if it's just about nsa, talking about nsa, we're missing the point.sa needs to be a part of this dialogue but it needs to be much broader. people need to understand, hey, look, there is a legal framework in position out there. we just don't unilaterally decide what we're going to do and how we're going to do it. we have a set of policy mechanisms that help shape what nsa focuses its foreign intelligence mission on. we have a set of court-directed compliance requirements where we have to make a case, in many cases, to get the authority or permission to do what we do. we have regular congressional oversight where we have to notify and i have to testify. i have to notify in writing and testify publicly as well as privately before our primary oversight committees. you know, part of the challenge in all this is, if we're honest with each other, the mechanisms of governance in our nation right now do not enjoy broad trust and confidence among many elements of our citizenry. that's a tough thing to acknowledge. it doesn't help us as a nation that that's the

, defending nsa. that's a loser to me. it needs to be part after broader dialogue and we are very fortunate and we have great partners out there who are willing to stand up and have that dialogue. i'm the first to admit, if it is just about nsa, we're missing the boat. from my perspective anyway. nsa needs to be a part of this dialogue but it needs to be much broader. people need to understand, there's a legal framework in position out there. we just don't un unilaterally decide how we do p. we will shape what nsa focuses its foreign intelligence mission upon we have a set of court directed compliance requirements where we have to make a case in many cases to get the authority or permission to do what we do. we have regular congressional oversight where we have to notify and i have to testify. notify in writing and testify as well as privately in front of an oversight committee. part of the challenge in all of this is, if we're honest with each mechanism of governance do not have trust from our citize

nsa needs good partners.ore an intelligence commission to gain insights about the world around us, about nations who would like to get an advantage over us, but if they had the way, literally ef one of us would be dead. we don't think about that much in the society we live in. think about what we take for granted. stable society in which the rule of law is respected. and the rights of individuals are codified in law. and our practice as a society. we've been pressed with that for 238 years. and we take it for granted. we go around the world today and it just flat out doesn't exist in many other places. and there are groups that individuals who if they had their way, the entire idea of the inherent right of the individual could make choices in their lives would not exist. there are groups and individuals who believe everything we stand for is a nation is diametrically posed to their view of the world. and the only way their view of the world can triumph is if we aren't here any more. i'm not someone who jumps

>> after 9/11, all of the rams came off for nsa and the decided between the white house and the nsa andia, they decided to illuminate the protections of the was citizens and collect on domestically. they started collecting from commercial -- the one commercial company that i know of that --ticipated, provided over probably, undamaged, 320 million records of communication of your citizen to u.s. citizen inside this country. >> what company? >> at&t. they were providing billing data. at that point i knew i could not stay. because of direct violation of the constitutional rights of everyone in the country. plus it violated the law and stored communications act, electronic privacy act, the intelligence act of 1947 in 1978. i mean, it was a whole series of -- plus, all of the laws covering the federal communications governing telecoms. all of these laws are being violated, including the constitution. that was a decision made that was not going to be reversed, so i could not stay there. i had to leave. >> that was william benny, who went on to describe what happened in 2007 years after he lef

, defending nsa.t's a loser to me. it needs to be part after broader dialogue and we are very fortunate and we have great partners out there who are willing to stand up and have that dialogue. i'm the first to admit, if it is just about nsa, we're missing the boat. from my perspective anyway. nsa needs to be a part of this dialogue but it needs to be much broader. people need to understand, there's a legal framework in position out there. we just don't un unilaterally decide how we do p. we will shape what nsa focuses its foreign intelligence mission upon we have a set of court directed compliance requirements where we have to make a case in many cases to get the authority or permission to do what we do. we have regular congressional oversight where we have to notify and i have to testify. notify in writing and testify as well as privately in front of an oversight committee. part of the challenge in all of this is, if we're honest with each mechanism of governance do not have trust from our citizens.

but nobody has come back and i said nsa has failed to follow w the law or nsa is failing to meet its obligations in ensuring that we protect the informatione that we collect in the course os our duties.nforma it doesn't mean we're perfect. but i funneled. ally believe in what we do and why we do it and how we do it. if you're a current employee ofp nsa or you were an employee do before, will you stand for it? the reason i ask you to stand is rogers gets all the attention as the director. but what really matters to me is men and women like this who have dedicated their adult lives in many cases to trying to ensure the defense of our citizens andn those of our allies.de i just want to say thank you very, very much. [ applause ] >> as i think to myself about how we build that future, think partnerships are incredibly important to theth future. i have always agreed with general flapper.futu future to me is about integration and about maximizing partnerships. that's another reason why i'm l here tonight.ral clap because i want to be very publii in saying i need the help and i thewa capabi

the prism program, the first story i wrote about the nsa, is -- gives the nsa pmore power to get g-mail, all the google content from the providers with -- under and annual authorization from the court. it had quite a bit of latitude. it was not allowed to go in and say, let's sift through everything on the server to see if there's anything that interests us. that's what it is doing in the overseas collection. >> bart is right. there is a -- binary is too strong a word but i'm going to use it. there is protected communications and then there's everyone else. nsa truly does have an awful lot more freedom of action going after foreign communications. it's the nature of the business. that offends some of our european friends who do not attach privacy to a particular sovereign. but attach privacy to a softer, more generalized human right. i got it. that's a subject of discussion. but right now the american approach to this is that it is really a binary world, protected persons, persons who are not protected. nsa's ability to work over here under 12333, the order that bart suggested earlier b

back to your question about the nsa director. i forget nsa. it is an extraordinary organization.hey will work day and night to overcome these obstacles. they have brilliant people. mathematicians. they will over time be able to make up the ground lost. >> when you look at the power of cyber warfare, and then you think about government and people in the private sector related to governments and all of that, a powerful threat it seems to me. what if it came within the possibility of the kinds of groups that we have talked about ? >> it is an important question. we spent time with in the community talking about how we see a cyber capability among these groups. they are dead set on coming after us. if they had that tape guilty they would use it. they would deploy it against us. cyberattacks, going after financial institutions like the one you mentioned. and how vulnerable we are. how reliant we are on these systems internet-based. but at least right now al qaeda and these groups don't have a capability within their means. that doesn't mean to say they somebodyrecruit or pay who does

the nsa wants to infiltrate. so these are innocent people who are targeted by the nsa as they have the keys to the kingdom as one of the documents said. in this case, we went to the nsa and said, look, is there any harm in us involved in us publishing this. the answer was no. there was no harm involved. we have gone to them and asked. i would say, however, in terms of the usefulness talking to officials, yes, yes, of course. right now, i trust documents more than i trust officials. these documents say a lot more and tell me a lot more -- >> and they are a potent tool when you go to the government and say, i have this document and it is the following -- >> i don't, my personal feeling is i'm not using these as tools. i'm publishing them or we're publishing them. the greatest tools are instruments. and i think that these documents are operate best not as instruments in terms of leverage with government officials but instruments in terms of informing the public. >> i'm not saying only as a tool but, you know, yes, p

ack a but nobody has come back and said, nsa has failed to follow the law or nsa has failed to meet its obligations in ensuring that we protect the information we collect in the course of our duties, again, it doesn't mean we're perfect. but i fundamentally believe in o what we do, i fundiamentally believe in why we do what we do. if you were an employee of nsa, will you stand for a minute? come on, i know there's somebody here. the reason i ask you to stand in rogers gets all the attention as the director, but what really ad matters to me are men and womene like this who are dedicated their adult elys in many cases, to trying to ensure the defensey of our citizens and our allies. i just want to thank you very, very much. i want to be very public in sayinging i need the help and un capable that many in this reem and others around the world bring to bear. ou we can't do this alone, i would like to tell you it's the 1960s and it's like the apollo space program and the u.s. governmentn is driving the technology, but n it's not the situation we see ce ourselves with in the 20th ging. centur

it is remarkable what happened to them at the nsa. what we found out years later -- i did not know bill or diane or tom. they were never our sources. a what we found out was, the government thought they were our sources for our "new york times" story in a were persecuted as a result, even though they had never come to the press. diane work in particular suffered amazing persecution, even though she tried to go -- >> explain who she was. was the housee intelligence committee's staffer in charge of oversight of the nsa. right at the time of 9/11. bill, right after he found out about this new program, went to her, her house, in suburban washington and told her what he is heard about. .iane was outraged and shocked and she could not believe it was authorized. she thought this must be some kind of rogue program that nobody really knew about. so she wento the chairman -- she went to her boss, the staff director of the intelligence committee and minority staff director, to warn them that they have got to tell the chairman and a vice-chairman

surveillance that nsa does. >> the surveillance that nsa does.here are instances that it is the single most important source of our information about the attentions and capabilities of these groups and terrorists that we're talks about. it is absolutely fundamental to our ability to understand what they're doing. >> rose: with that, i know you want to talk specification. but you don't have to go to-- you don't have to do some of the more egregious things that we have heard about in terms of tapping the phone of chancellor merkel. >> merkel, right. >> rose: i means that's not necessary. i mean do you now today say look, as i think the president has suggested, because there are reforms on the table. >> right. >> rose: we went too far, or where do you come down? >> i come down, you know, i think we-- i don't think we went too far. i think this is an important debate to have. i think the key point i would make is the debate that we're having now about the classic debate, security on one hand and privacy on the other, this is not a new debate this is

you can bet the bulk of the e-mails relating to the nsa and gchq were encrypted. >> story did the nsa tapping into the cell phone has james ball's name on the by line. eventually, he was named as one of the recipients of the pulitzer prize the guardian won story. i sat down with james ball in london to get his take on encryption, source protection and journalism in the post edward snowden era. >> james ball of the guardian, today. >> thank you. >> in your communications when he was setting up the interview, did you en crypt it? >> we did not. >> why not? >> because unfortunately, while time. >> yes? >> in theory, in practice, you can't get anything done. every day we have to compromise. if we try to tell people to be ultra secure, you know, if we are doing that is it would take us an hour to get out of the pass. it does not the mean you are not very important. >> before snowden there was assange and wiki leaks. is it possible to summarize some of the changes in journalism that have occurred as a result of what wick i leaks and assange did first? >> two distinct lessons, they learned t

the fact is the nsa doesn't listen to the phone calls. they drill down on the numbers. >> to protect us. >> i'm all for looking at that person's records if you get a warrant. there's no reason not to get a warrant. >> it delays the investigation. >> there is a rapist in d.c. you want to catch him. what do the police do? they call a judge in front of the house. >> do you think the judge says no? >> if the judge always say yes how does the warrant protect us. >> let's say you want all the records of all the reasons in texas the judge will say no. it's a great protection. i'm not willing to give up on it because i fear the time when maybe someone in government becomes so not well intentioned. i don't think president obama is a bad man. his motives are good. but what about the next president or the president after that. >> senator paul argues that we catch more terrorists without tracking every phone call. >> we take our eye off the prize by spending so much time mining information from innocent individuals and spend less time targeting our a

here that i was working on the topic of the nsa because of -- i was working on i the topic of the nsand i was sensitive to the issues. and the fact of feeling that you are being monitored at or surveilled. surveilled. or >> what is it about? >> it is a story about journalism. of theery much a story era of the crackdown on sources and whistleblowers and journalism that we have seen in the last years, when you have people like my friend and risen who ises being subpoenaed and will potentially go to jail because he will not testify against a source. the government is doing a lot of these things. they subpoenaed the phone .ecords of the ap it is a portrait of journalism in difficult circumstances. a story about someone willing to take personal risks and sacrifices to expose information that they think the public has a right to know. >> we are out of time. her thursday story and then there is the question about today, where he is in russia. what you tell us about him today? him -- and ends with i've made a few trips to visit him in moscow. when we left, he went underground. the story recei

you were there at the nsa at the time? >> yes. >> okay. >> i was told, and i think i was told responsibly that you would get a stream of data and then all of a sudden it would stop and you would see a correlation. and it wasn't like anybody said, oh, wow, the nsa's on to us. but you would get intercepts and they would stop. and you would see the correlation between the leak and the stopping of the communication. >> okay. >> mark, what do you think is the main peril of covering national security? >> well, i agree with a lot of what james said about the difficulty these days. i don't think it's ever been harder to do this kind of reporting. it's not only the crackdown that is taken place on leakers that created this climate. in the wake of the revelations over the last year about surveillance has created this, you know, perception among people that the surveillance is everywhere, right? and that everything is being watched. and so, similar experience to jane. you have people who you have developed relationships with over the

i had been working on a film around these topics, around nsa surveillance. had started filming at the data utah center, which is the nsa massive data repository. so i had been on this topic, trying to figure out how to understand it, how to document it. when he started writing these e-mails, it was pretty much into what i was doing. when i was first contacted, i thought that this was an anonymous source i would never meet. i thought it was just a stranger, that he would say that he had received documents and then disappear -- or he or she, because i had no idea the gender or agency. we had been corresponding for three months, and thought that this person was legitimate. and i was very aware that he was taking risks and that the reporting would come with risks. >> when you arrived in hong kong, did you think, back then, that there would be a filming this? >> sure. i had my camera. this would be a journalistic encounter of significance, and before going to hong kong, snowden -- whose name i did not know at that time -- had told me that he did not intend to rem

>> what nsa has done tries to limit that.his year we'll cret 3.5 sets of data worldwide more than the last 5,000 years combined. that means people are going to have greater access to data than before. if you think about it a person with access to google today has more access to data than the president did 20 years ago. that means that people are going to steal data are going to have more access to it. so the way we defeat that is the same way you go after the cyber threats based on behaviors. it would have detected snowden. we're going to have to do that for the insider threats as well. >> when you saw that j.p. morgan had an attack and said don't worry about it, did that make you say no big deal? or the fact that the attack happened at all and they even got some information are you worried? >> well, truth in lending. jp morgan -- i have my credit cards with them -- i have no problem with them. i know they're doing the right thing. they're working hard and are going to do the right thing. >> it doesn't want to make you move y

why many say the nsa is far from poa. neil: well, alleged killer in california left a pretty clear trail. so why weren't authorities on that trail? we're hearing a police suspect had a track record that authorities in several states were well-aware of. he was deported twice had a drug conviction before killing two officers and someone had given them the heads up that this guy was a threat. he's not the only bad guy in our midst. ottawa shooter had extremist ties as well and the man who attacked police in new york city had islamic. -- maybe we should loosen those spying reins to keep track of these guys. the pendulum is swinging back to maybe we need them doing this stuff again. what do you say? >> there's two issues that we have to look at here when we talk about external threats. first, nsa's roles and responsibilities are s foreign he intelligence. there has to be a foreign intelligence nexus that they can see that then points back into the country so we can help tip off the fbi and local law enforcement. neil: wouldn't

stossel: nsa spying saves lives, they say.he nsa prevented a plot to bomb new york city's subway and prevented a somali immigrant from sending money to terrorists. >> fifty-four terrorist attacks were foiled. >> these were terrorist things we prevented on cross-examination before the committee, every one of them was eviscerated. they get down to one smollian guy. i think he would have been caught through other means. >> would the nsa lie? >> does the nsa collect any type of data on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? >> no, sir. >> it does not? >> not wittingly. >> yet the nsa does and quite wittingly. >> he lied? >> no, he didn't. this was a classified program that he didn't want the enemy to know about. i'm sure he could have given a better answer, but when you're confronted. >> what would have been a better answer. >> i don't know. the fact is the nsa doesn't listen to the phone calls. i'm all for looking at that person's records if you get a warrant. stossel: but it delays the investigation. >> there's a rapist

do you have concerns about the nsa doing this? >> well, this is something that came out in "the new york times" article a couple weeks ago about how the nsa is collecting millions of images every day and employing facial recognition technology to learn who people are in the images. i think what the nsa is doing is the agency is combining that facial recognition data with other bio graphic information and information from social media that explains who people are associated with and just using that information to identify people and create a bigger picture of who they are. >> some more bad news here. scott, we asked the community what are the drawbacks to use computer software to convict people of crimes? it's dangerous in and of itself to be relied upon technologies despite increasing algorithms. juries should not predicate the decisions and i'd argue it's a dangerous press dents to do so. sebastian our resident geek here, what is your feedback to scott's comment here? are you scared the precedent this technology will be setting?

what nsa's responsible for in that case is connecting those dots.t you're suggesting perhaps giving something like that to local law enforcement to solve these problems. neil: what about if the nsa did what a lot of people were upset about before? a lot of libertarians resent the spying and phone records and stuff but maybe allowing it to get onto social media and the rest that would have picked up the rantings this hatchet attacker in new york and maybe in canada would have picked up on the same thing. what do you say? >>ell, i personally would not be in favor of that. i can see where you're going on that. i'm not sure that you would catch all of that. and i think there would be more people out there, kids messing around then people actually doing it right. that's a tough one. what you're trying to get to, this is a tough issue, how do you connect the dots when this is one in 1,000 that are really ones you want to go after. i don't know the answer. i think what we get out of sacramento and perhaps this other, the axe thing, put those together and c

he was trying to do right by his country when he worked for the nsa.histle and next thing he was pulled out of the shower with a gun to his face. that was the beginning of his spiral into ostcization, the nsa tried to teach him a lesson, have they finally learned theirs. welcome william binney. thank you so much for being on "the independents." >> thank you, good to be with you. >> was it stellar wind that changed your mind about the direction of the nsa? tell us about that program, and when did you see that there was something systemically very wrong at the spy agency? >> well, i think it first started the second week in october of 2001, when they started the program stellar wind which was domestic spying, and that meant they were taking in phone call data, the billing data for example of phone calls on everybody in the united states. plus they were taking in digital network material which only expanded over time. that meant e-mails, chatter on the internet. queries on the internet using google and other programs to search. all kind was technical data

we will hear from nsa director admiral mike rogers. later, senators feinstein and chambliss take questions about cyber security. the u.s. chamber of commerce hosted this conference. ant to jg you and the chamber. your proactive leadership on this topic i think is second to none and i think you're doing a great service for the global community in what you're doing. what i, what i want to do is very briefly provide a private sector view on the environment, the importance of information sharing in particular and the obstacles that we face and a little bit of a call to action before introducing admiral rogers. so let me start with something that everyone here obviously well-understands. the range of attacks we experience in the private sector is really unprecedented and getting worse by the day. the volume and sophistication of attacks is only showing signs of acceleration. and every published success simply encourages new entrants and bolder moves. threat actors from social activists, cyber criminals, nation states, tear one and tear two,

the other mission set that nsa has, and is also critical here is information assurance. nsa is tasked under its information assurance mission with not only defending the department of defense systems and as well as helping to develop the standards for systems. we do it with the federal government and increasingly, we find ourselves called on by our dhs and fbi teammates to provide capability from our cyber expertise to support the private sector. that is not going to slow down. that is going to increase. you can pick up a newspaper. you can get on your favorite website. you can blog on whatever particularly interests you. you can go to whatever media outlet that you find as the best source of your news. and every day you will find something about a major cyber incident. this is not a short-term phenomena. later today, you will hear from senators feinstein and chambliss. and i think the role that they are playing in attempting to generate legislation to help the private sector deal with the very real and very legitimate concerns about legal liability, that's critical for

the nsa wants to infiltrate. so these are innocent people who are targeted by the nsa as they have the keys to the kingdom as one of the documents said. in this case, we went to the nsa and said, look, is there any harm in us involved in us publishing this. the answer was no. there was no harm involved. we have gone to them and asked. i would say, however, in terms of the usefulness talking to officials, yes, yes, of course. right now, i trust documents more than i trust officials. these documents say a lot more and tell me a lot more -- >> and they are a potent tool when you go to the government and say, i have this document and it is the following -- >> i don't, my personal feeling is i'm not using these as tools. i'm publishing them or we're publishing them. the greatest tools are instruments. and i think that these documents are operate best not as instruments in terms of leverage with government officials but instruments in terms of informing the public. >> i'm not saying only as a tool but, you know, yes, p

we know of the nsa for rice and medications. we are for rice in customers and therefore are communications records have been collected and they allege both statutory and constitutional violations. in the statutory realm the aclu case for example section 215 itself does not authorize the nsa to collect in bulk records from u.s. companies. the basic argument there is the statute requires that a record be relevant to an ongoing investigation and their argument is basically that all records cannot be relevant, otherwise relevant has no meaning. the arguments we have seen in breaches from the government that have been released from the fisa court on the other side essentially an argument of necessity. we have a need to collect all these records because in order to get the needles we need the haystack which is not really an argument about relevance so much as it is an argument about necessity and again white is the case that necessity should be sufficient for the statute is relevance of us ongoing issue. a second issue that is being b

it was clear that he thought the nsa must have records on them. to me that was an interesting aside as far as the snowden connection is concerned. what i'm going to do is talk about some procedural issues and then end up with a couple of exemption issues as well. the first case i wanted to discuss is a case called state of oklahoma versus the environmental protection agency as a district court case from oklahoma. all these cases, the cases are in the summary that you have been provided with. this is a case in which 13 attorney generals had filed suit against the earthquakes pa for records pertaining to the agency's non-discretionary duties to take action under the clean air act. the agency responded to the request and the attorney general's request for a fee waiver by saying no, you can't have a fee waiver and it's too vague and we are not going to answer to it because it's too vague. one of the environments is that an agency request has to be specific enough that somebody who is reasonably familiar with the records would be able to understand wha

this was pure carelessness on the part of the the nsa. about how well they protect everything. they couldn't protect their greatest secrets from a subcontractor. what we're saying is make sure you go after the real targets, make sure do you it in a way that we can follow through. i think that's why the director of national intelligence supports my bill, but so do groups from the right to the left, the companies that have to actually carry out this mission, they do it, but most importantly, we have some way of knowing if if our government is doing the things it should to keep us safe, and not doing things like just spying on us for the sake of spying on us. those of us live back in the time of j. edgar hoar realize how tyrannical our government could be if it was allowed to spy on everybody with no checks and balances. you're always going to find something that people say oh my god, look at this. we've got a terrorist attack in canada. we forget one of the biggest terrorist attacks in this country was timothy mcveigh in oklahoma city, a re

not picking it up, the head of nsa ought to be tossed. >> yeah, right, but under nsa rules, if that were the case, and it was jane mayer, an american citizen, her name would have to be minimized. it would not be circulated. >> or maximized. >> exactly. you're dead right. it would have to be minimized. the minimization rules are religiously followed. >> i think we're done. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> you did wonderfully. >> thank you. >>> . >>> our campaign 2014 coverage continues with a week full of debates. on wednesday night at 7:00, live coverage of the pennsylvania governor's debate between incumbent governor republican tom corbett and democrat tom wolf. thursday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span, live coverage of the noi house debate for the 17th district between democrat cheri bustos and bobby schilling. later at 9:00, live coverage of the illinois governor's debate with democrat pat quinn and republican bruce rauner. and friday night, the wisconsin governor's debate between republican scott walker and democrat mary burke. saturday night on c-span at 8:00 eastern, live covera

and then, other cybercom or nsa will provide support. there are some ideas that it should be nsa or cybercom as opposed to dhs. there is a good relationship. we know with the roles and responsibilities are and everyone understands what their places in the game. it is a team sport. we work in our different positions. >> what can the national guard do? you said they are the exception. >> we spent the last several months thinking about the role of the national guard. we made the decision to build out the structure of cybercom. we had cyber warriors, the special operations command for cyber. we recognize we need to learn how to use the national guard. i went to washington state and i met guard members who worked for microsoft, but work for the guard on the weekends and in the summer. they bring a lot to the table. they have a unique authority set. they can support the governor first and foremost. we want them to be part of the cyber force, but have the unique role that the guard does in helping with other civil homeland defense issues. >> is

how is that affecting morale within the nsa? is there concern about that relationship with the private sector? >> first, we have a formal set of processes that must be applied when individuals do something in addition to their nsa duties. we review that and when circumstances change, we will say, that is not acceptable anymore. the circumstances have changed. the relationship is different. we do that on a recurring basis. for some, it is as simple as someone with a language background saying, i want to use my language on a contracting basis to increase my skills. sometimes we will say yes. sometimes we won't. in terms of the flow of partnerships and information back and fourth, i have been very public about saying for the nsa, i would like us to create a model where members of our workforce don't spend 30 or 35 years working directly for us. it is amazing, the employees that i will talk to. when i say, how long have you been with nsa, 35 years, 38 years. i just said goodbye to an employee after 50 years. technology,ate of we hav

second, the nsa does not collaborate in any way and google has not talked to the nsa and we organized system to protect ourselves from unwarranted attacks. >> all of these conversations show how privacy is still front and center. >> computers said software can get better and better at helping you make better decisions. you can live a better and the more we know about you and the more you are willing to share, the more we are able to help you make those decisions and also help you figure out what to do next and alert you to problems that you wouldn't otherwise be aware of. >> i think people are concerned. the average person i know had so much of their lives tied up in computers and the internet and services they are worried that information would be misused either by other companies or a leaker. we work incredibly hard to keep the information that you give google private. we also give you controls to take it away. >> there has been a lot of scrutiny for being largely white and largely male, especially leadership. >> no question that historically tech has been dominated by white males,

this is a tough one, and i think that the fbi might want to have a chat with the nsa, because it was their behavior that led to companies like apple taking a step like this. i see law enforcement's point of view. i do. i also worry about people in trouble who could be tracked down otherwise, now won't be able to be tracked down, but this has to be solved through an understanding of when legal to monitor innocent people's phones and when it isn't. >> steve, more than just the nsa. it's the people who have been hacked into. who had their naked pictures stolen. an outcry for security among consumers. doesn't the first amendment provide us with that right to security? >> it does david. in this case, i guarantee you, hackers in china and russia probably have already broken into the system, and there ought to be a golden key, i hate to say it. there are times you need with a search warrant to get information about potential terrorist or criminal acts. >> golden key, that's a back door to the software that would allow law enforcement to get into these devices. steve, do you think that's a g

interview with the new yorker, he is confident that the supreme court would eventually rule that the nsa surveillance program is

it is clear from the nsa documents that austria plays a major role in the network of surveillance.ia stamm the tpp partner of operations, so we do know there's something going on in the main question is, not just the role of austrian companies, but what is the role of the u.s. companies in this? only providedot by austrian companies, but also companies from other countries involved in networking. we need to see what the role this. >> what message do have as president of european digital rights to people in the united states around this debate? >> i think what needs to be done, the uris and -- the u.s. and elsewhere, we need to stand up for our fun a mental rights of freedom of communication, freedom of expression and i think we need an informed debate about what intelligence agencies are doing now and limits to their activities are. it needs to be clear about that. as far as the relation between the u.n. and u.s. is concerned, i think we first into agree that fundamental rights in the european union, needs to be accepted and agreed on by the u.s. before they can talk about any exch