Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> IF YOU TEXT OR E-MAIL
SOMEONE OVERSEAS, THERE IS A
GOOD CHANCE THE GOVERNMENT IS
COMBING THROUGH WHAT YOU'VE
WRITTEN.
TODAY'S "NEW YORK TIMES" FIRST
REPORTED TODAY THAT THE
GOVERNMENT SPYING IS POSSIBLY
MORE PERVASIVE THAN WE ACTUALLY
THOUGHT.
THE "TIMES" SAYS NSA COMPUTERS
ARE SEARCHING TEXTS AND E M-MAI
GOING IN AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY.
LOOKING FOR CERTAIN WORDS,
INFORMATION ON SUSPECTED
TERRORISTS.
THE GOVERNMENT'S ALREADY
ACKNOWLEDGED IT MONITORS SUSPECT
COMMUNICATIONS, BUT ACCORDING TO
"THE NEW YORK TIMES," MOST EVERY
TEXT OR E-MAIL THAT CROSSES THE
U.S. BORDER IS SEARCHED FOR KEY
WORDS.
THAT SAID, JOINING ME NOW FROM
NEW YORK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST
SUNNY HOSTIN.
AND DARREN KAVINOKY.
LET ME ADD ONE MORE THING.
SOMETHING WE JUST GOT FROM
BARBARA STARR FROM THE PENTAGON.
IT ALSO ALLOWS MONITORING BASED
ON TWO THINGS.
A LOCATION OVERSEAS ALREADY
IDENTIFIED AS BEING OF INTEREST.
TWO, TRIGGERS KEY WORDS LIKE A
FOREIGN E-MAIL ADDRESS OR WORDS
IN THAT CONTENT.
THAT SAID, IF THE "TIMES" HAS
THIS WHOLE STORY RIGHT, HOW MUCH
BIGGER THAN WE THOUGHT IS THE
GOVERNMENT'S SPYING PROGRAM?
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S
UNCLEAR, QUITE FRANKLY.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS
ISSUE FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WHAT,
MAYBE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS.
IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT THE LEGAL
ANALYSIS IS AT THIS POINT.
WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHETHER OR
NOT THIS IS BULK COLLECTION,
WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE LOOKING
AT IT SORT OF RETROACTIVELY,
ALMOST.
ARE THEY STUDYING THE
INFORMATION?
DO THEY GET IT IN BULK AND THEN
LOOK AT LAST YEAR'S AND COMPARE
IT TO THIS YEAR'S?
WE REALLY DON'T KNOW.
I THINK REALLY THE ISSUE HERE,
OF COURSE, PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT THEIR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
OF COURSE THEY'RE CONCERNED
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE
BEING -- ARE TRAMPLED ON.
THE OTHER THING YOU HAVE TO
BALANCE THAT AGAINST IS, IS THIS
A MINIMAL BURDEN TO PROTECT OUR
COUNTRY FROM TERRISM?
SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY A
BALANCING ACT.
AGAIN, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW
BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HASN'T
HOLD US WHAT THE LEGAL BASIS IS
FOR ALLOWING THIS.
>> WE SHOULD JUST TRUST THEM!
>> RIGHT.
I HEAR YOU LAUGHING, DARREN.
WE HEAR FROM FOLKS WHO ARE IN
THE KNOW SAYING ABSOLUTELY IT
THWARTED TERRORIST ATTACKS.
AT THE SAME TIME, CONGRESS HAS
SAID, SHOW ME.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.
>> I THINK LIKE SO MUCH, WELL
INTENTIONED.
AND THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE
HOW IS IT IN THE EXECUTION?
BECAUSE IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, IF
YOU'VE GOTTEN UP IN THE HYPE, MY
E-MAILS, MY TEXTS, THEY'RE
PRETTY BORING STUFF.
HERE'S THE REAL PROBLEM.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS ENDS.
WE KNOW THAT IN THE POLICIES
THAT WE'RE TARGETING PEOPLE THAT
ARE ON FOREIGN SHORES.
BUT WE HAVE THESE POLICIES THAT
SAY, WELL, WE MAY BE TARGETING
THEM AND WE NEED TO TARGET AT
LEAST ONE PARTICIPANT WHO'S NOT
IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT WHAT
WE REALLY WANT IS WE WANT THE
JUICY STUFF ON THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE IN THE UNITED STATES.
SO WE'RE CREATING THESE POLICIES
THAT ALLOW US TO CIRCUMVENT AND
NARROWLY TAILOR IT SO WE CAN GET
TO THE GOOD STUFF THAT WE WANT
WITHOUT A WARRANT.
BECAUSE GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN
WE'RE GOING TO BE TAPPING INTO
PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE UNITED
STATES, WE NEED A WARRANT.
SO AT THE END OF THIS, BROOKE,
THE CONCERN IS DOES THIS PUT US
ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE WHERE
PEOPLE'S PRIVACY RIGHTS, WHERE
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, GET
ERODED?
AND WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ALL THE
INFORMATION.
THAT'S THE SCARY PART.
>> YOU KNOW, WE HEARD FROM THE
PRESIDENT SPEAKING PUBLICLY
ABOUT THIS AFTER THIS WHOLE ED
SNOWDEN STORY BROKE.
SAYING, HEY, AT LEAST WE'RE
HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.
THIS IS AN INTELGENT
CONVERSATION TO BE HAVING ABOUT
PRIVACY RIGHTS AND THAT HE IS
OPEN TO REALISTIC CHANGES.
WHAT CHANGES, DARREN?
I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO
YOU.
WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SEE TO THESE SURVEILLANCE
PROGRAMS WE'VE BEEN LEARNING
ABOUT?
>> YEAH.
IT STARTS WITH AS MUCH
TRANSPARENCY AS CAN BE HAD
WITHOUT THWARTING THE
FUNDAMENTAL MISSION, WHICH IS
DISCOVERING TERRORISM, RIGHT?
THIS IS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING
FOLKS AND KEEPING THEM SAFE.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT IT CAN'T BE DONE WITH
THESE SUPER SECRET MEETINGS AND
SUPER SECRET POLICIES.
AND "THE NEW YORK TIMES" ARTICLE
REALLY POINTS THAT OUT.
THAT A LOT OF THE STUFF IS ON
THE SUPER SECRET.
>> OKAY.
>> IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SUPER
SECRET BECAUSE IT'S
SURVEILLANCE.
>> RIGHT.
THAT'S THE POINT.
>> RIGHT.
I THINK WE WANT TRANSPARENCY.
AGAIN, I THINK AS AMERICANS WE
ALSO -- AND AS LAWYERS, OF
COURSE, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
THE BALANCING TEST.
YES, THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS AND PRIVACY RIGHTS.
BUT IS IT, PERHAPS, A MINIMAL
BURDEN TO BEAR WHEN YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT OUR RIGHT TO
PROTECTION OURSELF?