--elevant, harel insults gate ♪ insults, case -- cascaded down the to the channels. and we have a judiciary in if you have documentation, take it to the courts. if you have proof, take it to the court and do whatever is necessary to do. a terroristly organization was very prevalent within turkish history, at a time when they could file a lawsuit whenever they wanted to, and that is what they tried to do. they tried to hit me using that had of my intelligence agency. but despite all these developments, and in spite of all these developments, the

people of turkey made me president by 52% of the votes. mr. irdyk: thank you. we need to go to the audience for a couple of questions, if you are ok with that. i would ask you to wait for the microphone, to identify yourself, and please to ask a question, not to make a statement. tohave an opportunity here ask questions of the president, but we are not interested in having a political statement in the process. i also want to make clear that this is not a press conference. this is a discussion, with policy people in washington. so i hope the media will understand, but call on all of to turned it into a press conference, i want to avoid that. i am the deputy director of

brookings foreign policy programs. thank you very much for coming here and engaging in a discussion at brookings. in your speech he talked about a number of different issues around the region, but that was one country that received almost pleading mentioned, and that was iran. turkey has played an important role and diplomacy with iran, a long-standing relationship. i wonder if you could speak about the reintegration of iran into the international community, and i wonder if you could speak to turkish-iranian ties. finally, if you thoughts on the arrest of -- would be very interesting. thank you. president erdogan: thank you very much. the primeile ago, minister of turkey paid a visit ,o iran, and with that visit

after the elimination of the sanctions upon iran, we had an opportunity to discuss the reason the elements. throughout the tenure of him and within the first few months , there had been certain improvements, and we had a trade in balance between the two nations. but this has not been realized until so far. there was a significant drop in the trade volume of our nations due to these sanctions, the international sanctions. we have a high level strategic cil relations between iran and turkey, and we will attack these issues within that framework. iran iraq and syria, --

and syria, iran followed a strategy that we could not follow. -- a moreave wasted positive approach would have then adopted, whether in syria iran's approach could have established peace and stability. the problem is between iran and saudi arabia, which emerged quite recently. i believe turkey could have been the healthiest mediator in the settlement of those disputes because the region in question needs to become a basin of peace. but sectarian approaches and sectarian priorities lead us to even more challenges. because of the sectarian approach and sectarian challenges aregl about to occur, and in order to

surround the challenges, we are investing efforts of the turkish government and the two nations. zarif was in turkey, and i had a discussion to discuss these with him. high level meeting is going to yield a very important result. about the nuclear energy, primarily the u.s. and other there are significant steps that the been taken, and those are welcomed by us, and we are closely monitoring the developments. thank you. mr. irdyk: the woman there, please. >> thank you. mr. president -- mr. irdyk: please identify yourself.

>> i am really proud of you and our government regarding our and whatfugee crisis, our government has done so far. maindo you think is the reason behind the west being so ignorant of this problem, that they have done almost nothing about the syrian refugees? billion,ent over $10 as you expressed, but the west has only sent $400 million so far. what do you think is the main reason behind their ignora nce? president erdogan: i'm having a hard time trying to grasp the essence of that indifference. if we were to look at the refugee crisis from a humanitarian point of view, i must say that almost all of the

e.u. member states are financially more resilient than turkey and they are more powerful economically. despite that fact, i was disturbed by the 5000 people and 10,000 people who have come to their countries as refugees, but we refrained from doing that. on the contrary, we welcomed almost 3 million refugees which were fleeing death and and imminent death, and they were running away from bombs and airstrikes. we welcomed to hundred thousand refugees coming from iraq. this was our duty as humans. i am looking at the universal declaration of human rights and trying to associate what is going on with the universal declaration, and i can feel that the western countries are not paying much attention to the closet embedded within this.

, they would have assumed much more responsibility to settle this question once and for all. we would have taken a step forward in terms of ensuring the future security of these people. i will tell this for the first time. in the northern part of syria, let's declare a terror-free zone. this is a bit i have discussed with my friends in the u.s. we are pioneering in the ship industry, and we can do something about resettlement in the northern part of syria. 10 million euros in aid can be anvided to refugees on annual basis, and we could announce a no-terror zone in the northern part of syria and

declare that area to be a no-fly zone at the same time in order to provide safety and security for the refugees. on 500 square meters, we can construct small houses, not greater than 150 square meters and size, and those homes could be used to resettle those are willing to leave syria for good. and we can return those who are already in turkey. these places can be surrounded by hospitals, by schools, and the syrian citizens can be encouraged to live on their own land. when we discussed these issues with our friends in different countries, they think this is a wonderful idea, but we can take a big step forward in order to realize this proposal. we can do this, i believe syrian refugees will no longer go into your nor any of the other countries. they will be willing to go back to their motherland and will live happily ever after in their homes constructed for them.

i have shed this idea with my western friends, but i have not received an answer yet. secretary of state hillary clinton and donald trump both support this idea, but the big question that is always asked about it is, how do you protect those people? what troops on the ground will be deployed to protect them? you know erdogan: there are different measures that could be taken similar to those which have already been taken on different locations around the world. in cyprus you have -- line. in the borderline between the u.s. and mexico, you have security forces, and in that military zone in the northern enforcementia,

could be established and the security chain could have been formed. is capable of doing this. i'm taking a further step further. ensuring the safety of the people who are going to be resettled there is a duty of ours. but the fundamental responsibility is upon the u.n. mr. indyk: would turkish troops be involved there regarding this? president erdogan: that would be a necessity, not only us, but all the members of nato will have to assume responsibility and carry out this task. mr. indyk: thank you. i am told by your people that we have to end it, unfortunately.

-- it is a very interesting thank you for not wearing me president erdogan: out more than was necessary. mr. indyk: thank you very much.

an speakingt erdog here. reportingated press

for people were killed, 14 wounded in turkey. margaret brennan tweeted the president erdogan will be meeting with president obama on the sidelines of the summit happening here in washington, d.c. and then photos on what is called the insanity outside the brookings institution during the visit, including byrnalists being abused security personnel. at 4:00, a discussion about smart homes that connect all devices in the home so they can talk to each other. lookedantic council has at the opportunities and risks of homes controlled highway of networks, as the number of

devices is expected to more than double over the next four years. that life in the atlantic council at 4:00 eastern time -- from the atlantic council at 4:00 eastern time. 6:00, we look at saidtoday's leaders have in the press about the nominating and confirmation process of individuals to the supreme court. view, confirmation alone provide a sufficient basis for determining if a nominee merit a seat on our supreme court. >> the thoughtful senator should realize any benefits of bahrain and ideological opponent from the court are not likely to outweigh the damage done to the court's institutional standing. it even goes on.

ideological opposition to a nominee from one end of the political spectrum is likely to help generate similar opposition to later nominations from the opposite end. >> those are some of the programs featured this week on c-span. , the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the series "landmark cases." stories andxplores constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in history. john marshall said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up political structures. but it is also a law, and we have courts to tell us what it means. the fact that it is the ultimate anti-pr

ecedential case. >> the supreme court said it should make the decisions of those debates. >> tonight we will look at the case that struck down regulations on working conditions that violated the guarantee oft's liberty of contract. eastern on10:00 p.m. c-span and www.c-span.org. sciences planetary director outlined the future of the space exploration programs. nasa currently plans to send humans to mars by 2030 and is mapping the planet using a robotic rover named curiosity. >> thank you for coming. we got the e-mail that said that

he was not coming, and that was the bad news. we did not have a replacement then. administrators are cautious. you at are -- we watched the press conference and we wait until he speaks so we can get a sound bite for our radio program because he is the one who says something interesting all the time. it is a delight to have you with us. thank you for coming. so we will talk about planets and planet science, and it is going to be cool. we should start, how many people have seen "the martian"? briefest ofyou the

outlines. there is a guy who gets stuck on off and his crew mates take , they think he is dead, and can i spoil the movie? what happens is quite interesting. what makes this movie so remarkable is they engage people except for one thing -- and why don't you tell me the one thing they got wrong. glaringn: the one problem is that dust storm. deploying science experiments. they are picking up samples on mars, exactly the thing we are going to do in our future

missions. the weather is updated, and a huge dust storm is coming. what is great about that is we can actually do that weather report right now. we have global circulation models of mars, of coverage and pressure distribution over the that based on data we are getting actually do that in near real-time. even that is quite accurate. but what is not accurate is the dust storm is worse than een inng you have saw "lawrence of arabia." very low.re is even though the wind can go 125 miles per hour, it is not enough to straighten an american flag sitting on the surface. sorry.

you may not have realized that. so it is very banal. is cripplinge it from an atmospheric perspective. 30 dust can go as high as kilometers, very high, so at noon it may look at midnight. it can get very dark. one other thing that we found that i did mention to ridley and his team that was not in the book, nor had they planned to put it in the movie, is recently we have been observing that where the storms, dust can get charged and discharged, we have seen after the dust storm goes away these lightning strikes on the ground. they are spidery looking things, really neat looking. also we now are seeing from we catchh our imagers,

a little brightness going by, we saw an area that was bright, that had lightning strikes at the time, and as we go to the next images, it is not there. we know it is occurring. we do not know how strong it is. --know virtually nothing at about it. it is one of those new things that got into the movie a little bit. -- i was wondering, we were >> if a dust storm was not enough to cause them to abort the mission, and that is why everybody takes off, we were trying to think if there was bething else that might severe enough. are there mars quakes? really good question. we know mars is shaking. how we know is we had a

reconnaissance orbiter that if itsee this table move was sitting on mars. a fabulous instrument. we have caught avalanches why they -- while they are occurring. we do not know how active mars is, or whether those avalanches are because it is still an active planet, like the earth is, with mars quakes, or it is from meteoric impacts. .e get impacted all the time we get about 10 tons of meteoric material coming into the earth every day. mars, we do not know exactly how much, but the atmosphere is so thin that a lot of it will make it to the service, whereas most of what we received turns up coming in. we do not know where this sources. we will know a lot more about that when we launched the mission called insight.

that was designed to do a couple things. thatdeploy a seismometer is the most sensitive seismometer we have built on this earth. it is more sensitive than anything we have deployed. it is so sensitive it is going to be able to not only feel mars and whether it can have a quick on its own, but the impacts, and it will observe those reflections of soundwave hooch -- that travel and understand size,re size, the mantle and the size of the crust. it will be the only other planet earth that will understand that. from the human exploration perspective, it will be important to know how active walkingfor humans around on the services.

some of the places they might want to go for protection are collapsed lava tubes. we have found a number of them from orbit. tube?t is a lava like on earth, we have volcanoes that spew lava outs, and that material works its way through the earth, comes out, it is evacuated, and after everything cools, you can get a vacated to. we-- tube. mars.e found those on mars has several huge volcanoes, one of which is so large if it was on earth it would take up the state of missouri, the whole state. it is a huge shield volcano mipica, andoly

harsisis also the t ridge. we take our data from the spacecraft and put it on the web, and many kids and high school students and college kids will look at the data. the first lava tube was found by a high school student. it was a collapsed roof. the material formed a little ramp. if i had a rover, i could drive write-down in it, and that could be an area where humans could easily be safe from a lot of the problems that exist on mars that we do not here on earth in terms of its radiation. >> what about active volcanoes? greene: we have not found

any. we are on the look for them. at a certain mars resolution, not high resolution. thisthough we could see table from orbit, and the mars reconnaissance orbiter with an instrument has been operating for 10 years. we have only observed about 3% of the surface with that instrument. there is a lot of mars we have not seen at that high resolution. and the tremendous discovery that that instrument may just this last year were on these crater walls. we find during the summer streaks of material down these crater walls, and we have known that for many years, several years. they come and go. they all happened during the summer when the face of the sun, gets the

maximum energy from the sun during this time, we get these streaks. we began to see more and more of that. we could only see them with a high resolution imagery, because they are the length of this room in terms of weight, but the link is a couple football fields long. they are really long. slope lthem reoccurring long-livedng these that you cannot see unless you had this high resolution imagery. now we are fighting them all over the place. the best result that came from that occurred last your when we actually got one big enough that our mineralogy and schmidt could look at that and say, what is that material? why is it dark like it is?

it turns out it is water. that means liquid water is flowing on mars. these craters are literally weeping during the summer. easy theories. -- firstre he is theory is we are measuring all kinds of humidity. marc could've gotten water resources a lot easier than blowing himself up, as he did. you could extract the water out atmosphere, because there is a fair amount of humidity in the atmosphere. that is part of that part of logical cycle. one of the ideas is the only way you could have liquid water on , but these times during the year, the pressure is really low. you should not have look at what

-- you should not have liquid water on surface unless it is briny water. indeed, in the slopes of these craters, there is a lot of briny material. is pullingmaybe that material it out of the air. and that was an ok kerry for a while until we found more and more. it's all about them math. and you find out there are far more of these then there is total humidity in the atmosphere. you needed to add water somewhere. is probablyheory one that is right. they are coming from underground aquifers. resource weater believe.

we believe there is an ice plug in the aquifer. ,s the sun heats that sublimated, it goes from ice to weber and breaks through with water pouring down. and a lot of it. excitings really because we have the water table. as you got closer to the equal eater, it is much deeper. like it's looks within a few meters of the latitudes like washington dc in the 40's and above. as you get closer to the equator, it might be tens of meters but not 15 kilometers. so mark watt knee could have gone to what we would probably do.

we would have a well. you might have liquid water down there but as you pull it out it will get fuller and fuller. that is engineering, right? did not knowt he is that there is a crater closer to him than pathfinder is where it is weeping during the summer. >> he is the author. james green: he is the author of the original book. he started it in about 2007 maybe 2009. he has tons of science fiction at home. he would try a few things and he wrote a book that did not do very well and in that business if you don't make the home run

with the first book, you don't get up to back again. he started writing this as a serial and put up the first chapter. he had up to 3000 people he said, initially looking at his website. so, when he put it out, these people would make comments on it and say, this is kind of cool. he put out another one and another one. at the end of the process after about 32 chapters, he had the book. it is all right there, but he had people who wanted to read it on their kindle, ok?

and they did not know how to download a pdf and there were different chapters. so, andy contacted amazon. he took the material he needed to and created a book in kindle form that you then could read. he then put it on amazon. the problem was, he had to sell it. he could not give it away. they forced him to sell it for $.99. amazon got $.70. word-of-mouth put it in the top 10 science fiction e-books. that is when it was noticed by a publisher. they contacted andy and they said, i think you need an agent. let me be your agent. we will give you a book deal. we will go from electronic to hard copy. that sounds backward, but that is how it went. and then audiobook and then we will translated to chinese, and whatever other languages they had in mind. he said, ok sure. and the very next weekend, fox called him and they wanted to buy the movie rights to the book.

and with that, everything else happened rapidly. and now, andy is no longer a computer programmer. [laughter] >> a great story. james green: actually, that was my disaster scenario. they parked the lander at the base of a hill and they could tell he was warming up and it could blow any second. i have been too -- what is the name of that volcano in scotland, i mean iceland that nobody can pronounce the name of? i still can't say it. and when it blows the lid off, not just lava, but water comes flowing down. i'm going to help andy on this

next book. because it is so acidic, or salty, they could come down and cause havoc. they don't know how far the water will come down. you you couldn't -- actually, we don't know enough about mars at that level to say that would be ruled out. [laughter] you might be able to make it after all. here is something i want to pursue about these high school students who are looking at pictures of mars. now, happily my children are no longer in high school. so, they will not be doing this. but i am still curious, how do you connect to the student with the picture and the knowledge to know that might be a lava tube? somebody is telling somebody how to lk james green: in this country and other countries, we have highly

motivated kids where their knowledge for science is almost insatiable. we work very hard to be able to put a variety of material out on the web for them to get access t. we have some really fabulous websites where they can actually look at the latest imaging. steve squires, who is the project scientist -- our top scientist for the opportunity rover, the one that has been on mars roving around for more than 11 years -- he loves to come in first thing in the morning and see what the kids have done. because what they will do when the data comes down there will

be an image here and an image there with different resolutions. these kids will take those and create a mosaic and stitch it together and they know the attitudes and the resolutions and how to match them well, the descriptions are there. and they have the tools to do th at now. so, when he comes in, it is just like -- he has got it on huge screens and he it is like a movie theater and he just walks onto mars. that is when they start, wow, let's investigate this area and get a higher resolution image of that. now, that is part of what they do. we put it on the web as fast as we can. >> i have actually talk to a high school student who is in the running to pick the next

landing site for mars 2020. you know this kid? james green: i do. >> he is 15 i think now. james green: when he started he was 14. >> it is amazing. he has a very thorough explanation of why we should go back to the landing site -- was it opportunity? james green: yes. >> it is just amazing. so, here is what we did. james green: on mars 2020 we had a set of objectives. we wanted to go to a geologically diverse, but ancient region of mars that hasn't changed in 3.5 billion years. that is where curiosity is right now. that is when mars was actually much more like birth. -- much more like earth. it had a deep ocean. it had rain, clouds, ice, snow, the works. and here on earth, when you have

that kind of water, there can be life. we are looking at regions that have not changed in 3.5 billion years that we could actually go to on mars to see how perhaps, life started on mars. we can find those rocks anymore. we buried all those with our plate tectonics and the biosphere. so, we put out those requirements to everyone in the community and that is typically our science people, but you can apply, as anyone can, to these digests and look at what comes out. and alex did. we ask the science community to say, here are the requirements. find us a place of mars that

satisfies those. come prepared to be able to argue your case. for us to see how that goes, we put in a couple page abstract, what your arguments were, and that location. and alex did. the organizing committee was looking at the abstracts etc. and is was fabulous, just as good as any of the other scientists. we did that because we wanted to see how many scientists were picking similar locations and if they did, we would group them. we would say, here is your team. alex ended up as a member of a science team and they were so impressed with him, he presented to the entire science group when we had our meeting. and he is doing great.

he can have my job later. there was another meeting. i don't know if this comes under your purview, but there was a human landing site. >> why are we looking at human landing sites? james green: why are we doing that? when we go to mars we are going to need high imaging because we are going to need to land in a region that is safe. when humans go to mars, there will be places where they can set up. they will be some resources they are going to want. they are going to want to know where the water is. they are going to want to know how to extract oxygen out of the atmosphere. they are going to want to know where the methane vents are. they are going to want to be able to get access to certain minerals that they can grind up

and use in their 3-d printer to fix anything that they want to. alright? that is what they are going to want and what we want as scientists are some excitin g locations all around for them to be able to go and make samples, look at the history of mars. like here on earth, the geological strata of how the earth evolved, we want to do that on mars. so, went every going to do it? if humans are going to go in the 20 30's and 20 40's, what we have a lot of time. the answer to that is no. i have a high-resolution imager that can do the job that has been up there 10 years. it will only last another six years and if we don't pick the site and get the high-resolution imaging and the high-resolution mineralogy, we are going to be 15-20 years behind the times. we worked with human declaration to come up with defining the region the region of interest is called

exploration zone and it is about 100 kilometers in diameter. the rovers will look like what they look like an "the martian" because they are modeled after our mock ups already. we have a rover that looks a little bit like what they put together. and so, they are going to land in one spot in this 100 kilometer area. they are going to do science in other areas. we listed the requirements and send that out to the community. and we got a tremendous response. we got well over 50 sites, for which alex supported, just like we did in 2020. we met and it was tremendously

stimulating. we recognize that there is a huge disparity of knowledge between what the scientists know and what the engineers think they know about mars. >> the engineers will to sign -- will design things. they didn't know methane was on mars. i will give you an example, when i was working with him on exploration, i got invited to go to talk about mars to the astronaut's. they said you have a half-hour talk, come on in, talk about a few things. here are all the things we have been doing on youtube. all these great talks. here's what we are doing on station. it is always the end slide.

it is like me saying i had a great vacation on earth this summer. where? mars is that diverse. in talking to stan, he said just put us down anywhere. and i'm thinking no, it is not going to work that way. you are going to listen to us and need to live off the land. you throw it away, some of the best parts of mars, why would you do that? another instrument on insight, we are going to jam a little metal strip down into the ground several meters. full of temperature sensors, and

we are going to see how much heat actually comes through the surface. if there is a lot, like geothermal -- there are all kinds of resources, all kinds of things we can do if we work together. >> blasphemy. , everybody is working hard. it is now time to get together, even though it sounds like we are doing it way too early, we are right on track. >> i heard of someone in the government, who i won't identify, describe -- don't think of them as silos, think of them as cylinders of excellence. so i guess that is one way to

look at it. >> i was trying to remember, how many active space craft is there at mars right now? we have two rovers. that would be opportunity and curiosity. one orbiter. that is called mars express. >> a very fabulous spacecraft. >> the indian research times organization, isr oh. a mars orbiting mission into orbit. and it is fair. and we have odyssey. and maven. and then in march, launching the trace.

that is going to look like methane. they are going to map the methane event on mars. >> maven is going to look at methane. >> it is not in its -- we know methane is they are, because we have observed it from telescopes here on earth. that was a very controversial measurement. we have all kinds of methane in our atmosphere. we are looking through methane to see methane on another

planet. the only way you can do it is the fact the planet moves, it gives you a slight little shift in its signal. it is able to separate the earth of from mars methane. -- the earth methane from mars methane. they pulled it off, really mapped mars globally, and that was tremendously controversial until curiosity landed. it carried all the gases from earth with it. so it took a while for it to out gas. the methane is coming in spurts. what we saw were vents that occur in a seasonal way. and then curiosity is observing that it doesn't quite track with the season. it is almost like the underground aquifers, there is something generating methane, which is seeping through the

soil. >> is there any chance of traffic jam in orbit? >> no. when we are planning this event, one of the factors we were sit -- we were considering was when insight was going to launch. you can only launched mars every two years. you couldn't do it more often if you had a powerful -- and you could do it more often if you had a more powerful rocket. you need the least amount of energy to get there, and that is good then spending more of your energy on's -- on scientific instruments. what happened? >> it didn't make it. we are going to have to step

back and review where we are. the problem was one of the instruments, which is the seismic instrument, being developed by the french at the friend's page -- front -- at the french space agency. they couldn't get it together. it has to be in a sphere that has no air. and the sphere kept leaking. the seismic instruments are so instrument that even a little mars wind could easily wreak havoc with the measurement. if we needed a vacuum, we opened a port and we have a vacuum. on mars it has an atmosphere and

we have to bring in the vacuum. we have never done that before. this was challenging technically. they couldn't quite get it together. they had several attempts for the leaks that did occur. they decided we couldn't go through the process of fixing the leak and getting it on board the spacecraft in time for the march launch. all that means now is we are stepping back, we are going through a hole review so that the next step -- the french are solidly behind its -- behind this instrument. it is going to tell us a enormous amount about not only the thermal history of mars, which will complement the seismic part, and the seismic part is really important because not only will we know how active mars is but the flux of

asteroids it gets and the asteroid belt sitting right next to it, which could also be a problem. >> there have been impact craters seen in the time the orbiter has been up there. we have some knowledge. >> they have been wonderful, and the reason why is particularly the ones that aren't to bake, something that is a meter across that hits mars will create a 10 meter crater. " down five or six meters, maybe more.

what we see when we pass over with the high-resolution imagers, we will see nothing there and say there is a crater. and when we look at these in certain regions, it is like frothy white all over the place. what happened is we watch that and it goes away. and what it is is ice. there is that ice layer at certain latitudes we are seeing all the way down to 40 degrees. there is a fair amount of water there. they could have blown a hole in the ground and picked up the ice chips and brought it in. he could have done that. >> and it would have been faulty -- would have been salty. >> we don't know that, because the salt was laying on the surface of these craters, but water we don't know enough about

that. it is at a depth where it may be warm enough. >> what we need to do is get an entrepreneur who it be willing to sell martian ice for drinks here on earth. send him up to bring back a couple of tons of ice. it is not surprising we spent a lot of time talking about mars because mars is in the news, and it is the sexy one. it gets people's imagination going. i would like to take a tour of the solar system because there is a lot going on. last year solomon was here and told us about messenger.

messenger is done. ran out of fuel. it did have the same problem of anomalies, meaning they need to keep adjusting. >> every planet we think of is a nice spherical ball that is perfect and it turns out it is not, it is always lumpy. it is hard to keep things in orbit. even earth orbits are tough. the lunar orbits are horrible, because it actually has some significant gravity anomalies. messenger running around mercury, we knew mercury was going to drag it and break it -- and bring it down. eventually it will run out of fuel to keep it where it is at. they did fabulous. , anything on the books to go back to? -- >> anything on the books to go back to? >> the european space agency is in the final process of testing a spacecraft, it is actually two

spacecraft. one is by this -- by the japanese space agency. we have instrument, a really nice instrument on the mission and we help them with the tracking. that is the next big mission to mercury. >> do have anybody to venus right now? >> we do. the japanese are there right now. this is the mission they are trying to get into orbit five years ago. it took two years for them to

line it up and figure out not only what the problem was that how to use the cape they had left. you need these nozzles for directing the thrust the right way. now that they understood their mission well enough to get into orbit, which they did in early december, we helped them with that. we have a whole team of people not only in japan but in the u.s. looking at the venus data. >> why hasn't venus been as interesting? them venus -- >> venus is a

tremendously -- is tremendously important for us. a lot of the really important global circulation models we have of earth that tell us about how the climate can change as you add more co2 are from scientists who did it first at venus. jim hansen was a venus scientist. venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. it's atmosphere is tremendously dense area light from the sun will penetrate through the clouds, land on the surface, eat it up, and change it to infrared light, but then the co2 prevented from leaving. the window, which is transparent , is infrared, which is what happens when all of it heats up. right now it is hot enough to melt lead on the surface. 700 degrees plus fahrenheit. really bad. and the pressure is so bad it is 90 times hours. that may not sound too much.

how bad is it? it is tougher pressure then you see in submarines down in the marianna's trench. it is crushing, which is why it is hard to get to. fina's is a tough nut to crack. -- venus is a tough nut to crack. >> now that i have my venus fortune maker we are going to make a pizza oven. week to earth -- we got to earth.

i know there is an orbiter, a lunar reconnaissance orbiter, that is doing some really cool mapping. it is looking at the power landing site and it is sensitive enough that it can see footprints? >> you can actually see the trails. you can see the car, you can see this stand the lunar limb was on.

there are two backpacks sitting outside that, that they throughout before takeoff. you see all the experiments they deployed, because they all had some measurements they made. we have high resolution imaging that really shows exactly where we were. what we did. >> is there the same diversity? people say we are going to the moon, but you are going to a place on the moon. if we are trying to go back to the moon before we go back to mars, do we need that data? or is that of scientific interest? >> high-resolution imaging is critical. the difference is i'm going to

land somewhere that is a crapshoot to i need to land outside here because i'm going into this building is the difference we are talking about. high imaging is critical. it has such a great resolution associated with it. >> if it doesn't seem to be the same energy, enthusiasm and excitement, we are going back to the moon. >> you are not talking to a planetary scientists when you say that. there is an enormous amount we can learn. the planetary scientists, when they look at the moon, would you say look at all those craters. the moon must have been tremendously volcanically active

to generate all those craters. and then eugene shoemaker studied some impact here on earth and said wait a minute, we have impact here on earth, if we have things here on earth that look like the moon and these are impacts -- by the and of the 60's the whole science community said, -- at the beginning of the 60's they said it was all volcanic. no, they're all impact. a complete 180. the moon is a place with the bombardment history of the inner solar system. it is all laying on its surface

for us to interpret. when the apollo astronauts brought back 800 pounds of rock, we aged them. we found two groups. one group, that was the age 4.5 billion years ago when the moon was made. and another set of rock's younger at 3.8 billion. we don't know what that is all about. for 30 or 40 years, extracting fabulous stuff from the moon rocks, and then about 10 years ago, our modelers -- we started getting really good at how the model solar system came together. here is when most of it -- let's run the code and see what happened. they were having a enormous trouble with the outer planet.

they could not form saturn, uranus, and neptune where they are sitting right now, even after 4 billion years. and yet we knew within the 100 million years it would -- a group of them got together in france. and they decided you have to click -- you have to put the mass of where the material is. let's put them here. you're in a set neptune and then 20 and 40. let's move in 15 or less, astronomical. the astronomical unit as a distance from the earth to the sun.

>> turns out you can make it. and then something spectacular happened. at three point 8 billion years, jupiter in gravitational residences with other planets took them and threw it out. and the kuiper belt that we now know is out there, with all this water. came in with the asteroid belt. what is left of the big activity is there now. there was an anonymous amount of material that bombarded the inner part of our solar system and brought about what we believe is water and created new rocks on the moon with the right edge. then we knew we had it. then we knew our computer models were perfect, in the sense they were beginning to describe

independent sets of data. when it is in the early era, it is really hard -- really hot and loses a stuff like water. where is it going to get all the water it needs to make it look like it is here? now there is a potential mechanism, this muscling of jupiter. what about early life on earth? they would say 3.8 billion years ago, that is where they find early life on earth. if life started at three .8 billion years ago and curiosity is sitting in an ancient riverbed that is 3.8 billion years ago, we have a better chance of figuring out how life started if we started on mars.

these are the revolutions sweeping the planetary community right now. a huge step in understanding the origin of life. we might actually find it first on another planet. >> 4.5 years ago it started. and then jupiter was further out their? or it was closer in. >> it pushed out through gravitational resonance. >> maybe i don't want to ask about that. >> there is some science there.

planets around other stars. the first thing we started to see is these huge jupiters close to their planets. these highly elliptical orbits. when there clouds collapse, everything goes into a disk and it is in a disk that accumulates to create these bodies and planets. they are either going around in a circle or little elliptical, but not a highly elliptical. it is a fundamental gravitational interaction where we must be operating on every solar system out there. that is what gives these highly elliptical orbits. and then there is son -- and then their sun pushes the highly ellipticals into circular

orbits. understand what is happening, we can actually go solar system out of solar system and understand how they are reformed. that is tremendously exciting. >> i want to give people in the audience a chance to ask some questions, but i want to get to the rest of the planets. we want to ask about what discoveries seeing on the moon. i'm not going to ask that question. >> we are up to march -- up to mars, up to the asteroid belt. >> visiting a huge asteroid, the

second-largest one. it is orbiting the largest asteroid. it is about 1000 kilometers in diameter. we learned all kinds of stuff. we are going to do it -- we try to ruin every planetary holiday we can, every planetary scientist. >> it is just going to come into the middle of november. >> not that it had to be that way. and then the next fabulous mission at saturn, that one we could have spent hours talking about. it is all about other moons that

looks like it potentially could be habitable, which we now believe an anonymous amount of raw -- amount of water. and another move -- another moon , which is bigger than mercury, has an enormous atmosphere. it's not water, it is methane. if we are looking for more weird life, can't imagine it, it is going to be on tight. then of course we don't have anything at uranus and neptune. we are looking at how to visit those beautiful gas giants. flying by pluto on that day, which is also my anniversary. on july 14 of last year. now it is sinking its way

deeper. >> and still returning data. took so much data and it is still coming back. ok. it does anybody want to join the conversation? over there. >> what about russia and china? >> right now, we working with russia on what we call in rfp. it is a venus mission and we are in the very early stages of what we call the science definition team. we bring the top scientists that are venus experts and say, what

is the science we need to do? what are the things we need to know? have can we do that? that has been going on for about a year now. the reason why they are critical in this role is because they are the only country is actually put something down on the surface of venus, knows how to do it, and have it survive. they are planning to do it enough mission, and we need to be on it. that is a big step for us. china, we are not involved in their human program, and we are not involved in their lunar program other than we do interact with them when the meat high resolution imaging of landing sites. we have seven direction. but it is relatively minor. >> [inaudible]

>> the administration and the government can't together for a new mission that is going to europa. europa is an object about the size of our own. when you look at it you would expect it to look like the moon, heavily cratered, and you can hardly find a crater on it. the reason why is that it has resurfaced itself. it does it intensive millions of years, we believe. where the resurfacing is coming from is that it is a nice shell, and it has underneath that ice shell, and ocean. and we now know it is there. we can estimate the amount of water, and it is twice the amount of water that is on this planet, on that moon. what is really great, and the reason why this is going on, is it has a slightly elliptical

orbit around jupiter. there is a part of its for bit worried get close, and it much further away. if you just look at the body can and do have title forces when you are close to huge jupiter, you get squished, but when you are further away, you relax. if you are a nice crust, then that has to dissipate heat, and you melt the ice and you create water. the ice crust on europa moves 30 meters every orbit. the whole crust moves up and down. that is a nine or 10 story building. that is huge. this is a fabulous food, and it has been that way since it was

created. so it has water. we believe it has organic skin is certainly has the seas. edit -- and it has the time. all of those stack up word is an environment where life exist. >> could we send a zamboni of their? -- up there? [laughter] >> very good. >> how was that picture taken? the picture of the curiosity. >> when you what to do a selfie, you use your arm or you use a stick. that guy has an arm and on the end of the department has a high resolution imager. it can go down to very fine mineral structures. there are about 60 pictures that

make that up. you do not see the arm, because it does not take a picture of it arm. you might see a little spot of it in one location, but it is the arm. it has done like three selfies. it is one that is just finished in january that posted it was absolutely beautiful because curiosity is sitting at the bottom of mount sharp, where the dunes are. it has to navigate these dunes, which are piles of sand, and they are just beautiful. there is a fabulous picture of a selfie it just took. you can log on to the nasa website and see if it we have a twitter account and all that

stuff. if you're going to be anybody, you have to do that these days. >> [inaudible] >> the question is, what about changes in our own solar system over time? is a mature, is it unchanging, what is going to happen? gravitational interactions are continuing. jupiter is hammering a whole bunch of things. we believe there is an interaction that is going on right now with your kerry -- with mercury. what is going to happen, there are some estimates of this, mercury is either going to get tossed into the sun, or get pulled right out of the solar system.

there is a little bit of debate on how that is going to go. the last paper had it the eggs out. when that happens we need to be on the other side of the sun. [laughter] what that is going to happen in several billion years. that is not our problem. [laughter] it is just nice to know. but it tells us that this whole system is continuing to evolve we're just a little snapshot in time. that is important, because what happened on venus could happen on earth. what happened on march to happen on earth. we have three terrestrial planets were pretty much the same except for the distance from the site, and everything has changed underneath them. so what is our destiny? looking at that, from that perspective, is important. and jupiter is messing with the asteroid belt.

there are interactions that are happening gravitationally. they are pieces of material that actually trying to become a planet, but jupiter would not let it. accretion actually is a tremendous event because it starts with a collision. two bodies collide, and then the material, gravitationally, settles in and they come back together. it is a catastrophe, and it is an accretion of material that rearranges itself. that is how you build up from smaller bodies to planet sized stuff. but if you're jupiter and you have the gravity, after you collide, you do not like this, go like that. the pieces do not go back together because they drift

toward it. that is why the asteroid belt is a failed planet. jupiter is still pushing them around. what we are fighting on now is that a lot of the pieces go inward, and cross our orbit, and are potentially hazardous. we estimate there are 100,000 we need to be watching and monitoring, and we have only found about 12,000 of those. some of them are really big, some of them are planet killers. a few kilometers, up to thousands of kilometers in size. there the hazardous and they're going to hit this planet. it is not if, is win. the more we understand about our environments we can find these objects, so we can make decisions when we need to. change their arms in way that

will not affect us. that is why we created the planetary defense office this year, to work internationally to begin to draw together all the things we can get on these objects, find out where the potentially hazardous ones are, and keep this planet safe. >> there is a range. it could be tomorrow or in millions of years. >> there are effects that are going to be small. in february of two years ago, something the size of 70 meters in size cane in and exploded, and we ended up with pieces. it created a shockwave that blew out windows and thousand people

or so were hurt by cut glass. that is a small one. we are worried about something that maybe 15 meters -- 50 or higher. 100 meters or so would take out the washington dc area. we are looking for all of those. several hundred meters would be a significant gone, and we are getting into kilometers and that would be the earth. what happens in these impacts is the material is exploded, it is blown out, and small pieces does not just fall on the ground. it goes up through the atmosphere and out into space and the planet would drop back in. it becomes a cloud of material is very high altitude that takes

tens of decades to settle in and collapse on the earth. in the meantime it is scattering all the sunlight, making your dark, creating a problem with growing plants. you break the food chain and you begin to eradicate species. that includes humans if we do not watch out. we are on lookout for bad stuff. it is one of these jobs that we now recognize we need to do. ignorance, it is like a two-year-old kid running in the street. he doesn't know any better. we cannot do that on this earth. we do not live in a safe place in the solar system. just by what we know in the last couple decades. we have learned this. in our lifetime we recognize this. we are going to take care of that problem. >> that is encouraging. [laughter] >> there seems to have been a pinch in the number of engines for rockets.

why did that occur, and is it being resolved, and how does it affect nasa and its science missions in any way? >> the availability of launch vehicles? >> we have been buying russian rocket engines for a long time, and congress would like the american industry to kick in and start building them. they are in the process of doing that. i do not see right now that it is a disaster or anything we need to be concerned about, it is a transition that is occurring. we will be ok in the long run on that route. but we're also designing different types of engine. one type of engine that is in the movie "the martian" that we have a copy of is the ion engine. that is important technology for

us. we are creating a sophisticated ion engine now for a spacecraft that is the asteroid redirect mission. that sounds kind of meat, right? -- neat, right? this will carry with it hydrazine, you ionize this material, you accelerated and thrown out the back of the spacecraft. when you do that is like anything in space, and action gives you an equal and opposite reaction. if you toss something that we can it pushes you this way. that is the process of an ion engine, and they are tremendously efficient. one was in orbit, spend a year there, got out of orbit, and ran through the asteroid belt and it got in orbit around series. just like what is in "the

martian" we will be using these as space talks to bring equipment back and forth to mars. that is technology we are developing now. you may hear more about that, but it is a great step for us. >> i would love to hear your assessment for how we are situated for power supply? >> how do we power stuff where the sun don't shine? plutonium 238. it was no longer made, abolished in an agreement years ago. i think it was we have had a 1982. stockpile of it and we have used

and now weosity worked with the administration and congress and we have been given approval to generate it again. it is not weapons great great anything, it is all about generating heat and power. the department of energy is doing that for us. this is a huge step. the ability -- how this works is you bring together this plutonium and it has a certain mass in its nucleus with all these electrons that fly around. it is the nucleus that is important and it is unstable. that means if you had a group of it, in 88 years, half of it would translate into something completely different by having the nucleus exploded.

when it explodes, it rips a part of it away and that part is a slow-moving but heavyset material that then produces heat. when you bring plutonium 238 together, it goes red. like a red marshmallow. encase it and we put it in a longer case that is surrounded and thatl electorates means we take the heat on one side generate the voltage on the other, charge the battery, and we run our experience right off the battery and it just constantly charges. it is like having your iphone plugged into the wall time. you can actually disconnect, because you've plenty of battery, but you still have to charge of the battery.

we have power cycles and we do all kinds of stuff which allows us to run curiosity during the day and during the night. we are in good shape, there. >> [inaudible] >> we had a rocket. ok wow. so we had a rocket that we lost -- launched here on earth, that went to venus. they wanted to look at two things, hydrogen and heavy hydrogen. hydrogen is a proton electron. heavy hydrogen is a nucleus with a proton, neutron, and an electron that runs around it. the d to ho see ratio, deuterium to hydrogen. we wanted to determine how much venus lost in its water. we got great data from it, and it supports the idea venus was like earth at one time with the

ocean and it has lost its ocean. that ratio is out of kilter for what it is today, comparing it to earth. we used the same technique when we looked at mars recently. we looked at ice. ice that is trapped in the north pole that is covered by dry ice. the d to h ratio tells us that mars has lost an enormous amount of h in the form of water over time. so when you back out how much water, that is how you get oceans of water on mars, because of that one measurement. that also was a great information from the venus mission. >> you talk about finding life. are you talking about existing life, old life?

[inaudible] >> finding life, how do we do that? that is so hard to do. let me give you an idea how. we have a group of people will come together and say give us the definition of life, so we can figure out how to build an instrument to measure it. no problem. it took them 10 years. [laughter] >> they are astrobiologists, we brought the right people together to do that, and we came up with a nice concise definition. life has three attributes. one, metabolism. that is an important part. second, it has to reproduce.

third thing, it has to evolve. now how am i going to build an instrument that will measure those things? that is hard. so we had to step back and say, what we know about our own life, let's now look at things that we can measure that can only be produced by life. there are certain things. amino acids. you find the basic building blocks of life. we find molecules and we measure dna and we measure rna. we created with the call the ladder of life. all of these things that we can measure indicate that these are

the things that can be generated by life. that tells us right away that when we send a mission to europa to look for life, we are going to need several of those instruments and they're all going to have to come out with positive indication to indicate there is life. that is the approach the viking scientists used when descriptive material and needed three positive indications. unfortunately they did not have enough information to realize that what they did with the material destroyed the life signature. that is why they never came back with a positive indication of life. it did not answer the question. the instruments did not work as they thought they would. one of the best ways to do that is bring the material back and that is what mars 2020 is going

to do. it will start coming back and it will be bringing the material back. it will take a variety of different types of samples, and allow us, in our laboratories, once the samples get here, to train all kinds of instrumentation that we could not miniaturize on mars rovers. >> but 2020 is not going to bring them back. there could be waiting to be brought back. >> correct. 2020 launches, goes to our -- goes to mars in nine months to get there. they will go to these places, take a couple of years, create the sample cashe, and then in the mid-20's we will bring it back. that is the next set of missions are thinking about and how to do that in a way where the samples could come back. that is for mars. for your robot, we want to get down on the ground. we want to get down on the ice. we now believe that the way europa resurfaces itself is through features and cracks that

fissures in cracks that we see that open up, water sprays out and flies on the land. and so we want to set a lander right next to a fissure, and let the water slop on the deck and make measurements correctly. -- directly. noaa sort of does that. they want to look at how life is in certain regions of water, and they take a bottle of water in the this has a healthy set of sea turtles, it has this, and has that, because they can look at the waste in the water. getting the material can tell us potentially an enormous amount about what is underneath the ice. that will be our first step.

we want to launch in early 2022. in early 2030 we will begin to answer the question, definitively, is there life beyond earth and the solar system? and if the answer to that is yes, then it is everywhere. >> one more question. >> i have been coming to these talks for years, and you just gave one of the best talks i have ever had. [applause] >> my pleasure. >> i want to thank you for the support of the movie "the martian". that leads me to a big question. manned exploration is very expensive to do. do you think we will be able to do that with all the endless budget fights that go on?

>> so, we all have to make our own financial decisions. in the financial decision i make it i put something away for my future, because i want to have it. we have to do that. it is a balance. what is the future of this earth? the future of this earth is the climate will change, we will have to adapt, there are hazards out there, and i backup my computer drive at home, we will need the backup to the human race, in my educated opinion. we have an imperative, if this species is going to supply -- survive, to move out. that location is mars. we are so lucky to have a planet like mars.

what will happen with mars? it was like earth, it went through an enormous climate change, we do not know how fast, we do not know exactly when, but it happened on mars. what will happen to mars in the future? we now understand that a little bit better. if the heat from the sun continues to increase, which it will, then the temperature on mars will increase, the co2 dry ice cap will sublimate, producing a greenhouse effect which will melt the huge water ice cap. a significant amount of the ocean will return, and it will look like earth again. we better be there when it happens.

>> that is quite the ender. [applause] >> you're absolutely right. you set the bar very high. thank you for coming. maybe we will just have jim green back every time. thank you. [applause] >> i would love to do so. there are so many other things we can talk about. thank you. >> this week on c-span, we are

the current supreme court vacancy. with a current impasse between democrats, the white house, republicans over the next supreme court justice, we look at what today's leaders have said in the past concerning the nominating process of individuals to the supreme court. >> confirmation hearings, no matter how long, how fruitful, thorough, can alone provide a sufficient basis for determining if a nominee merits a seat on our supreme court. >> a thoughtful senator should realize that any bessette's of barring the ideological opponent of the court are not likely to outweigh the damage done to the court institutional standards. "ideological on opposition to a nominee from one end of the political spectrum is

likely to help generate similar opposition to later nominations from the opposite end." >> those are some of the programs featured this week on c-span. later today, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues from the south bronx at a rally for bernie sanders. you will be speaking to supporters starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and a tweet from luke russert. after saying earlier this week he feels he's no longer bound to the pledge he made to the party to support the gop nominee, mr. trump was scheduled to be in the nation's capital but his appearance at the rnc came as a surprise and a tweet from the candidate -- we will keep you updated on news

from the campaign trail. about up, a discussion smart homes that connect all devices and appliances so they can talk to one another. the atlantic council brought a panel to look at homes that can be controlled the and networks. until then, here is some of the conversation from today's washington journal. for the next hour here on the "washington journal," we will discuss the debate happening over state religious freedom laws. to do that, we are joined by sarah warbelow of the human rights campaign. tim schultz is with the first amendment partnership. appreciate you both being here. tim schultz, many of our viewers hearing about the religious freedom laws this week after a veto of a bill. the virginia governor as we just pointed out in our last segment vetoed another such bill yesterday. first, explain what these two

laws, the virginia one and the georgia one, woman a design to do? tim schultz: for starters, these orders of these laws believe religious freedom is important because religion is so important that mason better citizens and religious freedom allows faith-based institutions who serve the homeless, educate children to go about their work unfettered without government interference. it is best for america even if you are not a religious person. it is still an important thing. i think what is happening is states since the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states, states are looking at ways to protect religious freedom in a way that is similar to the states that voluntarily enacted same-sex marriages. they are seeking on the back end of the judicial decision to

institute protections that are similar in kind to laws signed into law by governor cuomo of new york in 2011 or passed by the hawaii legislature in 2013. host: wire these bills needed? -- why are these bills needed in state legislature? tim schultz: unfortunately in 1990, the supreme court decided which the aclu called the dred scott. you basically did not have many constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion. since that day, since the early 1990's, most protection for religious freedom has come from statute, not from the constitution. i am not think the constitution does not provide protection, it just provides a lot less. host: why do they see these laws as a threat? sarah warbelow: there is over

200 laws in states targeting the lgbt community just the new legislative session alone. that is 12 weeks, 200 bills. the truth is a very tiny fraction of them mirror or model language has in states like hawaii. i can count on one hand the number of bills that are designed in such a way. instead, what we are seeing are really sweeping legislations design at undermining every aspect of lgbt people's lives, impairing the ability to receive services that are taxpayer-funded, undermining protections that have been passed in cities across the country, designed to ensure that ay individual who goes into store and seeks services is guaranteed the ability to receive those services that they can pay for them. host: gay groups getting a big win any marriage case last year.

legislatures the new battleground for gay-rights groups? bottling has been legislation in this state for a long time. there are those who oppose any basic civil rights for lgbt people. there may be some people who are uncomfortable with the decision, and that motivated some of their actions. but truthfully, it is the far right that has taken a hold of this issue to push an agenda of demeaning and pretending lgbt people are not citizens of this country. host: sarah warbelow of the human rights campaign is with us. tim schultz of the first amendment partnership. if you have questions or comments, democrats, 202-748- 8000. 48-8001.ans, 2020-7

a law in north carolina making a lot of news this week. explain what this bill would do in north carolina. guest: that is not a true religious freedom law. it might have ancillary effects on religious freedom, but it is not one we have been involved with in terms of the explanation. i am not an expert on the north carolina law. guest: the north carolina law strips away municipal andections from lgbt people some veterans as well because they are not a part of state law. in indiana and north carolina have passed protections for veterans. one of the dirty secrets about the bill is it undermines protection for all north carolinians. it made it harder to address discrimination by forcing people to file federal suits instead of

state suits. and then to add even more damage , the law prohibited transgender people from accessing .ppropriate facilities by government buildings, we are talking about any government building owned by the state or local government. that includes schools. it includes many of the convention centers, many of the universities. really a sweeping negative bill. host: phone lines for democrats, republicans, an independents. you can start calling in now. on the religious freedom laws like the virginia law, the georgia law, is there a middle ground that can be met between the two sides? i heard about a utah compromise. is that something that respects both sides of the civil rights versus the religious freedom debate? guest: we supported the

so-called utah compromise, and it worked in other states. host: what does it do? guest: it has robust protections for religious liberty alongside non-determination guarantees for lgbt people in housing and employment. i think by doing so there were two things that happened. one, illegally protected religious freedom quite broadly. way it did so in a that lowered the temperatures around this issue. i think it is important because battlelines are being drawn, swords are coming out. if you look at the social media conversation, it is pretty hostile on both sides. cohesion, it is important to try to address these issues in a state of mutual understanding, so i think in general, that is a good approach that i would like to see other states consider. host: sarah warbelow, the the

utah compromise as it is called worked? guest: and worked in utah for a couple of reasons. one being it did not expect religious liberties much. the underlying law in utah as pertained to race dissemination and sex this commission already have very large -- for religious organizations. adding sexual orientation and gender identity to law resulted in lgbt people being treated the same as every other protected characteristic. the truth of the matter is the laws work very strong for -- werenation in utah tha not very strong for dissemination in utah so it cannot be a model moving forward except we like the idea and want to see lgbt people added to existing nondiscrimination laws. no changes, no different treatment than any other protected characteristic.

host: let us start with sheila in carrollton, georgia, on the bones. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning to your guests. i have 65, and i am straight -- i am 65, and i am straight. when i first came to georgia, i lived with two gay men. -- i called for vetoing the bill, and i called my state senator and asked him please don't try to obstruct it. i don't understand these laws. we haveunderstand why to be so mean to people.

they are just people. host: thanks for the call in georgia. sarah warbelow, can you explain the lobbying effort behind the vetoing of this georgia bill that happened earlier this week? guest: even from the get-go at the beginning of the state legislative season, there were over 400 businesses who had come out in opposition to this legislation in part because it was motivated by this commission. -- by discrimination. was similar legislation was introduced last year, one of the republican legislators kindly made an amendment that said this cannot be used to engage in discrimination. the sponsor of the bill and several colleagues through a temperature term -- threw temperature interim and said that is exactly what we want to do is allow dissemination. i agree on isas the motivation behind religious actdom restoration

was to protect religious minorities. it was to provide the ability for someone to challenge neutral laws. over time, particularly in the past couple of years, it has turned from allowing an individual to be able to say to the government yes, i do get to headpieceigious in a public space into undermining people basic civil rights. host: an area you agree on? guest: she is right about the original motivation of the act, but sarah is happy about the fact that people object to same-sex marriage are now probably themselves a religious minority. i think if you believe in religious freedom for some, you want to believe in religious freedom for everyone. that the from inside

reason the so-called nondiscrimination cloth lause is added -- c being added is not to be a licensed to discriminate, and this goes back to the original, you resist amendments to the fundamental structure of the freedom of religion acts and then you rule out and classes that is what people don't want to have those kind of clauses that sarah likes. religious freedom supporters disliked because they rule completely out of bounds certain topics. on theet us go to lou line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions. one on a related topic, karen a gay guy mary -- can a gay guy marry a lesbian woman in every

state now? two, how does the government decide what the gender of the individual is? i will wait for the answers on line. guest: sure. yes, a gay man and a lesbian woman wanted to marry, they can certainly do so in any state in this country. even prior to this decision, they had that option. generally, gay men are not interested in marrying lesbian women. it goes against their sexual orientation. i so sorry, i forgot the second part of that question. guest: i did also. i was so entranced by the first part. is that it a reality show concept, unfortunately. host: we will go to ken in lancaster, south carolina. good morning. caller: yes, i will start for one whe minute. everything you say i agree with

but the transgender. if a transgender man is dressed like a woman, you should not be able to use a woman's restroom. the bill takes the matter in schools and public spaces. also, a tom rice for everybody, by don't approve of that aspect. -- also, equal rights for everybody, but i don't approve of that aspect. why are you emphasizing the transgender part? host: you want to pick up here? this goes back to the restroom legislation debate in north carolina. guest: yeah. transgender people are part of the lgbt community. discrimination against

transgender people is very serious and very real. individuals who are transgender simply want to use facilities consistent with their gender identity. if you are a woman, a transgender woman, you present yourself on a daily basis to the world as a woman. you understand yourself to be a woman. entering a men's restroom is a dangerous proposition for you. you are likely to be assaulted. you upset people. if a transgender man were to walk into a woman's restroom, women would be furious. hat is not the kind of society we want to live in. what we want to do is make sure everyone has the safety and privacy they need in restrooms and making sure transgender people can use restrooms consistent with their gender identity is the best way to do that. host: did you want to jump in? obviously, i can say that this is a clearly relative

issue. not that transgender is a is a new phenomenon but society is debating this in a new way. if you google search on articles about this prior to five years ago, you would not find very many. i think jeter is a complex -- gender is complex on the science of this. it is important to do with this in a nuanced way, in a non-shouting right. when you can come together and think about solutions that work out for everybody. be all that, that is from -- beyond that, that is probably my only comment on that. host: explain what the first amendment partnership is and how you got in this group. guest: we are a platform to work together on issues related to religious freedom. we focus purely on the legislative side of that, not be

litigation side. we have had a particular focus of states. we have been on the ground for 30 states over the years working on these issues. host: it is first amendment partnership. hrc.org is the website for the human rights campaign. republican.ana, good morning. caller: good morning. .irst time caller might issue with these laws and that -- my issue is with these laws and that when it comes to these gays and transgenders want to go to my church and demanded to be married in my church, and it is against our belief.

i don't think that that is right. that is where i feel like we are being discriminated against. they want to cram down their freedom to destroy my belief. host: tim schultz, is brings up a good question. could a pastor or preacher who does not believe in gay marriage before his to perform -- be forced to perform a transgender, gay, lesbian marriage ceremony. guest: no, that would be a violation of the first amendment. i think there is also this fact att i think he is hinting that right now if you look at the teachings of the majority of religious bodies in america, 90% of americans who belong to an identifiable faith community

belong to a community that will not actually perform a same-sex marriage, ok? really the question these laws raise is sure these faith-based bodies be punished? should they be punished in other ways? should they be denied tax benefits or nonprofit status or the ability to contract with the government when it makes sense for the government to do so? that is at stake here. some of these issues related to hosting a wedding a little bit of a distraction from the real controversy. host: did he want to weigh in? guest: we have no expectation that any church will marry anyone that they object to. definitely across-the-board, it does not >> we're thrilled to look in the to our event small designs for

smart homes for the launch of a new issue brief. smart homes and the internet of things. and discussion also on the opportunities here that network homes will offer to the society pose torisk they security and privacy. a really interesting topic that will be increasingly prevalent in our daily lives but also with a broader implications. it is thursday and this afternoon's conversation as part of our monthly series. the series, as many of you know, is designed to convene cyber experts from various sectors to examine topics at the core of the council cyber mission. today, it is a special cyber cyberist thursday

because joshua will be starting tomorrow as the new director of our cyber initiative. cofounder -- no one is happier than me about that. [applause] josh is also cofounder of a grassroots organization that encourages new security approaches in cyberspace and beyond in response to the world digitalng dependence on infrastructure. the program will be heading more in the direction of today's conversation but even much further. josh has employed a very unique policyh to security and by connecting human factors, adversary motivation, social impact, to help position him as one of the most trusted in this space. he served as the chief fellowogy officer and a at the ponta minute institute.

we're really thrilled to have him. i would also like to thank our media partner pass code from the christian science monitor for joining us and welcome those of you following the conversation online. i encourage all of you to join the conversation on twitter .sing our # josh will give you another account to tweet from. thank you very much. >> all right. thank you all for coming. my name is josh mccormick. i'm very excited to start tomorrow. key point in history. three years ago, we decided to try to do this "i am the calvary" thing. what we have found is that we

were growing more concerned our dependence on connected technology was growing much faster than our ability to secure it and while many of the best and brightest in cyber security were trying to protect credit cards and replaceable assets, we saw this dependence was permeating our automobiles, medical devices, the internet of everything. we are putting software and connectivity into every aspect of our life. what we know is once you add software, you make something taxable -- hackable. it is really that software is infecting the world. if we are going to place our dependence upon it, we need to make sure it is dependable and worthy of trust. the name came from the recognition that the calvary isn't coming and it was a call to action to the voice of reason in technical literacy to say stop waiting for someone to solve this for you. go to your left, you're right, they aren't coming.

the idea was to get outside our to publicne and speak policy makers, infected industries. we really wanted to focus on the intersection of technology and the human condition but more specifically, the consequences of failure including public safety and human life. without much of a plan, we started meeting with people in washington and go into places we didn't normally go in speaking with people we didn't normally speak with. its core.h empathy at we try to great the divide between the technical community and the policy community. we have already seen the fruits of that labor. right here on this stage last march, i met suzanne swartz from the fda.

it is a high collaboration they have nownd done a complete 180 in their attitude toward security researchers. almost requiring medical device manufacturers have a positive relationship with the research community by encouraging the adoption of coordinated disclosure of programs for vulnerability research. we have seen the experiment work and what has become clear is when you look at the headlines, this has gone from a concern we are worried about on the horizon to one happening in real-time. just a week before the security conference, we saw the hack of a nissan lease, the first self driving car have an accident. it may have been a two miles an hour, but google did hit a bus.

now we see another one actively probing other hospitals. whether they are targeted attacks or collateral damage, this dependence in areas affecting public safety and human life are coming to the forefront. i was just in munich for the security conference discussing how maybe this isn't about norms and treaties between nationstates but we should also be looking at cyber safety exposure to sub nationals, after this, people maybe with less resources and less hacking skills than the will and might of a nationstate but with more willpower to use it and assert that will unto others. documentssealed encouraging -- showing some iranian hackers. if not now, when? what i'm really excited about coming here and today's topic is someone has to fill this void

and we have to act quickly to know what the right response will be to cyber safety. i'm honored to be picking up offe jason healey left would-be cyber statecraft initiative and bring to a heavy focus into cyber safety. if we would like to avail ourselves of the safety advances we could get from connected vehicles or improve the state of patient care through use of modern technology, a critical element of that is that the public trusts these technologies and it's up to us to drive that conversation and make sure we seriousit for a really failure that scares people away from trusting these technologies but we preserve and deserve the trust we have placed upon them. today, we would like to talk about a paper that was a collaboration between i and the calvary and the atlantic council on smart homes. --her are several reasons

while there are several reasons to look at safety and privacy in consumerwith electronics and appliances and while there are promises, i want to make sure in our desire to adopt these technologies, we maintain trust and confidence in them. the report came out today. please look at the scenario from 2025 with the haunted house. without further do, i'm very excited to introduce my new panel and let invite them to the stage, please. we can clap for them. [applause] all right. i will go down the line here. raise your hand.

woods, the deputy director for the cyber statecraft initiative. may senior fellow -- i m a senior fellow to the cyber statecraft. at a contributing writer fast company and a variety of other posts regarding city technology. >> andrea. i am a professor of law and computer science at northeastern university and i am also a visiting research collaborator at princeton. i am affiliate scholar of stanford law school for internet and society. i have the privilege of serving as the federal trade senior policy

advisor focusing on security and privacy. unfortunately i have to follow that intro. i am the deputy director of the atlantic council cyber statecraft initiative. for the past couple years, working with i and the calvary, coming to the policy-making side. >> give us some framing thoughts on the idea of smart homes, the promise, the peril. >> i have been covering the notion of smart cities. i started covering when ibm had its big break in 2008. really there was a whole shift in the language on how we are approaching the discourse of the internet of things. smart homes are interesting historically. it's always been an extremely tech heavy marketing campaign.

if you go back to the 1930's, the first vision started appearing in various magazines. popular mechanics, pop science. that trickled into visions in the 1960's of the jetsons, walt disney, the notion of these automated homes. by the 19 80's, you saw microsoft and others pushing this idea that the future of computing was the smart home and was filled with all these visions of how we would automate our homes. consumers never really wanted them. we saw this push to try to create these elaborate interoperable homes. they were buggy, brazil. taking systems and making them harder to use. the real problem with smart homes separate from hacking and worms and everything else is this notion that we have to remember the time in the 1990's when we couldn't even make our computers to work with our

printers. do you want your housetop rate the same way? and we have reached the point, intel security. poll 9000 people around the world asking about their appetite for smart homes and the study, 45% ofhe them could see no reason at all why they would want to have a smart home. the number one reason they would want it is cost savings. this notion of that is we will live in these beautiful, perfect homes made of glass where everything has a touchscreen. we're still looking for that first real killer app for what it could be. part of the paper, we have the scenario about what it will be like living in one of these haunted houses. it really boils down to the question of how to we actually make good on this issue and what

will those products the? will it be electric cars that will free us from grid dependence and lead to a more sustainable lifestyle? i think the jury is still out. >> we will let you go next on u.me framing remarks, bea >> what became clearly was looking at the statistics, some of the intel announced today and some of the other work that has been done is a became really clear that while consumers have an expectation they will have to have these devices, they are terrified of them. afraidng like 66% are their smart devices will be hacked and the data in them would be extracted from their homes for some kind of commercial value by an unwanted intruder. that is a pretty scary number

for anyone trying to sell into that market. one of the biggest things is we trustready starting to these devices. in smart homes, consumers don't necessarily trust them. they may not want them but they feel like they will have to buy them and go into some of the other industries the automotive industry, the medical device industry, every conference i go to know, people say i don't want one of these new cars coming at is hackable. i'm going to get a car from the 1970's because it will be safer. but it's the opposite. in medical, you see diabetes patients who have said i don't trust this device to work in a way that is automated. i will go back to injecting myself 15 to 20 times a day with insulin. these are personal choices those

people make but those choices have a really significant potential impact on the market share that organizations think they're going to get from some of these investments they have in the internet of things and smartphone devices. if you are a kick starter size aoject in you think you have $10 million potential pipeline but that ends up being only $1 million, you go i do business. your business model won't sustain. it is the same thing for larger players only with less severe consequences. some of the things they're creating may go off-line. you may not have the products and services associated with the smart home you thought you would when you bought it because there will be financial impact if we don't recognize and realize the market potential or the projected market potential.

is one of those hidden things that could come up in two to three years. we start to see some of the significant investments made by corporations and cities and connecting everything go away. and they are not realized and that has a significant financial consequence to u.s. and global product makers in the markets. indeed. all right. what about you, andrea? up, i willg highlight one competition concern and one consumer protection concern. on the competition side, there is currently a deficit of market information to allow consumers to make an informed decision across devices. pressing structures and disclosures with products don't currently usually disclose the lifecycle of a particular product. how many years will the product to be patched?

how many times have tested then run? the quality of the security and the code integrity in a particular device is not necessarily something that the reasonable consumer can take in account when trying to decide whether this product that -- worthmore is worse that extra $15 versus this other product when they are both apparently the same device. thinking about those hidden costs and whether the market is rewarding companies that are in security and taking care of the consumers that are trusting does products with access to their homes and information. that is a competition point. on the consumer protection side, there is a bigger conversation about the question of what i call technology suitability or problem.r with bacon sometimes the fancy technology

is not necessarily the better technology for getting a particular task accomplished. overzealous chefs think if they sprinkle bacon on everything, it suddenly that much better but if your diners a vegetarian, you just destroyed the meal. areking through what task we trying to accomplish when we are bringing a device into our home or enterprise and how those connections facilitate or add risk to the bigger picture of our lives. take an example. let's say i'm a state department employee and i live in d.c. and i'm out shopping and i see this really neat connected oven with an app and i can operate my oven from my phone. that's kind of cool. but thinking through how the whatto my wi-fi network,

kind of information i access from home with respect to my professional life, whether there is sensitive information that could potentially be compromised if the security on my internet-connected oven is not up to part and whether vulnerabilities are getting patched. the authority seen the first exist and the forest vulnerabilities on internet ovens. apart from the data control aspect, if you have a small child in the home and the childlike to play with your phone, maybe an internet-connected oven is not the best choice for your home at that point in time in your life. thinking through the totality of circumstances and have a technology capabilities of particular devices, the devices you bring into your home connect with those tasks and risks that are of the realities of your

existence. that is the consumer detection side. on one hand, we want to reward the companies in the marketplace doing a great job and thinking about security and protecting consumers while we want to train consumers to help themselves be informed and make good purchasing decisions. >> thank you. speaking of that, when we watch the calvary initially, we spoke different projects. four different sets of regulators, market dynamics. one was medical center safety, automotive cyber safety, public a largeucture, which is and difficult grab bag, and the last is consumer and iot in the home. the home onot in the back burner because we said we love our privacy, we would

like to be alive to enjoy it and the more life or limb consequences were found in the others. it was an exciting opportunity to work with the atlantic council. it forced us to stretch which -- beene have in using using. many of you have seen these but we had a five star automotive cyber safety framework we developed in august 2014. the way i would describe it casually is all systems fail, please tell your customers how you avoid failure, how you take help avoiding failure, how do you study and learn from failure, how do you have a prompt an agile response to failure, and how you contain and isolate failure. this january, we publish the hippocratic old for connected medical devices, which is spiritually similar. we found is those controls are useful but there were additional market enablers and

information to customers required. starts thinking of what you would do to help the consuming public avoid products and may endanger their family safety or privacy. we will pose the same question to our panelists. question, if we got -- i knowes right you've been skeptical we can get a smart home right. what is the primary use case you would want to see out of an intelligently connected home? >> i will go first. looking at some of this, i really like the convenient features of some of the smart home stuff. i don't have a device to tell me when to reorder but that kind of thing appeals to me. i'm sometimes absent-minded and i forget to buy laundry

detergent. if i could have a way to say into the air "by laundry detergent" that would be really easy for me. i could show up to work with clean close maybe one day when it wouldn't have happened otherwise. for me, i think that convenience factor is really where the sweet spot is for smart homes. not necessarily to automate my decision-making process but to make it easier to act on those decisions and to help inform that process. >> i agree in the sense that convenience is the reason it will happen. the cognitive dissonance, that everyone anticipates a smartphone will happen, but they don't know how -- that is extension that comes out of the framework by facebook and google. we harvest your data and resell it to others.

if the service is free, the product is you. bruce sterling, the science fiction author wrote about this. the internet enabled fridge, the icon of field dreams of the smartphone. dreams of theled smartphone. one that is supplies b -- s upplied by amazon. amazon or he has the patent on predictive ordering. they can ship you things before you even thought to buy them. convenience can create this data regime which is all about harvesting your personal information. that leads to the vulnerability about it. i am most excited about home utilities and energy. the most exciting consumer product is the tesla power wall. dave cap -- they have canceled

the larger capacity version of it. people have talking about this for 35 years to create more stable and resilient micro-grids to move towards stable solar energy. you can feed this into electric cars. that leads to an interesting shift in housing. all sorts of applications for climate change and strategic issues for the u.s. i like to think it would be that. >> for me, the best case scenario is a home where the iot gadgets are totally personalized, totally customizable. the assumptions network for, say, the majority of people, don't necessarily work for all people. for example, i travel a lot. if i have automatic reordering of certain things, there would be a constant pile of rancid food and various products sitting outside my door, blocking entry, a fire hazard

and probably my neighbors will hate me. there are individualized needs that consumers have, whether it is to facilitate their engagement with a product, or their life is structured a certain way, or they have special limitations on their environment because of a particular human in the home, or their own physical challenges. there is a need for customization that sometimes is absent in some iot devices. i think my ideal iot home would overwrite onhuman all the things. -- human overrides exist on all the things. allowing me to tell them what i want them to do, not assuming what i want them to do. >>-interested in power saving and -- i've been interested in power saving and a smart meters, picking the best price for me.

execution has been a little different. one that i've struggled with, i thought there was a lot of promise in smarter use of network sensors for home security. suddenly i have been disappointed to find nearly every bluetooth doorlock or automated high-tech home and security system has been compromised. i don't think they have failed yet on any of the equipment they have tried. it is ironic the devices we buy may in fact be the very attack vector that lets them into our homes. we talked about nightmare scenarios in this dystopian future. but what do you think the most likely first attack is? i know we've had baby monitor screaming. what is most likely to be compromised first in a smarter, over connected home? >> i will take that one again. if you have read the news lately

about hospitals, you have heard ransom is a big thing. compromising devices in order to monetize that. -- if youlooking at have a fridge that has a monitor on it, that might be trackable. if i have your next -- if i have your attention span for 2 seconds, i'm going to serve you an ad. whether somebody hijacks that process to serve you ads when you're opening the fridge to get milk -- maybe it's review and add for a different milk brand. would expect that type of driver to be a catalyst for somebody to want to smack -- to hacka a smartphone device. if you do it in the right way -- i don't want to give any ideas -- it's going to be undetectable from normal operation of the device. it will say oh, this fridge must

have updated the software and now they are selling ads. i don't like that. you will think it's the manufacturer that did it. there will be brand reputational impact. you can see a similar thing accomplished, not by actively reaching out to change something , but one of these smartphone makers goes under, or they forget to renew the website. summary just goes and buys the domain name. -- somebody just goes and buys the domain name. now they have control of the entire infrastructure. they can change the firmware, do whatever. if they put a file out there, and your fridge retreated and pulls it back down, that might be totally legal, i do not know. it is conceivable. we have somebody that would be able to tell us. it's conceivable that it is totally legal, just somebody forgot to renew the domain name. that would be my first expectation, somebody to hijack into serve ads or other

financial mechanisms. most of these internet of things have some sort of back and harvesting or storage configuration. the amount of inflammation that is -- of information that is gleanable could be interesting on the back end. anyone else? >> i don't know if it will be the first, but one of the most interesting is not a hack at all. simply an extension of the logic of how this stuff develops. tim o'reilly published a book that said if the business model of web 1.0 was advertising, then web 2.0 is going to be insurance. another thing he says, in the future, every piece of data is a piece of credit score data. there is a whole raft of startups, who are you friends on facebook, using it to figure out

your financial liability. this is a nightmare scenario, the notion that something borrowed -- a protagonist cannot open his door because he's behind payments on his landlord. he has to unscrew the hinges. we have to imagine in the future, you are behind or your credit score says you are unviable to run the smartphone. you are essentially locked in your house until you agree to pay your bills. in the nightmare scenario, we imagine you have to turn off your power to crawl out the window that is not a smart window. drivers are basically switched off remotely if they are not enable to make payments. we see these systems evolve, where there are punitive punishments if you cannot conform to the terms of service. it will be interesting. you think you own a smartphone, but with the digital lenny on

copyright act, your entire house could simply be a license to the company. and if you failed to meet the terms of service, you would certainly be shut out of your house. also, the techniques for marketing in the smartphone phase will extend naturally to all of the iot devices. currentlye, there are some enforcement actions potentially in progress relating thatk that -- apps surreptitiously turn on the microphone on your phone in order to monitor your tv viewing habits in your living room. undoubtedly you will have additional information being collected about private conversations. we have smart tvs behaving in

similar ways through remote control electing. collecting.ntrol is reasonable to extrapolate that all the devices will look for new streams to commodified the information they have access to. of voluntarily lending themselves to never do this -- binding themselves to never do this, it's reasonable to expect that most of the iot devices are planning on that secondary stream of income. to the example of the locked up cars, in a consumer scenario, we had creditors that were cutting the engines on some cars while the debtor's were driving. that caused safety issues. while a car is not strictly part of an iot home, though it sits

in the garage, it's all part of this bundle of iot devices that have remote access capability, not only for the consumer but for the authors of the code. that creates a wrinkle in some of the traditional relationships of control that consumers expect with respect to the products they purchase. >> i'll give an exotic one and a more monday one. -- more mundane one. as soon as i learned of all of the cost saving service charges -- think goodness we are good guys -- but we had the idea of small relations on nest devices to essentially pump and dump investment based energy resources. you could make a significant amount of money making small adjustments en masse to consumption of electricity. that is the more exotic one.

one of the more prosaic but troubling was -- think how many devices are connected to wi-fi in your home. is it 5, 10? how many will be there in a couple years? if you look at the home router, about half of the regional infection of heart bleed, that make most of you reset your password is or social media accounts. about half of the original infections were unpatchable. you had devices vulnerable to the attack but could not be related at all. -- be remediated at all. you would not have known they were even running this more connected. i am more worried about the leper colony of these devices, where any one of them that fails now has privilege accesses, a stepping stone to every other part of my home network, including more sensitive work material, cameras that monitor

my children, the side camera on my television without turning the light on. i'm actually looking for devices that aren't smart. i want to have a market for traditional non-devices, in some cases. >> that goes to my competition point. as we march bravely forward into the world of iot, it's not only about consumer choice, it's about consumer choice with respect to hike technologically connected these devices are. losing the bottom end of the n ot-connected devices is an impoverished choice. the market becomes impoverished if we eliminate the ability to have a less vulnerable option when we needed. -- we need it. the scenario of the home having one to voice being a point of compromise -- one device being a point of customize. if you are are that state deployment employee that i mentioned, that hacker that axes

-- that accesses your network can then potentially follow you on to your employer's network. if you are accessing that network from your home network, they can piggyback on. suddenly they are not only obtaining your privileged information, but that of your employer. depending on who that is, that could be national security information. we have seen accidental compromises have been by simultaneouslyre government employees. when we look at the sony drm root kits problem from circuit 2005, where we have code that was intended to be digital rights management code, but in reality it opened a security hole in every system it was played in. dod employees who played cds in their work machines, other government employees -- the

employees clearly never intended to cause a security problem, they were just listening to music. the same way consumers will comicaltend for their cyber toaster that they just purchased on a whim to cause a security problem for their government employer. >> this is an interesting point. i was at an infant in new york -- at a event in new york. backdoore there was a discovered in one of these cars. you could pop it into the cd player and suddenly you could unlock access to the systems below. it's funny that you bring up the notion of purchasing your cyber toaster on a whim. there has been this interesting proliferation of sites like wish.com that sell inexpensive chinese manufactured goods coming out of the pearl river. we don't know the total providence of it.

we can imagine these interesting state actor level things, where you can push a profusion of compromised devices that can create trojan horses into the homes. you are now buying this for five dollars off of your mobile home, your poo emoji that lights up in your house, suddenly it hacks into your wireless network. this has been discussed in the war initiative. but now we imagine this stuff going into your house. >> about month ago, someone in the law enforcement apparatus of the u.s. government said we love this internet of things proliferation, we cannot use it to find the flaws -- cannot wait flaw and fo find the surveil potential criminals. dod for bid the use of usb sticks. they said while these could potentially be gateways to transfer malware into sensitive

networks. does that mean the dod is going to issue a new memo saying that you can have smartphone devices? what is that going to do to the market of my phone devices? stateially dod or any u.s. employee might be forbidden from buying certain classes of devices because they are so poorly secured over the lifecycle. that is one of those things that could become a wicked problem in the future. what are the interrelations we can't even think about that will come about 10 years down the line based on choices that we make today? >> there is an interesting cognitive dissonance in security professionals and even in military, we have been credibly strict physical security access guideline, what technology you can use, what systems can access

the network. he will bring their laptop home and we are incredibly lax there. there was a big story in christmas over digital picture frames at best buy that were certified preowned from china. occurrence ra rare especially on the low end devices. i remember having to leave all my electronics at a military base. but the general i was speaking with had a rotating thing of pic in histures digital frame. i said, why is not allowed in here? -- is that allowedi in here? if i were a hacker trying to do competitive industrial espionage, i would certainly compromise the microphones in the boardrooms of all my competitors. there are a number of use cases. we are just not being creative enough in our assessment because guard at -- because our

is down when we are at home. what's interesting from the industry view, does not something where consumers has to enforce security. this has to be on the manufacturer level. the internet of things is basically a gigantic glacial battle of standards consortium. and variousco people fighting and negotiating in various boardrooms. security is a very low level discussion. how do we bring that to the forefront? and is there a way to create the nested hierarchies of secure networks inside homes, so that whatever i bring home does not automatically have the same level of access privileges? these are not new problems addressed in every level. even enterprise it has to do with it.

one framework we have used for iot is an obvious question. is we solved it in the enterprise, how is iot different? there are different adversaries and different motivations. there are different consequences of failure. there are different operational contexts. you won't be behind physical network layers. there are different compositions of hardware, firmware, and the software used. there are different economics, which is one of the big problems. and different timescales. the time to live might be a year, some might be 30 years. how often do you replace your oven? some of those things take our best practices and shatter them. within those, there are a number of those preventing us from doing well. what do you guys think?

>> yeah, if you look at corporate it security apparatus, there is about $80 billion a year spent globally increasing it. about 10% year-over-year on drugs and services. the total number around $250 million. thati is on top of the existingt investments -- that is on top of the existing it investments. if you buy a couple hundred dollars worth of smart home gear. are you going to buy a couple hundred dollars worth of security gear and maintain it? stuffone i.t. security is my day job. when i go home, i don't do that. it's the story that the cobbler's kids have no shoes. my son is going to be woefully protected and unsecured if you leave it to me to do it. and i am capable, i do this professionally.

for people like my mom and other consumers less well-educated in cyber security, what is the hope they could possibly be able to secure their devices in the corporate i.t. security space transplanted onto home security? >> one of the other problems, we have not created the digital infrastructure around security flaws. not just in iot context, but more broadly. ofhave certain nomenclatures severity of vulnerabilities, a numeric system for trying to identify them. but those systems are not scaling optimally, perfectly in a world where there are billions of iot devices. these are bigger picture problems about infrastructure for vulnerability information sharing that we need to bolster and scale and improve in order

to be able to get the information to allow for comparison. these underlying steps are not yet fully developed. we like to talk about information sharing frequently. just sharing the existing information doesn't solve the underlying structural deficits we steam -- we still need to work through. iot this potentially crystallizing inability of what we are currently using to scale in the best possible way to build our society out with this high degree of connectivity while maintaining their traditional balance of consumer protection and competition in the marketplace. firewill ask another rapid speed round of the panel, and encourage you to also ask

questions. do, myas what to neighbor will never be a security professional. they never want to be the i.t. person for their own smartphone. we outline several recommendations to add transparency to consumers or add basic expected capabilities to reduce the possibility of harm. what do you think would be good additions that we don't have to secure these things? one of the biggest things, existing consumer practices in non-smart devices. those in the retail industry, we go into buy something and we bombard questions while we are there. that's also one of the regional

folk -- retail folks' big concerns. if there is a way that somebody in a retail outlet can have a quick answer, yes, it is secure, rather than here's what you do. if they can have those quick answers, that helps them sell more products, which goes back to the market competition dialers. if someone goes into a store and says what is the most secure device, a retail employee can say why with three simple bullets. but also, you can read for yourself. that is something powerful that goes through a retail channel. barring that, there is remediated action can go through. if, for instance, someone markets something as a secure web cam or baby monitor and you find out it is very much not a secure device, there are ways you can contact the ftc and

report these things. that s maybe not a technical things. but that is something that my mom could do. she has called the better business bureau to take that step, which a lot of people don't talk about in our industry. i think we should talk about those things. this might be utopian, but we talked about recording devices. this might be apocryphal, but the samsung smart television, he found that -- you found it was recording your personal conversations. it says in the terms of service "do not have personal conversations in front of your samsung televisions." you simply assume the risk that the records everything -- that it records everything you say and it will be used against you. we need to end the current data collection regime, that any hardware maker will collect

everything they possibly can from you, and they own it. --need some scheme to create you own your data. createproach that would real legal protections around your data, forcing the manufacturers to then treated with appropriate seriousness. >> the prices of devices do not accurately reflect the broader transparency. one other thing before we open up for questions -- the hopefuly note that this is a space where technology tools can help to translate concepts for consumers and policymakers and craters. -- and creators.

we have a robust community of experts that can access third-party auditors. that does not translate well and filter into the public consciousness to inform the less technology sophisticated consumers. building technology tools to facilitate that translation effect, both among consumers but also to help small businesses better embrace the importance of security by design from the ground up. to recognize that security is not something that you can slap on at the end of the process. it's not a band-aid that can be layered on. it needs to be inherent in the architecture of the device. or it is a lose lose, both for the creator and consumer.

thrust of thee five-star automobile crash test, you don't know the difference stars. a 3, 4, or 5 is an actual device to tell relative safety ratings. it was more-- several of those are outlined here. one that came to mind -- there was a congressional action cyber supply chain and transparency act of 2014, essentially asking for food labels for software.

they should not have any known security defects and should be possible. you can imagine how much the software industry hated this bill. we did a webinar with the financial services industry, where they said it was a great idea. they are saying to paul big software providers, we want to see a food label of the software you are selling us in your commercial goods. this allows you to make a more informed decision. with that be good for my mother-in-law? no, but it can help organizations to tell who has better or worse hygiene. if you're going to buy an internet connected device, it better be passable. -- be patchable. also, don't buy a internet connected device if you don't really need it. if you are going to connect it and expose it, you must have the

ability to fix it. is anybody in the audience a question? feel free to also say what you think we should do. thing -- i'm a security practitioner as well. i'm looking at these devices and think okay, if i want to see how secure this device is, what what i have to do? i think about it. compared to what i would have to do for a piece of software on one of my computers, it is unbelievable. this. the gear to do i don't want to have to buy two toasters and te one part and start connecting to the pins. certificateecure and clear memory. the problem that calls for the

star rating extends farther in this world than it ever has been. it's weird in that there is a level of transparency here, even though these devices are simpler and more ubiquitous, they are even more opaque. >> and moreover, it may be illegal for you to do that analysis. these and throw them into the melee. speak loudly please. >> there is a new security research exemption for research on including iot devices. security research that conforms to the limitations of the exemption. basically everything that is a consumer product is loosely covered, which allows for the

circumvention not being a violation of the dmca for the purpose of good faith testing and analysis of the code. >> it's a recording. >> i am from a different generation and we used to play games with people's minds. if i knew someone was monitoring something in my house, i would just play with the information. but it seems to me, they are collecting information on me, and it's illegal for me to play games with their mind. like it's going to turn into a security thing. the reasons the

research community dissented on this exemption for the digital millennium copyright act. looking at it untapped domestic resource that can find flaws and get them fixed more quickly, then why wouldn't we catalyze that resource? there were a lot of prominent researchers that tried to get exceptions. automobiles kick in an october, and this broader category. >> we will see all sorts of messing with smartphones. not just necessarily individuals. people messing with your house to turn it into a fascist. alexa, amazon's personality, already responding to radio and television ads that adheres. we can look forward to subliminal messaging to trigger

your house ai to buy things, or perhaps attack us somehow. we will see gaming of it. it will be large corporations and ai's messing with each other rather than people. >> we could easily have several panels on dmca. so we won't. [laughter] you're next? >> look at the issues with industrial control systems, how do we address those before they already have in -- before they already happened with smart homes? >> that is a good question. secret they an open are widely considered vulnerable and highly exposed. there are high consequences from their failure. chargeds an iranian guy with hacking a dam. luckily the slimmest gate -- the

not operableas remotely and there was not that much water behind the dam. i don't know we will be able to head all of those off. but to have some kind of plan to respond is important. we need a response if and when that does happen. doing all we can before that by having this design layer that takes security into account will be important. >> being proactive certainly has a benefit. if we look at other historical legal contexts, environmental regulation, we needed to wait for a river to be on fire. it wasn't until the cuyahoga river was inflamed that we passed an environmental law. and it's one of the most aggressive viability regimes that we have. waiter -- rather than waiting

for a river on fire event, it may be more desirable and more logical to be proactive and to think through the optimal pathways for crafting both responsibilities and structures of information transport before we have a river on fire in the information security context. >> one topic that usually comes up is the lack of any software reliability. it also stymies the insurance world as well. connect ite you can to the internet does not mean you are required to do so. especially with industrial control systems. if you've ever played with shodan, you know there are things that should not be connected to the internet.

instead of worrying about sophisticated nationstate attacks, first you should handle a free attack tool. second, we are not even patching known vulnerabilities that have been around for 10 years. this verizon report had a stunning graphic that showed 97% of the successful tax were due to just --successful attacks were due to just 10 known vulnerabilities for over a decade. maybe the minimal hygiene, is make sure your industrial systems are not nakedly exposed to the internet. that is the shodan rule. easy way to control that 30-year-old industrial color system is not to have it exposed to the internet. significantg elective risks through our

attack surface. first. saw you stanford. with there's a lot of talk of software insurance. given that iot in the home has toasters, ovens, refrigerators, dryers and washers, we are not looking at hardware assurance as well and the vulnerabilities embedded within hardware. the supply chain is coming from overseas, so what are your thoughts on hardware safety? >> there is a lot of work when we talk about differences and adversaries. the fourth is different in composition. hardware-software

stack-- there is common components. in other ones, you buy a pellet of chip one day and it might be different the next day. given the margins on these devices, there is never likely to be assurance on these. there is an experiment to make a cyber seal. the initial round will be on medical devices and industrial control devices. when we talk about different economics for the home, this might be an indiegogo kickstarter thing with two guys in a garage. particularly pernicious issue, including the hardware refers to -- hardware you referred to. >> the nest fluctuation arbitrage -- at the bottom end,

odm chips you are buying off random sites. and when your nest is brought to you from enron, and they are engaging in practices that are found illegal, we have at risk too. not hacking, but simply manipulation. think of a commercial restaurant. you cannot just have a commercial restaurant. even though the hacker community hates regulations. there are times when the government asserts its will in the form of minimum kitchen sanitation code. there may end up being something like a gold star seal, where it is more of a carrot on a stick. we may have to come to a point where the device that can meet a certain threshold will allow discerning citizens to buy those, and only those. who may not be as deterministic as guaranteeing that it won't catch on fire.

electrical engineering is deterministic and cyber security is not. we have to employ a lot more segmentation and isolation in how we set up our dependence. you don't have to connect it to everything else. it's going to take a lot of stumbling and fumbling before we get there. anybody else to that point? >> i will briefly comment one of your points. on a minimum standard of care for security, the ftc has instituted a reasonableness standard for security. their enforcement activity, reasonableness is the hallmark of that activity. there is a report called the "start with security report"

that has a list of practices that have been considered in various enforcement actions. it's intended as an assistant document to startups trying to struggle through these questions of hardware and software security in their new devices. >> there is a sister organization called "built it secure." their focus is on indigo go kickstarter size projects. if you are going to make a device on a raspberry pi, this is how you might do it in a simple -- and a secure wya. they are going to take low-margin iot platforms and provide free guidance and reference architectures. there is a better chance of it being done less horribly? >> earlier you also asked about

idea for what we know to do to fix things. starting monday, i am going to be a cyber security analyst for the state department. i don't have anything smart in my house. if i were, i would have three dumb routers. i would completely put on the internet of targets behind one end, have the internet come through the other, and put my security on a totally different subnet and branch, probably wired. by the same token, i like to know -- considering that some people don't want to use the internet of things. to have a mandatory rule or law that every device has a mechanical non-software controlled on-off switch so i can shut off the internet and

not worry that it can physically be turned on through software hacking. there is a click to turn off my tv's wi-fi, to turn off my refrigerator's wi-fi, the oven's wi-fi and so on. without be a good, viable first step to help those that don't have enough security sense? bo's mom can be told, hey mom, there is a switch, just click it, you will be fine. device,hing to a dumb right. we were current shopping about three years ago. -- car shopping about three years ago. i cannot tell which car had the best security program. years later, i know on a first name basis and intelligent security person in every single car company. and still i can't answer with the best programs are. we have little pieces.

but one of the more stunning moments, they told me wife, this has old gg wi-fi in all standard vehicles. he says, doesn't this make you want to buy this car instead of the others? and she says, i don't think you know my husband. and he says, you can shut it off. and she says, i'm not an engineer, but i don't think you can't shut it off. it turns out you can't. some recommendations should just you described your customers how much it would still function when it is not connected. these are the discussions we want to stimulate. when you start making recommendations to consumer electronics companies, they have a list of options. >> to help consumers know to ask that question. unless you are married to a security pro, or study it, you

might not even know to ask that question. it's a multi-thousand dollar purchase you are investing in. it's something you care about, but it is not occur to you to ask. to help consumers know what even questions to ask to put pressures on companies to have open-door policies with security researchers that find flaws, to have feedback loops, to have information about whether there is a kill switch or a human overwrite. it is a autonomous car in something goes horribly wrong. code is written by humans, we can't anticipate anything. the same reason i can't write a 50 page paper without making a typo. we are human, and code is written by humans. you are going to have mistakes.i am a firm believer human ability to have

overrides. >> a lot of nested control systems in medical-clinical environments usually have the requirement for an analog override. we're losing that discipline in some of these other safety critical use cases. we will have to find a way to get it back. allen was next? >> allen freeman, department of commerce. i want to say there are parts of the common -- parts of the government encouraging security researchers. i want to talk about how we can leverage market forces independent of controlling regulation. one example is collaboration between the national association of realtors and the industrial consortium to have a ccklist as you are selling your home. if you are buying a home, you want to know what is in there. you know to get the hvac system and furnace looked at.there is a

checklist -- okay, at least what smart devices are in the home and when were they don't? is not the best for security, but it is a good start. other economic forces that we can use to collaborate, so it is not just consumer versus vendor.you can get large commercial forces on the side of the consumer. >> i like your example. something we talked about in the paper is the right to be forgotten for homes. when you sell your home, you change the locks. do you leave all the data from the nested system, the personal data about? the stucco to the new one? -- those that go to the new one? would you have to change the entire thermostat because it is tied to your account and password? thinking about those things, the lifecycle of the device if you don't. -- if used in a home.

you, as that buyer or seller, do that? maybe your fridge just keeps dying meat -- keeps buying meat. and how do you stop it? you don't have the password for their amazon account to stop it. so what happens? i like or specific example. what are the basic interoperability standards between competing manufacturers? in this 2025 quasi-nightmare scenario, imagined you have this room in your house coming from a separate vendor because you added it piecemeal to a time. what happens when your amazon kitchen stops talking to your microsoft bathroom, because they

are in a corporate cold war? perhaps preying on each other, sending white noise. there is no guarantee that the manufacturers have some basic interoperability. i don't know how we legislate the equivalent for what a smart home is. i don't think that has been looked into enough, what happens manufacturers go to war with each other. or which is between the two, on reproducible glitches from various rooms because of the way the systems are configured. ourof the problems with computing architecture we are now incorporating our homes. [laughter] in high-frequency milliseconds to do it. >> i'd like to take something out of automotive lemon laws.

there was a device put in place that did not add more information, but gave you an escape clause if you found something. you could argue they are not necessary any more at where we have things like carfax with information on the vehicle. research community is not big fans of legislation or power structures. --t seem to be with the o the idea of transparency to facilitate market choice. that is why we talk about food labels or demonstrate if it is patches. while we don't have five-star -- ngs currently, information ier could glean about automobiles, there are a lot of car companies inviting researchers to report

to them. someone with that welcome door mat is more likely to earn -- to learn issues than an organization that doesn't. iss not causal, but it something i can act upon. one of the strongest issues will be strong market forces. enable transparency to the free market choice. the commercial industry for smart buildings and smart kitchens, they talk about a 35% saving in operating cost. but there are a couple words i have not heard in this discussion. 6, of them is ip version being probably necessary. another is, there's a whole

list of local and regional building code. that retrofitting is almost impossible. designing it initially becomes the answer. another word that probably hits the cards too is something called emp, either by terrorists or by natural causes, like a solar flare could bring down the whole network. then you might not be able to crawl out of your window. >> one of the interesting things you mentioned that i will latch onto. maybe i am taking your point too far in a direction you do not intend. if you look at buyers of

automobiles, when they need a software update, they have to take the car out of service until they get the update done. if you go to any rental car agency, they might have a fleet of 100 cars at that location. how many hours does it take her vehicle if they have to go out -- take per vehicle if they have to go out on do that? i can see a scenario where you go to the future and they say, i am sorry, we can't use any food that requires refrigeration because we need someone to update the refrigerator. yeah, on your cell phone they have automatic updates. may be something you can do with refrigeration. but again, that means you must be connected to the internet. that opens up the greatest potential risk from adversaries. if it's isolated already, you have a better window to be able

to wait. maybe you don't have to shut down your fridge before you update. the connecting to the internet part is what makes you have to shut the fridge down before you can use it. >> one more question and closing remarks. i think you have the mic here. >> i'm with greg on the whole vision of smart home with the jetsons. i want to know, where my flying cars? [laughter] if you look at cars in the highway safety institute in all the testing they do -- until there is some --ity that actually tests i'm not talking about standards, myople that crash things --

supposition is that consumers will never really know what is safe and what isn't until the actual testing. accelerate something like that. josh, you were talking about liability -- if you look at places like the mayo clinic that have imposed liability on their vendors. if your software fails and there is a breach, you are liable. >> through contract, yes. >> through contract. unless there is a consumer onement to demand liability the manufacturer who is bringing something into my home that has this vulnerability known, then

withouse those two things, i'm not sure that just relying on the goodwill of manufacturers to do the right thing. we know that is simply not going to happen. they will push the product out the door with no known both abilities because they can. >> only talk about a physical object -- a chair, a table -- there are certain protections as a matter of law under the version of the uniform commercial code. that has been incorporated by state legislatures consistently into all contract law. that gives consumers certain rights of recourse. you can rejects products that are right to your door that are not conforming with what they were supposed to be when you purchased it. we have these protections for physical objects. but in code land, software has generally been shared with these end-user license agreements,

that say you use it at your own risk, whatever happens is not our problem. when it was the chapter of your latest book that got lost when you got the blue screen of death, you were annoyed, but you don't with it. -- you dealt with it. but a blue screen of death on a medical device that is iot is real death, right? so we have this physical space norm of liability and i higher-level of consumer protection because of the information disparities. we have this norm for software. these norms are clashing in the iot context. courts will struggle with this. that is where the rubber is hitting the road in the iot car. discussion, one of the ways i met andrea was

posing the question -- is software liability the worst possible idea except for all others? basic pieces i -- basic thesis you want to put responsibility on those that can bear the risk. this will come to a head. maybe it's the first kid getting hit by a soft driving car. -- a self driving car. it's better to have a plan than to have a knee-jerk reaction afterwards. let's do a 32nd closing remarks from each of you -- 30 second closing remarks from each of you. >> i think is going to take another fire to create the kind of safety boards. someone has written a lot about air travel. i agree, i would love something like the national transportation safety board for the internet of

things. i book flights. i sleep like a baby on them because i know it's the safest thing i can do, given the oversight. a plane crash is zero tolerant and also an anti-fragile culture. there is a way to improve it to patch those vulnerabilities. i don't know what it would take to create a cultural shift, but it would be a great thing. glitch, a nesta that burns down entire narratives. i don't think it will be a cyber attack that we can blame hackers. some horrific death or property damage might be able to save it. druge on your point a little bit you said the manufacturers won't do this. not only that. they can't. there is fiduciary responsibility of management to return investment to the share holders. til security becomes a

monumental or financial issue for organizations maybe they can't and maybe that is one of the spaces we should start looking at more is how do we make cyber safety a financial issue for organizations with carrot sticks, market demand, whatever it might take? that might shape and shift the landscape more than some of the other things. >> so my final thought is coordination opportunities. playing on that last point while some entities will argue our fiduciary duties require us to maximize profits and cut corners on security different organizations argue long-term maximizeation of corporate value instead requires investment in r&d and building products that engender loyalty from our customer base. so coordinating, rewarding those kinds of behaviors across all parts of our ecosystem. for example the securities and

exchange commission issued guidance that strongly encourages/requires disclosures of material breaches of security by publicly traded companies. they've made some comments that perhaps the disclosures and 10 k's are not quite the level they were hoping for. but coordinating the information in the market place that's coming from part a of the enterprise with the lawyer generated disclosures coming from part b and looking for the big picture story about how an entity cares about security or doesn't care about security and what affirmative measures are they taking to be the best version of themselves in order to help consumers stay safe, to engender a sense of trust in the market place, and to nudge forward innovation and in a way that bolsters our economy as a whole rather than compromises our information flow. >> so i want to end on a colonel of hope tying a few

things together that we've heard. at our first constitutional congress, some others in the room were there and andrea told the whole room it was going to take a river on fire before anyone would listen. and our stubbornness said, you know what? we'll try. we'll build relationships and trust and use empathy and we want to be safer sooner together. and sitting right there, right next to suzanne last year, started a pretty intense exchange of education and awareness to cross between the industries. when we talked about it she said it would take proof of harm of medical device to trigger corrective action. so similar to your point, dead bodies. but the week before, excuse me, the week before they issued the first ever essentially recalled safety communication on a hot fire infusion pump with zero proof of harm because through that dialogue they cong clued an unmitigated pathway to harm was sufficient to trigger a corrective action. now in the guidance.

so the idea of saving lives and waiting for really bad things to happen, we're stubborn enough that we're not going to wait for that and discussions like this and collaborations will allow us to be safer sooner together and for now let's take it to the next stage. thank you for your time and thanks to the panelists. [applause]

>> this week on c-span we're featuring programs on the situation of the current supreme court vacancy. today at 6:00 with an apparent impasse between democrats, the white house, and republicans over the next supreme court justice, we look at what today's leaders have said in

the past concerning the nominating animation process of individuals to the supreme court. >> in my view confirmation hearings no matter how long, how fruitful, how thorough, can alone provide a sufficient basis for termining if a nominee merits a seat on our supreme court. >> a thoughtful senator should realize any benefits of barring an ideological opponent from the court are not likely to outweigh the damage done to the ourt's institutional standing. ideological opposition to a nominee from one end of the political spectrum is likely to help generate similar opposition to later nominations from the opposite end. >> these are some of the programs featured this week on -span.

later, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues in the south bronx in new york city at bernie sanders' campaign rally with live coverage starting at 7:00 eastern. we'll have that over on c-span 2. around 8:00 eastern it's book tv in primetime on race and politics starting with a panel discussion from the recent tucson book festival. on c-span 3 it's american history tv with the symposium on the end of the civil war and reconstruction and that starts at 8:00 eastern. >> tonight on c-span the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to light with the c-span series "landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions." our 12-part series explores real life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall in marlboro vs. madison said, this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up the political structures. it's also a law. and if it's a law, we have the

courts to tell what it means and that's finer than the other branches. >> the fact that it is the ultimate antiprecedential case. it is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? in lochner vs. new york the supreme court said it should make those decisions about the debates. >> tonight we'll look at the decision that struck out many state and federal regulations on working conditions that violated the liberty of contract lochner v. new york tonight on c-span and -span.org. c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning former retired commander wesley clark will join us to discuss nato's role in the aftermath of the brussels attacks and the fight against isis and also the role

national security issues are playing in campaign 2016. then counsel on foreign relations senior fellow and journalist talks about her "new york times" best selling book "ashley's war" about the team of women soldiers on the special ops battle field and will discuss the u.s. military's integration of women into combat roles which starts tomorrow. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern friday morning, live. join the discussion. >> next a pentagon briefing on the u.s. led military campaign against the islamic state and operation inherent resolve. they also talk about recent military offenses and the coalition plans for expanding support for iraqi security forces. >> the associated press's position against the first question, back over to you in washington. baldor. ould be lita

>> thanks for doing this. on the iraq operations the general the other day said we should expect to see additional u.s. forces going to iraq in he coming weeks. first, do you have any sense how many more? do you have any thoughts at this point about where they may go? are they likely to go up in the north where they can help with the moss ule shaping operation -- mosul shaping operations and are they likely to include even more movements by marines with the iraqi forces? thank you. >> thank you for that question. and i saw the comment by the chairman the other day. as you'd expect, for us as a headquarters, we have been working very much with our

iraqi partners as they have expanded their operations and gone into the counterattack. we've effectively through that planning worked out what could be described as a menu of capabilities to continue to enhance them as their operations have expanded. in terms of exactly when, from that menu, we'll see movements forward, i'm not measuring it in necessary in terms of weeks. i know we're waiting for some decisions to be made both outside of here and back in iraq, itself. in terms of the work, they've expanded their operations both in anbar and up into the province and that will come as their plan confirms where the additional work is required. i'll just put one part to sort of ask -- you mentioned movement at the end. everything else is going to continue really to enable and expand our support to our iraqi

partners in that way so we're not looking at changing what you've seen us do so far. we're going to work in support of our iraqi partners, particularly in provision of advice and fire but not actually move with them as you might have just mentioned by accident there. hopefully that answers the question. i'll take a followup if you want me to. >> yes. on the marines i think that was part of the question. 'm wondering if we'll see more fires by the marines in support of the iraqis as they advance, and will you beef up that type of support? >> that's one of the aspects inside the menu. i am very much as you have seen, you know, the marines were put in with the artillery in order to provide either self-defense fire or supporting fire as they were advancing. as they have been advancing,

you're aware those u.s. marines with those guns have been supporting our iraqi partners. we've been doing similar type of activity down in anbar with army artillery units as well in support of our iraqi partners there. and i'm not sure exactly who it might provide. expanding that is on the menu. it may be other coalition members as well. >> the next two, barbara starr from cnn. >> general, being as you are from texas, at least temporarily, i would -- i'm sure you're aware of the conversation across the united states about military -- about what the military is doing in the counterisil campaign and a lot of suggestions from national level figures about what they think needs to be done. because you talked to the coalition members so often, i wanted to ask you two things. do you hear anything from --

first, do you hear anything from any coalition members about the notion that one hears in the united states on the ational level that you seem to clear weapons against isis should be on the table. does anybody in the coalition you ever talk to think that is a good idea? >> no. that's strange. that is a conversation i've never heard discussed amongst any of our coalition members about using nuclear weapons against isis. at any stage. that takes me completely by surprise. the simple answer to that is no. >> i'll ask you a followup. here in the united states, from national level figures, or at least one of them, there has been a discussion that troops, these days, are afraid to fight -- those are the words used -- they're afraid to fight because

they're worried about the geneva convention implications of their actions. on a level of working military out there fighting isil, have you ever heard that anybodyas frayed to fight because they could be held accountable under the geneva conventions? i suppose that applies to your own government as well, your own british troops. are they afraid to fight because the geneva convention -- that is something that has een brought up here. >> no. i've seen over the last couple years similar sort of articles raising that as a question. the infantry offset is being evolved and the combat over the last decades. all of the troops i have had the privilege of commanding very much understand the underpinning context of geneva convention, the reason that it is established, and we have never -- i've never heard of

soldiers afraid to fight because of the geneva convention in that regard. we regard it very much as a sense of basic principles which guide our behavior in battle and very much enable us to deal with a very unusual human experience and to live within their rules i think is good for both our soldiers and the very population that we fight on .ehalf of >> i just wanted to follow up. there was a bit of a controversy surrounding the british in basra and there was a withdrawal there and a reluctance of forces to support the charge of the night. i wondered if the british military is feeling a sense of needing to redeem itself at his point?

>> i did serve in basra but not at that period of time. i don't think the british military -- i remember the story. it's something that has come up in discussion over time, the lessons that we learned from it, but that was quite sometime ago. and i think for most of our military now who serve multiple tours in afghanistan since, there is absolutely, i definitely feel, no sense to redeem myself. i'm a professional military soldier and i think the reputation for the british army still stands strong in that egard. >> hi, general. going back to lolita's first question, we've asked several times in the pt several weeks about the shaping operations in mosul. what is the most up to date, most recent estimate for how many iraqi troops it will take to actually begin the offensive operations, not the shaping operations but actually begin the operations in mosul, and

what's the most up to date estimate for when they will -- those troops will be prepared to begin that? and then i have a question on yria afterwards. >> on the mosul question, you'll think i'm being slightly evasive and i don't mean to be but the details are such that with operational planning and we work with our iraqi partners on that on a regular basis it is definitely one of those areas they are retaining operational security of. you rightly touched that the isolation of mosul has very much moved on with the iraqi army now operations, something we talked about the u.s. marine corps, etcetera. ut the next steps after that iraqis are looking to sort of keep the street tactics.

i work very hard to understand their plans in order to ensure that we can properly sustain and support their scheme of maneuver as it develops. i know that is slightly evasive but you understand that military planning, particularly for something of this complexity, is something that they are keen to keep reasonably tight control of. frpblts if i could ask you one question on syria, i'm not sure if this falls completely in your lane or not, but on the russian activity in syria, can you give us an update on what you're seeing? we know there were reports that they took out about 20 aircraft about two weeks ago i think it was, two or three weeks ago. are you seeing the -- oh, did he lose me? >> no, still good. >> okay. i can be louder if that helps. >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay. i'll start over. courtney from nbc news, still. on syria, could you give us a sense of what you're seeing about russian activity in syria?

there were reports --. >> general, we're testing again. one, two, three. three, two, one. >> that sounds better. i could hear some of that. > a question about russia. >> thank you. hi, general. so on russian presence in syria, can you give us a sense of what you're seeing there? there were reports a couple weeks ago that the russians took about 20 aircraft out. have they moved any more aircraft out since then? i think it was march 17. what kind of operations are you still seeing them conduct in syria? is it helicopters, fixed wing, what sort of strikes are they aking? > good question.

i believe what we saw was a number of russian aircraft you described, they retained a presence in the country and they are still supporting the regime in some of those operations that are being conducted. we have seen a change since the cessation of violence and you'll see this in open sources that their operations now are ostly focused against advances toward palmyra being the most recent objective. they are supporting the regime through a number of range and you described some yourself there from our observation of what we've seen so far. that is probably about the best picture i've got at the moment. as you know, we don't do detailed coordination with the grounds elements on that side with the regime. >> hi, general. thanks for doing this.

in the way of sustainment can you give us any sense and idea coalition e of the effort in supplying equipment to the i.s.f.? do you have any figures on that? ow much? >> that as very good question. i don't have the figures directly at hand but actually you would be able to find them fairly easy to hand. we use the iraqi train and equip fund which as you know procures a loft the equipment set and also provided us the freedom in order sometimes to increase things like training sites to enable the trainees to sort otch rate through. those figures -- i can't remember exactly what the figure is -- one point something. i wouldn't like to -- that work has gone on through and over

time we've used that fund particularly focused on the counter attack brigade to sort of equip them and train them and requip them to move forward. and then i've actually got someone with the detail now, i think the original charge was 1.6 billion and that allowed us to roll out the first series of counteroffensive brigades and now subsequent tronches have been added to that and those we're very much using to extra bits of damage replacement, vehicles lost in combat and sustainment to sustain those units in what is quite a high intensity fighting at the moment, therefore is out stripping what is routinely budgeted for it. what we're also doing is working with the local police forces. this is an area where our nation donations have proven extremely useful. body armor for the police and

ome of the nonstandard ammunition for things like the ak-47, etcetera, which also received quite a lot of donations from a number of countries who helped us meet that demand. setting it for shaping operations around mosul at-4's e thought to the or perhaps --? >> i think what we've done is i've been in a number of these meetings where the iraqis and the pesh have very much gone through their experiences and identified what works and what we tuned roved and as

some of the equipment to get a better idea what they use in terms of ratios. some of what you mention there -- along with that, clearly, also is a lot of engineering equipment given the level of the explosive devices they are using very much as obstacles to try and limit the advance of ome of our partners. >> just a followup to courtney's question, have the russians put in more equipment to syria than they have taken out? >> no, not that i've seen. all i've seen is the withdrawal of the arblinge. there was equipment in there, you know, they've had equipment in there for many, many years. some of that was withdrawn. some of that was returned. what i've seen is a withdrawal

of the aircraft but i haven't seen as you just described the reverse flow. >> but over all, general, are you seeing a russian pull out f syria? >> no. i've seen a partial withdrawal of some capabilities is how i describe it. > seeing the russian forces? >> no, i think there might have been a cross over there. i describe it as a partial withdrawal of some apabilities. [stand by -- audio difficulty] >> no, no we're not. >> next we'll go to lou

martinez with abc news. >> thank you, general. going back to the lessons learned from ramadi, how well did the iraqi forces do with maintaining the supply lines for what turned out to be a very long operation, and what lessons can be learned for what can be transferred to mosul given the larger scope of that potential operation? >> well, that is a very good question. i think the iraqis did learn a lot of lessons. i think they have learned the lessons that you can move from sort of tikrit on ward in the initial part and ramadi, we saw, sort of an example of that. the first bit i think is they are seeing much better cooperation between the iraqi army, the iraqi police, and the counterterrorism service. and actually them sort of ensuring they can support each other's sustainment pieces. i have seen them work out how munitions should flow,

particularly how vehicles can be recovered and replaced back. that has enabled us to try and better understand what they need more of at time and space. what we call the burn rate, i.e., the rate at which fighters have been used, i think, is one of the key lessons we took out, both us and the iraqis. as you rightly say, mosul is different. it is also further away from the main iraqi logistics base and therefore they are working pretty hard at trying to understand exactly what they need to preposition in order to sustain some of those lessons learned from ramadi. > tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to life with the c-span series landmark cases, historic supreme court decisions. the 12 part series explores real life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in american history. >> john marshall in marbury vs. madison said this is different. the constitution is a political document. it sets up the political

structures. it is also a law. and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means and that's on the other branches. >> the fact that it is the ultimate antiprecedential case. it is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? in lochner, vs. new york the supreme court said it should make those decisions of the debates. >> tonight we'll look at the case that struck down many state and federal regulations on working conditions that violated the 14th amendment's guaranteed liberty of contract, lochner v. new york tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org. >> i am a history buff. i do enjoy seeing the fabric of our country and how things work and how they're made. >> i love american history tv. american artifacts. the presidency. they're fantastic shows. >> it's something i'd really enjoy. i had no idea they had history.

>> with american history tv it gives you that sper spectrometryive. it gives you that perspective on american history tv. >> i'm a c-span fan. >> president barack obama has nominated merrick garland, chief judge of the d.c. circuit court of appeals to fill the seat of antonin scalia on the supreme court. republican senators have vowed to block that nomination, saying the decision ought to be left to the next president. senate democrats have said there's plenty of time left in this year's senate session to hold hearings and floor debates on the president's nominee. over the next few hours here on c-span, we'll show you what some of the major figures at the center of today's debate have said in the past about the nomination animation process for the supreme court and lower courts including a summer, 1992 speech by then senator joe biden, which has received a lot of attention lately. we're going to start, though, with president barack obama in the rose garden a few weeks ago