positiven't been any things that have come out of that metadata program. the other ones, the 53 other part of awere different program, called the prison program. that is where they actually get court order to get access to data. of that is not as -- that is not as controversial. data program has been virtually useless but they still want to keep it go -- the metadata program has been virtually useless but they still want to keep it going. earlier you mentioned national security letters. can you explain what those are and what changes the president announced yesterday? guest: the national security letters, there are two ways of getting access to your information. one is going to record and showing you have probable cause and then the court will decide whether or not that is true and the will issue a warrant to law enforcement organization, fbi or whatever, to get your records. the easier way is the national security letter. it does not involve going to a court. all it involves is having a letter written by the justice , pleasent, saying give this person acce

a program without the government only missable metadata. it this will not be simple. group recommended

match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the section 215 program was designed to address, without the government holding this metadata itself. they will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on march 28th. and during this period i will consult with the relevant committees in congress to seek their views and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed. now, the reforms i'm proposing today should give the american people greater confidence that their rights are being protected. even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. i recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. for example: some who participated in our review, as well as some members of congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters. so we have to go to a judge, each time, before issuing these requests. here, i have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations, that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinar

i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it exists and establishes a program without the government holding this bulk metadata. it this will not be simple. the review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third-party retain the bulk records with the government accessing information is needed. both of these options pose difficult problems. relying solely on the records of multiple providers could force companies to alter their policies. any single company holding the database could carry out what is essentially a government function with more expenses more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have an impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected. during the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through recombination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advancements. more work needs to be done to determine how this system will w

i'm therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities that we need without the government holding this bulk metadata. during this transition period, the data base can be queried only after a judicial finding,

programs? >> there is a great deal of metadata collected by the national security program. we do speak to that. there is a great deal of communications related information collected under the executive order. public attention is focused on 215, but it produces a small percentage of the overall data that is collected. >> thank you to the whole panel for your testimony. >> i want it be known that two of the witnesses were law professors. professor stone taught evidence. i want to start with some of the recommendations. one of the most prominent recommendations of the review group was that the u.s. government should not hold the metadata but that data should be held by the companies or a third-party. i remember that general alexander said he was open to this idea back in july. do you think this would lead to greater security or do you think there could be a possibility of it being hacked? i would ask the professors if you think the companies would be insisting on protection for liability? >> i was not your professor, thankfully. there has been a very significant information at

our recommendations do not take away the ability of the government to use the metadata program. we shift where it stays, from the government to private sources and we save the court orders necessary, but as we make clear in the report, we do believe it's critical to protect the national security of the united states and believe our recommendations -- >> the fact that nobody can answer the question. i understand reforming the program and trying to be more sensitive to private concerns, but no one is really talked much about the fact you had a major in the united states army on active duty openly communicating with a known terrorist following his ever word and eventually got radicalized and killed 19 -- >> senator, we do have a section in the report about military and war that talks about how the same internet, the same hardware and software that used in afghanistan and iraq, these days used back home. when it comes to surveillance own hardware and software over there, it's the same hardware and software here. that didn't used to be the true in previous wars. it is a challenge we

kinds of i think universally recognized programs in what we have seen under section 215 of the metadata program is that these other materials, the other programs are predicate-based. the metadata program is really an accumulation of material without necessarily a predicate that i will say the query of the database there has to be a predicate and that is consistent with what has been passed by congress before and constitutionally upheld by the courts. >> well, maybe we could pass something and you mentioned we could also pass, congress could pass a law for example that would allow a police officer to seize anybody en bloc them up incommunicado for five years to pass this law. you are a former judge and attorney journal of united states and i think you would be with me and everybody else at that not -- would not pass constitutional tests at all. so i ask again the question, does the constitution give us the right to pass a law to allow nsa or the bureau of land management or anybody else to collect such untraveled metadata on american citizens? >> i would say 15 judges in the fisa court and 10 ju

positiven't been any things that have come out of that metadata program. the other ones, the 53 other part of awere different program, called the prison program. that is where they actually get court order to get access to data. of that is not as -- that is not as controversial. data program has been virtually useless but they still want to keep it go -- the metadata program has been virtually useless but they still want to keep it going. earlier you mentioned national security letters. can you explain what those are and what changes the president announced yesterday? guest: the national security letters, there are two ways of getting access to your information. one is going to record and showing you have probable cause and then the court will decide whether or not that is true and the will issue a warrant to law enforcement organization, fbi or whatever, to get your records. the easier way is the national security letter. it does not involve going to a court. all it involves is having a letter written by the justice , pleasent, saying give this person acce

the 215 program, that's the metadata program. the president says, one, this is a very important program, and number two, it's been very well run. there have been no intentional abuses. number three, now let me tell you how i'm going to go change it. well, it's important. it's successful, it's well run and now we're going to change. we need to be very careful about how it is we're going to change something that actually has been very successful to date, successful operationally and also successful in protecting american privacy. >> general hayden, can you tell us when that program was started, how it was started and the circumstances around its initiation. >> you bet. it started in october of 2001 under express orders from president bush using his article two authority as commander in chief. as we went forward, the legal structure under which the program was conducted was changed. by the second bush administration, congress had passed legislation that brought the program under both political branches, in other words, both the presi

metadata and content. it is more of a continuum. times" op-edw york , "the government should end of this program for obtaining metadata. the current program contains risks to public privacy and civil liberties." the concern i have had and some others have had, no matter who is president or who is the head of these agencies, we don't want the temptation in their to misuse it. senator grassley, thank you for .oming over i note that senators have been enjoying -- we are all told that there will be a vote or 2:30. going toy that is not happen. if you look over your head, there are the white dots on the clock that say when the next one might be. senator grassley, go ahead. >> the chairman explain what i just wanted to explain, that you folks may not think this is an important hearing, but it is an important hearing, but you may not conclude that because other members are not here. we were told that there would be a vote at 2:30. before i ask weston's, i have an opportunity to give an opening statement. i thank all of you for being here and for your work on the committee. this is the latest in a series on government surveilla

bulk telephone metadata program. talk about the

said at the outset of the speech del however he wasn't speaking specifically about the 215 program the metadata collection program, and a federal judge in washington issued a stay of the program just recently, said there have been no evidence of any attacks being prevented. technological regulations that oversee that technology and the surveillance programs enabled by the technology need to be reviewed del. >> mike viqueria at the white house, now 2012:02 eastern time. if you have been listening in we have listened to the president defending the national intelligence programs, his panel recommending 46 changes. the the president saying he will make five changes to the program. going on to say he would do so defending the existence of those programs within limits. live. >> the whole point is to obtain information that is not publicly available. but america's capabilities are unique. and the power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. that places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. >> and as we have

programs? >> there is a great deal of metadata collected by the national security program. we do speak to that. there is a great deal of communications related information collected under the executive order. public attention is focused on it produces a small percentage of the overall data that is collected. >> tank you to the whole panel for your testimony -- thank you to the whole panel for to your testimony. >> i want to know that two of the witnesses were law professors. stone talkprofessor evidence. -- taught evidence. i want to start with some of the recommendations. one of the most prominent recommendations of the review group was that the u.s. government should not hold the metadata but that data should be held by the companies or third-party. i remember that general alexander said he was open to this idea back in july. do you think this would lead to greater security or do you think there could be a possibility of it being hacked? i would ask the professors if you'd inc. the companies would be insisting him protection for liability? >> i was not your professor, tha

>> well, particularly on the metadata program, that has been very controversial. i would like to see the administration do as much as it can without waiting for the congress. but we do have an end date. the program will expire of its own terms in the middle of next year so if congress can't rise to the occasion to legislate here, that program will go away completely next year. >> congressman schiff, thank you so much for making time for us. we appreciate it. >>> boy, you know, there is this whole idea of balance, too. people say listen, i don't want people in on everything that i'm doing and at the same time, when a terrorist attack happens, they say where were you and how much did you know and why didn't you know more. >> the question is, are you willing to give up a little bit of privacy to get more security. are you willing to give up a little more security to get a little more privacy. that conversation will continue. >>> coming up, a dream vacation turns into a nightmare for dozens of passengers aboard a royal caribbean cruise ship. that report next. ♪ [ male

government is obtaining information from them through national security letters or through the metadata program, the controversial program, it undermines the confidence that their customers have in them, so the bottom line question, the bottom line being they are using the services, the technology provided by their company, their bread and butter, how much of them is open to surveillance from the government. and how much concern do they have, the customers, and virtually everyone using this technology at this point, that the data that the communications, the conversations that they are having, day-to-day as they may be, is subject to government scrutiny. so that is really the fundamental concern here, and something that the white house has heard loud and clear, and you can expect the president to address some of those concerns, whether he goes far enough to satisfy the private industry, it's something that we'll have to listen very carefully for in the speech here. >> amy, from where you sit, we have been given the heads up that the president will be entering the room shortly. but from where yo

i am therefore ordering a transition there was an end of the section to fifteen bulk metadata program as it currently exists. former f.b.i. agent was mentioned just now colin rowley spoke to soon afterwards he says the program which tackled in his speech is just a drop in the ocean though. well i think the speech was a few baby steps in the right direction but it was a lot of dissemble lane and certainly it was a reassurance to the n.s.a. and its employees that they have been doing the right thing he talked really focus was on the two fifteen telephone metadata program that is just one of dozens of massive collections nothing in obama's speech put any rain rain the end this collected all approach and yesterday that there was a big revelation of our call dish fire program that just fire program was collecting all tax calls literally hundreds of thousands of text calls every day are going into the n.s.a.'s vacuum it's gigantic hoover. when we come back to the story throughout the my biggest mistake heard another quick look at some of the facts and figures that we were talking about in n

if you look at one of the programs they abandoned in 2011, which was the e-mail metadata program, they were looking at roughly one percent of all of the e-mails in the united states, a lot of e-mails. ultimately, they dropped the program in part because of critiques set up internally but in part because they were not getting much out of it. then you go to the presidential advisory committee report that came out a week before christmas, and they were a lot less convinced about what the metadata program had actually yielded in the way of preventing terrorist attacks that you would get if you were just listening to the congressional testimony of the generals. so even if you consider them to be highly competent and highly good at what they do, and i think, for some of these programs, probably better than any other intelligence agency we have seen around the world, there is still a reasonable question, is the amount of time, effort, money, and, in this case, diplomatic and business cost of this, worth what you're getting out of it? >> i can say the amount of time i have spent chasing nsa su

and much of what we are talking about with the intelligence community, like with the metadata program not instances of deliberate abuse, or in some cases any abuse. but rather the it -- the potential for abuse. it still means we should reform those programs to reduce the risk of abuse, but it is important for the american people to know that when we talk about this metadata program and the fact that you can learn a lot about americans just by looking at who they call in when they call mom -- call them, that does not mean that is what is going on. most indications are that it has not been abused in that way. there have been some deliberate abuses. we had a situation with some of the overseas programs where employees within the intelligence community wanted to use them to spy on their ex spouse or their lover or whatever. that cannot -- that has happened in a handful of cases. but we have not seen any systemic abuses at all. host: let's go to neil, boston, independent color. caller: good morning, everybody. i don't know where to begin. i'm calling from boston. about nsa,ing metadata, bl

perhaps if he had just told us only about the metadata program, perhaps if he had tried ways to revealelsewhere. the whole establishment, if you will, wouldn't be so up at arms but he took, he stole, let's use the right words for it, an enormous amount of data and spilled it out there, and we still don't know the exact consequences of it. i know glenn any second is going to say show me exactly what the harm is to national security, but you know and i know that that's the issue. you can't actually always show the harm. it's not like giving the name of a spy and the next thing you know, he's executed. there is a gray unknowable area here, and i just find both his attitude, which i called insufferable and i will stand by that -- >> snowden's. not glenn's. >> we can discuss that, too. just really troubling and reprehensible even though i simultaneously think there has been a value to it. we are having a really important public debate and i wish -- it's the nsa's fault and i have been critical of them as well, that we weren't able to have that otherwise. >> do you really think, the truth is

bulk telephone metadata program. talk about the utility. he says we need that capability in the government. he wants to modify slightly how it is achieved. he is not specific about how it is achieved.- it it is likely that when the deadline comes for free authorization at the end of march, they will not have resolved this and they will simply reauthorize. it will roll over into the next administration. detail, richard, stay with us. washington chief correspondent. you were telling us about what the tech companies want to get from the president in this speech. they have been concerned about their role in the collection of phone data. what does this do for their concerns, does it appease it? >> the fact that the president suggested that the u.s. gets it and changes are coming, that checks a box for companies. they think the knowledge that is a step forward. this has been hurting their business, that is the case may have been making. the implication they have been handing over this information has had an impact, particularly overseas as these

i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it exists and establishes a program without the government holding this bulk metadata. it this will not be simple. the review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third-party retain the bulk records with the government accessing information is needed. both of these options pose difficult problems. relying solely on the records of multiple providers could force companies to alter their policies. any single company holding the database could carry out what is essentially a government function with more expenses more legal ambiguity potentially less accountability, all of which would have an impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected. during the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through recombination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advancements. more work needs to be done to determine how this system will wo

judgment about the government holding the data is that the primary danger of the 215 telephony metadata program if it is used only in the way its use is authorized. >> reporter: just to decode some of the language there when they talk about the metadata these are the phone logs, phone records, phone numbers, time, length of the call and this is under section 215 of the patriot act and the argument that the administration has put forward about this program is that it is not as nearly revealing as looking at contents of email but in fact we heard testimony again at that hear last week, when you're able to take a composite, someone's phone logs, who they are contacting, how often they're contacting these people you can build a social network for that person. the testimony indicated to congress, that this is just as revealing as looking at the content, general ma. jenna: obviously still a lot of questions, catherine. what about the risk to all of this? >> well this is one of the things that has been missing in the discussion by the white house about reform to the nsa programs. because what we also

s metadata program. in an interview last week, you noted that at least 15 judges on dozens of occasions have said that the program itself is legal. that's correct? >> that's correct. >> to be clear, is it your position that the collection of metadata under section 215 of the patriot act is legal and that the oversight board's conclusion on this point is wrong? >> that is my view. >> that's mine too. as someone on the intelligence committee and who helped put this through. in your judgment has the n.s.a. abused or misused its capability to collect and analyze telephone metadata? >> i think the n.s.a. has acted in a way that's consistent with the law but as i indicated i think that's part one of the analysis, part two is whether or not we are getting from the acquisition and retention of that data material that is sufficient to deal with the civil liberties and privacy concerns others have expressed. >> but they haven't misused or abused it? >> that's what the president asked us to look at. >> one more que

if you look at one of the programs they abandoned in 2011 which was the e-mail metadata program, they were looking at roughly 1% of all the e-mails sent in the united states which is a lot of e-mails. think about it. and ultimately drop the program in part because of critiques of it internally and in part because they warned getting very much out of it. then you go to the presidential advisories committee report that came out the week before christmas and they were a lot less convinced about what the metadata program actually yielded in the way of preventing terrorist attacks then you would get if you were just listening to the congressional testimony of general clapper and general alexander. so even if you consider them to be highly competent and good at what they do and i think for some of these programs they probably are. the reasonable question is come is the amount of time, effort money and in this case diplomatic and business cost of this worth what you were getting out of that? >> i can say that the amount of time that i have spent chasing nsa surveillance stories and edward sn

i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding the bulk metadata. >> what is the significance of that? >> you know, he passed the buck off to congress and the justice department. passing it to the justice department which never got around to indicting julianne a safrj, mastermind of wiki leaks and responsible for the other massive leak of classified information in this administration and passing it off to congress, is like the syria vote. instead of working out a clear coherent policy that works for our security and going farther as commander in chief we pass it off to congress. there is a lot in here and something for everyone in the 4,000 give or take words. i don't see a clear coherent policy of how to use signal intelligence to defeat the threats and he never mentioned one of the major cyber intelligence threat we face today which is the chinese government. not one mention. >> thank you for your expertise. >> thank you. >> d

match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this metadataitself. they will report back to me with alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on march 28th. during this period, i will consult with the relevant committees in congress to seek their views and seek congressional aut sdplahorizati the new program as needed. the reforms i'm proposal today should give the american people greater confidence that their rights are being protected even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. i recognize there are additional issues that require further debate. for example, some that participated in our review as well as some members of congress. would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters. so we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. here i have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. i agree that greater oversig

lighthouse panel as well as a judge that has said that there is zero evidence, zero, that the metadata program is not effective in stopping terrorist plots as well as leading experts in al qaeda, such as lawrence wright and peter bergen, both of whom said that this would have helped stop 9/11 which is ludicrous because the government had all of the data that they needed to stop the program which means collecting more makes it harder to stop terrorism problems. i think the real question is, should the government in any form, no matter who is holding it, be forcing the retention of all of our phone data, even though we are law-abiding citizens. the question of who holds it is a trivial one. why should the government be keeping this data on us at all? >> i guess the counterargument would be, if they had been able to map that call to that known al qaeda operative and seen that individual who placed the call was physically in the united states, maybe something would have been different. >> but jake, nobody in the debate at all is opposed to targeted surveillance, meaning taking the people for whom

standing directly the conclusions that the commission received that in your judgment google metadata program has not prevented any specific terrorist attack? that is a fair understanding. we do think it has contributed , but weful information cannot say that any specific terrorist attack has been in florida because of this information. private companies, the phone companies that already have that data preserve that data, and searches be conducted when there is a specific cause to search rather than in a blanket sense with the government's we begin every law-abiding citizen? >> precisely. >> if the data were kept in private hands, if the phone companies are the sus the data, that would do nothing to undermine the efficacy of the program preventing future attacks? >> we believe that that way of handling the data can be done in wayy that would not in any undermine the efficacy of the program. we recognize in our report that that is speculative. we do not know that for a fact. if it turns out that there are deficiencies that make it more difficult to use the data in an appropriate way but the al

wrong thing. >> glenn, one ever the recent rulings in a federal court, the judge said that the metadata program might have helped prevent the 9/11 attacks if they had interpreted a call from the united states to an al qaeda safe house in yemen. i knew there was a report that pushed back on the effectiveness of the whole program, but at least as far as the courts are concerned it it's unclear if these programs have helped the united states or not. you say they haven't, but this judge thinks otherwise. >> the preponderance of the evidence, the right-wing judge -- the white house commission filled with loyalists, including the deputy director of the cia said the same thing, there's no evidence that this program is necessary to stop terrorism. there was one federal judge who accepted the government's aim claim that it could have helped stop 9/11. but two leading al qaeda experts, peter bergen, an analyst at cnn, and lawrence wright, who wrote defending against al qaeda, said those claims are absurd. the 9/11 commission made clear that the u.s. government had the in its possession what it would have

including the program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the section 215 telephone metadata programgoing forward, i am directing the director of national intelligence and consultation with the attorney general will annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications. they will report to me and to congress on these efforts. to ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives i am also calling on congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of

metadata. so on this program that collects metadata, telephone numbers, the times of phone calls, what we've said is immediately we're going to move to a situation where we have to seek judicial review before we seek a database but the president has decided that the government should not only this data and over the course of the next 60 days we'll review the options for how we map terrorist communications without the government holding possession of this database of bulk telephone metadata. >> well, one option that the president apparently doesn't like is letting the telecommunication firms, companies themselves hold all of this bulk data. i mean, who else could do it? is there a third party? is there an outsourcing that you're thinking about because a lot of us are con us fooed. who might be able to store all of this bulk data and at the same time protect it? >> well, wolf, there are really three options here. one is that the telephone providers hold the data and that we then go to a court atry to access that data. two, we create a third party that can hold this data. that does not currently exi

them toard was it for find this balance, president and his advisers, specifically with the metadata program, the telephone records. how hard was it for them to decide what to say about it? >> this debate has beegoing on all week all the way up until last night as of they're trying to put together this speech and make last-nute decisions. decision in which he announced in which n.s.a. analysts will have to go to the court forveillance judicial approval before tapping into the database, that decision late last night, added in at the last minute. so you saw a very roiling which you had a lot of actors at play. james comey, the f.b.i. director, had come out strongly against requiring court approvals, these national security letters, administrative go to businesses and grab records. a lot of players spoke out and the president didn't really want some of the significant figures in the national security environment. >> one person that hung over all this was edward snowden. the president mentioned him a couple of times in passing. gwen: maybe a paragraph. >> he said it was an open investigation, i'

currently exists." >> i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata programs it currently exists and establishes a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata. this will not be simple. >> undernder -- obama's proposal, nsa officials would require court orders to access calling records, except in cases of emergency. but it will be up to the justice department and congress to work out the details. in his remarks, obama also pledged to stop the spying on foreign leaders, and to increase privacy protections for foreign citizens overseas. x let me be clear. our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intention of governments, as opposed to ordinary citizens, around the world, in the same way the intelligence service ontario the nation does. we will not apologize simply because our service may be more effective. heads of state and government with whom we work closely, and on homes we depend -- and on whose cooperation we depend, should feel confident we are treating them as real par

so the so-called metadata phone program. the president essentially said, i'm going to take all that data and put it somewhere else. where is somewhere else? >> that's a good point. two things about that speech. first, i thought it was very important the president laid out, no abuses, this was in the an illegal program, this wasn't a rogue agency. >> can i stop you? every time somebody says something like that, i think that's because the people there are -- believe that they shouldn't do that. but an agency is only as trustworthy as its employees. and as we all know from mr. snowden -- although he was a contractor -- that can change in a moment. >> no, i understand. but what they didn't understand -- certainly snowden didn't understand -- was all the levels of oversight. a court reviewed it, congress reviewed it, doj reviewed it, the ig reviewed it. even with the independent review board found no abuses. legal program. the problem was the sensationalism of a rogue agency or domestic spying. none of that was true. and so i tho

collection so is a significant considering how contested this metadata collection program has become well i think if you knew that that defies a court we're going to renew the order i would have been stunned if the court had said no we're not going to the court has had the information in front of it it has decided that it's comfortable renewing these orders that said this program is now being battled out in much more public arenas with these courts where they're adversaries on both sides there are people making the argument against the programs and so i think these cases are going to test the constitutionality of the programs really much more than has been happening in the much more secret files of court and absolutely you know you may remember this exchange between senator ron wyden and james clapper who is the director of national intelligence take a look. does the n.s.a. collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans. no sir. it does not. not wittingly or. now since then activists and even legislators have been calling for action some t

s most controversial program section two fifteen bulk telephone metadata collection i believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards. this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section two fifteen bulk metadata program as it currently exists basically the president no longer wants the government to be in control of these massive metadata databases and he's instructed the attorney general and the intelligence community to come up with a new method of storage and report back on march twentieth in the meantime the president is making some changes to the program as it stands first the n.s.a. will only be able to query those databases with prior phase of court approval but used to be able to query them based on their own internal guidelines second ones in the databases the n.s.a. will be restricted to only taking two hops from a target instead of three hops these changes deal with access to the databases they do not deal with bulk collection collection of virtually all am

and therefore ordering a transition that will end the section two fifteen bulk metadata program as it currently exists. president's much anticipated speech left those who've been pushing for crucially detergents reforms though somewhat disillusioned let's find out what activists swanson's got think better bomb his proposals he joins me live other things thanks for being with us would you agree that it is n.s.a. reform is indeed the end of the day substantial as he put it or not. i would not i wouldn't call it a reform i would call it the ongoing normalization of the outrageous policy of violating the fourth amendment on an enormous scale sucking up data on people who for whom there is no probable cause and no warrant has been issued and and then claiming that we need to trust them we need to trust them not to abuse those powers despite the fact that they have been abusing them and have been lying to us about this and. are prosecuting whistleblowers including the whistleblower who compelled the president to hold this so-called debate in which there was no debate partner and in which he

they have been doing the right thing he talked really focus was on the two fifteen telephone metadata program that is just one of dozens of massive our collections nothing in obama's speech put any rain rain the end this collected all approach and yesterday that there was a big revelation of our called this fire program that just fire program was collecting all tax calls literally hundreds of thousands of text calls every day are going into the n.s.a.'s vacuum it's gigantic hoover. now the global spread of america's all seeing eyes of cost taxpayers a pretty penny as well the actual figures are as you would expect top secret but here are some leaked information that lifts the lid on the spy spending the so-called black box that reportedly amounts to fifty two point six billion dollars for twenty thirteen out of that over ten billion. has grown by heart in a decade yet a surveillance methods are only used in terrorist detection seven point five percent of the time and the n.s.a. is by no means the first spy agency to have seriously overreached his mandate as artie's peter all of a found out wi

i am therefore ordering a transition there was an end section to fifteen bach metadata program as it currently exists. president's much anticipated speech left those who'd been pushing for crucial intelligence reforms though some were disillusioned technology writer glenn moody told me to me afterwards that everything the president promised wasn't specific enough. everything's been punted into the long grass he said i'm going to set up a committee to do this i've asked this department to look at this everything's in the future we just don't know what is really promised and so i was very disappointed there was probably nothing concrete in there for example as far as the metadata collection is concerned he announced grandly well we're going to stop doing this but i haven't actually decided how we're going to stop doing that so obviously the details matter there similarly in terms of the spying on the rest of the world it is very important to note that foreigners have far fewer rights than the u.s. citizens on that he basically said well we will do it in our sort of fair way and don't w