judge leon was very reluctant to find a district court had jurisdiction over the foreign intelligence surveillance court. how are you answering this challenge? >> we are not asking the court to review the order of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. marc brought that case. it is a case where they were asking the supreme court to review what the fisa court had done. what we are asking for is an order in joining executive action. in joiningder executive action and government in conducting this program. there are lots of propositions that federal courts have jurisdiction or authority to review the constitutionality of government surveillance, even when the surveillance has been authorized by the fisa court. federal courts around the country review the constitutionality of fisa court rulings. one of the responses was that marc should have done with the districtand got to the courts in the first place. i am not expecting that is going to be the hurdle. >> matt? >> i will pick up on bob's points. i cannot and would not comment on legation. point id make -- one would make, i don't want to be left with

the first revelation by edward snowden he revealed the secret court order from the foreign intelligence surveillance court. ordered the collection of all of the to lessen the meadow data as you said call detail records of all the verizon business network services customers for a ninety day period and we very quickly learned that that was not the only such order and it had not been in fact the program had been going on for about seven years before that disclosure by mr snowden and so it's really quite remarkable where we're at right now we've gone seven years where a program has been reauthorized in reauthorized in a secret court on secret applications by the government without anyone making any arguments on the other side and we've seen with that's right it's really the secrecy has really poisoned our system of checks and balances and tomorrow is a really momentous day for all americans to force the government to actually answer some of the hard questions that it's bulk collection program raises in particular as you mentioned. representative sensenbrenner who wrote the original picture actually wrote sect

and the topic, again, is theirst foreign intelligence surveillance court. we're pleased to have as witnesses james baker who'shave formerly with the department of justice office of intelligence and policy review, judge james carr, who's senior federal judge with the united states district court of the northern district of ohio and formerly a judge from 2002-2008 and marc civillingier -- zwillinger who is a former doj attorney in the crime and intellectual property section.rt i understand that each of you have brief prepared remark, so please go ahead, and afterwards we will have, as we did on the last panel be, rounds of questioning, five minutes, thisa time for each of the board members. but please go ahead. >> i'd like to thank the board for inviting me back. it's truly an honor to be here, and it's an honor to be able ton discuss these cieps of issues ie this type of setting, so ith appreciate the opportunity. i justes have a couple quick comments really.ve the focus j of our discussion today is on section 702 and section 215 of the usa patriot act, and

metadata for intelligence and counterterrorism purposes pursuant to order by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. 702 program involves collection of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers under foreign intelligence surveillance court supervision. the purpose of today's hearing is to consider possible recommendations the board might make regarding these programs as well as the operations of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. just to be clear, the questions the board members posted a do not necessary represent either their views or the use of the board. the purpose of this hearing is to explore a wide range of recommendations to assist their benefits, costs and possible unintended consequences. the board believes it will be in the best position to make its recommendations by having public discussions of these options. there will be three panels today. the first will consist of government officials whose agencies have varying degrees of responsibly for the surveillance programs to be the subject of our report. after the first panel we will be taki

judge leon was very reluctant to find a district court had jurisdiction over the foreign intelligence surveillance court. how are you answering this challenge? >> we are not asking the court to review the order of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. i'm glad marc brought that case. it is a case where they were asking the supreme court to review what the fisa court had done. what we are asking for is an order in joining executive action. it is an order enjoining executive action and government in conducting this program. there are lots of propositions that federal courts have jurisdiction or authority to review the constitutionality of government surveillance, even when the surveillance has been authorized by the fisa court. federal courts around the country review the constitutionality of fisa court rulings. one of the responses was that marc should have done with the aclu did and got to the district courts in the first place. i am not expecting that is going to be the hurdle. >> matt? >> i will pick up on bob's points. i cannot and would not comment on the ligitgation. one point i would make,

because that would give the opportunity for further review by a three judge panel of foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, would give those three judges a chance to look at it again, and, ultimately, to secure a supreme court review, but i cannot answer your question about that. not sure i should as a judge in any event, but numtion, i don't- but nonetheless, i don't know. thinking about this further, i think that, under some circumstances, it should be necessary for the judge. don't let the judge have discretion. in other words, when this, what i call rule 11 notice is given, and i don't know if it would cover -- i think it would cover something like the prism program and so forth -- certainly the intent -- but also give the judge the option. you know, it's sort of two-handed so it's not just one rule, another notice comes in, that could be a trigger, but them the judge can retain discretion to reach out, but it would be a small group of lawyers, precleared, gain experience, and, again, i think use relatively infrequently or, perhaps, this just occurred to me, when a provider has an interest a

foreign intelligence but to cyber. i am happy to talk about that at length if you are interested. the other point i would make is, with the foreign intelligence surveillance court, i was with you department of justice and i can elaborate at length, if you want to be. in many ways i would say, notwithstanding much of what has been written in the press, the fisa court is a national treasure. it has done its job. i think that has not been said enough, so i wanted to say that at this point. however, the fisa court is not some type of super inspector general over the whole apparatus that we have to collect intelligence. that is a multibillion-dollar enterprise conducted by thousands of people. that is not what the court does. i think, with respect to 702 and 215, i think we have reached the outer limits of what you can reasonably expect a court to do in this setting. i'm happy to discuss that at length. at the end of today, in my mind, it is the responsibility of the president, the executive branch, and congress to conduct management oversight and control of these types of activities. i am happy to talk about transparency and the issue of whether we are going to hav

where reports of noncompliance are of the sort that once again as a judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court it might be useful to have the discretion to reach out to somebody to resist the court and understanding the issues and ensuring that once went wrong has been fixed and does not have any serious clause to it or if it does to see that gets fixed. at some point i hope the legal advisers -- because their work for the court is absolutely crucial. i don't think it's well understood that anybody outside the court and the role that they play is extremely important and i hope perhaps they have a few minutes to talk about them and their role and where it fits in everything. one final thing and you alluded to this but it's my view that we should all keep in mind when talking about foreign intelligence collection were foreign intelligence function of the agencies charged with that responsibility and then the dignity of the judiciary it's a very limited activity under the foreign intelligence surveillance act. if you look at article too and of course that's the article in constitution that establ

you look at the order signed by judge, an order from the foreign intelligence surveillance court issued under the foreign intelligence surveillance act for the collection of foreign intelligence. it's directed toward a u.s. television company for telephone records and customers concerning solely domestic communication. you can't imagine at least i couldn't imagine a greater distance between the intent of the framers of the act than the current you of that authority. >> just to take it one more step . you know, there was this deal struck in 1978 which perhaps made sense given what kinds of surveillance people were contemplating at that time. and what kinds of questions people were contemplating the fisa court would actually address. but the idea at that time was that the too is a court would evaluate individualized applications for surveillance of the government would, as mark say, identity a agent inside the united and the court would evaluate whether the government had shown probably cause with respect to the particular person. if they found they had demonstrated probably cause. but th

to talk about the expectation, you look at the order signed by the order from the foreign intelligence surveillance courtssued under the foreign intelligence surveillance act for the collection of foreign intelligence and it is addicted to words a u.s. telephone company for telephone records on u.s. customers concerning the domestic communication. you can't imagine i'm at least i couldn't imagine a greater distance between the intent of the framers of the 78 act and the current use of that authority. >> mark has said a lot of whitei was going to say. but i just have to take it one more step. there was a deal struck in 1978 which perhaps makes sense given what kinds of surveillance people were contemplating at the time and what kinds of questions people were contemplating in the court that would actually address. but the idea at the time is that the fisa court would evaluate individualized applications to the government was as marx had identified a suspected foreign agents inside of the united states and the court would evaluate whether the government had shown probable cause and if they have demonstrated

in june we filed a motion for declaratory judgment before the foreign intelligence surveillance court, asserting a first amendment right to publish this type of information. the doj repeated that it would allow companies to add the number of domestic law enforcement and national security requests together and report the sum as falling within some broad range. but this would be a significant step backward for google's users in the broader public. rather than promote transparency, this proposal would actually obscure important information about the volume and type of all government demands that google may receive, not just national security demands. as i mentioned, google already discloses aggregate statistics about domestic law enforcement demands and have done so since 2010. publishing future reports where we could only release this type of information in ranges rather than actual numbers and type would provide less transparency than we have now. in addition there would be no discernible benefits for transparency around national security demands that we may receive. indeed, google wou

statute as we've seen from the releases of opinions by the finish of the foreign to the foreign intelligence surveillance court that the government and n.s.a. have been regularly out of compliance with even what they're authorized to do then the question even one step further back is whether even if they're authorized under statute whether that's statute constitutional with lots of questions yet to be answered for now this case is only in its first stages and as they see it you're going to r.t. new york and now to another soon to be alissa substance trans fats if the food and drug administration has its way the artificial ingredient will be banned from american food products but it was this the best way to fight the growing obesity epidemic here in the u.s. or to correspondent liz wahl gives us the skinny on trans fats. the food and drug administration hopes to ban a type of fat now considered toxic it includes moving trans fats from a state where they're generally recognized to safe or grass into a category where they would become food contaminants the f.d.a. proposal would eliminate trans fats from the ameri

statute as we've seen from the releases of opinions by the financial difference to the foreign intelligence surveillance court that the government and n.s.a. have been regularly out of compliance with even what they're authorized to do then the question even one step further back is whether even if they're authorized under statute whether that's statute constitutional with lots of questions yet to be answered for now this case is only in its first stages and as they see it you're going to r.t. new york and now to another soon to be a licit substance trans fats if the food and drug administration has its way the artificial ingredient will be banned from american food products but is this the best way to fight the growing obesity epidemic here in the u.s. r t correspondent liz wahl gives us the skinny on trans fats. the food and drug administration hopes to ban a type of fat now considered toxic it includes moving trans fat from a state where they're generally recognized the safe grass into a category where they would become food contaminants the f.d.a. proposal would eliminate trans fats from the american food

we've seen from the releases of opinions by the fed it's about the good parts to the foreign intelligence surveillance court that the government in nsa had been regularly. out of compliance with even what their authorized to do. then the question even one step further back is whether even if the author writes under statue of events that should cause to shop with lots of questions yet to be answered for now this case is only in its prestigious was busy checking out our team meal now for another soon to be like that substance trans fats. in turn administration has its way the artificial ingredients will be banned from eric in the process wedding is this the best way to find the growing obesity epidemic you're in the y s r d correspondent a little small gives us the skinny on trans fats. the food and drug administration hopes to be an anti fat now considered toxic it includes new being trans fats from a state where they are generally recognized as safe aircraft into a category where they will become the contaminants. the fda purples old lady eliminate trans fats from the american food supply. the cheap and tas

statute as we've seen from the releases of opinions by the financial the foreign to the foreign intelligence surveillance court that the government and n.s.a. have been regularly out of compliance with even what they're authorized to do then the question even one step further back is whether even if they're authorized under statute whether that's statute constitutional with lots of questions yet to be answered for now this case is only in its first stages and as they see it you're going to party new york and now to another soon to be a list that substance trans fats if the food and drug administration has its way the artificial ingredient will be banned from all american food products but is this the best way to fight the growing obesity epidemic here in the u.s. or to correspondent liz wahl gives us the skinny on trans fats. the food and drug administration hopes to ban a type of fat now considered toxic it includes moving trans fat from a state where they're generally recognized the safe gras into a category where they would become food contaminants the f.d.a. proposal would eliminate trans fats from the ame

today that this program has been authorized and reauthorized by congress under the foreign intelligence surveillance courtat the aclu says is that many members of congress, who voted to authorize and re-authorize this program, didn't actually know what it meant and we only learned the details of it through those documents released to the media by the former government contractor, edward snowden. that seemed to be a point the judge picked up, how many members of congress actually knew what they were authorizing. whatever the decision from this court, though, this is going to end up at the supreme court. >> jonathan, very interesting you. said it, i said it. reasonable suspicion. perhaps they'll dig into that and tell us what they're looking for. thank you very much. >>> a designer drug known as spice is deadly. spice is synthetic marijuana and police say they often find it in gas stations and convenience store. they say dealers market the drug as a cheap high, but it can definitely kill you. heather joined police for a first-hand look at their fight. >> the detectives begin their search and quickly focus o

in the foreign intelligence surveillance court. >> so we have a secret spy agency and a company suing each other in secret court room locked behind closed doors? >> that's absolutely right. >> the electronic fund your. >> these are not good times to be a democrat on capitol hill. coming up, should we be worried about the healthcare problems jeopardizing our chances for reelection? we'll be right back. ,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, at kaiser permanente we've reduced serious heart attacks by 62%, which makes days with grandpa jack 100% more possible. join us at kp.org and thrive. saturday for local college football fans. 's hopes for >> welcome back. it was not a good saturday night for local sports. >> hopes for national championship one from slim to none with the 2017 loss of usc. the spartans were upset. 38-16 and nevada. the bears have a 1-10 record this season. but in basketball the warriors did pull off a win against at home against utah 102-88. >>> should capitol hill democrats be worried about the rocky rollout of obamacare? >> many are up for reelection next year, including several in califo

a lunch break now and resume at one time for 15 on a panel that will address the foreign intelligence surveillance court. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> there was a sense of a missed opportunity taking the fiscal stimulus was needed but i just wondered if a different kind of stimulus with some of the changes that larry hinted at, dropping the high-speed rail and energy and all that might have gotten bipartisan support. i know today people say no, republicans won't oppose anything president obama suggested back in the beginning of 09 many people really hoping that the guys going to bring us together and it didn't happen and i'm not laming glenside are the other because of course there's going to default on both sides. the question is could a different set of choices that brought the country together in the way that -- >> i have been critical of some of the more classically democratic parts of the recovery program but i was there. the senate minority leader said that t

person you have to get a warrant to from a secret court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court. the coubal acts as a bgence between the nsa which does the eavesdropping, and the american citizens who were potentially subjected to this piece of the nsa was not allowed to eavesdrop on une . citrigens, unless they got the okay from a judge in the court. this is not a difficult course thirty years they've issued some 20,000 a seprovals. only about two or tid tee denia. so it is a quick pit is easy for the nsa to get the ones that thprogram want. decpassini fthe court really me no sense to me. po and nsa is set up in the aftetabath of world war two to eavesdrop, specifically on potential for kno us enemies ofe united state el is that correct? >> sure, it was established on war were to to succeed the 3 ncies of world war ii the broke the japanese code, the getaban enigma cd thatsure thprogram wanted to conti kne th the cold war focusing on the soviet union. and they -- the nsa w3 v formed in 1952, became an agency said a secret that even congress w3 v not tshed about it. itsnioery nam

saying any activity conducted by intelligence community pursuant to orders issued by foreign intelligence surveillance courtld of course require strict compliance with the law. they're not confirming or denying this program exists. they say if it exists, there would be certain restrictions to it. let me bring you those restrictions as well. they say minimumization procedures to protect u.s. personal information. they would mandate persons given access to this data being appropriately trained. they would prohibit searches of data for other than authorized purposes and they would limit how long info might be retained by the government agency that is retaining it if, in fact, it's retaining it. they would not, again, confirm what was in "the wall street journal" this morning. the journal reporting the cia has access now to that money transfer data. that's another industry that might want to watch out now for some blow-back from customers who say, wait a second, is my data not as private as i thought it was? on, on the other hand, do people just assume if they're transferring money overseas, somebody's watching

foreign intelligence surveil answer act -- surveillance act. of today we're going to be focused on current intelligence-gathering practices. we'll be considering bills currently before congress that would reform the foreign intelligence surveillance court alterations to the foreign intelligence surveillance act as well as cases currently working their way through the court. our purpose in convening the program today is to move the conversation forward and to think about what framework and principles should guide us as we look to the future. and we're now, i think, as all of us recognize at a critical juncture. technology is rapidly evolving, it promises tremendous benefits. it makes us more efficient, it creates the opportunity for growth and new discoveries. it offers new waysover connecting people -- of connecting people, groups, societies and nations, and it's also ripe for abuse. it creates the opportunity for exploitation in this the name of organized -- in the name of organized crime, terrorism and open warfare. so how will we mitigate threats, control technology, reap the benefits and remain true to our founding principles? this is one of the defining issues of our age. and it's one of the aims of georgetown law and the center f

court. >> good afternoon. i am going to start the first afternoon session. the topic is foreign intelligence surveillance. e are pleased to have as theesses, james baker with department of justice, office of intelligence, and policy review. judge james carr, a senior federal judge of the united states district court and formerly a judge from 2002 2008. sillinger, a former doj attorney at the computer crime and electrical property section. these make your remarks and then afterwards we will have five minutes for each of the board members. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank the board for inviting me back. it is an honor to be here and an honor to be able to discuss these kinds of issues in this type of setting. i appreciate the opportunity. i have just a couple of quick comments. is focus of our discussion on 702 of the fisa amendment act patriot act.e while these are very important statutorily authorized and judicial he reviewed surveillance programs involving the collections and communications -- collection of commit occasions and to medications data with many americans, they are only part of th

surveillance intelligence act. today we are focusing on current bills currently before congress that would reform the foreign intelligence surveillance courtations for the foreign intelligence surveillance act as well as cases currently working their way through the courts. our purpose and meaning the program today's move the conversation forward and to think about what framework and principles should guide us as we look to the future. we are now as all of us recognize attic critical juncture. technology is rapidly evolving and it comes as tremendous benefits that makes us more efficient. it creates the opportunity for growth and new discoveries. it offers new ways of connecting people, the groups, societies and nations and is also ripe for abuse. it creates opportunity for exploitation and organized crime, terrorism and open warfare. so how do we mitigate threats and reap the benefits and remained true to our founding principles? this is one of the defining issues of our age and it's one of the aims of georgetown law and the center for national security law to bring together individuals who thought long and hard about the difficult questi

court needs to approve every targeting decision. you're going bring the intelligence community to a halt. we're doing take a lunch break now and resume on a pan panel that address the foreign intelligence surveillancecourt. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >>> in a few moments defense secretary chuck hagel speaks. in an hour, an update on implementing the health care law. then legal officers from the intelligence community testify about proposed change to the nsa data collection and surveillance programs. >>> on the next "washington journal." a couple of hearings to tell you about. the head of the center for medicaid services will be on capitol hill to talk about the health care law. testifies before the senate finance committee about the health care website. secretary and other obama administrations say that problem with the health.gov westbound will be fixed by the end of the month. you can see that hearing on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday. what is the most important issue congress should consider in 2014? that's the question for middle and high school students. the order comes after nine states denied benefit to the couple. secretary hagel -- during remarking at the antidefamatio

within the foreign intelligence surveillance act as long as there's a foreigner someplace. that was another of the revelation of the snowden documents. but the fisa courtas more to do with americans than you might think. >> host: since 2001, has the patriot act, the fisa surveillance, increased or decreased? >> guest: yeah. it's a great question. i think it's actually been increased. when president obama was a candidate, when he was running for office, he said no more national security that spy on americans. but now that he's president i think he sees the power differently. and he felt if he can be trusted with the dragnet powers. it sounds as if the fisa court allowed actually is an expansion and there's more and more material being collected in bulk and that what is being collected under the foreign intelligence surveillance act even though on americans has also increased. i think there's a possibility for another increase. for awhile until 2011, the government was also collecting e-mail addresses, internet dresses that we visit, the fisa court authorized that. and the government actually stopped collecting all of that information in 2011. but they c

warrantless searches of their communications and install a constitutional advocate at the foreign intelligence surveillance court. we believe that overly intrusive domestic surveillance programs, misleading statements made by senior intelligence officials and revelations about how secret courts have handed down secret rulings on secret law have eroded the trust and confidence of the american people. mr. president, simply put, we need to restore this trust. and the best way to do that is to carve out time and hold a vigorous and substantive debate here on the senate floor, a debate the american people have demanded and they deserve. mr. president, senator leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee, introduced his own comprehensive reform proposal last month with representative sensenbrenner. representative sensenbrenner is a key figure in all this because he was the original author of the patriot act. he has had concerns. he's joined forces with senator leahy. and this bipartisan plan, the leahy-sensenbrenner plan, includes many of the proposals that senator wyden and i have long called for, and we are proud

foreign intelligence, but also to cyber. i'm happy to talk about that if you are interested. the other quick point i want to make at the outset is having to do with the foreign intelligence surveillance court that i work closely with for many years at the department of justice. i can elaborate at links if you want me to, but in many ways i would say, not withstanding much of what has been written in the press, the fisa court has been a treasure -- a national treasure. it has done an exemplary job during wartime. that has not been said enough. i wanted to say that at this point. however, the fisa court is not some type of super inspector general over the entire apparatus that we have to collect intelligence. that is multibillion-dollar enterprises conducted by thousands of people. that is not what the court does. 215, ispect to 702 and think we have reached the outer limits of what you can reasonably effect a court to do in this setting. i'm happy to discuss that at length. at the end of the day, to my mind it is the responsibility of the president, the executive branch, and the congress to conduct management, oversight, and control of these types of activities. i'm happy to talk about tran

collection of financial transactions authorized by a secret national security court, the foreign intelligence surveillance court. a taste of what is in that article this morning. next call on health care and the proposed changes to the aca islauri -- is lauria in virginia. virginia.in caller: i tell you to head over to fairfax and you will see what that $5,000 gets you. it gets you one x-ray and a tylenol. that was a good suggestion. i agree with james who called in earlier. you can blame obama. but at the end of the day, it is the insurance companies. the insurance companies are not your friend. you are a transaction to them. your doctor is not your friend. if he is not getting paid, he is not going to see you. people need to get off of this saying about, my insurance company. it is not your insurance company. you are a transaction. we need to cover everyone. like the other woman said, you have to take yourself out of it and stop being selfish. at the end of the day, everybody on this call is going to be sick. i do not care how much -- how many vitamins you take. you will need health care. when you walk into a

disappointed that the justice department refused and in june we filed a motion before the foreign intelligence surveillance court's serving a first amendment right to publish this type of information and reported as falling within some broad range. this would be a significant step backward rather than promote transparency and this would actually obscure important information about all types of government demands that google may receive and not just national security demands. as i mentioned temerity disclose disclosed domestic law enforcement demands and have done so since 2000 and. publishing future reports where we could only release this type of information in ranges rather than actual numbers to provide less transparency than we have now. and indeed, google would continue to acknowledge this the range that we are able to report in and we would also lose the benefit of providing information about national security letters. and this includes the transparency surveillance act of 2013. the transparency is critical and informing the debate on these issues, but it's only one step among many that are needed and two we

he's looking to add a member to the foreign intelligence surveillance court who could be more of an objective voice. also, he basically wants to end this data collection, this met at a data, bulk phone record collection, change the the way that's done. last month, patrick leahy was asked by a reporter about some of this n.s.a. information, and equipped that he learns more by reading "the new york times" than he does by going to closed door intelligence briefings. you can expect to hear some tension in the room today, as well. >> members of the senate committee walking a fine line between national security and personal privacy. >> that's right. we're seeing some other members like ron wyden, a democratic in oregon, one of the liberal members very outspoken with his concerns getting onboard with what patrick leahy is proposing. we're seeing interesting coalitions built. it's interesting to watch who gets the intelligence information, who gets the closed door briefings in congress. not everybody gets all the information, so in these hearings like the ones today, when it comes out, we get a conve

the justices declined to hear thetion, saying that foreign intelligence surveillance court had exceededts statutory jurisdiction when it ordered production of millions of domestic telephone records that cannot plausibly be relevant to an authorized investigation. another story from the "washington post" looking at intelligence documents released by the federal government, saying this was an 87-page order and lays out the argument for the collection of the foreign collection act. saying the relevance to collect the information was necessary for use of this very valuable investigative tool at the early states of a foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigation. it included a memo sent to the house and senate intelligence committee in 2009 which the nsa that it failed to abide by the court imposed minimization rules. international relations is the topic of this one, looking at the larger issues of data collection. headlines -- spy claims hurt trade talks, says angela merkel. her toughest words on the scandal so far, the chancellor said the relationship with the u.s. in the

or no abuses of the program because congress exercises effective oversight and the foreign intelligence surveillance courtws what's going to happen and americans whose phone calls are listened to have to be reviewed by the fisa court and individualized warrants, the fourth amendment, have to be issued so their content can be listened to. >> what do you think has to change. >> what snowden did was despicable but the debate we're having is commendable. and i think we shouldn't conflate all this. the telephone metadata program geared at foreign terrorists is one thing. congress has a couple of approaches to narrow it. i don't think it should be eliminates because i think it will be back bigger than ever if we get attacked. there's a separate thing, an executive order. i write about this in today's "washington post." >> it's a great piece. >> thank you very much. it was issued by president reagan and has been updated a couple of times, that authorizes our government to listen, to learn foreign government's intentions. that's where this alleged cell phone stuff comes from. that stuff order doesn't have the for

within the foreign intelligence surveillance act as long as there's a foreigner someplace. that was another of the revelation of the snowden documents. but the fisa courtdo with americans than you might think. >> host: since 2001, has the patriot act, the fisa surveillance, increased or decreased? >> guest: yeah. it's a great question. i think it's actually been increased. when president obama was a candidate, when he was running for office, he said no more national security that spy on americans. but now that he's president i think he sees the power differently. and he felt if he can be trusted with the dragnet powers. it sounds as if the fisa court allowed actually is an expansion and there's more and more material being collected in bulk and that what is being collected under the foreign intelligence surveillance act even though on americans has also increased. i think there's a possibility for another increase. for awhile until 2011, the government was also collecting e-mail addresses, internet dresses that we visit, the fisa court authorized that. and the government actually stopped collecting all of that information in 2011. but they could do it

look for terrorists and spies and so forth was largely through the foreign intelligence surveillance act. which is operated by a secret court. it has secret warrants for wiretaps and physical searches. war andicate for a fisa is that the target is either a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. if you have a person acting on is hard to talk that person into an agency or a foreign power. after 9/11, i suggested that perhaps we could have an amendment to the foreign intelligence surveillance act to look at this single person. this caused consternation because it did change the way we thought about the act from the start. we eventually did get an amendment to the act for that purpose. we also began to realize some other things that might happen. one of the things that started us thinking along a different line was soon after 9/11, dutch foreign intelligence produced radicals ins about their part of the world. one of the really startling things that came out of that was oft they did not find a lot ideologues. they found people who seemed to seems to have an affinity for violence. they wanted to do something violently. as

spies and so forth in the united states was largely through the foreign intelligence surveillance act. which is operated by a secret court has secret warrants for wiretaps and physical searches. the predicate for a fisa warrant is that the target is either a foreign power or an agent for foreign power. if you have a person acting on its own, it's pretty hard to detect the agency in a foreign power. one of the things that i did fairly soon after 9/11 as i suggested that perhaps we could have an amendment to the foreign intelligence surveillance act to look at this person, which caused a lot of consternation because it did change the way we have thought about the act from the start. we eventually did get an amendment to the act for that purpose. but we also began to realize and other things that might happen, too. one of the things that started me thinking along a slightly different line was soon after 9/11, dutch foreign intelligence produced three study about the radicals in their part of the world. one of the really startling things that cannot have that was that it did not hide a lot of ideologues. they found a lot of

just to be clear, the rule of lenity being, congress instructing the fisa court to interpret the foreign intelligence surveillanceact in that way, sort of by default adopting a narrow interpretation of the statute rather than a broad interpretation. >> i thought you suggested that when it came to ask in the beginning, and i'm just saying -- fisc, would that have any application for reauthorization? they would say this is sort of an extreme and novel interpretation, go back to congress and get a specific authorization. >> it could certainly enable the fisc to back off of an earlier interpretation is that took place. >> i still have one second. a quick one to professor black. want to make sure, 702 is kind of a complicated program, and he can speak for yourself or for any of the ngos that you may have had contact with, how would you characterize the main concern of outside groups about the way 702 operates? i think we all agree they have congressional authorization to begin with, so it's not a 250. 250. >> i wouldn't dare speak for anybody other than myself. >> that's good enough. >> that's my wife's over when. but

also known as the foreign intelligence surveillance act at the hearing one proponent of the current legislation on former justice department intelligence official commended by the court calling it a national treasure. take a lesson. in many ways i would say no staining much of what has been written in the press the price accord is a national treasure. it has done its job in exemplary fashion during wartime. along with the support team some vocal resistance to current nsa policies specifically from those who are representing large cap companies. my client work has given me a unique view into the position of providers and service providers who received demands under fives up his help me see two aspects of the process which i believe are inconsistent with the core principles of our legal system. first the over broad cloak of secrecy that applies to everything prize related and the lack of it to adversarial process. now keep in mind that this is an oversight board that was established back in two thousand seven to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of americans were appropriately considered the implementation of all laws and policies related to terrorism. even n

also known as the foreign intelligence surveillance act at the hearing one proponent of the current legislation a former justice department intelligence official commended the pfizer court calling it a national treasure take a listen in many ways i would say and i was standing much of what has been written in the press the french record is a national treasure it has done its job. and exemplary fashion during wartime but along with the support came some vocal resistance to current n.s.a. policies specifically from those who are representing large tech companies. my client work has given me a unique view into the position of providers and service providers who receive demands under fire and it's helped me see two aspects of the process which i believe are inconsistent with the core principles of our legal system first the overbroad cloak of secrecy that applies to everything pfizer related and the lack of a true adversarial process now keep in mind that this is an oversight board that was established back in two thousand and seven to ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of americans were appropriately considered and the implementation of all laws and policies relat

foreign intelligence surveillance. we are pleased to have as theesses, james baker with department of justice, office of intelligence, and policy review. judge james carr, a senior federal judge of the united states district court and formerly a judge from 2002 2008. sillinger, a former doj attorney at the computer crime and electrical property section. i understand aychip you have brief prepared remarks so please go ahead and afterwards we will have as we did on the last panel last rounds of questioning. >> i would like to thank the board for inviting me that kerry gets truly an honor to be here an honor to be able to discuss these kinds of issues in this type of setting so i appreciate the opportunity. i have i have a couple quick comments really. the focus of our discussion is on section 702 of the fisa amendments act and 215 of the usa patriot act and i would say while these are very important statutorily authorized initially reviewed warrantless surveillance programs involving the collection of canned occasions and communications related data with respect to many americans they are part of the story and i think that was discussed this morning in a panel that i was able to attend. in particular is the panel

court has ever struck them down. the nsa is also subject to layers and constant oversight from the judicial and legislative branches of government. more needs to be done. the foreign intelligence surveillance act must be reformed. we have notified stakeholders to evaluate and effect a range of options. we must improve transparency, privacy protection, and restore the public's confidence. you cannot have privacy without security or security without privacy. we will require a declassification review of any the --decision -- pfizer fisa decision. can viewrs of congress the classified reporting about the programs. a measure that would appoint a presidential he inspector general to add an extra independent check. we are trying to change the makeup of the pfizer --fisa -- fisa court. a non-executive branch lawyer would provide significant interpretation of the fisa law. challenging is changing how section 215 is implemented. we moveove away -- can toward a system used in criminal prosecution where phone numbers and no content can be used to link analysis? we would like to hear your thoughts on these proposals. we brought you here to get your input in an open forum and allow the american people t