ms. eoyang: it depends. somebody who is driving a humvee down a road can talk to its navigation system without taking their hands off the wheel, that is a different reason for developing the technology than using it to do mass searching. that is an important question, where are these being used because there are benign reasons to develop some of these technologies as well. >> this is a technology specifically being designed to be used in telephone communication collection. it is being designed to be able to detect speech, then turn it into text and do keyword searches and recognize who the speaker is, specifically for surveillance scenarios. mr. litt: tell me what you think is wrong with that. >> not necessarily that anything is wrong with it, but looking for protections in place so there's not further privacy violations. you can see how this would be paired with telephone communication collection capabilities the nsa already has. mr. litt: if nsa were to use that in ways that violated its authority, it woul

ms. eoyang: not all policy is created equal. on the intelligence committee, they would have access to depending on the jurisdiction access to broader swaths of inspiration. the committee staff, it generally has sci clearances that entitle them to deal with programs that the military needs for its war-fighting capabilities. there are a few sci cleared staff on committees, but for the most part, most members of congress do not have someone cleared at that level to assist them with doing oversight of these things. mr. vitka: does this strike you as a problem mr. schwarz: it was not a problem for us. as i read about it, the senators and congressmen are enormously busy and they are given a limited amount of time and they cannot have a staff person who often is more broadly knowledgeable, and that is a problem. my guess is the intelligence community ought to be able to decide if staff people are deserving of high-level clearances, and then they could get rid of this rule that seems to say to senators and representatives you got to do

ms. eoyang: hello.nt to say a few words about how congressional oversight works in the current context. one of the things to keep in mind is that oversight is hampered by different benchmarks. one of it is hampered in public oversight, which is by necessity. the programs need to be kept secret for security reasons, but your kept deprived of the public tools of journalism that you would haven't other places. they take their intelligence oversight very seriously. even as a matter of congressional oversight. two other tools, congressional oversight is hampered compared to some of the other committees in its access to gao cdo, crs, and also access to whistleblowers. those authorities are different from and the way to use that are very different or nonexistent in national security committees. congressional oversight and intelligent is different between the house and the senate. they are actually at a tremendous disadvantage compared to their senate counterparts. unlike their senate counterparts they do not h