i don't know that the fips help focus on the way and frankly the fips led to some silly results. i would just mention i've been surprised by example by the department of homeland security privacy impact assessment on border searches of electronic devices. which focus a lot on notice adds privacy protection. at the point that your device has been seized from you and its contents cop ooed, it is difficult to think that notice is meaningful protection. it may be necessary but whether it's protection or not, i think it's not. second point, one of the things we are seeing emerging in the debate in the private sector and we see this especially in europe and the context of discussing the general data protection regulation there is greater focus on risk management or risk assessment and risk management. i don't mean to use this because it is the jargon of the day but rather because risk management is an incredibly valuable tool that in the private sector we are far behind on. we have a clear idea what it means. part of the reason is we don't know what risk we're guarding against. we are

but for example, if we think of fips and classic 1980 fips, we oecd fips, we're talking about consent, use limitation to the purpose specified and then we add things like minimization. participation and that's in that environment. in other words, how does that really work? there 60 people in the room and they have recording devices and video and audio. they don't have a statement for any of them. they don't know about any of the rights and i suspect they would want to interview them about it. it's not a meaningful way to import the issue. they have the larger effect of doing. it is a very difficult way to approach that and an impossible way to approach it in the public sector environment. it may lead to completely wrong results. in other words, if one of the surprising things to me and can't believe i'm going to say this in a place that is being recorded, about section 215, the nsa connected this and did so little with it. it was astonishing. you would like to say when people talk about the limits on what you can do with the data, if we thought of something new that might really have

, and i gather you were talking about the 2008 dhs it ration of the fips. but then you said that the, the individual participation fip can't really apply to your activities. and the transparency one can apply in a very limited way. i guess, i'm wondering whether it doesn't make sense to come up with a new set of principles that applies to surveillance of the government, if you look at dhs fips, the transparency cannot apply because it's talking about providing notice to the individual, regarding collection, that's not obviously going to take place. individual participation can't apply at all. some are very, very important, specification is important, minimagsization, some are important, but yet, this doesn't at all address things like, fresh holds, evidentiary for collection which are required obviously by law, but if you're talking about prince. s that are supposed to sit on top of the legal requirements, you should talk about thresholds, and there are other principles that don't come into play here. i'd be interested in knowing why you decided to apply th

the fips are one framework.while traditional nsa civil liberties and privacy questions center on citizenship and location of foreign intelligence targets as well as collection techniques, fips-related questions boil down to follow the data. data-centric perspectives mean privacy officials ask different questions; what is the data being collected, and how will it be used? we have designed a template and during the next year will refine the questions and process to insure we're beating a repeatable, meaningful and helpful progress to identify and mitigate civil liberties and privacy risk. a critical part of the civil liberties and privacy assessment process is to make sure we're not merely checking off boxes, but fundamentally weighing the risks associated with the activity to form a holistic value proposition. in essence, we're asking should nsa conduct a given activity given the civil liberties and privacy risk? nsa is documenting both standard practices such as minimization as well as any specialized tools desi

i think some of the fips make a lot of sense some of the fips like security make sense. others might not. but i think the larger component of all this is that there's adequate control and accountability which is also part of the fips so that everything within the fips, such as individualized notice much everything that's collected is not really feasible. there is a greater transparency right in the fips, too. not that individuals get notified of every collection about them, but that there is a public accountability and generalized exposure about what's going on. >> i thought that the acknowledgment in the nsa report that some of the fips principles couldn't be fully implemented in the context of a national security surveillance program was an absolutely accurate acknowledgment of reality. you can't provide error correction notice in all circumstances. i certainly agree that -- i mean, i was talking more about the secondary screening on the no-fly list where we do have morrow bust rights. but the challenge for you is going to be trying to figure out what the underlying va

. >> there was talk about the fips, the fair information practice principle. which there is no definitive version of them, but there is a version that was adopted by the department of homeland security in 2008. which is as good as any, i think. an it seemed to me also that there was agreement that the fips framework provide the framework, the question, they are nowhere perfectly implemented. nowhere fully implemented. but they are relevant as a framework for asking about how you deal with information. then you decide, do you adjust it? does it work? if it doesn't work, you compensate for it with more emphasis on other issues. is that again a fair -- paul, you're making a some what skeptical face. you would at least say that it was a framework for asking the question. >> it is a framework for starting point for asking the question. but i think that many of those questions don't with stand the technological trance nations we're going through.sce nations we're going through.ice nations we're going through.e nations we're going through. nations we're going through

what alternative do you suggest. >> to be clear i'm not saying i don't like the fips just that i don't think they are the be-all and all and i think it is a very useful tool in terms of identifying the negative impact and a beneficial impact and one of the things we have not talked about is the value of data for national security or whatever. managementct of risk is it helps focus on both sides of the equation and helps drive toward specificity. --you ever want a documented >> as we identify the harmful or we can negative impacts look for tools that help minimize those impacts. so if the harmful impact is that you collect all this data and that be stolen the fear is the government might repurpose it for some other use and we can talk about use limitations that would help address that but i think a great advantage is that makes clear, where should we be .ocusing our attention >> thank you to all the speakers throughout the day and the audience that submitted questions of it we had a remarkably informative discussion we've heard from academics and government officials, and we have covere

. >>> and typhoon hynan how much needs to be done to help the people of the fip peens. philippines. >> welcome back to al jazeera america. i'm jonathan betz. john siegenthaler has the night off. coming up in this half hour, tough talk, we'll talk to the central witness in one of the biggest financial investigations in history. >>> plus, unnatural habit, climate change are threatening birds across the northwest, how birds are adapting. >>> the woman who left behind 100,000 photos, hailed as a master. one year ago, the justice dparmd announced a $13 billion settlement with j.b. morgan chase. cost millions of jobs and triggered a recession. former alform ali velshi sat doh the form he employee. >> this article you have to read, is titled the $9 billion witness. meet the woman jpmorgan chase paid one of the largest fines in american history to keep from talking. joining me is matt taibi and elaine fleischman. elaine what did you do at jpmorgan chase? >> i was a quality manager, making sure the loans were being reviewed properly and they were good enough to sell to investors

you remember just last month justices declined to hear cases dealing with marriage equal fip that's essentiallyts the issue potentially on a rapid track to a supreme show down. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams is life in washington with the latest. what does it mean? what is your interpretation here? >> well, it means there's a split among the federal circuit. they didn't -- the supremes didn't say last month why they didn't take up a challenge involving four states in the same-sex marriage, but it seems likely now they could. and so the only question is there time left in this term and the answer to that is potentially yes. the people who lost in these cases yesterday the same-sex couples who were challenging the state bans, they have a choice to make. they can go to the full court of appeals. yesterday was a three-judge panel. they can go to the full circuit and ask them to rehear the case or simply step the and go to the supreme court. and all indications are it's the latter option they will go ahead and ask the supreme court. if they do it quickly there's still time for the cour

car but we would not ld it out today as the state of innovation and we would not think today of the fips as privacy. what would that look like? ways to answer that question and i think to by r it you have to begin thinking about what sort of value privacy is. and here again i think i find yself in some disagreement with other members on the panel and perhaps with members of the board ifment do not think that privacy is an aunt logical val u. i don't think it's akin to religion. it's not an inherent human right or the product of natural law. in my judgment it's an instrumental value, one that acts in the service of other societal values. it's ue till taryn value that derives its worth as it fosters other positive social gains. privacy for its own sake is just an assertion as an autonomy from society. it is a valuable if insofar as it advances other objectives. now, let me kind of put some salt on that. buried in is that the word privacy are many different social values that we're fostering, too many to eally catalog though the a good job of trying to start. for example, we often see and t

i would like to turn to fips and mr. goiger, i was happy that you recognized those and professor kate as well. so i would like to direct this question at first to the two of you. so mr. geiger, i notice that in the written statement that you sent us to you talked about the fips but you didn't really talk about the individual participation fip. and i guess when i talk about the fips, i'm referring it primarily to the dhs version. you said in your oral statement just now that the fips are not a smorgasbord, they are a framework. you can't just pick and choose between them. if you have to employ the fip, how can that work in a surveillance context in. >> that's the tough toastest >> that's the tough toaste to a this this context. one way to do it, which is not viable or good policy, is bring suit for violations of law. but my, i think more reasoned answer, is if the fip is lacking in the national security context, then the rest of the framework has to work overtime to compensate and that includes data minimization, which is