that was the purpose behind fisa. they were also concerned that developments in technology would allow agencies to exploit ambiguities in the law to swriewd upon american citizens' privacy. these are the stated aims of this legislation. so to protect u.s. persons not just from nsa, but also fbi programs or the u.s. army's operation conus or the irs programs, all of these, fisa established four important protections for u.s. persons. first, any information from electronic intercepts in particular had to be specifically tied to an individual, right? you could not just collect all electronic intercepts. second, that individual had to be identified as a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power prior to collection of information on that perp. finish on that person: minimization procedures had to be put into place, and the foreign intelligence surveillance court would oversee this process. now, initially, fisa dealt with electronic intercepts and gradually expanded to include intercepts, physical surveillance, pen rebel

you can actually query this database which the fbi has co-mingled with traditional fisa and there no record kept of this. under to the right of the people, which is understood as the political entity of u.s. citizens, not non-u.s. citizens. so the right of the people to be cure, their persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. right? we have this right, yet person identifiers are being used to query this database. now the foreign intelligence surveillance court offered reasons saying why there was not a warrant required for the collection of the information in the first place. they were good reasons. that when the purpose of the surveillance is not garden variety law enforcement. when the ój÷igovernment's inter is particularly intense. and where there is a high degree of probability that if you were to require a warrant, it would hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and would hurt u.s. national security. you can collect the information. none of those conditions hold when the fbi then goes back to the da

that was the purpose behind fisa. they were also concerned with the developments of technology to exploit americans. fisa established four important protections. first, any information from electronic intercepts in particular had to be specifically tied to an individual. second, that individual had to be identified as a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power prior to collection of information on that person. minimizization procedures had to be put in place. that is the numbers one dials from ones phones and the number ones receive on their phone. finally business record and tangible goods, which is of issue because this is the provision under which bulk collection takes place. under section 215, many of these basic principals and the approach of congress and the purpose of introducing fisa has really been countered by nsa's actions. first, there's no particularization prior to collection. the orders issued to verizon are just bulk collection. there's no probable cause that the individual was involved in any sort

you can actually query this database which the fbi has co-mingled with traditional fisa and there is no record kept of this. now under the fourth amendment, the right of the people, which is understood as the political entity of u.s. citizens, not non-u.s. citizens. so the right of the people to be cure, their persons, papers and effects, against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. right? we have this right, yet u.s. person identifiers are being used to query this database. now the foreign intelligence surveillance court offered reasons saying why there was not a warrant required for the collection of the information in the first place. they were good reasons. that when the purpose of the surveillance is not garden variety law enforcement. when the government's interest is particularly intense. and where there is a high degree of probability that if you were to require a warrant, it would hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and would hurt u.s. national security. you can collect the information. none of those conditions hold when th

did not comply with a fisa court order. the government wanted them to comply with a measured program. neil: wasn't as if they said you want to help us out and yahoo! said take a walk. they followed up with the fisa court and said you are still not helping and we're going to come down like a ton of bricks. you are for that because you want to give up all personal freedoms. >> i think so. neil: michelle? >> a perfect example of government overreach. i understand if they came to a private company and we have this one person who is a national security risk. we believe he's a terrorist. will you help us out? they're going in there and saying give us all of this data. if you don't do it, you're going to be charged over $200,000 a day. that to me is a threat. and that's not what america stands for. i think it's a little overreach. neil: bernard, what do you think? >> hold onto your hat, neil, kayleigh and i agree. in the wake of 9/11 we have to take extraordinary steps to protect the homeland. i think some of it went a little too

that was the purpose behind fisa. they were also concerned that developments in technology would allow agencies to exploit ambiguities in the law to intrude upon american scitizens privacy. so to protect u.s. persons, not just from nsa surveillance, but also from fbi programs or the u.s. army's operation or the irs programs, all of these, fisa established four important protections, four u.s. persons. first, any information from electronic intercepts in particular, had to be specifically tied to an individual. right? you could not just collect all electronic intercepts. second, that individual had to be identified as a foreign power prior to that authorization. min mization procedures had to be put in place and the foreign intelligence surveillance court would oversee this process. it groadually included others, but that's the issue in the telemetry programs. and finally, business roecords and intangible goods. >>> now, in regard to what has happened under section 215, many of these basic principles and the approach o

do we have the power to review what the fisa has done? >> we're asking for the former, not the latter. i will note that. there are any number of surveillance statutes structured in that way. they set up the limitations. i don't think that is a novelty of section 215. it is the same in section 1881a i. >> i am familiar with it. [laughter] >> to get to your questions, we are challenging the government's daily collection of our records and we are not asking this court to overturn it. we are asking for an injunction against continued collection by the government. that would be put in place without saying anything at all. i think that's what our challenges. it is understood as a challenge under the apa. even if you characterize our challenge as one, i don't think that would change matters. the government itself notice that it is true that a district court action, the physical order. the plaintiffs would be entitled to receive an injunction against ongoing and even legal agency conduct. >> what happens if -- there are now two district courts. t

after the fisa amendment act of 2008, all four programs were given legal cover, but we know now the fisaourt and the nsa have been involved in a lot of back and forth in recent years over compliance. some say this tension shows the fisa courts are doing their job. others say it shows they haven't been sufficient guardians of our civil liberties. in the wake of snowden's disclosures, the government in recent months has discussed three different reform proposals. i don't want get into those now for reasons of time. it'll be interesting or not to see if they go forth given recent events in the middle east. remember back in 2009, we had the christmas underwear bomber. there seems to be a pendulum effect given the immediacy of terror threats and reform. i will present them in the order that they will present their initial comments. first the laura donohue. she's written extensively on the nsa and recent matters. she's advised leading privacy groups and assisted in legal litigation. professor donohue will talk about the legal implications of mainly the bulk metadata program, but also section 2

it's the same in section 1881a under the fisa administered of act. i know your honor honor and judge lynch originally familiar with section 72. >> we are not as familiar with it as the papers that we should have been. [laughter] agencyre challenging conduct. we are challenging the government's daily collation of our records. we are not asking this court to overturn the fifth. we are not asking this court to set aside the verizon order. we are asking for an injunction against continued collection by the government. that could be put in place without saying anything, only with an instruction to the government. i think that is what our challenges. it is understood as a challenge under the apa. even if that were not true, even if you characterized our fisaenge as one to a order, the government itself in opposing an original petition there, that was asked of challenging the verizon order, said that the appropriate avenue for relief was the district court case such as the one we are litigating and are now in appeal on. but that was the appropriate avenue.

do we have the power to review what the fisa has done. >> we're asking for the former, not the latter. i will note that. there are any number of --veillance stretches statute structured in that way. they set up the limitations. i don't think that is a novelty of section 215. it is the same in section 1881a . >> i am familiar with it. [applause] questions, weour are challenging the government's daily collection of our records and we are not asking this court to overturn it. injunctionng for an against continued collection by the government. that would be put in place without saying anything at all. i think that's what our challenges. it is understood as a challenge under the apa. even if you characterize our challenge as one, i don't think that would change matters. the government itself notice that it is true that a district , the physical order. the plaintiffs would be entitled againstve an injunction ongoing and even legal agency conduct. if -- there are now two district courts. they have come to opposite conclusions. they did it on the constitutional basis. supposing we were two of

you have to report it to the fisa court and durnlg downstream reporting.all of this is overseen within the government and reported to the court and reported in summary fashion each year to congress. it is possible to get rules and procedures that do protect against these mistakes. >> i want to thank our panel for sharing their thoughts and wisdom and thanks to the audience for participation. i understand we now are going to break for lunch and bring our lunch back here. be ready for the next presentation. thank you very much. >> in the next panel with the security forum, the director of george washington university's homeland security policy institute talks about the status of current and emerging homeland security threats around the globe. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to get us back under way. many of you are finishing your lunch. please continue and we hope that people in the hall way can rejoin us. be as quiet as you can. let me reconvene our program at 1:10. we are fortunate to have the next speaker as the post lunch speaker to discuss current an

that is both longer and more serving than fisa, us soccer association, and any other soccer involvement throughout america. it is why today we seek a positive resolution moving forward that seeks can see candlestick park sustained for the future for our community family and for everybody else involved. thank you very much. >> hi. you ever consider this meeting is measured by his birth that jesus is the only one in all of history said when he was going to come up from the grave? last week we learned that paul approved cheeses by the prophecies. behold my servant shall deal clearly he should be exalted and extolled the very high. as many were astonished at his visage was so marred. more than any man in his form more than the sons of men. he has no form or [inaudible] there's no beauty that we should desire him. the bible says the straightway paul preached christ in the synagogue that he is the son of god but all that heard him were amazed and said is not to see that destroyed them which called on this name in jerusalem again heather for that intent that he might bring them bound under the

the fisa courts, who is overseeing them?on seem to be doing a good job, or at least they've lost the confidence of the the united states, so we need to find ways to make sure they are properly overseen. criminal law, anyone who goes in as charlie suggests and used this information to spy upon american citizens inappropriately and to let that information out in any improper way and to look at our pictures, our private letters and then make that available, should be to the most stringent criminal penalties. we need to put people in prison that do that type of thing and let people know that we will twoabl do it. and finally the executive president has been woefully inadequate in the n.s.a.,t of the therefore it creates the tub for debate like this, and be suspicious of our government. last.that that can't we have to regain our confidence in ourselves, but we do that election process. >> i agree in a large part of said especially where you we are in other countries, you look at germany and france, they don't have a constitution

the fisa courts, who was overseeing them?hey don't seem to be doing a very good job, at least they have lost the confidence of the united states. anyone who goes in as charlie suggest and uses this information to spy upon american citizens inappropriately and to let that information out and any improper way, to look at our pictures, private letters, to make that available, we need to put people in prison. we need to let people know that we will actually do that. [applause] and finally, the executive branch. the president has been woefully inaccurate in oversight of the nsa. ofcauses us to be suspicion our own ability to govern ourselves. and i say that that can't last. we have to regain her confidence in ourselves. we do that through the election process. >> thank you, governor. >> i agree in a large part with that but if you look at germany and france, they don't have a constitution with the fourth amendment that protects privacy and liberty the way we do. they don't have a provision that disallows unreasonable search and se

that is both longer and more serving than fisa, us soccer association, and any other soccer involvementthroughout america. it is why today we seek a positive resolution moving forward that seeks can see candlestick park sustained for the future for our community family and for everybody else involved. thank you very much. >> hi. you ever consider this meeting is measured by his birth that jesus is the only one in all of history said when he was going to come up

and these fisa courts have gone completely underneath and totally unchecked.i would not immediately cease all this. i'm not saying abolish the nsa. and i've had this discussion with some people and they say oh, charlie you're a terrorist sympathizer and all this crazy stuff. i say no. i'm just interjecting into the discussion that right now we live in a culture in an environment with a government that abuses its power unilaterally every single day and we have to be very careful the way we approach unchecked federal agencies and bureaucracies. so when i talk about, you know, if somebody labels me and says oh, do you want to end all cellular data accumulation, i say no we have to reform it and oversee it correctly because i do agree, there are international threats that are present today that were not there three or four years ago, and there's many different reasons for that. but i will say that if we do not have a congressional oversight of this agency, you know, we're going to continue to see the quick erosion of our civil liberties. >> thank you. >> i've got

patent litigation reform, and the pfizer litigation r fisa court reform. these are opportunities i think that we should not miss. >> what are your thoughts on where congress will [indiscernible] military action in syria? i think that the authorization for the use of military force, there are two of them that are in existence now that are related to afghanistan and the war against terror and the activities in iraq, are very old. and circumstances have changed very considerably. givesasure that we passed the president authority to train fighters in syria. hopefully they will become for leave edited to make sure that they are supportive of the united states and other western nations and are committed to fighting isil. i think this war against terror will be going on for a long time and i think it is important for congress to review the authority the president has. i think that is the authority atat the congress has th the president should respect. >> nancy pelosi said she wanted authority so that the president would have to go like he didporting with the reso

that could be a more empowered fisa or review, but that's where the real value in protecting privacy can be. one thing that bob did every year was get them all together in a large room so we can talk about all of these issues. i started attended those in 2009 and the thrust, the focus, the concern of -- this is well before eric snowden did anything. how we deal with privacy interests and u.s. values. this is not an issue that only caused concern in the intelligence community. it occurred long before and it has been an obsession i would say with lawyers in the intelligence communities. one lawyer thinks lawyers are ruining the effectiveness and have ruined the effectiveness of the u.s. intelligence agencies because we have told the clients to be more careful than he thinks we ought to be. >> one thing that comes to mind is when we talk about the judicial precedence in the area, when you go back to smith versus maryland, you are talking about the old standard, what's the reasonable expectation of privacy in the age of big data. what is the meaning of a reasonable expectation of privacy

assuming no terrorist attack in the spring when we have to take a look at the reforms to fisa. you might be right that the house version prevails and you might see that, but it's way too early. too early to tell how it would play out. >> the fact that we are on what happens in the spring underscores just how all inclusive isis has been. i would never have thought this bill would not be done. this was a jenda item number one. he got that signed on to the bill and on the conference before the mid-term. the fact that this is up in the air proving how much isis has taken over. >>or opposite pages of the debate, they have somewhat come to the same place. on intelligence issues, you can hardly get them on the same page. all of a sudden they were moving close to each other and arrived. >> let's move on to a couple other hot spots. they are extraordinary. are we overselling the opposition? >> you have to ask the two copresident fist that's what they are, i suppose, that question. i guess i would cynically answer just about everything that has been promised for 12 years. i'm not sure wh

chief judge of the fisa court wrote a letter recently that touched on this, addressed this issue. advocating an amicus role, so a friend of the court role, in certain cases at the discretion of the court. that seems to me like a reasonable way to increase public confidence in the work of the court. the wok of the court is necessarily classified, much of it. it is not a secret court. we know the court exists. we know who is on it. but it does operate much of the time in a classified environment because the information that's being presented itself is classified. but one way to build additional trust in the work of the court would be to have an amicus role. i think that's one that i think makes some sense. >> so i agree. but there are many other possibilities for reform. one of the problems on the court is they for instance don't have the technological exper cease and they don't have resources to really monitor things that they are asking the nsa and others to do. for instance for almost three years the nsa was querying data without reasonable articulable suspicion even though the c

conversations of americans internationally without any statutory authorization whatsoever, not even a fisa court. then we have the detentions without accusation or trial at guantÁnamo bay. we don't have customary due process and we have a chance to confront your accuser. you are not accused of any particular crime or wrongdoing. these are examples i think of how the powers of the presidency climbed during wartime and presidents never surrender that power back. there's a second wrench in our system during war and that is customary transparency. at the heart of the idea of government by the consent of the government yields secrecy. government by the consent of government is mocked if the people do not know what their government is doing. how can they give consent? you find a discrepancy between what the government does and what the people would want if they knew what was going on. i think that is shown dramatically with edward snowden's disclosures. ever since 2006 the american people were ignorant of the telephony metadata program run by the national security agency. congress knew but they

2014 of primary piece is the new choice card that allows veterans who live more than 40 miles from fisa or who have had to wait 30 days to schedule an appointment to go to their local provider and i was concerned when you said you did not know how many people on the wait list had the knowledge they could go to the aside provider. to think that choice card going out in november to get that option would help to improve that? give me to clarify the had the option to walk into the the a primary-care clinic but if they were not involved there would not pay for care anywhere else but that idea is wonderful. they said they had a choice between er or hospital or private doctor but they don't have a choice many don't have insurance. if they don't go to a physician i don't know about other members here but they would have fought hard time to pay for that er visit. many veterans let their cases get worse and in two cases they kept pouring to do that e.r. that is the only way to get the symptoms to take care of that puts out the fire but does not prevent it from starting. >> our hope is with the ch

e-mails for conversations of americans without any statutory authorization whatsoever not even the fisa court ended in the detentions without accusation or trial at guantÁnamo bay where we don't have customary due process but the chance to confront your accusers if you are not accused of any particular crime or wrongdoing that these are examples i think of how the powers of the president the client during wartime and presidents never surrender the power back. there is a second branch in the system during the war and that is customary transparency, the heart of the idea of government by the consent of the governed yields to secrecy and the government by the consent if the people do not know what their government is doing how can they give consent you find these discrepancies in what the government does and what people would want if they knew what was going on and i think that's showing rather dramatically with the disclosures of her since 2006 the american people were ignorant of the metadata program the american people are alarmed by the fact that the nsa was collecting telecine metadat

if you are elected to the senate who is the first person you call for fisa? braley: chuck grassley. [laughter] >> moderator: is the country receiving aid is their country receiving aid they would cut? ernst: i would have to look at that more looking at the 2016 presidential candidates chuck grassley. [laughter] i would encourage him to do that. [laughter] braley: the field has not even shaped up yet. >> we just have five seconds left to say they khieu we appreciate it. faq very much. [applause] >> i am congressman braley is this jury ernst to extreme? panera guided us support to a federal minimum-wage cement she does not think there should be a national minimum wage and what did she think is right for iowa? she believes iowans can survive on $50,000 per year. joni ernst extreme ideas wrong for iowa. >> want to know what i really care about? protecting social security for seniors like my mom and dad. good schools, good paying jobs and health care we can afford when we needed. i am joni ernst and i approve this message because i will go to washington as a mom and a soldier and someone

there was information given, and it was identified with fisa courts and others.t i don't think it was that congress was not provided the information. >> notice is not the issue. >> it's not? >> no. a violation of the law is the issue. >> the violation of the law -- >> let me explain. what this resolution says is it condemns the president for violating the law. >> right. >> now, in this case, the law was that he was supposed to notify congress. >> correct. >> in the case of president bush, that was not the law that he violated. it wasn't a matter of notifying congress, it was doing warrantless wiretaps on people. it was a matter of doing indefinite detention. it's about violation of the law. certainly not notifying congress can in some cases be contrary to the law and we'll have to deal with it. but it can also be contrary to the law to warrantless wiretap people and indefinitely detain. that's the issue. that's what this resolution is all about. it says he was supposed to notify congress. he didn't. therefore, he violated the law. the argument that this president

under the fisa courts all of these appeals. they're secret. yahoo only just won the right to declassify the ruling. we don't know what other companies really even put up a fight at this point. >> i want to put this up. here is a statement from yahoo on exactly what they did and when they fought this. this is yahoo's general council. we consider this is a win for transparency. upmost seriousness but protecting user's data. l, clear or request laws we overbroad. will we see other tech companies coming forward now that yahoo has cleared the path for them? wouldn't we see some stuff released from apple a few months ago as well? >> i think we will see other tech companies try to fight this. there is research done. analysts are estimating that this could cost the cloud computing industry something like $35 million a year as european consumers move away from american providers to european providers who are under stricter policy. >> shouldn't would he be fearful of the services needing may have given data to the national security administration. yahoo

most sensitive national security information that the fbi has through our review of section 702 of fisaous patriot acts reviews we've done that congress has mandated. we have the most sensitive amount of information that exists in our possession. >> so there's not a clearance issue here. there's not a proprietary issue. really there's no reason at all why you should not be getting 100% of what you request? >> absolutely. >> and i think, miss buhller, you said earlier there's never been a case where some of that information has been disclosed by the oig in terms of causing harm to a potential victim, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so if we have all of these, then what is the real genesis of this whole problem of why they do not want to share it with really the only independent source out there to protect the american people? what is the reason these agencies would do that, mr. elkins? >> it seems to me that there may be a belief that the ig act doesn't mean what it says that it means or -- >> so has this been a new revelation, that all of a sudden we have this new revelation in t

terrorist attack between now an and the spring wn we have two we take a hard look at the reforms the fisaght be right that, that the house version prevails. you might see the leahy bill have legs, but i think it's way too early to tell. but i think it's early to tell how it will play out. >> but the fact we're even having this conversation, what happens in the spring i think underscores just how all-inclusive isis has been. i would never have thought that this bill wouldn't be done by midterms. six months ago, three months ago. because this was agenda item number one and it looked like the whole reason why senator leahy spent basically all summer, was to get t it through the senate on the conference before the midterms. that practices up in the air proves just how much isis has taken over the politics of national security. >> it's amazing am much people have been on opposite pages of this debate have come somewhat to the same page. all of a sudden they're moving very close to each other and basically arrived. >> well, let's move on to a couple of other hotspots to four our time runs out.

. >> and isn't it a practice of the very organizations you see both on the fisa side and across the departmentf justice, fbi and all the other agencies. isn't it in fact one of the most important tools the clandestine nature of discovery, isn't in fact a good fbi investigation often done in a way in which the target of that investigation is not aware that they're a target until after the substantial amount of information has been gathered. >> that's correct. >> so the very requirement for you to ask for access, doesn't that essentially negate the ability for you to look through such information as you need and perhaps extraneous information so as to not have the target always know you're coming and potentially thwart your investigation? >> it is and i would note that in those earlier reviews for example in the hanson matter, we had direct access to the information. we didn't even have to go through the process we're now going through that's creating all the problems that we're facing. >> and i guess one of the -- i would say last question and i don't really mean it as you know. but an addition

terrorist attack in between now and the spring when we have to really take a hard look at the reforms to fisa -- you might be right that the house version prevails and you might see the leahy bill have legs. but i think it's way too early to tell. i think it's too early to tell how that's going to play out. >> the fact that we are having this conversation, that we are on what happens happens in the spring i think underscores just how all inclusive isis has been. i would never have thought this bill would not be done. because this was agenda item number one and it looked like the whole reason why senator leahy all summer got the intelligence committee to sign on to a bill was to get it the before the midterms. the fact that this is up in the air problems how much isis has taken over the politics of national security. >> people on such opposite pages of the debate have the somewhat come to the same place. on intelligence issues, you can hardly get late had i and feinstein on the same page. all of a sudden they were moving close to each other and arrived. >> let's move on to a couple other hot s

and now town 1500 page of documents will provide on inside look nobody as fisa. yahoo says they're very rare. the -- it lost its battle with the government because he feels releasing information is a violation of privacy. >> facebook is -- to help his sick infant. his two-week old son needs a new heart and the site rejected a $0 ad to help raise money for his babying. saying it didn't mean the guidelines. he frenzy -- a bond of $10,000 worth of ad money and an apology. >>> like a roller coaster. the lows and the highs. when i got that letter, it was pretty high. there's a lot of people care about my son. >> face book reppives say the atommed system flagged that photo. >> >>> bay area drag queen is being targeted using face names. facebook has lost many -- out of their account. the san francisco supervisor wants facebook to meet with some local drag queens. that's forcing them to use their real names are dangerous. >> there's options for people who want to use alternate names. >> we'll take a live look outside as well. let's check thicks out at the bridge where tr

spaulding, want to visit the issue of information sharing and the sequencing of fisa reauthorizationation sharing, either in the open session or closed session. dr. coburn. >> well, thank you. i hope the media that's here today actually listened to what you had to say, nick. a very cogent, open assessment of where we are, not on the basis to scare people, but on the basis to inform them of where we really are. i think the other thing that i would comment on is i'm really happy to see the fbi being, aggressive on deterrence, because for so long, we thought we can build a higher and higher wall that people can't climb over. they are gonna climb over every wall on cyber that we have. and we have to have both efforts, we have to have the wall, but we also have to have the prosecutorial deter reps that says you come mess, it's gonna be painful. and so i'm very thankful for that attitude coming from the fbi. i hope to see more and more and more, both domestically and internationally, because of the costs. general taylor, let me just ask you a couple of questions. has ina produced any intel

there was information given, and it was identified with fisa courts and others.but i don't think it was that congress was not provided the information. >> notice is not the issue. >> it's not? >> no. a violation of the law is the issue. >> the violation of the law -- >> let me explain. what this resolution says is it condemns the president for violating the law. >> right. >> now, in this case, the law was that he was supposed to notify congress. >> correct. >> in the case of president bush, that was not the law that he violated. it wasn't a matter of notifying congress, it was doing warrantless wiretaps on people. it was a matter of doing indefinite detention. it's about violation of the law. certainly not notifying congress can in some cases be contrary to the law and we'll have to deal with it. but it can also be contrary to the law to warrantless wiretap people and indefinitely detain. that's the issue. that's what this resolution is all about. it says he was supposed to notify congress. he didn't. therefore, he violated the law. the argument that this preside

e-mails, conversations of americans internationally without statutory authorization whatsoever under the fisa court. then we had the detentions without accusation or trial at guantÁnamo bay. we don't have customary due process when you have a chance to confront your accusers. you are not accused of any particular crime or wrongdoing but these are examples of how the power of the president cline during wartime and presidents never surrender the power back. but there is a second wrench in our system during war and that is customary transparency and the heart of the idea of government by the consent of the government yields to secrecy. government by the consent of government is mocked if the people do not know what their government is doing. how can they give consent? you find any discrepancies between what the government does and what the people agreed with a very new was going on and i think that is shown with edward snowden's disclosures. ever since 2006 the american people are ignorant of the telephony metadata program run by the national security agency. congress knew but they were too frig

they don't have checks and balances including a special group we have on our fisa bill a privacy group that oversees things we do. so the oversight's there. two intelligence committees. justice department. you have the administration there. you have the courts. you have the all of that there together. >> so now we're into it lightning round. we talk ad lot about war. we talked a lot about other elements, privacy. so what about cybersecurity? when is there going to be some comprehensive meeting of the mind that is going to actually manifest itself in legislation? >> go ahead. >> we have a short window to get this done in lame duck. i've had good sessions. dutch and i both had good discussions. i happened to bump into the durbin in the hallway. >> talking about senate. >> senate is a hurdle. we pass ad bipartisan bill twice on pretty difficult subject and bringing all stakeholders in the room working it out. the problem was it is 13 page bill and hard to take anything serious in congress if it is anything short of -- >> in this congress we got 300 votes, that is miracle in this congress

people use that i don't jim public discussion but it is unfortunate among others that i could name the fisa spec public officials still say much about it because they know a lot of people do it especially politicians don't want to offend anybody so that is why they continue >>host: you can get through social media to make a comment on our facebook page or send an e-mail. booktv visited u.s. your office to learn about your writing style and what your favorite books and authors and influences are and here is our trip to the university of pennsylvania. >> do some writing and i talked to students and people in my seminar and we sit around the table and discuss and argue and debate why i writing what i m great team and to it is fun and stimulating but i either ask a question or i think of the question if i don't know the answer then i go research when i finish i draft, i don't make out usually haven't had idea where i think i ever going but i do that because of a colleague of mine for years tried to write a second book but never did he was brilliant but he wanted every line to be perfect to for