so if all telephony metadata is relevant, then so is all e-mail metadata, all internet metadata, all financial records are relevant, all communications, all social media. you could go on and on. all of this would be relevant to assessing a potential threat to the united states. so what is irrelevant? and this contradicts, very clearly contradicts congressional seat belt. now, an authorized investigation is also part of that phrase, and the way that it's being read by the nsa treats the search of the data -- not the collection -- as the part that must be relevant to an authorized investigation. but the statute requires that the information to be obtained must be relevant to an authorized investigation. an authorized investigation under the attorney general guidelines requires a level of specificity prior to collecting information whereas bulk collection does not in this regard. in addition, the orders issued by fisk allow for the future collection of information, so the investigation might not have been yet authorized, and you are now granting the authority to obtain information witho

-- bulk metadata. he also noted for that approach o be workable with the speed and matter necessary legislation would be required. if he thought it was important in his judgment, it was important to continue this capability. it has been reauthorized a second time with the next reup ate. >> september 12 is the day. so i just think i will clarify this conversation. if i might turn to questions about the statutory authorization i think i will turn to the fourth amendment if that makes sense. our position is that the courts did conclude by maryland. >> i don't think i am using the mosaic approach. does there come a time, and this is what the plaintiffs are complaining, when the old-fashioned simple pen egister that was used and that we are recognizing it for a long ime. the amount of data that you have is so detailed and so extensive the fact is a content divulging actions rather than not. the whole point of the instructions and i read it again this morning. the point was it is something that you already g

the government could come if it shows, if someone looked into it, from this metadata could determine if it is likely that someone was hiv-positive, or it is likely that someone had an abortion. couldn't verizon find out those things if it shows -- it chose? and couldn't verizon going to the record it has and make the same had of church -- search, and use it for purely commercial purposes, not remotely as important to anyone as the reason for governments seeks to use this data to do? just because they might be able to make money by telling a list of people that verizon thinks have recently developed an unwanted pregnancy, they could or's,hat list to abortion or an antiabortion group, to send information to those people. verizon could do that, couldn't they? >> i don't know that they could come in a matter of our contractual obligations with verizon. i don't think it provides an -- unrelated access to our call records. the only access the verizon typically has our records is --ely through its computer computerized collection of those records. it is ironic that the government claims tha

time of smith the power of the metadata was appointed and smith itself wiped it out, the court even though the expectation is phone companies are assembling the metadata if only because you know you get a list of all of your calls at the end of the month. not give-- that did rise to a protected fourth amendment interest. >> even that simple stuff that comes from the pen register is used in courtrooms in the u.s. every day of the week when attorneys get up and say this is a chart of all the times that tospirator a talked conspirator b. you should have heard what they were talking about. here is -- we do not have the content of the phone call but we have a record of the insider at theman sachs talking to trader. here is a record of the purchase of the stock in question right before the announcement of some new public information. what do you think they were talking about? leakwas proof that was a from the insider. metadata can reveal content. >> the point about the technology that allows analysis leads me back to the point i wanted to make in response moment ago. it is important not t

time of smith the power of the metadata was appointed and smith itself wiped it out, the court even though the expectation is phone companies are assembling the metadata if only because you know you get a list of all of your calls at the end of the month. not give-- that did rise to a protected fourth amendment interest. >> even that simple stuff that comes from the pen register is used in courtrooms in the u.s. every day of the week when attorneys get up and say this is a chart of all the times that tospirator a talked conspirator b. you should have heard what they were talking about. here is -- we do not have the content of the phone call but we have a record of the insider at

the second set of programs involve metadata collection.he program has been dropped or seriously modified, but the telephone program remains. this is largely covered by section 215 of the patriot act, the business records provision. metadata has been stored by private and public service providers. time and length of the calls, the id of cell phones and cell phone information, websites visited, and the like. this data does not itself pertain to the actual content of those communications and at one time the supreme court held such information is not held by the fourth amendment because it's been given out the public. but those conversations occurred as it is now. in order to get into the content of this, a fisa court authorization is required. there's a big debate, our first speaker will address this, as to whether or not prior authorization is required to authorization is required tometf independent to the content. meanwhile, the extent of the metadata programs was not really known until edward snowden in early 2013. after the fisa amendment

if all telephony metadata is relevant, e-mails are relevant. social media, on and on. what is irrelevant? and this contradicts congressional intent. an authorized investigation is also part of that phrase. the way it's being read by the nsa treats the search of the data, not the collection, as being relevant to an authorized investigation. the information to be obtained must be relevant to an authorized investigation. an authorized investigation under the attorney general guidelines requires a level of specificity prior to an authorized investigation. so the investigation might not have been yet authorized and you are now granting the authority to obtain any information without that information actually being in existence. but the statute is very clear that an authorized investigation must already be established. the statute requires that the nsa, not just nsa but anybody using section 215, that could be obtained during ordinary subpoe subpoena duces tecum. that type of use of subpoenas has been roundly rejected by the supreme court.dth3 they're not just a search for i

professor donahue will talk about the legal implications of mainly the bulk metadata program. but she'll also allude to section 702. the second speaker will be matthew olson. mr. olson is the director of the counter terrorism center 234 washington. before that, he served for the national security agency where he held the position of chief legal counsel. he also served the department of justice as an associate deputy attorney general and is responsible for supervising a court committee on national security and legal matters. he's had the honor of serving both the obama administration and the bush, too, administration. he will talk about what the nsa is doing to collect intelligence to support our counter terrorism efforts. he'll also focus on the surveillance and the role of nsa progra programs, the role that play to identify and disrupt terrorist threats. third speaker will be executive director of the washington post. he was associate managing editor of the new york times. a piece i encountered on line was asked was marty the man hired to fix the washington post. i assume he

so there's a vote last summer to defined the telephone metadata program to a loss in the house whichd look at as it must been some republicans defected but otherwise it was right down party lines but it was anything but. it was one of the more divided votes. this is a possible moment that just hasn't happened yet. i think part of what isis has done has pushed even further into the distance. at some point by next spring congress will have to pass some kind of surveillance reform because it's going to expire. so for better or worse will have to have some legislative come out of congress. the house this past the u.s.a. freedom act. the senate has a bill that the white house has apparently signed off on. the real question is is a going to be a meeting of the minds before this congress goes home? if not the very different simply can't back in january of will they be willing to push for the same deal? at the end of the day the real question will be democrats or republicans or will it be that liberals and libertarians, the wingnut coalition. i wrote that a year ago and we are still here. >>

you talk a lot about edward snowden and collecting the metadata as well as the content of the conversations. i'm not a terrorist. why should i care? >> usually i get that but it was a pleasure for me to ask you. [laughter] >> it's interesting that we have this conversation because it is worth noting that in in europe in your biggest enemy to justify this. it's a human right and it's getting. you don't have to have a conversation. putting aside, you want to debate this so let's debate. the biggest harm for government surveillance is that it leads us to the left free without speech. i write about this guy in the books are available by survey of by the fbi. he and his friend were teenage young man in santa clara and his friend had written a sassy post on the social network reddit. he said i don't know why the tsa is so crazy i could just go to a mall and a bonnet which is actually true. a couple of weeks later this guy and his friend were at a car shop getting an oil change and the officers author was something in the car and it was a tracking device and the fbi put this on his car to survey h

by sometime this spring, we're going to having two court opinions on the telephone metadata program. you know, it's going to percolate, it's going to take a while. i guess all i'm saying is that if congress really goes the narrowest route possible which is just to look at 215, i think the courts may actually feel compelled to do something. >> can you handicap the cases? >> this is why i'm a law professor and not a poker player. but i think that the district courts in the 215 case is split on the fourth amendment question which is to say do americans have an expectation of privacy in their telephone metadata. i think both peas court will resist the answer is yes. but there's a narrower way out to say congress never actually authorized the telephone metadata program. so without the constitutional issue, we can say it's not authorized by statute. that fits quite nicely with congress having to reauthorize the statute anyway by next may. the much harder question, is the section 702 challenge. the overseas is bulk collection that's going on in colorado and there i have no idea. >> which al

invasions of privacy, the third party doctrine already was doing greater invasions of privacy than the metadataf the nsa. the final point i want to raise with respect to this is a question. the requirements for a subpoena are not constitutional. and i'm wondering if verizon says, you can't get this without a subpoena, what is the relationship between the requirement for a subpoena and probable cause? i ask that because i don't know. >> feel free to jump in. >> let's try to be brief because there is a lot of -- >> right. okay. so probable cause is not required for a subpoena. it's not. i actually have a discussion in the paper, the 215 paper of the subpoena cases that are relevant to this, the ones that the longest periods that the courts have agreed is two years focused on a particular individual doing money orders in chicago. that's the longest period of time and probable cause was not required in that particular instance. on this broader point, whether there is a distinction, qualitative difference, we have information available to us that was not available then. so social network analysis. w

program the american people are alarmed by the fact that the nsa was collecting telecine metadata onevery single phone call they been involved in domestic or international there were no collections but it was made without the suspicion any of the data indicated involvement in terrorism, crying or otherwise. it was just collection. think of that program where it was revealed to the program that was public pressure that forced president obama to curtail the program by executive order and follow by the congressional hearings for the first time that were genuine all provoked by edward snowden and the conversations of her liberty liberty and the right to be left alone and you have the right because of edward snowden not because of congress or the executive. but this kind of secrecy is characteristic during wartime. secrecy also i believe needs to this guide decisions as a type of the bay of pigs. they would rise up against fidel castro and it was a disaster. president kennedy said he wished "the new york times" had leaked the bay of pigs before it happened to save him from that kind of fa

even though the expectation is phone companies are assembling the metadata if only because you know you get a list of all of your calls at the end of the month. not give-- that did rise to a protected fourth amendment interest. >> even that simple stuff that comes from the pen register is used in courtrooms in the u.s. every day of the week when attorneys get up and say this is a chart of all the times that tospirator a talked conspirator b. you should have heard what they were talking about. here is -- we do not have the content of the phone call but we have a record of the insider at theman sachs talking to trader. here is a record of the purchase of the stock in question right before the announcement of some new public information. what do you think they were talking about? leakwas proof that was a from the insider. metadata can reveal content. >> the point about the technology that allows analysis leads me back to the point i wanted to make in response moment ago. it is important not to lose sight of all of the other protections that are built acquisition and retention and use of th

that it means that when the government collects the telephone metadata and other metadata as well there is no fourth amendment application. i think we'll see a shift and a new focus on a question about whether or not and to what extent the foreign intelligence exception applies and new pressure on the special needs doctrine which justifies a range of searches that require less than reasonable suspicion. sometimes suspicionless search based on compelling needs separate from law enforcement needs. then we have agreed to speak shortly. so i won't get into the details. i hope we can talk about the ways in which i think data challenges the very foundation of what i call territoriality doctrine. the idea that the fourth amendment is circumscribed and only applies in certain places and as to certain people. the difficulty of effectively distinguishing between u.s. person information and nonu.s. person information ought to cause us to at least re-examine some of the foundational principles on which some of the collection programs rely. >> i agree that recent concurrences from the supreme court

to london and from there i believe it was a combination of factors not only with the analysis but metadataan sources played a role in officials being able to identify who this person is. >> all right. pam, there at the fbi building for us, i want to bring back in the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee ed royce, joining us from california. chairman, this is very significant, right? give us your reaction to this? >> well, the reason this is so important is that there's close to a thousand young men like this one from britain who are fighting with this isis organization today, as well as 300 from the united states, approximately and they hold these passports. just as this young man holds this passport. the fact that athey're willing o commit this kind of mayhem and murder and at the same time advocate coming back to europe and coming to the united states and carrying out these attacks is the very reason why interpol, why the british intelligence agencies and the united states, are working right now to track who these young men are. >> back in. going into turkey over the border in

identify foley's alleged killer, relying on voice analysis of the british accent and picking apart metadatarom the video. former cia official gary berntsen said it's likely the human sources that led investigators to a possible suspect. >> they have thousands of individuals that have gone through terrorist training camps and no doubt have developed a network of people, probably able to identify the individual that did the killing. >> reporter: two weeks after the james foley video was released another masked man with a similar accent appeared in a second gruesome video, this time in front of freelance journalist steven sotloff. >> you have obama have yet again for your actions for another american citizen. >> reporter: law enforcement sources say it's too early to make the connection the masked man in both videos is the same person. new anger from the family of steven sotloff claiming that isis paid as much as $50,000 to rebels who alerted them to the whereabouts of the journalist, and stating that the white house did not do enough to rescue steven. >> we know that for most of the beginning

ever since 2006 the american people are ignorant of the telephony metadata program run by the nationalsecurity agency. congress knew but they were too frightened and invertebrate to disclose it to the american people. with the disclosures the american people were alarmed by the fact that the nsa was collecting metadata on every single phonecall they had been involved in domestic or international. there were no exceptions in the collection was made about any suspicion that any of the data indicated involvement in terrorism crime or otherwise. think of that program when it was revealed to the public they were generally aghast and it was public pressure that forced president obama to curtail the program by executive order and followed by congressional hearings for the first time all provoked by edward snowden and imagine the conversations you have had over the right to be left alone you have had because of edward snowden and not because of congress or the executive. that this kind of secrecy is characteristic during wartime and secrecy also i believe leads to misguided decisions of the ty

throw the baby out with the bath water, this is a moment i can assure you when a tool like the nsa metadatam would have an ability to quickly identify who this individual has called in the last three months. that's a critical way to find out the network. and the boston bombing case, they usually have an enabler somewhere in the community. >> jim, this guy goes in there with a knife that they found -- he found in the workplace. the police described it as a regular sized knife. they said something you would cut a head of lettuce with. he was shot down by a deputy sheriff on site. who knows how bad this would have been -- >> thank god someone in that place had a gun. a good american citizen had a gun. and i think we're going to find in the future that more and more people that are just whimsically against guns or say all these things are going to hope real good people have guns too. imagine if he didn't have a gun how many more bodies we'd be seeing here. >> right. last question, chad, how on earth could a man like this with such a lengthy history get hired in the first place? any thoughts on

convinced that the reform process we put in place for the nsa and this massive surveillance and metadatareally going to be effective. and clearly if you look at the phone intelligence surveillance court that's -- that's been essentially a candor record, a mouth piece for the administration. so a lot needs to be done. and if it weren't for snoweden, we wouldn't be having this discussion. the president wouldn't be answering the charges that he had to answer. the congress wouldn't be proposing reforms and judges wouldn't refer to this activity as orion. so we owe snoweden something. but there is a serious question. right now he has a very good lawyer representing him. in washington. who handled very big cases. >> we should note there is some dialogue and there should be some plea bargain because we have no idea what he took with him. i've talked to people involved with damage assessment for this case. and they do not know what he has. i think it is important to sit down with snoweden at some point to find out what is going to be compromised. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> on news m

through voice analysis and picking apart metadata. >> thank you so much for that report. let's get more now on the alleged attack to attack the subway systems in new york and paris. jim acosta is working this part of the story for us. the key is we say alleged plot because we're getting mixed signals here from iraqi versus american officials. >> absolutely, brianna. this got started earlier when the new iraq minister abadi told a group of reporters gathered at the united nations that baghdad had information about an imminent threat, a terror plot that was going to be hashed by militants on their subway systems. and according to american administration officials here at the white house and up in new york, they have no information that it's a credible, specific threat at this point, according to one senior administration official at the white house, they still want to corroborate this and while they are not commenting publicly, the mayor of new york came out on the cameras and just about an hour ago to reassure new yorkers that their subway system is safe. here's what he ha

is not just fearful of getting over the metadata.l serious fourth amendment issue. it is a very dark future, potentially. >> the genie has spread from two administrations. both sides of the political aisle. how many do you exactly get back? >> first of all, i appreciate you taking up the subject on the air. secondly, everyone talks about bipartisanship and we need to get people working together. he is a hard left democrats. i guess i am a conservative hard right kind of guy. i believe that there will be, if you want to find bipartisanship in america, it should be the top bipartisanship in america today. >> the libertarian movement is resonating big-time. their lives are spent on the internet. i do not think that they want the world to see it. it has to take a ground swell of the general public. >> when history is written a few years from now, we will look back at this issue. people, young people in america look at obama and it just did not turn out the way we wanted it to. this is something that affects me and my life. i will reward

ever since 2006 the american people were ignorant of the telephony metadata program run by the nationalsecurity agency. congress knew but they were too frightened in invertebrate to disclose it to the american people even though they had a future debate clause that protected it. they were alarmed by the fact that the nsa was collecting data on every single phonecall domestic or international. there were no exceptions. the collection was made without any suspicion of any other data indicated involvement in terrorism crime or otherwise. he was just collection. now think of that program when it was revealed to the public they were generally aghast. it was the public pressure that forced president obama to curtail the program by executive order and followed by congressional theory. they were all provoked by edward snowden and measured a lot of conversations you had over liberty and the right to be left alone. because of edward snowden not because of congress. this kind of secrecy is characteristic during wartime. secrecy also i believe leads to misguided decisions of the type of the bay of

convinced that the reform process we put in place for the nsa and this massive surveillance and metadata going to be effective. and clearly if you look at the phone intelligence surveillance court that's -- that's been essentially a candor record, a mouth piece for the administration. so a lot needs to be done. and if it weren't for snoweden, we wouldn't be having this discussion. the president wouldn't be answering the charges that he had to answer. the congress wouldn't be proposing reforms and judges wouldn't refer to this activity as orion. so we owe snoweden something. but there is a serious question. right now he has a very good lawyer representing him. in washington. who handled very big cases. >> we should note there is some dialogue and there should be some plea bargain because we have no idea what he took with him. i've talked to people involved with damage assessment for this case. and they do not know what he has. i think it is important to sit down with snoweden at some point to find out what is going to be compromised. >> thank you very much. [ applause ] >> on news makers

they have been using human methods, technical means, analyzing the metadata on that video, using voice analysis to try to pin down who it is. >> there are unfortunately two videos, steven sotloff as well was killed by isis. is the thought that the executioner in that video the same as the one in the foley video? >> well, i think that initially was what everyone thought because a lot of the mannerisms seemed very similar, the accents seemed the same. but i'm being told it's too premature to draw that connection. it's only been a week since that video was released. officials are still trying to figure out who the executioner is in that video as well. >> pamela brown, thank you so much. let's go in depth now, i'm joined by the vice chairman of the senate intelligence committee, republican saxby chambliss of georgia. thank you for being with us. we've heard, we shouldn't draw conclusions that the executioners in these two videos are necessarily the same person. it seems that u.s. officials are pretty confident that they're very close to making a positive id in the foley video. how close do

i'm not going to ask you to make that kind of commitment like metadata, ins need to make a commitmento back home to inspire our countrymen to reject ideas like unilateral disarmament, to dismiss the concept of spending our way out of debt, or regulating our way to prosperity. i'm asking you to inspire others that we might elect those who know we cannot surrender our sovereignty to ensure security. i urge you to make a commitment today to assert a moral authority of a free people. the next election is just 39 days away. make a commitment now here to elect a congress that would preserve freedom and operate -- opportunity in america, who will stand up to the liberties granted to us by our creator and protected by our constitution. we are no that much to the young americans who risk their lives for us in difficult and dangerous places. i started this afternoon talking about heroes to be president that i was blessed to serve told us that we have a rendezvous with destiny. he asked us to commit ourselves to ensure in the words of abraham lincoln, that we would ensure government of by and fo

invasions of privacy, the third party doctrine already was doing greater invasions of privacy than the metadata of the nsa. the final point i want to raise with respect to this is a question. the requirements for a subpoena are not constitutional. and i'm wondering if verizon says, you can't get this without a subpoena, what is the relationship between the requirement for a subpoena and probable cause? i ask that because i don't know. >> feel free to jump in. >> let's try to be brief because there is a lot of -- >> right. okay. so probable cause is not required for a subpoena. it's not. i actually have a discussion in the paper, the 215 paper of the subpoena cases that are relevant to this, the ones that the longest periods that the courts have agreed is two years focused on a particular individual doing money orders in chicago. that's the longest period of time and probable cause was not required in that particular instance. on this broader point, whether there is a distinction, qualitative difference, we have information available to us that was not available then. so social network analysis.

. >> for it to work and in order to find patterns and different things, it needs some level of metadatach data does it knead to both protect people's privacy and be successful in terms of being able to find when there's bad stuff going on and give that over to the -- >> well, the critical thing is always to be able to really be -- to have -- to be as -- to have -- to be able to get the analysts to sort through the data in very educative in very educative ways. you don't need to have this enormous sweeping pools of data. the big pools make it worse. big data is one of the worst buzz words in silicon valley. it's like dumb data. it's overwhelming data. it's pages and pages of data you have no eidea what to do with. >> i thought big data was the opposite in that you needed all of this data to sort through because you wouldn't find patterns if you didn't have the massive -- >> key thing is to figure out how to make big data smaller. how to find valuable things in that. i think there are a lot of very powerful ways to do this that don't require us to be intrusive. we are intrusive with low t

identify foley's alleged killer, relying on voice analysis of the british accent and picking apart metadatanson said it's likely the human sources that led investigators to a possible suspect. >> they have thousands of individuals that have gone through terrorist training camps and no doubt have developed a network of people, probably able to identify the individual that did the killing. >> reporter: two weeks after the james foley video was released another masked man with a similar accent appeared in a second gruesome video, this time in front of journalist steven sotloff. >> you obama for your actions for another american citizen. >> reporter: law enforcement sources say it's too early to make the connection the masked man in both videos is the same person. new anger from the family of steven sotloff claiming that isis paid as much as $50,000 to rebels who alerted them to the whereabouts of the journalist, and stating that the white house did not do enough to rescue steven. >> we know that for most of the beginning of this part of this year they were stationary. we know that the intellig