i think overclassification is a way to shield information. it's a reason not to to share it. and even in my time in government, and i would defer to my colleagues, i've seen secret or top secret on documents that if it was redacted in a certain kind of way, the information could have been shared to your point with regard to transparency withoutdivulging sources and meds. so again we're looking, the whole overclassification, i think, is critically important going forward. secondly, i would say this. there's a word that's missing in this conversation between the federal government and the rest of the country, the word's trust. and even if you have secret and top secret information, it is beyond belief that somehow we can't figure out a way to share that with east the governors -- with either the governors or the homeland security advisers or other people out there on the ground. because you can't secure the country from inside the beltway. and unless we're willing to share more of this information even if it's secret or top secret and trust people who get it that they won't lea

overclassification is a way to shield information and a reason not to share. i would defer to my colleagues, on i have seen top-secret documents that if it was redacted in a certain way, the information could have been shared without divulging sources. i think we're looking at the whole question of classified and overclassification which is critically important going forward. missing in this conversation between the federal government and the rest of the country -- trust. you have secret and top-secret information, it is a beyond belief that somehow we cannot figure out a way to share that with either the governors, , orland security advisers other people out there on the ground. you cannot secure the country from inside the beltway. and yes you are willing to share more this information even if it is secret or top secret and trust people who get it that they will not leak it and not necessarily act upon it, we will never maximize our ability to defend ourselves. i just want to inject one more , we into this conversation need to look at the classification syst

we're trying to figure out do we have an overclassification problem or not? and it's actually a very difficult question when you get into it and try to look at it. i would highly look at what officials have been doing to try to get ahold of the classification problem. i would caution against the swing, which leads one to ask, you know, is there something we could do to make this more consistent between administrations which i think would be easier to administer at least from an intel community perspective. >> i want to note this administration, which is a liberal democratic administration has had more leaks cases prosecuted than all the administrations combined. this is where the swinging swung. >> no. if you look at the executive order under classification and classification structure, it's consistent with this. you're right about the leaks. we've also seen under this administration its impact of technology going back to the technology point, the damage that's been done by wikileaks and edward snowden and all sorts of releases that have occurred have been ma

overclassification is a way to shield information. it's a reason not to share it. and even in my time in government and i would denvdefe colleagues i've sign secret or top secret on documents if it was redacted in such a way the information could have been shared with regard to transparency without divulging the sources. so we look at the whole system of overclassification is critically important going forward. secondly i would say this. there's a word missing in this conversation between the federal government and the rest of the country. the word is "trust." and even if you have secret and top secret information it is beyond belief that somehow, we can't figure out a way to share it with the governors or the homeland security advisers or other people out there on the ground, because you can't secure the country from inside the beltway. and unless we're willing to share more of the information, even if it's secret or top secret and trust people who get it, that they won't leak it, and not necessarily act upon it, we'll never maximize our ability to defend ourselve

to take us to the really hard subjects journalists confront, closed doors, opaque governors, overclassification of public information and it has to help us perform the same mold great journalists have played for so long which is to hold public power to account and document the atrocities or abuses of power and tell stories about communities that are not heard from to tell stories that are memorable than change the way we understand our shared community and public square and all the other purposes we could list together for very long. how can technology play that role, new tools? that is what a place like our school and and why you wear dan fagin and others have durable institutions and space and the research culture, we are working on a project, how censored journalism can allow real-time documentation of revival information about environmental problems. if you want to try to measure claims being made about the degree of air pollution caused by fracking in an obscure rural area, how can you challenge various claims, you could place sensors out there and full information out in real time and rig