[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]. >> think you for the introduction. thank you for the kind comments about the committee. we look pretty good compared to the common petition.

this gives me a little bit of nerve-racking hearing this last panel here because i probably claim i am a lawyer by training but have never practiced a day of law. i'm very aware of the fact that you've have a long day today and an equally important day again tomorrow. that doesn't mean that i'm not going to lay out a message.

and then they are. if you think back into this last week the tragedies that are countries were both honest. i was spending a number of my days i was having a bunch of meetings and saw the city come to virtual halt a variety of times as our nation was confronted what i still believe and deserve attention as the attempted assassination attempts. with the former secretary of state. and at a level 15 now bombing that we've never seen in our country ever before. if that was not enough to kind of shock us to our core or

even further shocked on saturday where we have not one domestic incident but to with two african-americans shut shot down for racial reasons. and a parking lot in the shopping center. on the most brutal way murdered at their synagogue in pittsburgh. these attacks i believe our attacks on the basic framework of our democracy. in america we value diversity. that in america we are actually tolerant in america we can have different political views but those

views don't resort to violence. and at moments like these i think we all had to look upon ourselves and particularly if we are in this intersection between law and security these are moments when it's important that all of us no matter where we fall in our organizations realize it's time for the country to come together. and i have to say this is not a political statement i know we are days away from hotly contested midterms i've never seen anything like that response or the lack of response in terms of basic empathy or notions.

i'm not going to go through the litany of those differences. but there are two areas that i think directly that i fear the most and i think our most relevant again to all of us again. and about how we maintained our rule of law and the national security context. two areas where quite honestly even with changing of administrations or changing of control of congress are passing the new law or writing a new regulation. two areas the genie out of the bottle they cannot be put back in in any easy fashion. the first and it is an area

what i have learned in my intelligence committee and that is for sometimes stopping and starting and the sometime non- planned approach for all of our feelings without strong american leadership without strong american leadership the rest of the world wanders. in that leadership just has to take on a variety of forms. we are faced with enormous challenges that economic

strength has never been stronger. but what has made america a unique at least in the 20th century and as we move into the 21st century. with the quintessential country in the world is that military and economic leadership is also there was strong moral leadership. and boy oh boy, that strong american moral leadership is needed more than ever. when our country decides to pick fights with our allies or when our country starts to question or some in this country question and undermine. for now more than 70 years

when we move away from the notion that america stands a free press everywhere and human rights everywhere with great attention. what appears to be and i'm sure we will get further confirmation brutal murder of a saudi journalist who have been living and the foreign consulate. i could not imagine. or an obama administration.

against a journalist. they would be afraid of the retribution in the condemnation that would come from the america of economic and moral strength. and when america retreats on these connections. it is huge. i did not see a 5g on the agenda necessarily. who was gonna set the international standards for next-generation wireless has security and economic implications as something that means to eke out a living out of cell phones. much broader than virtually

any anybody realizes. based on the consensus from our intelligence community it's not america that is leading the path it's china in terms of setting the standards. when we look at the rules of the road. this is how we grapple through social media. when they retreat and doesn't weigh in. it's a challenge. when we think about our world moving from a world where we already had in america with 10 billion internet things.

and when we move that number from 10 billion to $50 billion within the next eight years and we had zero security standards in america which has always set the standard for the world when we don't play that role when we have bipartisan legislation. that legislation is now being taken by dick japan in the uk where they had decided they are going to be the leaders not america and i think, our country is less safe for that matter, the world is less safe. so when we lose that sense of american military and moral leadership. not only are we less will off.

the second area of concern that i have is respect for rule of law. i'm 63 years old. well have politics. i've never seen in my lifetime as much from american leadership or so-called american leadership. so much disrespect i've never seen such a broad level of the attacks against the integrity just because the white house doesn't like the fact that there there is an investigation going on. i can't believe a president of the united states say to the

american people that he has the right with the stroke of a pen to change our constitution without involving congress or the states. now, when we show such little respect for rule of law my fear is that we give license to individuals to start saying we can't just trust the justice department. if we can't trust that element. if the constitution really doesn't mean anything then maybe i can choose what laws i want to follow. and what laws i want to ignore. you may see them in there.

and basically, he can with the stroke of a pen accomplish virtually anything in the nation. we may see in china president she make himself in effect president for life and bring about a strongman type tendency. in the other reforms that are taking place and you kind of expect that. not here in the united states of america. of how it bleeds into the questions. as we think of the incident that took place in our country in the last week i don't care where we fall in the political aisle we have to make sure

that america going forward does not give up its leadership position in the world and we all had to reconnect ourselves to the notion that we live by the rule of law and no one including the president of the united states is above that rule of law. and that we owe a basic respect so the authors of the lot whether they are front-line law enforcement or whether they are lawyers in the department of justice are the brave men and women. they burned our respect. they abide by those rules. we as leaders need to abide as well. now what happens also in this world and what makes it all so

much more frightening and challenging as when we have these kind of threats we also have a way that people can communicate with each other with tools of technology that are totally unprecedented in our world. when they exist in it and allows an intake some night hitter with the push of a button and the notion of the ability of aggravating racists and haters. it happened so easily and seamlessly we have got to think about this in a new way. now, i had spent a lot of time in the last few years looking in to what happened. on everything that we have done so far.

it has been unanimous and bipartisan. we know they hacked into political information we know they tampered with at least 21 states in the electoral systems. what we also know they used it in ways that were unprecedented. they had practice on their own people. but many ways we saw in 2016 when we would think about the domain of cyber they were really really well separated. they did hack in to the dnc in podesta and other folks release those into the media. they did use social media. but what we didn't see happen.

we did not see the marriage with the information in social media. the fear i have and maybe even the prediction i have is what we will see god willing and 92018 and hopefully never but i would imagine by 2020 if not in america somewhere else we will see the marriage of those two domains. wherefore an adversary will go out and hack into a trove of information like echo facts and literally pain hundreds of millions personalized information information and

contact you with personalized information that will make you open that message in the message won't be some post that message will be the next generation of information which will be a deep faith video which will be a live streaming video of a political leader of religious leader, a business leader, making statements that would have no validity to truth. so, unless we think about these domains cyber and misinformation in ways where we can get ahead of it we remain extraordinary vulnerable. i want to give the administration some accommodation.

we've been way too reluctant to remove our cyber tools. and i commend the administration for being willing to issue an executive order. for too long we have failed to have that. they will have to start with finding some common norms so that we would agree frankly on an international basis that we would start so that some use of a cyber tools is simply off the table not unlike rules that we try to create. but when we have the notion of attacking communities water system or power system we have to have enough international norms to say we will have roller -- lower rules of attribution.

in the ways to make sure that there is some doctrine of deterrence. and we all need to be thinking through that in a way in a much higher level of what it will look like going forward. frankly our technological advantages in many ways makes us more vulnerable. shutting down moscow with no power for 24 hours would be problematic. with all of our financial systems connected. it could be a disaster. and we need that movement in cyber. but we also need, to make a movement in the space around social media. now, we have celebrated the enormous growth and positive movements that have taken place with her amazons and our amazons and google and facebook and twitter. i really think for too long and frankly people with both

political parties in the business press we were so enamored with these companies we were so bought and to this notion of the ability to connect us all with the click of a mouse or now, simply pressing our phones. that we failed to acknowledge with all of that good there is also this dark social underbelly. the ability for a series of outsourced russian agents to create over 400 fake identities as americans that ended up touching in communicating to over hundred 60 million of us with fake information in 2016. so, while i support the first amendment and i believe the internet is an open square i

think we are going to have to have some guardrails. i tried to lay out in a way that they would do this. there's no democratic or liberal position on this. and i laid out more of that. not all of them great by any means. on how we might frame is some of that discussion. the three areas that i thought we ought to focus on. first, i know obviously part of the subject of this. what privacy rights do we head in social media. while well-intentioned is pretty clunky. and doesn't necessarily achieve all of the goals in a way that makes the right sense. some of the basic ideas about having more transparency about your data and a more ability

to have that taken down. and some level of forgetfulness. i agree on forms that pop up that even with good eyesight you could never read. it may not mean that you can completely seed any rights. i think we will have a debate around privacy. but there are two other areas that might even the as fruitful if not more fruitful in terms of ways of getting at the problem. second, is the question around identity validation. one of the proposals i had put out. i have yet to find a member of congress that hasn't said at least this would be a good first step shouldn't we all have a right to know when we are being communicated with on social media whether weather we are being talked to by a human or not. there is not anything inherently wrong.

but shouldn't we just head that right to know whether the communication comes from a human or a bot. so that we can make a judgment one of the good pieces of news that came out of the interest net research. i hope and pray this is true he said that if you look at the political content on the web on the far left in terms of american political commentary. foreign-based bot. and that makes me feel pretty good. there may not be as many crazies as we think. at the notion of being able to know and make a judgment about whether you are being communicated with by a human being versus a bot. we could find some agreement. as we move to the cloud it becomes a little bit harder. but there is still symbol validity.

they are posting from a plane in virginia. the post actually originates in st. petersburg we should not take it down but maybe we should have a pop-up that says this post is not originating in the geographic location that it says it is. i get a blunt tool. some ability to discern who you're talking to and what you want to believe or not believe. we may need to even start exploring with our friends in the press here. i'm not advocating this at all but we may ultimately devolve with two internets. trying to have an internet where i can view it can view all of its folks activities and deeply disturbing to me when american companies said they will do no evil concern about working with the american defense department. but appearing to be willing to

work a search engine in china that would allow government surveillance we may need to think about the notion that there is one web where you had total immunity. have at it. but on the web, where we commence commerce where we actually are going to value. we may have to look at a place. this has already happened which i think many in the room know. they were such a target of so much russian intervention in their politics into the community and their activities they decided they were not going to allow anonymity on their sites. we have to to validate your identity.

the third and final area as this. are there competitive factors that we can introduce that might not require that. or even breaking up of the systems. many of them have more power and influence than any of the large trust that were broken up at the beginning of the 21st century. if they are active users of facebook or google. they want us have a lot more about them. maybe we can try to think about what we could do for a competitive basis. some of you in this room are old enough to remember that it was a real pain in the neck if you wanted to switch from one telephone company to another telephone company. congress came in and did not

break up all the enterprises. they came in and did that. we are can have to mandate it will be easy for you to move from one to the other. i was pretty healthy competition. maybe we want to take that concept and make it easy for you to take all of your facebook files including your cat videos and move them easily that might offer a deal in protections. we would have to do interoperability as well. so we could still talk to the person back on the old platform. there might be a competitive model that could actually be introduced. i hope at least the beginning of those. and they have the facebook. they have acknowledged some responsibility here is more

transparency. maybe it's not necessarily we have more regulation. maybe we just need more transparency. one of the things that i think most americans are not active in this field will say. facebook, google amazon. they're all free. they're not free. they are giant sucking sound's on personal information about our habits and activities and ways beyond what we can even believe. i've it demonstration recently that shows with an android phone what happens even when you turn on no applications how much information is being sucked on a real-time basis out of that device. even if you have not empowered any of your apps. so that we would know how many pieces of information facebook

and google head about each and everyone of us. and then if we wanted to go really bold we ought to say not only do i have that data transparency but we ought to have other transparency. if we have that price transparency along with data transparency there might be market mechanisms that would see a business opportunity to come in and intervene between the user and the platform that could help provide some of the protections in areas that would not had to be mandated by government. we might even decide to take and borrow ideas from the security realm because i know there are huge concerns about government in this field. the idea of using the security

model where there is in a sense an industry front end regulator called finra. that would help put the front end. and then have the regulatory body behind it. we are going to have to explore these issues. when sheryl sandberg testified before the committee recently. we pointed out the situation in miramar where agents of the government there were putting posts out and encouraging folks in the former burma to go out and kill their neighbors because they were muslim. and she acknowledged that facebook has both a moral and a legal obligation to take that down. i would argue, within the boundaries of appropriate free speech just as you can't yell

fire in a crowded theater. if that should be illegal or at least had some level of decency in miramar. should the same level exist in the united states. when haters get on the internet and try to find common cause any group that falls into the category. these are issues that aren't just about social media. these are issues that we all had to confront real-time right now. if we don't. we will see that leadership to other nations. and i don't want to internet in a 5g world is governed by china. i don't want to freshen practices in terms of misinformation in this information to become the new norm. at the same time i don't want

our country to not be viewed as both economic and military but also that moral leader. in that leader that also always stands up for rule of law. now, soon, and the next few days we will have an election. after the election some of this will dissipate i hope. but the seriousness of these issues in terms of how we deal with national security and privacy. and how we deal in a world that is driven by technology will not go away. i fear at times this will be my closing comment. and then i will be able to take a couple of questions i worry at times in our nation and i say this very proud that we have more military installations than any other state in the country. i worry at times with our 716 billion-dollar defense budget whether we are too much

hardware with some of the best equipment in a world where much of the conflict may be in the round of cyber and miss information i worry when i see rush at $70 billion already are peers. our peers already in cyber. and what i'm afraid of is the delta between what we are spending in china and they are spending and organizing the fashion in a whole series of biometric activities where they are not our peers but well certainly be leaders. so getting these issues sorted through. and think about them in the national can security context is the is important as any issue we deal with at this moment in time.

has been a challenging week. and i will close was simply with simply we can solve this, there is nothing inherently so difficult about these issues that we cannot find a solution but it will require us to check our hats at the door and exit put the needs and interests of our countries first. [applause]. will be happy to take one or two questions. will be happy to take one or two questions. i have a question. some people say that the

united states is an example of what not to do. any remarks on the any ideas of how to improve ourselves. all of these years to actually improve the cyber security to acceptable desirable level. >> i'm not sure that they didn't have many other options, small countries surrounded by an enormous other power. with no restrictions at all. as we know. on the defense side and you have to be right 100 percent of the time. and chances are well never be we will never be right 100 percent of the time. you have to articulate more quick --dash more clearly a cyber doctrine that would have as much international buy-in as possible so that there was

a price to be paid when bad actors act. the last 15 to 18 years in america we had focused as we have on the terrorism threat. but on a near. adversaries have been able to steal from us with virtual impunity because we are unwilling to push back. i don't thing we can continue that. thank you sir. i am a process person so i'm curious if you can share with us your insight with respect to the congressional committees on intelligence. one which is functioning as you pointed out on a bipartisan basis. and the other seems not to be functioning at all. i'm just concerned that this is a personality -based success failure formula as opposed to some other

institutional process that cannot be replicated. if you have insight into why it is working for you guys that would be important i would think. >> my view in business i was a deal guy. when i was governor they were to-one. the only way we got things done what -- was by getting the f. you can spend your whole career simply being against something and never get anything done and be viewed as a success. if i simply ran down the competition but didn't put out a good product i would not be in business very long. that notion that we have

that. policymaking whenever we want to call it. we have some bumps in the road along the way. and i give a lot get a lot of credit for that. we would not had done that. it's built by my dear friend. where we spent years unsuccessfully tried to deal with that. it was also helped along by a glass of wine or two. i think you got to have that notion they have the trust.

that is one of the reasons that is so disturbing right now. we can be of different political parties but that doesn't mean that we are enemies. and what happens in our political debate today. when we call out the opposition as enemies under curves or basic democracy. i've three asks of you. and i will get off the stage. one is realize i know this is not to be news breaking. neither fox nor ms nbc tell you the whole truth. the second thing is, in an era where the amount of times a day even all of us are well-educated. that you hear someone say something stupid and simply say where -- while i read it

on the internet. it does not mean it is gospel. but what i think we sometimes lack is the courage to be willing in a work setting or social setting or others to call out things that we know are factually wrong. particularly when they adhere in the political realm. in the third thing is. it seems to award the loudest voices. you want more of what we've got on the intelligence committee and as you all go out and this gets me in trouble.

until we reward good behavior. our institutions while they are strong they may have more vulnerabilities thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] tonight at eight eastern on c-span. tennessee republican senator. the campus free speech with deputy attorney general rod resin rosenstein. here is a preview.

is there anything different about the challenges that we face today compared to those of the past. >> what's different today is the iphone. it has revolutionized all forms of activity. including all of our politics. the principles are the same. let me give you a story susan collins is i guess the most moderate republican senator. she was invited to go to a northeastern university to speak. not long ago. several students told the administration that if she were allowed to speak without meeting with them first they would disrupt her speech. the administration caved into that request. susan meant -- met with them. and then she made the speech. but the administration did. it was to allow the students to exercise but they would call the heckler's veto.

and a lot of those students or to threaten to prevent from speaking on the college campus. you may not attend you may cross your arms you may even turn around and look the other way. if you disrupt your speech and you prevent others from that. he will have no right under the first amendment to do that. you can watch the entire program on free speech on college campuses. with the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein tonight beginning at eight eastern on c-span. >> on the committee caters. a discussion with federal trade commissioner.

on that role in regulating the internet and privacy issues. he is interviewed by the political technology key echoes and involves companies applying to the commerce department. it does a series of quality controls. we have a number of ways that they have made promises about privacy shield. and where they don't we punish them for that. watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span two. >> coming up thanksgiving weekend. the supreme court justice elena kagan followed by the chief justice friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

others discuss the opioid epidemic. the photojournalist talk about their favorite photographs taken on the campaign trail. and sunday at 6:30 p.m. gun laws in self-defense. the retired general stan lee mcchrystal. friday 8:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards. the political writer. .. ..

>> on lectures in history how the pilgrims became part of america's founding story and sunday at 9 am, constitutional scholars a vomit and material love read more talk about howthe constitution defines impeachable offenses. thanksgiving weekend on the c-span network . >> lieutenant general david petraeus led a forum on us arab relations and spoke on a range of issues including the death of washington post columnist jamal khashoggi, sanctions against iran and the israeli holliston in conflict. counsel for arab-american relations host this event . >> thank you ladies and gentlemen if we could direct your attention to our left