our nine-part series "1968: america in turmoil." starting tonight, we discussed the vietnam war. tuesday, a look at the presidential campaign of that year. wednesday, civil rights and race relations. thursday, liberal politics, friday will be conservative politics, and saturday women's rights. all nine programs are available on spotify as a podcast or watch any time on our 1968 page. now, a discussion about the new tsa program called "open skies." joining us in our studio and

washington, d.c., a reporter and spotlight fellow for the posten globe. -- boston globe. le that tsa plays in surveilling p >> what is the general role the tsa plays and following people for international travel. >> they are responsible for everything in the aviation area. under the umbrella of the tsa you have the u.s. federal air marshal service who have been placed on sites since 9/11 to prevent similar attacks. now, with the new program, they are actively conducting intense surveillance on ordinary americans. host: how does it work? guest: if you have flown into the country since march, you have been part of the program.

it is based on travel patterns. larger pull of passengers, you might get a pet down or go through a body scanner. a smaller percentage of about 5000 by now has been assigned a air of armed undercover marshals to follow them around airports and on the plane and right down what they do, note there behavior, when they went to the bathroom, if they were fidgeting. i was coming from boston yesterday afternoon and i was so looking what they are for. host: some of these activities you can associate with normal air travel as it is. guest: i'm already fidgeting. host: air marshals are looking at these as potential signs for

danger? guest: they think guest: they think that people -- they think they can mitigate a potential terrorist attack or a threat by broadening the pool of people they look at closely. host: just to clarify, there are people flying in from other countries into this country. does it deal with anyone flying within the country? guest: no, you get screened for the program if you fly in. if you have met a series of rules -- if you have been to places where there are known terrorists, then you are flagged. for the next two or three domestic flights you take, you could be surveilled. host: so if your name comes up on a list, you will have a specific air marshal assigned to you to observe you? guest: yes. host: tell us, does anyone know they are being actively surveilled? do you get some type of report? some type of notification? what is the transparency to the passenger involved? guest: absolutely nothing. my sources within the air

marshal service says they are being placed near the seat near the person, sometimes next to the person, and are just watching them the whole time. i just kept staring at the woman sitting next to me yesterday. wondering, what are you doing? i was shocked when i found out about this. guest: how did you find out about this? guest: i got a tip and i thought it was so ridiculous that i said, no way. but we reported it out and the more documents we got, we found out that it says this program targets u.s. citizens who are not under investigation and who are not on any terror watch list. they said it themselves. host: jana winter will be joining us a talk about this "quiet skies" program. if you have questions about this, we have divided phone lines. for frequent flyers, 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8001. you can also tweet us your

thoughts. here is a statement from the air marshals' associations. marshal'. it says they believe that missions based on recognized intelligence are in support of investigations. skies" program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable. the american public would be --ter served talked to your marshals about this program. -- about this program? guest: for quite a few years, the air marshals have conducted the surveillance missions on behalf of the fbi usually. if the fbi has an open terrorism investigation, and all of a sudden, the target is on the move, because air marshals are waiting at the airport, they are assigned to go follow the subject. of theirke up the tail

target, and then, report everything they do, write down everything they talk to, what are they doing on their computer? are youv time, and who talking to, and what are you drinking, or are you drinking anything? and a million other things. program is now doing the same thing except for ordinary americans who are not under investigation. and the information is being collected. tsa thing it could host: as far as the air marshals themselves, has anyone express what they are doing and thinking? guest: they think we should not be treating ordinary americans like terrorists. there are more than 40,000 domestic flights a day. every time a team of air

marshals is deployed to follow someone, most of the time, they are pulled off lights already deemed as a potential threat -- they are pulled off lights already deemed as a potential threat. marshals will air get deployed is many are flagged on a list? guest: it is more than one person. it is a team. host: for all of the surveillance done, what has been done as apprehension of potential terrorists? thursday know that on after some bipartisan outrage, i should note, a bunch of tsa officials briefed some committee staff and said, there have been 5000 of people surveilled and there have been zero threats so far. and they think that the program is great and they will continue it. host: those are teams of marshals assigned to people not

doing other things that a marshall should do? guest: correct. they followed 5000, probably more now, and found no threats, no suspicious activity double suspicious enough to merit any follow-up. host: have we heard any response from any of the federal agencies that deal with this and their specific thinking on this program? mean, i will deal with the tsa since that is to i have been speaking to. they are defending it without being very specific. aboutdon't want to speak what other agency said because i have not spoken to them on the record, but there was a lot of surprise because tsa told me that they briefed congress, and progress was like -- and congress was like, what? you did not brief us. that is an issue i don't feel

like a lot of people were informed about. the people who needed to be informed about it were not. i don't know what other federal agencies are thinking. tsa: here is part of a statement, saying the purpose of this program is to ensure passengers and flight crew are protected during your travel. the program does not take into account race or religion and is not to survey ordinary americans. information prevents the need for watching deterrence. guest: we are using really minimal resources to focus on the wrong people. parknk sitting down at a cop is sitting next year and record everything you are doing, it is in a public space. the interesting issue that will be tested by the courts is at what point is it intrusive? noting everything that you are

doing on your computer screen. that seems to exceed the level of observation. host: jana winter from the "boston globe" talking about the surveillance program. 202-748-8000 four you frequent flyers. all others, 202-748-8001. this is jackie from idaho, a frequent flyer. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: good morning. idaho tost year from do was, and all i had to pre-checkr the tsa where i don't have to go through the long line. just stamped it ended a little background check. i am a federal retiree. vetted by the fbi,

but that cannot make a difference. but this time, i am flying from a little town in idaho to a little town in montana. now, they want me to go in and get fingerprinted. it is going to take up to a month to get this done. why.did not tell me i mean, it has only been a year since i was approved, and now, all of a sudden, i mean, if i was flying into a big, giant airport or overseas or something like that, but this is just plain ridiculous. host: thank you very much. to her point -- guest: that is interesting. i was in the pre-check line yesterday. the person in front of me in the pre-check line had a pocket knife in their bag. anyway. so tsa did a good job with spotting that. i know they are still going

through people who have been pre-checked pretty closely. but i never heard of that and that is something i would want to ask them about. host: does this affect people flying into major airports across the u.s.? guest: it is wherever people are going. your flag fly in. it could be myrtle beach. there were flights in and out for their surveillance team. host: leo from new york is next. caller: good morning. my question is, there is a old list of -- there is an old list that the federal government has of terrorists. there are one many people on this list. it is known at this list is outdated. has this been corrected or has it remained the same? guest: are you talking about the main terrorist watchlist? i don't want to speak to that because i am not sure. i know that the "quiet skies" program goes outside of that.

so it targets those not included in the database. host: the tsa response highlighted concerns those with race and religion. here was a response from the group care. the arbitrary surveillance of innocent people and airports guarantees muslim passengers will be disproportionately harassed by officials based on race and religious profiling with no benefit to the traveling public or nation security. factor the race and religious matters. guest: they are not saying much about what merits this kind of scrutiny. we do not know yet. there are a lot of potential issues here, legally and otherwise. the aclu also filed something. i mean, we don't now. i don't want to say that it does, but they have been able to say what they are doing with this information they are collecting. is this being used over time? what is that about?

and if that is based on profiling people, then that is a problem. host: and you said this before just to clarify, ultimately, the collection of information, we don't know where it is going? guest: we know it is being collected by tsa and not shared by partner agencies, unless the air marshals see significant derogatory behavior. it is a lot of information. what are they doing? ifsources explain that someone tries to do something on a plane. an actual crime. host: let's go to new jersey. kurt is next. you are on. caller: thank you, c-span, and thank you for your guest. officeesident obama left there is no reason why they don't share tsa and the fbi and

the cia because they are all one. can you explain what president obama did? thank you. guest: i am not sure i am qualified to explain that. i do know that tsa falls under the department of homeland security. and they have been pretty vague about that information and being shared in the same database with different databases. we don't know if that is a combined intel situation because they will not tell us. and that is what is pretty outrageous because we don't know. host: when the government targets individuals without probable cause rather than observe the public's square, that is a violation of the fourth amendment. is that a base for some of the court cases you're talking about? guest: the sources we spoke to said this could be an interesting legal case. and fairly unprecedented in terms -- we look at surveillance

, or the courts due largely, in terms of electronics and wiretaps and that sort of thing. and not so much the physical surveillance. and how much privacy are you affected if any in a public space? when you are in the secure parts of airports, you have gone through the screening. doesn't mean do you have any rights for anything? host: for those of you frequent flyers out there, it is 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001 for all others. we are talking to jana winter from the "boston globe" taking a look at the "quiet skies" program. as far as congressional reaction, this was a reaction who one of the legislators responded saying -- i am troubled by reports that tsa is tracking u.s. citizens who are not suspected of any crime, and then monitoring and oculist behavior, such as a person using the bathroom were obtained a rental car. guest: yeah.

that is pretty much -- it is interesting because the outrageous coming from both sides of the aisle. trey gowdy is calling for the to call forair hearings. it is a lot of, you know, national security -- is this our best? what is this doing and how much is this costing us? host: do you know that figure? guest: we know that the most recent figure that i could find to be honest, was from the government accountability office that came out in the late 2017 that the tsa spent 800 million on the air marshals' service in 2018. there is just a proposal to reduce a lot of that funding. sort of everything is up in the air right now. i do not need to make a joke. [laughter] host: when it comes to the

actual tsa program, what have we gained from having these marshals? is there measurable evidence of stopping activity before? guest: part of the problem is in this report that was ordered by congress, they determined that tsa is unable to really quantify or give any information about the effectiveness of the air marshals' service. their job is to deter acts. so what do you use to measure deterrence? they -- a bill was introduced in december that passed the house and is awaiting full consideration in the senate that would wire tsa to report back in detail about what methodology they used to do for people on planes, and how much that is costing, and all of the other details they don't keep track of is ast: our guest spotlight fellow. what is that? guest: you apply for something that is really cool and you hope to get chosen. you pitch one project, this is

not that object. host: new york is next. this is from tom. tom and merrick, new york. go head. you're on with our guest. caller: have you heard of a program called viper? host: in the airport? viper teams were posted on the rooftops and notify federal agencies that work with the police department. this was a super swat team that was supposed to be able to do stops and inspections on the roads and provide special support. tsa has absolutely gone out of control, i believe. there seems to be nobody watching what they do. and if they are watching, it is not for a purpose. i want to thank you for doing this. it takes a lot of guts. i hope things go very well for you and the people. host: what reaction from tsa did

you get wants this was exposed? guest: they were not thrilled. but they were serving prepared. we knew -- they knew were doing this. they did not even can from the program existed. and then they finally told us, yes, this is the program. so, they have been doing a fairly decent job at trying to spin this story in other outlets. it is interesting because we have all the documents that show , their documents, to show what they are doing. there will be much more reporting from us. host: is the person that gets surveilled, how are they subject to what is nervous, drinks too much, how does that look? guest: when are marshals are assigned to someone, they get a packet. there is a photo of the person with information with their

place of birth, and sometimes with more details like, you went to turkey. the team locates a person at the gate. note the time when identified them, and then they follow them around. at the end of the mission, they submit a report -- they submit a behavior report that is, by all accounts, interesting. there is a lot of stuff on their -- a lot of stuff on there. thesleeping, the fidgeting, bathroom, did you talk or text on the phone, did you have the computer open, describe all electronics and what they look like. then you have to fill out a separate after action report, which is time coded like at this time, this person wearing this talked to this person wearing this. this unidentified subject was standing next to the security camera, and the name bought a breakfast sandwich.

it is pretty intense. host: let's go to alexandria, virginia. maranda, hi. caller: thank you for being on this morning. i have a couple of questions. my first one, will the number of increased forhe this program? and my second question is, are these employees, air marshal employees, intervene with other crimes in the sky like sexual harassment or assault, or are they only differ surveillance? guest: thank you for your questions. whether doing in terms of mothers is something they keep quiet. but i do know there have been a bunch of incidents where near marshall happened to be on a an air marshal happened to be on a plane where there was an altercation.

if anything happens, they are on the plane and they will not continue to surveilled people and not stop and help . host: from chicago illinois, hello. caller: yeah. be, why am iould being profile because of my collar and name -- because of my color and name? host: are there direct connections as far as color and name? guest: i don't want to go too far in terms of what we know. i have been told by some air marshals that there -- that they received a passenger target based on the name being similar to someone on a watchlist, or the fact they might know someone on the watchlist. i don't think we know yet caffe with a are doing. host: let's go to phil in

florida. you are on with our guest. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a little concerned about this issue, and i am glad it is being investigated. i want to ask a question to the guest and then make a comment, if i can. what are the origins again of the tsa? how do that, about? guest: after 9/11. caller: ok. concerns ashe same the other fellow, and all of the surveillance, our fourth amendment being attacked. our freedoms are being given up. it is common sense that we revisit the reason we were given for this tsa, i would like everyone to go back and take a look at the official story of 9/11. find the truth.

host: thank you. guest: i do think there is a point about what the actual mission and mandate of tsa and the air marshals' services is. and that is sort of why so many air marshals have comes -- have become for today. they feel like, they may be participating in something that is illegal, and this is way out of their lane. they are not supposed to be collecting intelligence on regular travelers. host: as far as your reporting on this, is there a next step coming to the "quiet skies" feature reported it? what can we look forward to next? guest: more stories, for sure. we will be keeping track of what is going on and who is calling for what hearings and the follow-up afterwards. looking atwill be things more in depth.

we have done a lot of reporting since then, and my editors may not want to keep blabbing about everything, so i will say, just look toward to stuff. host: let's go to robert. caller: thank you for c-span and for the guest. i strongly feel that i would like to vote for support for tsa. i support tsa, the law enforcement, fbi. i have no problem if someone wants to follow me around and look at my mundane day. no problem whatsoever. means even if that someone is pulled off of a flight. caller: what is that? i'm sorry, ma'am? guest: if you are being followed, they have probably been pulled off another mission were there is someone on a watch list, or someone around, the place them on a different flight. if they are watching you with your latte.

if we had indefinite resources, i could understand your point. lookr: management-wise, i at it like any other group of people in corporation, there are limited resources and funds. they need to do the best job they can given the mission, but in terms of the actual mission, i have no issue whatsoever with them doing what they need to do, and i support them. host: outside of tsa, outside of the federal government, what about the avenues of support? seen any? guest: for this program in particular? not really. support frombe highlighting with the program is doing, is not the same thing as attacking the purpose of the agency, or the federal law-enforcement community at large within tsa or outside of it. we can look at this as a civil liberties potential problem or a national security

problem because the resources that are getting pulled from elsewhere. and frankly, both of those are huge issues that need to be dealt with. in terms of issues being dealt , there are not many in support of this program. -- haveere had been there been mistake since the program started? guest: i would not speculate on that. i talked to more to a dozen air marshals who have been involved in this program. and they think that some of the people that they had been assigned to target appear to be ridiculous. and it is up to the individual operations' people to take the name of the person who is supposed to be assigned a team of the surveillance detail. they could these,

probably be removed from the list. host: don from phoenix, arizona. go ahead. caller: i don't know what surprises everybody. after all, we have a presidential deal brokered by the fbi. i cannot see what people are surprised about? host: that is don in phoenix, arizona. when do you expect the well,? -- when do you expect the next story will come out? ideas or you have any information, please talk to me. host: jana winter with the "boston globe." she has a story on washingtonc-span's

journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, that are in democratic consultant mike lux talks about his book on how the democratic party can regain congress and the white house. then the washington for a beacon stephen kitowski talks about the controversy over 3-d printed guns. and a retired army lieutenant colonel discusses foreign policy. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," coming up at 7:00 a.m. this morning. join the discussion. announcer: tonight on "the communicators," a look at the regulation of the new european privacy laws and how it will impact technology companies. joining us on the program, andident and ceo of bsa, the president and ceo of the center for democracy and

technology. >> we have think of our data custodian responsibilities. in the data age, every company is a data company. people are using and analyzing and amalgamating data about individuals i think this law. signals of a real change in our thinking, in the private sector and the government, about the rights of the individual in his or her own data, and that person has ongoing rights even when the data is used legitimately by good corporate actors. that is the conversation every company needs to have. >> if we want all the innovations of the united states that has done so much to the world to move forward in a positive way, we need to have the right rule underneath its and the right legal underpinnings. legalities is part of that. this week, book tv is

in primetime. starting tonight at 8:30 eastern, a senator and congressman trey gowdy talk about their book "unified." tuesday at 8:00 :00 p.m. eastern, sean spicer with his memoir "the briefing." and alan dershowitz with his book "the case against impeaching trump." wednesday at 8:00 p.m., the book "harvey milk." and richard munson on his book "tesla, inventor of the modern." and a self-help book about the leading social media accounts. and on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, andy puzner with his book. watch book tv this week in primetime on c-span2. no