within the executive order, 12333 meta data repository. it depends on the repository and the type of data being done. generally speaking it's five

it is all meta data collected under other authorities also discarded after five years? > so for nsa, it depends on the type of data. so in the meta data repository for 215, as you stated, and aged off after five years by court direction. if there's a report, that, of course, would not be aged off. the report will stand just like other intelligence activities. within the executive order, 12333 meta data repository. it depends on the repository and the type of data being done. generally speaking it's five years. there may be pieces of information that we retain longer that are our intelligence value overseas that is different than the ones we have in the united. that's all that nsa has in those areas. >> as i understand that, yeah. it's handled differently.. >> men simple exceptions for the national government of the national security but and the shutdown. what the speaker could do any moment to allow the open vote but i will take seriously into account that it does seem to be alarming that the civilian workforce is furloughed and i hope he will be reviewing on a rolling b

the sources of the meta-data in the data legally collected by the nsa under various authorities as well as data provided to nsa by foreign partners. to be perfectly clear this is not information that we collected on european citizens. it represents information that we and our nato allies have

it is all meta data collected under other authorities also discarded after five years? >> so for nsa, it depends on the

within the executive order, 12333 meta data repository. it depends on the repository and the type of data being done. generally speaking it's five years. there may be pieces of information that we retain longer that are our intelligence value overseas that is different than the ones we have in the united. that's all that nsa has in those areas. >> as i understand that, yeah. it's handled differently..

it was the meta data argument that they are keeping drag of whom is calling whom. citizens in spain could be connect with people in pakistan, could be connecting with people in the united states and that might give us a trail to find some terrorists. >> well, first of all, meta data tells you a lot more about what people are doing than content. i know that may seem counter-intuitive but you get a lot more information from meta data. and the question is, if they are having conversations with someone in pakistan, i mean i have no problem with following law enforcement procedures if you think people are engaged in a crime. obviously, the law -- the law contemplates that. what it does not contemplate is blanket, dragnet mass surveillance with no oversight of millions and millions of people it's just outrageous. in. >> what's the main message you wanted to get out of saturday's rally? what would you like it to do to forward? >> i think saturday's rally was meant to say that, look, people in the u.s. of every political stripe and every background are all in favor of rein

and it's also perfectly sensible to figure out from a meta data where you're supposed to deliver the e-mail . but to deliver the consent is an invasion of privacy. some people are willing to give that up in exchange for free e-mail, perhaps there's an explicit information on what's going on that might be acceptible but google has never come clean. we have a question. >> thank, the viewer asks how can g-mail wiretap a series that they offer and that we voluntarily sign up for? >> wiretaping under the law is involved in intercepting the messages. they were trying to suggest in their motion for dismissal that all this was part of a normal ordinary business practice. the judge found that wasn't that the enter accept that they are doing is not a part of passing on the e-mail message. and again the other aspect of this was consent. now what the judge also said was that she did not think that the average user had given consent because google hadn't explained what it was doing. that's the heart of the case. she said okay and in that circumstance they can go forward with the class-action suit

the sources of the meta-data in the data legally collected by the nsa under various authorities as wells data provided to nsa by foreign partners. to be perfectly clear this is not information that we collected on european citizens. it represents information that we and our nato allies have collected in defense of our country's and in support of military operations. >> so if i understand you crack me this information was likely collected external from the country in which it may have been reported in defense of operations ongoing in the world in which nato participates is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and so let me just ask you this. as you study the networks of the world so let's just talk about the european union for a second if i may. is it possible for chinese intelligence services military or otherwise to usenet works that you would find in any nation-states in the european union and? >> absolutely. >> how about russian intelligence services? is it possible they could use communication networks incorporated communication networks inside the european union? >> absolutely. >>

getting back to that meta-data program. there is no reason why the telecommunications providers can't hold that information. it is more efficient for the government to hold it, but efficiency is not the hallmark of what we are trying to do here. the onlyency was criteria in terms of our national priorities, we would not have a fourth amendment. it would be much more efficient if police could go into our homes to search whenever they wanted to. privacy and expectation of privacy is a high national priority. those things can be balanced. there may be things that are legal, things that we can get court approval for, but there may be a better way to do it. even though we can do it another way, this is more protective of privacy. we can get the same information we need. we can protect the country just the same. that is what we need to ask ourselves about all of our programs. is it effective? is a constitutional? -- it constitutional? the travistive for he of the -- privacy of the public? he heads u.s. cyber- command. what is the

something called section 215, the information collection process that allows the scooping up of meta data, the phone calls and the text messages and the like, but they did not -- they say they were -- took special steps to make sure the content of that data was not revealed to anyone. i am totally opposed to what they tried to do, i think the nas is doing a outstanding job, and for us to tie its hands will cost american lives. >> now, that was not a general keith alexandar who said that meta data was under lock and key, that very few people had access to it, especially not the leaker edward snowden. the former analyst who made public so much top secret information that caused this whole controversial in the first place. the speaker you just heard was congressman peter king. he was talking about one of the suggestions being made by the committee to reform the way the nation gathers intelligence. to modify, to amend, the patriot act, so that there will be some restrictions put into place on how the information is gathering. for example, they are saying that they no longer will have a dragne

. >> is the benefit coming from the phone, meta-data or collecting internet information. >> from thensa's perspective that's difficult to give an answer. what people tonight always understand the agency does not always measure its success. it's how much information are we collecting that is being put into reports that may be useful to policymakers and how they're serving their customers. well, how many times was the meta-database actually successful. there may be case where is they can make a pretty good claim that it must be a good part of the mix. in general they don't necessarily calculate that way so it's difficult for them to say there is cause and affect by collecting the data but there is lose to give up access because what if there is data that is proven to be a key ingredient in the mix. >> how is that proven. >> i think it's cold comfort for americans. but the vast majority of cases ns a nobody else cares a wit what the contents are. what they're looking for are patterns of connection of these individuals. >> when we come back you're watching inside story. stay with us. unc

spying that will be allowing to be done on american citizens for example, the so called collection of meta data phone calls text messages etc. as well as redefining the extent to which foreign intelligence gather canning be done with an towards focusing it towards terrorism investigations. >> and randall, this is one of those bizarre moments when administrations past and present seem to agree, with each oh, former vice president dick cheney saying that he believes that nothing should be done, the white house saying that it's going to take a look back, but it believes it has done nothing wrong, what sells the white house saying. >> well, the white house took the unusual step of putting out a press release today, to deny a report that was in the german press, and they normally don't comment on intelligence matters at all. but the german press had indicated that back in 2010, the white house president obama specifically had a conversation with an intelligence official, about intelligence gathering dealing with chancellor merkel, and the white house is saying that did not happen. of course, the que

[applause] in the name of security the state has become a big brother meta-data that has appropriatedte space. in the name of security, the state opens our e-mail. we say to stop the mass spying. in the name of security, the state downloads our contacts and our photos. we say? >> no. >> in the name of security the state monitors our phone calls. and we say? >> no. >> in the name of security the state checks our financial records, and we say -- >> no. >> some say that we give up our privacy when we join social networks. >> bullshit. >> we reserve the right to troll our social rights without warrants. we reject the rights of the states to make everyone a suspect, no one a free citizen in an orwellian society. we know the truth, we have to be protected from such a state, not by it. the national security state is government as a racket. a racket with a promise to protect us, what we get instead are drones and extrajudicial killings of civilians around the world as they collect information on hundreds of millions of people, including leaders we call our friends. the nsa appears to have gon

they claim they receive meta-data, that's the connections and not the message.ut they have accused the nsa of violating international law. france and germany demanded answers and recently mexico has labeled the spying unacceptable as well as illegal. let's go to live to washington. it's really the extent of these latest allegation that's nsa has been spying on 70 million french citizens that has people very shocked. >> well, i think probably volume of the electronic data involved in this may well be surprising. the fact is that the program is rooted in the collection of information and electronic information including telephone calls and internet information geared towards what is happening around the world, and that's the purpose of the program. >> and so far let me ask you if you have seen any extraordinary valley from this nsa program? has it revealed anything to you so far? >> well, i mean, the nsa collects signals and intelligence, electronic intelligence, and it's focused on collecting information from around the world. the u.s. justification for the poten

what this does is it shows what information cab gleamed from meta data. it is the equivalent of being paled without being bugged. the government can tell you went to the free clinic and you called samantha when you left the clinic and then went to the pharmacy and then wept to samantha's, but you left in a hurry because a guy named steve was there. steve left after you and he went to the clinic and then he called kate and then kate changed her facebook status from in a relationship to it's complicated. just from following you the government has information on at least four people and one of whom indicate is innocent. kate is innocent. >> do you agree with the irrational assessment? >> my work here is done. >> was that a 1979 supreme court decision. it basically said everything that goes to a third party is no longer protected. i was alive. we used paper cups with strings. we have too much information out there. >> that's exactly right. our fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. yes we have a reasonable expectation of privacy

what this does is it shows what information cab gleamed from meta data. it is the equivalent of being paled without being bugged. the government can tell you went to the free clinic and you called samantha when you left the clinic and then went to the pharmacy and then wept to samantha's, but you left in a hurry because a guy named steve was there. steve left after you and he went to the clinic and then he called kate and then kate changed her facebook status from in a relationship to it's complicated. just from following you the government has information on at least four people and one of whom indicate is innocent. kate is innocent. >> do you agree with the irrational assessment? >> my work here is done. >> was that a 1979 supreme court decision. it basically said everything that goes to a third party is no longer protected. i was alive. we used paper cups with strings. we have too much information out there. >> that's exactly right. our fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. yes we have a reasonable expectation of privacy

they say that any information, i in of this meta data, that's with a it was. not phone call or conten was done by european services, not by the nsa. that it was not in fact the citizens of those countries, france and spain, but collected from a number of sources by the u.s. and nato allies in support of military operations abroad. here's how they made that case at the hearings today. >> the assertions by spain, italy, that nsa collected ten of million of phone call are completely false. to be perfectly clear, this is not information that we collected on european citizens. it represents information that we and our nato allies have collected in defense of our countries and in support of military operations. >> so in effect, they're saying that one of the strongest reasons for this anger we've been seeing from europe started with nothing. the misinterpretation, erin, of a single power point slide. >> wow, we shall see. that was the tip of the iceberg. thanks so much to you. >> republican senator rand paul sits on both the foreign relations and homeland security c

privately i can for instance get your meta data for $400 or $500.ho you call, when you called, the length of the call. it is fairly inexpensive. so for the national security agency, it is nothing. >> i mean, that is nothing. so i guess the question is, i would assume then that the president's cell phone is being monitor monitored. a throwaway one or whatever will i would assume e is watching everybody. that it is faux outrage that we're hearing from our european allies. >> exactly. anybody talking on a cell phone who expects privacy doesn't know the way the system works including the president of the united states. there is no way to protect that or his private computer. even the encryption system are all vulnerable. and so if merkel thought she was speaking entirefully private she was wrong. no doubt the russians are listening to her. maybe even the french. i don't know. >> well thank you very much. bob explaining how it is done, scaring us in the process. in all serious know, something really important to consider. >>> still to come, a bizarre day

they tell me that the nsa surveillance in spain and france only included meta data, only the content, but it is the spying on heads of state that is causing the greatest outrage. they say this does not mean the nsa was going rogue or operating out of bounds, but part of it is to ensure they are getting effective guidance from policymakers. it seems to me they were not getting that effective guidance because they were going ground what the president knew or appeared to have authorized. >> jim sciutto trying to get at the heart of the problem here. thank you for being with us. let he ask you this question -- do you believe the president knew not just the spying on u.s. allies but specifics, things like the u.s. was tapping their cell phones. do you believe that he knew and knew since i took office or do you believe the other option which is he just found out. >> i have no way of saying he did or he didn't. but he is the chief executive of the united states. underneath him is the intelligence services. and he can get from them whatever information he wants, whether they, whether they gav

will respond to a subpoena and give the government information about meta data. phone numbers, no content, the information will come from what the providers already have in your business records. s as i said in the opening statement, this is not -- this is -- the most operation nally challenging proposal. it is important that we evaluate what can keep the capabilities of the program to keep our country safe. we have talks about that, you have testified that this does keep the country safe, i think there have been statements that if we had this program, before 9/11, there was a good possibility that we would have identified the fact that one of those terrorists was in the united states coordinating the attack. it's like finding a need until a hay stack. if you have to -- the terrorist being the needing and if you need to find them throughout the world, you have to have the hay stack. that hay stack is basically name, address, just a number and the duration of a call. notwithstanding that we must move forward and try to put together another system that will the ame

filed today, which would restrict the massive collection of telephone records of what they call meta data. a year after hurricane and superstorm sandy, communities across connecticut and as well as new jersey and new york are rebuilding from the storm. governor, thanks for your patience in joining us. we want to update people on this national security controversy which really grabbed so much attention but -- >> no problem at all. i enjoy hearing the testimony so we all have jobs to do and yours is to keep the public informed. i appreciate it. >> we want to be informed about connecticut because they get overlooked with the drama of what happened on the new jersey shore and in breezy point, staten island, rockaways. tell us how the connecticut shoreline has rebuilt. >> let me be very clear, our hearts go out to the people in new jersey and new york and my heart goes out to the people of connecticut who suffered the type of losses we suffered. millions and millions of dollars of destroyed home and damage and loss of profits for companies. we're trying to make people whole. we just announced

the for march reaching of the proposals would end this practice of collecting meta data about fanlights and that would mean this database of hundreds of millions of phone numbers and dates and times and places of calls wouldn't be so instantly available, you know. it's like google of phone calls for the intelligence community and it wouldn't be quiet so easily available. >> the rules have been broken. correct? >> yes. they have gone on google data basis to look up ex-girlfriends, you know, that is something we all to be scandalized being done with our tax dollars. there is both the question of what are the rules and this information is so easily available and, frankly, the private sector already has it. let's not kid ourselves that, you know, google or apple or whoever else doesn't know what we are doing. what kind of oversight will actually prevent it from being sort of an open secret that, hey, if you go over here into this file, you can spy on your ex-girlfriend. >> so let me get you just one last question to put on your political speech writer hat formerly and talk a little bit abou

i suspect the meta data we have extensively, we hold volumes of that but that doesn't necessarily mean we have intruded into the content. but i think that's somewhat separate issue from the question of our relationship with our allies which i think can be made better by the kind of discussion that i think is going to inevitably result from this uproar and the second thing i think we need to do is when the decision is made or when we're interested in collecting on a foreign leader, let's say a non-allied foreign leader, i think somebody at a very high level has to give it a good political scrub. >> the president of the united states? >> the president or the secretary of state. in any event, somebody at a high responsible political level, to determine whether the risk of revelation of that collection activity may outweigh any potential benefit from such collection. i think that's a critical issue. >> would the u.s. be upset, let's say, if they found out that germany was trying to eavesdrop on joe biden's cell phone conversations? >> well, if you look at past practice, you know, over the

i guess the question is, do you think -- there are now several pending suits the bulk meta data program. do you think the litigation -- by actually putting the court in the position of answering these questions in a way that might cash out in a way i suspect you -- >> i don't know what that means. i'm not sure if i can an the question. i know, just lis -- justice scalia will ride in on a horse that was living at the time the constitution was adopted. [laughter] i'm hopeful, yes, that the court will step in here and begin to reassert rights helping congress along very often the argument is read and rightly dismissed that the legislature should take care of the problems. we have privacy problems with the collection, courts we dmoant how to deal with it. but the fourth amendment is not a hopeful instruction to the legislature. it creates a 0 right of people in the united. against unreasonable search and seizure. i think the mistake and decision that lead to smith v. maryland should be overturned so we could have a discussion. >> any other members? >> i agree with that. to the extent they a

records provision known as section 215 allowing the government to legally collect what it called meta data, a phone number, length of call, not content, no names, no conversations, no content. let me be clear, again, under 2 # -- 215, nsa cannot listen to anyone's phone calls. it allows the government to connect the dots. the dots should have and like i could have been connected to prevented 9/11 and are necessary to prevent the next attack. with this tool, we could have determined one of the 9/11 attackers, hijackers, was in san diego and made a call to a known al-qaeda number in yemen. i shutter to think what connections listen missed if the program were completely eliminated. law enforcement contains and analyzes these records every day to stop organized crime out of the countriment we don't want it to be easier to be a terrorist an that criminal in the country. the second is known as 702 of the fisa amendment's act allowing the government to collect the content of the e-mail and phone calls of foreigners, not americans, who are located outside the united states. the authority allows th

adversary in the courtroom, but when you are asking the court to bless an entire new program like meta data, that's an action i'm not aware of any other court undertaking without at least hearing from another party, and that's why i don't think the criminal analogy is on point. >> as i understand the chairman's question, he was looking at the individual warrant that would be issued for people within the united states be they citizens or noncitizens where there's the court involved in the probable cause determination in making that comparison. we said all along that in something like a novel issue or a bulk collection issue where there's significant privacy concerns imp kateed that we see an appropriate role for an amicus to come in at that appointment as the court sees fit in order to give the court the benefit of another perspective. we've talked in terms of that being something that could be beneficial. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much. so given the time constraints, first of all, thank you to the panel for being here. we appreciate your candid testimony today as we h

getting back to that meta-data program. there is no reason why the telecommunications providers can't hold that information. it is more

the amount of information we now know and there is more coming out every week in terms of meta data beingre we willing to give up of our privacy in order to say we are safe. i foal like our leaders and politicians are saying trust us. we will keep you safe. you don't worry your pretty head about that. >> iran is a big part of your book. do you think that's our largest security threat at this point? >> my expertise in the cia was on nuclear proliferation. it was natural to build the premises around that. i am pleased to see that for the first time since 1979, imagine that. imagine that you have some sort of diplomatic relations with your enemies and friends. >> trying to do that with congress too. >> the whole issue of nuclear proliferation is the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons. it's the most determinous thing whether it's in pakistan or north korea or iran. i feel that if you don't get that right, none of the other stuff that you talk so much about today, the government shut down and any of that will be small potatoes to a nuclear weapon going off anywhere in the world. >> the new

. >> meta data. >> this is software, a service for the health care business for testing for drug companiesthe ceo their. >> and then finally -- >> look at this! this is what we're looking for in a company. this is a great company sant ander. >> what do you have on "mad money"? >> we're going to show how to make paper tonight on international paper. >> 6:00 and 11:00. >> thank you! >> let's get to simon. >> the burning question of the day, can apple stock rise 140%? and will he get his way with tim cook? and we'll have puchback on obama care and minimum wage from andrew puzder, and we'll be joined by the chairman of the boston red sox, mr. tom werner. that and more in the next 60 minutes. ♪ ♪ in a world that's changing faster than ever, we believe outshining the competition tomorrow requires challenging your business inside and out today. at cognizant, we help forward-looking companies run better and run different - to give your customers every reason to keep looking for you. so if you're ready to see opportunities and see them through, we say: let's get to work. because the future belongs