Participants
- Ray Suarez
-
Ray Suarez
Ray Suarez joined The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer in October 1999 as a Washington-based Senior Correspondent. He came to The NewsHour from National Public Radio where he had been host of the nationwide call-in news program Talk of the Nation. Suarez has worked for CNN, ABC Radio Network, and CBS Radio, and has narrated, anchored, or reported documentaries for public radio and television, including a weekly series, Follow the Money. His most recent book is The Holy Vote, an examination of the tightening relationship between religion and politics in America. He has been published in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune. He currently hosts the monthly public radio foreign affairs series America Abroad for PRI, and is the narrator for RadioWorks, the documentary unit of American Public Media. - Douglas W. Kmiec
-
Douglas Kmiec
Douglas W. Kmiec holds the endowed chair in constitutional law at Pepperdine Law School. A former member of the law faculties at Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame, he served as constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Kmiec writes a syndicated column for Catholic News Service and has contributed to the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal. He is the author of Cease-Fire on the Family and The Attorney General's Lawyer, and co-author of three books on the Constitution. Kmiec is a frequent guest on Nightline, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and NPR's Talk of the Nation. A former White House Fellow, he has received the Distinguished Service Award from the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. - K.A. Taipale
-
Kim Taipale
K.A. Taipale is the founder and executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy. He is also a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, where he serves as Director of the Global Information Society Project and the Program on Law Enforcement and National Security in the Information Age. An adjunct professor of law at New York Law School, Taipale is a partner of Stilwell Holding LLC, a private investment firm specializing in media, communications, and engineered products industries. The former director of new media development for Columbia Innovation Enterprise at Columbia University, he has appeared before congressional and other national committees, and is the author of numerous academic papers, journal articles, and book chapters on information, technology, and national security issues. - John, Lord Alderdice
-
John, Lord Alderdice
John, Lord Alderdice was appointed Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998. By profession a medical doctor and psychiatrist, he has been active in politics since the 1970s. Lord Alderdice has served as the political leader of Northern Ireland's cross-community Alliance and as a key negotiator of the Good Friday Agreement. He travels widely as a lecturer and consultant concerning political conflict and international terrorism. Upon his retirement as Speaker in 2004, Lord Alderdice was appointed by the British government to be an international commissioner to monitor terrorist activity and security normalization in Ireland. In addition to being the current Deputy President and President-Elect of Liberal International, he is also a member of the House of Lords. - Marc Rotenberg
-
Marc Rotenberg
Marc Rotenberg is Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, D.C. He teaches information privacy law at Georgetown University Law Center and has testified before Congress on many issues, including access to information, encryption policy, consumer protection, computer security, and communications privacy. Rotenberg testified before the 9/11 Commission on "Security and Liberty: Protecting Privacy, Preventing Terrorism" and has served on several national and international advisory panels. He currently chairs the ABA Committee on Privacy and Information Protection and is the former chair of the Public Interest Registry, which manages the .org domain. Rotenberg is editor of The Privacy Law Sourcebook and co-editor of Information Privacy Law.
|
VIDEOS Get Flash to see this player.
Introduction of Debaters(01:42)
Moderator Ray Suarez, senior correspondent for PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, introduces the four participants in the second debate in the Miller Center of Public Affairs' National Discussion and Debate Series. The event, held at the American Red Cross National Headquarters in Washington, DC on November 13, 2007, examined personal privacy in an age of terror and technology. Arguing for the debate resolution were Douglas W. Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine Law School, and K.A. Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy. Arguing against were Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and John, Lord Alderdice, terrorism expert and former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Background Video(03:49)
This four-minute video, produced by MacNeil-Lehrer Productions, provides background information for the debate, surveying the impact of advancing technology and the war on terror on personal privacy since 9/11.
Douglas Kmiec opening remarks(05:10)
To understand all of the aspects of the debate resolution, one needs to understand the threat to our security as well as the meaning of constitutional privacy. You cannot understate the threat of terrorism to America. It is a set of opponents who are loosely affiliated, very wealthy, and committed to damaging our nation, and it must be addressed in realistic terms. The Fourth Amendment does protect privacy, but this is not a categorical right. The courts have used the standard of reasonableness to determine how to apply the Fourth Amendment to government activities. In the case of terrorism, we are interested primarily in preemption, not prosecution, so the criminal structure is ill-suited to confront it. We need an alternative structure that consists of three parts: 1) One that assesses the programmatic need for surveillance, 2) is in proportion to meeting that need, and 3) is a respectable and responsible means of oversight in terms of administrative sanctions for abuse. Marc Rotenberg opening remarks(05:11)
We are not only discussing the expectations of privacy going forward, but also the constitutional traditions of this nation. America has a strong history of protecting personal privacy, and as technology has advanced we have always chosen to update our laws to maintain those protections. The Supreme Court has supported these laws that protected rights. 9/11 challenged us not only to protect our nation, but also to protect what makes us free: the Constitution and the rule of law. The American public has largely rejected the additional surveillance programs instituted by the Bush administration in recent years. If the government needs information, it should go through the proper processes and get a warrant from a judge. The answer is not how to adjust the balance between privacy and security. We need to always maintain the rule of law, constitutional protections, and the need for an independent judiciary and an open and accountable government. If we're prepared to accept the proposition that we can lower our expectations of privacy after 9/11, then we're prepared to accept the proposition that we can diminish our constitutional form of democracy. K.A. Taipale opening remarks(05:24)
We all agree that denying the government the opportunity to gather information that could prevent catastrophic terrorist attacks is unreasonable under any standard. The question is what are reasonable actions for the government to undertake and what is the proper level of oversight. There are three points about reasonableness and oversight: First, the changing nature of the terrorist threat is that we now face potentially catastrophic outcomes like nuclear terrorism, so we must take a preemptive approach. Preemption by definition requires surveillance. Second, the changing technology has changed our basic assumptions about what is available and what is useful. We cannot leave "walls" of information between various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. We cannot create information sanctuaries for terrorists to hide their activities. Third, expectations of privacy that don't take the first two points into account are inherently unreasonable. It is also unreasonable to think of the Fourth Amendment as absolute. Lord Alderdice opening remarks(04:58)
These are not just questions of law, politics, and the constitution; they are also very human questions. Invasion of one's personal space creates feelings. Likewise, terrorism creates feelings. Sometimes these feelings are so powerful that we respond emotionally rather than reflectively and thoughtfully. When governments react emotionally, they very often make mistakes and the laws created are frequently counterproductive. In Northern Ireland, government officials treated terrorism as a security problem, but this only acted as a recruitment tool for the terrorists. They eventually realized there's not a security answer, but rather a security role as part of a larger effort to better understand and deal with the problem. It is not about reducing any of our human expectations; it's about raising our expectations and our human dignity, and in turn raising our human security.
"Pro" Cross-Examination(04:34)
For the Pro side's cross-examination question to the Con side, Douglas Kmiec asked if they would prohibit the government from using a radiation detector to look for weapons-grade plutonium? Rotenberg responded that if such a device could be constructed, there would be no objection to the use of such a device. He added that this is not the expectation of privacy under assault by the government during the war on terror. Kmiec responded by saying that Rotenberg conceded there are circumstances in which the government can proceed with surveillance activities without going through the cumbersome process of warrants and oversight. The attempt to draw a distinction between this theoretical device and the government's request for data like telephone records loses sight of the principle justification Rotenberg used to allow the use of the radiation detector. Respondents: Kmiec and Rotenberg. "Con" Cross-Examination(03:38)
For the Con side's question, Marc Rotenberg asked the pro team the two-part question: 1) do you think the President has the power under Article 2 of the Constitution to intercept American citizens' telephone communications records, and if so, 2) is there any stopping point? Kmiec answered that President Bush did indeed have the powers granted by the Constitution to conduct the activities that he ordered. He added that oversight of government activities should be done on the back end as opposed to the front end, which he argues is where Mr. Rotenberg believes it should be. Rotenberg responded that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was passed to handle this type of activity, and it's this law that the Bush Administration has pushed aside in fighting the war on terror. Respondents: Rotenberg and Kmiec.
Can Public Demand Proof of Proper Use?(02:09)
Technology has grown so fast and the legal system has been trying to catch up for years. Can the public demand proof that this information is only used as needed, cannot be stored in perpetuity, and cannot be used for "fishing expeditions." Taipale said this is the crux of the problem—there is so much information out there that it is unreasonable to expect that the government, under the right circumstances, cannot use this information for security reasons. Respondent: Taipale. Shouldn't Public Demand High Threshold?(02:09)
Given the errors and abuses in the past, isn't it reasonable for the public to demand a very high threshold for the gathering, collection, storage and use of this information? Taipale answered that the technology that creates all of this information actually allows you to create better controls on this information. One of the ways to avoid abuse is to focus on audit mechanisms not to prevent barriers to these programs that creates operations problems. Alderdice responded by saying there is a danger of information overload. There's a fantasy that if you have more information, you'll have better security results. It is possible that government and law enforcement officials are using the existence of these massive amounts of information as a substitute for more thoughtful counterintelligence and better cooperation between officials. Respondents: Taipale and Alderdice. What About Corporate Data-Gathering?(05:27)
Why are defenders of privacy arguing more strenuously against government information programs rather than corporate data gathering? Rotenberg said that privacy advocates have certainly concentrated on data gathering in the private sector. The major issue with government programs has to do with surveillance directed at the American public. The new activities undertaken in the post-9/11 era are quite foreign to our country's history. Kmiec responded that two of Rotenberg's assertions need to be challenged: that there has been widespread government abuse, and that in dealing with terrorism you can adhere to standard criminal procedures. Respondents: Rotenberg and Kmiec. Why Should Innocent Americans Worry?(03:39)
Why should Americans who are doing nothing wrong have anything to worry about with surveillance activities? Alderdice said this would make sense if the government was always correct, honest and effective. But government sometimes makes mistakes or abuses power—this is human nature. Taipale responded that there is a misperception that the potential for abuse is like abuse, and it all depends on how you look at liberty. Alderdice answered that you look at liberty thoughtfully and reflectively, and don't allow the fear generated by terrorism to trump the ideals of American democracy. Respondents: Alderdice and Taipale.
Alderdice closing argument(01:54)
Technology is a marvelous servant of humanity, but it's also a tyrannical master. It provides us with tremendous opportunity as long as we don't panic and abuse it. It must be conducted with due regard to people and to the laws of the land. We must reflect thoughtfully on this issue and use technology in a way that expands and extends human dignity and human security. Taipale closing argument(01:53)
Government must be able to have access to information that will help them fight terrorism, so the key debate is about oversight. It doesn't make sense to ignore a real threat based on the fear of violating personal privacy rights. Dealing with errors in the conduct of surveillance and creating legal mechanisms for fighting abuse is a better result than dealing with the result of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
Civil liberties need to be protected in fighting terror(00:21)
Leans more on the side of protecting civil liberties rather than giving government officials easy access to private information. Govt. surveillance ok, but checks are critical(00:55)
There are two good sides to this argument because it's critical to protect Americans' privacy as well as their national security. There needs to be a system of checks and balanced in place so that people's personal information is not abused and does not get into the hands of the public. Where would govt. draw the line?(00:27)
Gut reaction is that we need to lower our expectations of privacy, but lean toward "no" since it's a slippery slope on where the government would draw the line.
WHITE PAPER
LOCAL EVENTS
MILLER CENTER FORUM
|