. because it was revealed that largely unencrypted data was brought up including e-mail exchanges. in addition, our connectivity, our communications, are global. they may be local in terms of viewpoint, opinion, and a package of information of some of who sits next to you, but that information could be transmitted around the world. the internet takes the shortest possible route from one destination to another. so, while you think local, think at the same time global. the data that is harvested, and analyzed by the nsa and other

various agencies, can produce extremely highly accurate pictures of individuals, as well as social, economic, and political trends. this is called analytics. it is one of the most remarkable things you will ever see. if you want to look on google, and do your own version of analytics, you can. your friends, family, associations, that is phenomenal. particularly, when smart technologies really are working. say that you control the power in your house. it tells the individual, who may or may not be monitoring you,

when you are leaving, when you're coming home, when you are vacationing, when you go to work, when you come home, what is in the fridge, whether you are married, children, no children, whether you have pets, etc., etc. this is what can be done with analytics. from that, you can produce a huge amount of detailed information of each and every one of you. if you're happy with that, wonderful. how many of you read conditions -- read terms of conditions when you sign up to social media or services? two or three of you? one person? really? to death or three of you. two or three of you. 30 pages of terms and conditions. ok, you are very keen. sorry, you are the lucky one, i don't have time to read 30 pages of terms and conditions. , was saying to someone earlier

in one of the terms and i've seen, they inserted possession of your first-born child. people don't read. it's not legally-enforceable, i don't think area it's not serious area people don't read what they signed up, but it gives you an idea. when you put pictures, chats, etc. on the internet or into the cloud, you don't have ownership of it. you lose ownership of it. that ownership passes to google, to facebook, to yahoo!, and so on. it is not private. think of everything whenever you step onto the computer and log on. it is public information. if you think it is public rather than private, maybe you're a generation that it does not affect, or you are less concerned. i don't know. i would be interested in finding out. maybe it is a generational

issue. as someone who has worked previously as somewhat of a nuclear weapons historian i , always assumed that some of what i was saying or doing online, maybe all of it, was being traced, partly because of the people i was talking to. i kind of expect that. but if i'm not one of those individuals, if it's one of my students communicating to me, be it intelligence related, nuclear weapons related, snowden related, sending flights up for these keywords which go into search engines that it analyzed by algorithms that get fed into databases, which then gets fed into the draw of an nsa analyst. then, maybe, i would be a bit concerned. i might be very concerned, i would be more concerned if i got a knock on the door, or an e-mail that says would you like to have a chat with us about what you have been doing?

i think that is unlikely. but, what it does say is that in a nonliberal democracy that ability is there. i would worry less about the united states. i would worry less about my own country. i might worry more in other places. one of the things that encryption does is allow people in repressive regimes to talk more openly without fear of persecution, without fear of locking the door with someone with a gun behind it to take them away. it does happen. it has happened. there are good reasons for encryption. there were good reasons for non-intrusiveness. they were good reasons to think carefully about the principles underpinning data collection programs.

part of the releases, or the disclosures, was presidential policy directive 20 back in 2012. which i would invite you to look at. it laid out, among other things, defensive cyber offense relations. the military, government people in general love acronyms. it is an alphabet soup. i get lost. it is easy to get lost. it is also shrouded in legalistic and diplomatic language. it has been said that the existing legislation has been extended to cover things it may be should not or was not intended to cover.

both from a legal and political standpoint that is probably what we should be covering. what you should notice from this extract is the -- i'm sorry, -- ppd 20 required the cooperation of private companies who owned the cyberspace. even big providers that you and i use on a daily basis. some of these were cooperative, and some of which were -- had reservations because of what it entailed. this debate has been had backward and forward regarding whether providers should actually be part of the policing of the internet.

thus policing with a small p rather than a big p. there is no overarching global police force to look at these issues. it is partly self policed, and is partly also about whether or not you believe in something called internet freedom, whether or not you want the internet to be unregulated, largely uncontrolled by nationstates, largely a process driven by you. or whether or not they should be other involvement. if so, what is the level of state involvement. what is the level of private companies. to what extent should it be unregulated? to what extent should it be policed? would you allow illicit trade in in child handguns, pornography, in things that we deem to be illegal?

it also encourages terrorism, it is a method of recruitment, and it is also a method of recruitment -- communication. which is a way of targeting individuals involved in terrorist activities. or who run counter to ideas of national security. it is partly here that the dilemma lies between wanting to protect yourself from bad guys, the bad people, and if so, what are you prepared to do? are you prepared to give up your privacy? elements of your civil liberties? if so, how much? where are the intersections, where are the boundaries? at one point to you, as individuals, say stop, that is enough? we need for thought -- to discuss this. this needs to be thought about.

if it is a piece of legislation, as we have seen in the last couple of days, it is unlimited because technology changes and our attitudes change. we need to think a little more carefully about where this is all going. and this, where we are right now, where this technology will head in the next even five years is very hard to predict. more smart technology will come

along, more metrics, artificial intelligence will increase. this is already being used in both the public sector and the private sector. it is partly government-funded, it is probably private funded, it is part of it universities, and is partly in the hands of individuals. biometrics, smart technologies, will all combined to produce something different and change again. it reaches into each and every one of us, and it will be remarkable. either that, or we opt out. we always have that option, turn off the internet, turn off the lights. there is so much to consider if you are an analyst or looking at it from the protective side of the fence. this diagram is from a cyber primer which was produced by the u.k. ministry of defense. it did so in partnership with the government communications headquarters which is the nsa equivalent. it is an alternative way of

thinking, it is the way that the agencies have been trying to think. it is layered, it is tiered. it is expanding, it can track human interactions. but if you're going after someone, at some point in time you'll have to find them. in some cases, you have to either kill them, or place them on trial. in some jurisdictions, that will be impossible. there is so much for can actually talk about in terms of, how many of you have cell phones?

i assume most of you, if not all of us. look, it would almost be -- it would be an enormously surprising if we did not. the cell phones of the produce can produce data which tells our locations, which mixes -- makes us very vulnerable in some sense to being found. if someone wants to find us, how they go about it is a method that uses very of different methods of tracking, trailing, and tracing. it uses social media, e-mail records which are used by your laptop, phone, although this is

used to build up certain pictures. we also know that the nsa and other agencies, through partnerships agreements, have secretly attached intercepts to the fiber-optic cables that run through this world. these are the architectural backbone of the internet. they are a key enabler along with satellite technology of the global technology that we take for granted. once this provides a high degree of access to global communications, it also subverts our liberties and national freedoms. edward snowden told the journalist glenn greenwald of that he did not want everything he said, every expression of love, to be recorded. but you see metadata using the vast resources that are generated by the internet, and

this is in the chileans -- quintillions of data everyday. everything you do, or speak, can be recorded, played back, analyzed, can produce such a picture of your life it is incredible from the cradle to the grave. there are examples of people now understandably putting pictures of the unborn child on facebook. that is fine in and of itself, and you find baby photos, first birthday, growing up, they do it to themselves. i think the age of facebook to -- to sign up is something like 16. but certainly people that i know have children that signed up much younger. it seems like a benign thing to do. what happens over time? that produces such a detailed picture of the person's life, it is something a future employer, whether a government department, or a mainstream business can

look at, analyze, interpret, and decipher whether to take that job or if they don't. they may not like certain things that they see. like i said earlier, nobody reads the terms and conditions. you can request to have it taken down, whether or not you will be able to -- if not, that will be difficult. whether you want an employer to see a picture of you dancing, may be doing something you should not do, maybe something benign -- totally incongruous, but they decide on the base of that sorry, there is a better candidate and i don't like the look of that person. that is because you did something for or five years ago on one night, for a moment, that is captured. it is a selfie, someone else is

taking our picture and a tag you in it. it is not you, it is not representative of you, but with analytics, and the depth of data that is found on facebook, twitter, and so on, your life is revealed as a totality. again, our you happy with that? if you thought about that, fine, good. this is accessible to companies, to corporations, to external partners, who do go through this process. and the government, including your own, again, if you're comfortable, fine. if you have not thought about it, fine, that is your democratic right.

it is one i suggest that you exercise. to give you a further example, there are many dimensions to prison, as you can see from this picture. there are some programs within programs, some of which are still classified, some of which are still not being revealed, and some of which have been moved on partly because of the revelations and because technology moves at such a pace in this is not based to me talking to people in the intelligence community. of those which have been publicly revealed, and which

give some smaller insight into what technology is capable of doing, and what the scope of revelations actually reveal, that is an internet targeted database system that is a form of data mining. given the amount of information put out there, including things are, myself, put out, a great deal of information could be found. it is able to draw on everything a typical user does on the internet which includes web and search is to raise -- search histories. another examines facebook chance and private messaging. nobody reads the terms and conditions, it is not private. the legislation is being used to move into this space. to move into social medai, and to be honest, if not the nsa, it is the chinese, other countries.

to my mind, this has to be thought about as more of a global level issue. you can look at it only to the lens of snowden, but i would suggest this is more than a national issue. it is more than a national security issue, it is something we should discuss in the terms of economic -- internet freedom. it is all part of the package. do you accept a measure of policing? if so, where did the boundaries lie? that is probably the main take-home message from this talk, where do these boundaries lie? policing, control, regulation, and internet freedom?

and your own personal civil liberties? to give you some of the justifications for these kind of programs, one you need to look at which is the 14th anniversary of 9/11. it is like the kennedy assassination, everyone remembers where they were, it was incredibly shocking. nobody wants to repeat it, and it was preventable. that was a big deal from the commission report, it was preventable. we see it on a daily basis now, there are these bad people in the world, they don't respect the rules of the game. we also have to respect our laws, our value system, and this is the state of justice and the

degrees of freedom and liberty. but to prevent what is been destroyed by leon panetta -- described by leon panetta as a possible cyber 9/11, that is partially what i deal with through my projects, it is a very high and level. if these, and others, of a lower order at the intelligence agencies are trying to stop and prevent them. general alexander, the commander of u.s. cyber command, and director of the nsa, says these programs, together with other intelligence, have predicted the united states from power threats across the globe over 50 times since 9/11.

that is in over 20 countries around the world. he added, i believe we have achieved this and a relative safety that does not compromise the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. they are critical to the intelligence community's efforts to connect the dots. yeah, it is those disparate dots that the programs do, along with human analysis. this is what a human being will do, this is what artificial intelligence will do. nobody wants to see another 9/11, or worse, a cybergeddon scenario. but, where is the balance? -- but where is the balance?

would you want to see your data, pictures, geographic data, when it images taken of you wherever it might be, you can see on facebook across the globe, we know who you're with, we know what you are doing. it is very short steps to produce a detailed mosiac of life from that. but if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. there are a cascade of facts we need to think about. like i said, i do not think this is solely a national security issue. i think this is to be discussed a globally. if you look at global health, and other things, where not to good at it. we don't seem to have the tools in our vocabulary.

this is something we need to move forward with, i believe. you will also ask whether or not the oversight has been sufficient. there have been, not only in the united states, but across effective countries, new zealand, australia, canada, germany, particularly, has been shocked by the revelations in the depth of the spying that went on. and actually, perhaps it still goes on. whether or not the national judiciary court and in camera

provisions through is enough oversight for you, or for us as a community, or globally, is a valid question. it has gone too far for some of us. the people in the intelligence community, and the securities, says does not go far enough. to give you an example, a member of the australian government, this is one of the partner nations in the long-standing agreement, noted that the u.s. may be able to brush aside some diplomatic fallout from the snowden leak, but that may not be the case roster of it, china, malaysia, and other countries who may respond to us.

it is also judged to have a much greater impact than the manning leaks which brought julian assange and wikileaks into the limelight. they are all part of the same package. those that expose internet freedom, this should not be secret. isthere should not be secret between a government and its citizens. we have to draw boundaries for the protection of me, of you, of us. again, this is a great relief if you have -- the revelations regarding prison intelligence gathering and analysis are shaking the trust between the u.s., the u.k., and other nations, and also in key elements of the private sector.

and in civil society. we need to better understand the need to share information, and to protect that information. we also need to be careful of inside threats, if snowden showed anything it is that they are alive and well. and foreign intelligence to attempt to install agent in various companies in order to obtain access to business information on their systems, or

to infiltrate the data for a malicious purpose. risks for the private sector, the government, for us as individuals, are ongoing and growing faster than our capabilities to act. this is partly technological determinism, we can see around the bend, we can see to a limited extent, but we don't see everything and we don't know necessarily where all of this is leading to. this is a snapshot of where we are now. if we don't have an informed debate about it where we want to be in five years time, you could be in an and comfortable position. your privacy could be extremely limited and a way that it is already compromised. if you are happy with that, if nobody says anything, that is probably a bigger problem, and a bigger issue. first, it does not only emanate from individuals, some of which are well-organized, some of which are based in hard-to-reach jurisdictions, they can also be for industrial competitors,

foreign services, or simply hackers and want to find out what they can do, there are lots of cases of these people. there are also hackers groups like anonymous who tend to be of a younger generation, who draw on political and ideological rationales, some of which will resonate with each and every one of us. the growth and complexity of the attacks has seen enormous a growth. and, quoting from one of the intelligence services, what was considered an attack a year ago might only be downloadable now when require no expertise to use. i would not suggest you go looking for them, but they are there, they are very easy to find, search engines to find backdoors into systems into looking at aspects of critical

infrastructure, to look at shipping, to look at electrical grids, to look at which airline is passing overhead. that is all widely available. in fact, it is very interesting to look at. it can also be used for nefarious purposes. increase your awareness, increase your knowledge, have a greater understanding of the issues that mr. snowden releases. understand your own lives, and the context. we all use these services, they are not unique to us as citizens , to someone in britain, australia, canada, germany, you as are not unique to united states citizens, to me or to you as brits, to someone in

australia, susan -- new zealand's my canada, portugal, germany, switzerland, russia. the amount of information is incredible. it is insightful, and his it is almost orwellian. data mining, data analytics, social engineering, can produce such a detailed map of your lives from the cradle to the grave. you need to think now. is this the world you want, is this internet you want, is is the connectivity that the world demands? if so, you give up elements of national freedom, and you pay for it one way or the other.

we will all pay for it whether through a reduction of civil liberties, privacy more likely, and also a financial cost. a digital device within the states is partly generational. the availability, and low-cost of the technology will decrease over time. and the take-up increase. -- the take-up rates will increase. we are all in it together. it is like a brain, it is an incredible series of connections. it is the greatest human accomplishment, potentially, i do think that there is nothing greater. is precious. it is not solely the internet, but the collaborations it the decentralization, the capacity to learn,

understand, see things, comprehend, the extent to which this is a bottom-up driven process, and the extent to which nationstates should be able to regulate and police it is a debate you should be thinking about. and i should be thinking about it, and government should be thinking about it, and the private industry should be thinking about it. we need to be part of that debate, engage it, snowden and prison is one aspect of this. it is gotten stronger, more powerful. i will hopefully leave you with some questions. those would be -- if you have done nothing wrong, and nothing to fear, should you be concerned about what i've talked about

today? should you be concerned about putting programs and the snowden revelations? would it bother you if the pattern of your life was forecast in the cradle to grave not only for you to see, but for everyone to see or your government to see? that stretches deep, and a wide, and includes medical data, and various other metrics that you can use. would you want your 121 your 12 you want one-to-one communications to be private? why are you giving your services , giving your consent for services to use your data? one-to-onerning

communications into one-to many. the nsa says it needs all the stated prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. in order to find the needle in the haystack, they need access to the whole haystack. you and i are part of that haystack. you are part of that map that we looked at earlier. these are important questions, this is your generation, this is your time. this is your power to agree with it or disagree with it. thank you very much. [applause] >> we have time for questions? [indiscernible] >> i think we have about five minutes of this is session. there's also an opportunity

tomorrow with dr. stoddard. if anyone has questions, now would be a good time to ask. microphones are live if anyone wants to step up and ask anything. [indiscernible] >> first of all, thank you very much for a very interesting lecture. i really appreciated the information that you give us. my question would be, since the government is trying to, or wants to enforce stronger regulating policies either for their own gain or four companies to get access to more information, in this case, who will hold the government accountable for all of the information that they would have access to, and protect national security? dr. soddard: for the first instance, we the people. you can stay up to read you can

sit down. it's really up to you. up.ou can stay you can sit down. it's really up to you. it is, it is always been, for a process of an illiberal democracy through democratic channels. you elected officials, we elect officials, they are held accountable, and they hold people accountable in turn. but i would question is whether the existing legislation, we can look into whether it is capable, or has caught up with the existing technology. within societal and technological trends, whether or not we need to revisit that legislation. and have a much more informed debate, i just don't think the legislation is capable of catching up with the technologies. it is running at such a pace, and the might of data you can pull off the internet, and different services -- it is

barely touched the surface. it is incredible. it is absolutely incredible. -- the picture it produces of any of us is awesome in detail. you would be amazed. i don't think international law has really thought about it. not in the way that we need to. it's a very good question actually. at thank you. yes, sure. >> how are we a democratic country and yet to our government knows everything we do, so how are we actually free in the sense that nsa is watching us or they can monitor anything in general. how can we classify ourselves as democratic and go around

preaching to other countries how they can be democratic when our government knows every single thing every citizen can do. dr. stoddart: a very good question. i will tell you what. that is a question i would like put to your senators, your representatives and so on. that is how you hold people to account. this is what i was mentioning earlier. this is almost a nightmare, when everything you say or do is monitored. you lose your freedoms. you lose your civil liberties by default almost. i am not -- the trouble is it is not only your own government that is capable of doing this. if someone were to hack into your computer and take control of it or to switch on your

webcam to see what you are doing, they can. the technology is readily available. government has happy to do this and whether the government will do that on behalf of its citizens and the notions of social contract, it is a real question. because a lot of people think it has gone too far. but it is a debate you should be putting to your senators, to your representatives. these questions we asking. because it is not going to stop. >> thank you for coming to speak with us. is it the duty of the citizens of the united states or the government of the united states to be responsible for our own cyber security? whose shoulders should that fall

? good question. onceived, but a good question. not because you were wrong, but the conception of cyberspace can't reflect nationstates. it cannot reflect physical boundaries. it is not a geographical entity. to think of it in terms of protecting national cyberspace is nonsense. it is a misnomer. it is like trying to protect companies within national borders. we're seeing so many hacks, from so many companies, including sony probably from north korea, very likely. the list goes on. ashley madison. etc., etc. we are not capable of policing. it is not like defending national borders when you see an

enemy across the border in can launch a weapon against them. there are both defense of an offense of operations. this is where you get into establishing rules of the game between nation states. that includes russia, that includes china -- to stop espionage against one another. or at least set red lines. you don't go after critical national infrastructure. you don't go after health care systems. you do not try to take flights out of the air and ground airline traffic. that needs to be established for cyberspace. it is a very weak term in some senses. it is bounded in a geographical conception. >> thank you. dr. stoddart: is that ok?

yes? >> i think this is a very sad for the world and sad for where we come from, because it makes the westries distrust the united states in particular, , because we feel like since snowden is running to russia and to china, we feel like those are the people we should be aligning with because it is terrible. so, my question is, since we're seeing all those and we have heard all of the horrible danger that to our private life being out there poses, is there any good news? have you had any positive response from the people you talked to? is there any hope? thanks. i absolutely believe it and hope so very much. i hope i do not leave you with

the impression it is all doom and gloom. we certainly do not want that. the internet is beyond the printing press. we had the alphabet, then the printing press, now the internet. it is precious. it is a great tool. it is one of the great things we have. just we need to recast our thinking. it has grown so quickly. i don't have my cell phone in my pocket, but if i did i could communicate with anybody globally, instantaneously, now. i never had that growing up. my parents and grandparents never had that growing up. it is fantastic. that is hope for itself. from a practical point of view. we just need to think about where our private boundaries are. how far governments should be

able to regulate and police. whether it is the chinese, the russians, the united states. it probably depends upon the political system. these have never been the easy things to solve. there are debates in brazil at the internet government forum. be part of the conversation. you can do it as individuals online, as url and title to or as a member of civil society. there are many groups that deal with the regulation, deregulation, so on. be part of the conversation. the part of the political process. don't think you have been sidelined. i would hate to think that. i hope to god i have not given the impression that they are looking over your shoulder. it is not so much that. in a way, it is almost too big to be able to really control people in the way you seem to be indicating. i am a big believer in hope and

in the enabler that is the internet. it is connectivity and all of the technologies, now and to come. but we also have more responsibility that needs to be refined and to be questioned a little. >> thank you for taking my question. thank you for coming out to talk to us. before i feel like i can ask my question i wanted to restate something you said at the end of the questions you asked. you asked if i had never done anything wrong do i actually care about security and checking into my life? before i get into those, what i feel that asking those three questions defined was how you defined liberty and security.

from what i have learned and hopefully understand throughout the symposium is that right now it feels like there is a very inverse proportion between liberty and security. it seems like once security goes up, liberty goes down, and vice versa. is there a world we can live and where one goes up in the other goes up as well. in proportion. in order to be able to achieve that, would we have to look at the definition of it, to? -- the definition of the two? dr. stoddart: good question. i will answer by way of an anecdote, if i may. when i was growing up in the shadow of the cold war of nuclear destruction, there were all sorts of conspiracy theories. i was 10 years old, 11 years old, all the way up to

18-years-old. the government seemed distant and there were people i never understood, talk to. i would never interact with in my life. i did not know how they were making decisions that affected my life. my liberty, my freedom, my very survival. so, by the time i was in my 20's and started to become an academic, it was one of the things where i got my phd. i looked at nuclear weapons, i talked to the people making decisions. they seemed less distant. it seemed they were not cold, they were not calculating, they did have my best interests at heart. i might not have always agreed with them, and quite often i didn't, but they were not bad people. that goes for people i met in the intelligence and security communities and in governments and in the international audience and police, all of whom i talked to on a regular basis. they are not bad people. there might be bad people out there, but i do not believe it is them.

at the same time, they and the elected officials who make policy still need to be held to account. we still need to have an informed public debate about surveillance activities, about how far we are prepared to go, and in addition, how far private companies should be regulated. stopping interests of this, pervasiveness, things you are not conscious of. if you make an informed choice, maybe then they protect your liberty and freedom. if your choices are informed in you, who of, i salute dr. stoddart: we need to know what we're signing up for.

it is where the technology is an 5, 10, 15 years. by the time your children have children, we need to try to look at what we've done and rules and regulations need to grow with it. it will be a long road and a difficult road. no more difficult than where we were during the cold war. in it.elieve i believe in the future. i believe this is a good thing and good things will result. that is the message i want you to take away. placehink that is a good to end. we will have this conversation more tomorrow. thank you for coming today. [applause] [applause]

forum on up, a fighting poverty and violence. and a discussion on the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. and if you look at the role of women in -- and a look at the role of women in foreign policy. >> on the next washington journal, a look at campaign 2016 and how it is different from previous campaigns. an editor and chief. and editors week continues with craig shirley, other of, " last act." you can join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter.

tonight, christmas at the white house with the first lady michelle obama. this time of year it is easy to get caught up in the holiday whirlwind, making the , the travelrands plans, so that we sometimes forget what the holiday season is all about. but sharing this special time with military families reminds us that this season is about so much more. it is about giving more than we -- received,ght , right? it is about toys, too. that is about lifting our communities every day and every season. that is what you do for this country, whether you are serving in uniform with multiple

deployments under your belt, or survey without a uniform, as a military spouse holding down a household while continuing your education or career. or a military kid adjusting to or eighth newenth school. you all represent the very best of us. >> tonight on c-span, christmas at the white house. he will see first lady michelle obama speaking to troops and their families. and a tour of the white house decorations and the national chris mistry lighting ceremony. -- national christmas tree lighting ceremony. that is tonight on c-span. featureddays of programming this holiday weekend. friday evening, congressional republican leaders honoring former vice president dick cheney at the capital at the unveiling of a marble bust.

>> when he had critics going off the deep end, he asked his wife, does it bug you when people refer to me as darth vader? she said, no. it humanizes you. [laughter] [applause] , a look of. minorities. >> most people get defensive if they feel like you are being offensive, so being very requested of, is not a crisis or dangerous versuson, so a request demand, those things change the dynamic. >> and sunday afternoon in the race and the criminal justice

system. then at 6:30 p.m., portions of this year's washington ideas festival. speakers include former vice president al gore and author anne-marie slaughter. >> we need to banish the word, he is helping at home. helping is not actually taking the burden off of you. you are still figuring out what needs to be done and you're asking him for help. he is not the agent, he is the assistant. and we need to get where we need to go. men do that. they need to be equal parents. >> for a complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. weekend,oliday american history tv on c-span3 has three days a featured programming, beginning friday evening at 6:30 p.m. to mark the 125th anniversary of the