Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

1

 

 

 PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD

 PUBLIC HEARING

 

 Consideration of Recommendations for Change:

 The Surveillance Programs Operated Pursuant to 

 Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and 

 Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence 

 Surveillance Act

 

 November 4, 2013

 

 

The public hearing was held at the Renaissance 

Mayflower Hotel, 1127 Connecticut Avenue NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20036 commencing at 9:30 a.m.

 

 

Reported by: Lynne Livingston
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

2

1 BOARD MEMBERS

2

3 David Medine, Chairman

4 Rachel Brand

5 Patricia Wald

6 James Dempsey

7 Elisebeth Collins Cook

8

9 PANEL I

10 Section 215 USA PATRIOT Act and

11 Section 702 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

12

13 Brad Wiegmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

14 National Security Division, Department of Justice

15 Rajesh De, General Counsel, National Security 

16 Agency

17 Patrick Kelley, Acting General Counsel, Federal 

18 Bureau of Investigation

19 Robert Litt, General Counsel, Office of the 

20 Director of National Intelligence

21

22
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

3

1 PANEL II

2 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

3 

4 James A. Baker, formerly DOJ Office of 

5 Intelligence and Policy Review

6 Judge James Carr, Senior Federal Judge, U.S. 

7 District Court, Northern District of Ohio and 

8 former FISA Court Judge, 2002-2008

9 Marc Zwillinger, Founder, ZwillGen PLLC and former 

10 Department of Justice Attorney, Computer Crime & 

11 Intellectual Property Section

12

13 PANEL III

14 Academics and Outside Experts

15 

16 Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, 

17 George Washington University Law School

18 Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO, The 

19 Woodrow Wilson Center and former Member of 

20 Congress

21 Stephanie K. Pell, Principal, SKP Strategies, LLC; 

22 former House Judiciary Committee Counsel and 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

4

1 Federal Prosecutor

2 Eugene Spafford, Professor of Computer Science and 

3 Executive Director, Center for Education and 

4 Research in Information Assurance and Security, 

5 Perdue University

6 Stephen Vladeck, Professor of Law and the 

7 Associate Dean for Scholarship at American 

8 University Washington College of Law

9

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

5

1 PROCEEDINGS

2 MR. MEDINE: Good morning, I'm David 

3 Medine and I'm the Chairman of the Privacy and 

4 Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

5 Welcome to the first public hearing of 

6 the PCLOB. It is 9:20 a.m. on November 4th, 2013, 

7 and we're in the ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel, 

8 located at 1127 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, 

9 D.C.

10 This hearing was announced in the 

11 Federal Register on September 16 and October 25, 

12 2013. As chairman, I will be the presiding 

13 officer. 

14 All five board members are present and 

15 there is a quorum. The board members are Rachel 

16 Brand, Elisebeth Collins Cook, James Dempsey, and 

17 Patricia Wald.

18 I will now call the hearing to order. 

19 All in favor of opening the hearing say aye.

20 (Aye)

21 MR. MEDINE: Upon receiving unanimous 

22 consent we will now proceed.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

6

1 PCLOB is an independent bipartisan 

2 agency within the Executive Branch, established by 

3 the implementing regulations of the 9/11 

4 Commission Act. It is comprised of four part-time 

5 board members and a full-time chairman. 

6 The board's primary missions are to 

7 review and analyze actions the Executive Branch 

8 takes to protect the nation from terrorism and 

9 ensuring the need for such actions is balanced 

10 with the need to protect privacy and civil 

11 liberties and to ensure that liberty concerns are 

12 appropriately considered in the development and 

13 implementation of law, regulations and policies 

14 related to efforts to protect the nation against 

15 terrorism.

16 Essentially the PCLOB has two 

17 functions, an advisory and oversight role with 

18 respect to our country's counterterrorism efforts.

19 I want to thank the many panelists who 

20 will be participating in today's hearing for 

21 agreeing to share their views with the board. 

22 I also want to thank Sharon Bradford 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

7

1 Franklin, the Board's Executive Director, Sue 

2 Reingold, the Chief Administrative Officer and 

3 Diane Janosek, the Chief Legal Officer for their 

4 tireless efforts in making this event possible.

5 PCLOB has agreed to provide the 

6 President and Congress with a public report on two 

7 federal counterterrorism programs, the Section 215 

8 program under the USA PATRIOT Act, and the 702 

9 program under the FISA Amendments Act.

10 The 215 program is sometimes referred 

11 to as the business records collection program. 

12 One of the things the government collects under 

13 this program is telephone metadata for 

14 intelligence and counterterrorism purposes 

15 pursuant to order by the Foreign Intelligence 

16 Surveillance Court.

17 The 702 program involves collection of 

18 foreign intelligence information from electronic 

19 communications service providers under Foreign 

20 Intelligence Surveillance Court supervision. 

21 The purpose of today's hearing is to 

22 consider possible recommendations the board might 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

8

1 make regarding these programs, as well as the 

2 operations of the Foreign Intelligence 

3 Surveillance Court. 

4 Just to be clear, the questions the 

5 Board Members pose today do not necessarily 

6 represent either their views or the views of the 

7 board. 

8 The purpose of this hearing is to 

9 explore a wide range of recommendations to assess 

10 their benefits, costs and possible unintended 

11 consequences. The Board believes it will be in 

12 the best position to make its recommendations by 

13 having public discussion of these options. 

14 There will be three panels today. The 

15 first will consist of government officials whose 

16 agencies have varying degrees of responsibility 

17 for the surveillance programs that will be the 

18 subject of our report. 

19 After the first panel we will be taking 

20 a lunch break. 

21 This afternoon, the second panel will 

22 include a former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

9

1 Act judge and two lawyers who have appeared before 

2 the court, the FISC, one on the government side 

3 and one representing a private sector client.

4 Finally, the third panel will include a 

5 former member of Congress and four academics who 

6 will respond to the discussion during the first 

7 two panels.

8 Board members will each pose questions 

9 during each panel with ten minute questioning 

10 rounds for the first panel and five minute rounds 

11 for the other two panels. Panelists are urged to 

12 keep their responses brief to permit the greatest 

13 exchange of views. 

14 This program is being recorded and a 

15 transcript will be posted on www.pclob.gov. 

16 Written comments from members of the public are 

17 welcome and may be submitted online at 

18 regulations.gov or by mail until November 14. 

19 Since we are still waiting for one 

20 panelist we might just take a few minutes break, 

21 or we can get started. It might be helpful to 

22 maybe just take a few minutes break. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

10

1 MR. DEMPSEY: Why don't we get started.

2 MR. MEDINE: You want to get started? 

3 Okay, we'll jump in and then we'll pick up with 

4 the rest of the panel. 

5 I want to introduce our panelists, 

6 Rajesh De, who's the General Counsel at the 

7 National Security Agency, Patrick Kelly, who's the 

8 Acting General Counsel at the Federal Bureau of 

9 Investigation, and Brad Wiegmann, who's the Deputy 

10 Assistant Attorney General at the National 

11 Security Division of the Department of Justice.

12 There were allegations in the press 

13 last week that the NSA had secretly broken into 

14 main communication links that connect Yahoo and 

15 Google data centers around the world under 

16 something called Project Muscular, which allows 

17 the NSA and the British Intelligence Agency 

18 Government Communication Headquarters or GCHQ to 

19 copy data flows across fiber optic cables that 

20 carry information among the data centers of these 

21 Silicon Valley companies. 

22 Could the panel please explain what 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

11

1 that program is about and what impact it has upon 

2 the programs that are the subject of today's 

3 hearing, which is the 215 and 702 program?

4 MR. DE: Why don't I start on that. 

5 I'm sorry, I can't address the veracity or lack 

6 thereof of the details of the article, but I think 

7 it's worthwhile making a few general points for 

8 everybody.

9 Even by the terms of the article itself 

10 there is no connection to the 702 or 215 programs 

11 that we are here to discuss. I would suggest 

12 though that any implication which seemed to be 

13 made in some of the press coverage of this issue 

14 that NSA uses Executive Order 12333 to undermine, 

15 or circumvent or get around the Foreign 

16 Intelligence Surveillance Act is simply 

17 inaccurate. 

18 As the panel will know, and as the 

19 public should know, FISA is statute that has 

20 particular jurisdictional coverage. You're either 

21 covered by FISA or you're not covered by FISA. 

22 And historically FISA was intended to cover that 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

12

1 type of collection that most would impact U.S. 

2 person privacy and the key factors which many 

3 learned scholars, folks like David Chris, have 

4 written about, are things like the nationality of 

5 targets, location of coverage, location of 

6 targets, where the collection and how the 

7 collection is undertaken. 

8 I would note just as a general matter 

9 though that any collection NSA does would involve 

10 minimization procedures that are approved by the 

11 Attorney General, or if coverage were under FISA, 

12 by the FISC, that has rules in place to minimize 

13 the collection, retention and use of any 

14 incidentally collected U.S. person information.

15 The last point I'd make is, and I'd 

16 implore you and the public that as you read 

17 articles that may or may not be true, just to read 

18 them with the rigor that you would expect us to 

19 speak about activities. 

20 And so in some of these articles, I 

21 think I noticed you would have a line in paragraph 

22 two of the article that says, NSA is well 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

13

1 positioned to collect vast amounts of U.S. person 

2 information, and somewhere around paragraph 30 you 

3 might have a line that says, it's unclear how much 

4 U.S. person information NSA collects or retains. 

5 And so I think it would be useful for everybody to 

6 read coverage with a certain amount of rigor.

7 And I'd leave it at that.

8 MR. MEDINE: Then I want to turn to the 

9 215 program that is the subject of today's 

10 hearing. As you know there are a number of 

11 legislative proposals that have been introduced 

12 to, a range from abolish the program to modify the 

13 program, and a lot of concerns have been raised 

14 about the scope of collection, the information 

15 held by the government. 

16 What is your response to the proposal 

17 that the 215 bulk program should simply be shut 

18 down? 

19 MR. DE: Well, why don't I speak to the 

20 operational part of the program for a minute and 

21 then I can maybe turn it over to Brad for 

22 Justice's point of view and obviously to the FBI 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

14

1 for whom this program is extremely beneficial.

2 So from NSA's point of view, I think 

3 we've made a few points publicly which is that 

4 this is a valuable program, that along with many 

5 other surveillance tools contributes to our 

6 mission. It was intended to help cover a seam to 

7 make the connections between foreign threat 

8 streams, any domestic nexus that those might 

9 threat streams might have. 

10 I think I'd make the point though that 

11 215 in particular, which is the telephone metadata 

12 program, and maybe I should just start with some 

13 basics since obviously the panel is well-versed in 

14 this program, only involves telephone metadata. 

15 It does not involve any content of telephone 

16 calls, it does not involve any identifying 

17 subscriber information, and NSA does not collect 

18 any cell site location information. 

19 This tool is used primarily as a 

20 discovery tool in order to discover, unearth 

21 potential leads to domestic ties to international 

22 threat streams. And if such tips are evidenced we 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

15

1 hand them over to the FBI for further 

2 investigation. 

3 I think though that in the public 

4 debate there's been a lot of discussion of, name a 

5 plot, that without this tool inevitably would have 

6 happened, and I think that's probably not the 

7 right question to ask. 

8 From the intelligence community's 

9 perspective intelligence is a function that is 

10 brought together by lots of different tools that 

11 work in complement to one another. 

12 And I would also suggest that any 

13 particular plot, it's rare that you're going to 

14 find a situation where some particular event was 

15 only unearthed or only stopped as a result of one 

16 particular intelligence tool. And I think that 

17 probably misleads the debate in terms of the value 

18 of the program, but I'd ask my FBI colleagues and 

19 DOJ colleagues to weigh in.

20 MR. KELLEY: We find the 215 program to 

21 be very helpful to us. We, since 9/11 have been 

22 charged not with retroactively solving, which we 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

16

1 continue to do, but on the national security side 

2 to prevent terrorist attacks. Now that's a 

3 fundamentally different and much harder thing to 

4 do. So we need information. 

5 This is one tool. It's not the only 

6 tool. It's not a tool that we can say is 

7 absolutely must have. It is extremely critical 

8 though and helpful to us. When we try to connect 

9 the dots, the more dots that we have to connect, 

10 the better off we are in accomplishing our mission 

11 of preventing terrorist attacks. So the program 

12 that we have here -- good morning.

13 MR. LITT: Sorry I'm late. 

14 Transportation into Virginia is a little 

15 difficult, although I will note that the panel 

16 started early.

17 MR. KELLEY: As I said, the 215 program 

18 as Raj indicated provides us with metadata. It 

19 does not provide us with content of 

20 communications, just data such as the number from 

21 which a call was made to the number that is 

22 dialed, the length of the call and the date of the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

17

1 call. 

2 So it's primarily of interest to us 

3 because we may have telephone numbers from our own 

4 other tools, investigative tools, but we may not 

5 realize the significance of the number, without 

6 the 215 abilities that NSA has to analyze that 

7 data and then provide context to us in turn, we 

8 may not realize the significance. 

9 It provides a way for us to be agile. 

10 It provides a way for us to respond more quickly. 

11 Time in counterterrorism investigation is a very 

12 important element. It has resulted in several 

13 cases over the years, more than several, being 

14 opened that we may not have otherwise opened. 

15 It has also permitted us to focus 

16 resources. We may have had a preliminary 

17 investigation, for example, open and then when the 

18 information came to us that this number we had was 

19 contacting a known or suspected terrorist safe 

20 house, for example, overseas, it then would 

21 provide us the requisite articulation of facts to 

22 escalate that preliminary investigation to a full 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

18

1 investigation. 

2 That in turn allows us to focus our 

3 resources better and focus our energies and our 

4 investigative efforts. 

5 I think that over the years we've had a 

6 number of open declarations filed that give us an 

7 indication of the value of the program. In 2009 

8 Director Mueller filed an affidavit with the FISC 

9 Court that indicated that at a particular time 

10 there were 27, I think, full investigations open. 

11 It's very difficult in any particular 

12 investigation to say that this fact or that fact 

13 is very important, but over time we can say that 

14 these things are extremely helpful to us. So we 

15 do think there's value in the program.

16 MR. MEDINE: I guess my question is if 

17 the program was discontinued would it be a 

18 practical option as some have suggested to just 

19 gather information from the telephone company 

20 providers rather than having NSA maintain data on 

21 all Americans' phone calls? 

22 MR. DE: Let me defer to Pat on the use 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

19

1 of NSLs perhaps, which would presumably be the 

2 alternative.

3 MR. KELLEY: If we did not have this 

4 program and used other lawful investigative ways 

5 to obtain particular phone numbers from particular 

6 subjects, we wouldn't be able to see the patterns 

7 that the NSA program provides us.

8 We would be able to, for example, 

9 through the use of a grand jury subpoena or a 

10 national security letter on the national security 

11 side, obtain information about a particular phone 

12 number and we'd get the first tier of the phone 

13 numbers that that number had connected with, but 

14 we would not be able to go into a second tier or a 

15 third tier, hops it's commonly called, which the 

16 NSA program provides. 

17 Additionally, we would be able to 

18 perhaps go to service provider, to service 

19 provider, to service provider and then 

20 individually try to connect those dots, but 

21 without the ability to look at all the data in a 

22 composite way, it would be much harder, it would 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

20

1 be much slower, much more difficult for us to do 

2 that. 

3 So with those two indicators there, 

4 we'd be less agile, we'd be less informed, and 

5 we'd be less focused and we think that as a result 

6 we'd be a lot less effective in preventing the 

7 attacks that the American people want us to 

8 prevent.

9 MR. MEDINE: I see that my time has 

10 expired. Ms. Brand?

11 MS. BRAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

12 Let me just follow-up on that since 

13 your time ran out. I had some questions related 

14 to the same subject. 

15 Even if you were able to use a grand 

16 jury subpoena or an NSL to go provider to provider 

17 to ask for the information, would the information 

18 be there without a record retention requirement? 

19 MR. KELLEY: That's a very good 

20 question. Without the 215 program it would be up 

21 to the service provider to determine how long they 

22 would keep the records. I think FCC regulations 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

21

1 require them to keep these things for 18 months. 

2 The NSA program keeps them for five years. 

3 So the likelihood without the 215 

4 program would be that much of that information 

5 would simply not be there, so there would be no 

6 dots to connect.

7 MR. LITT: Can I add something on that? 

8 MS. BRAND: Sure.

9 MR. LITT: It's my understanding that 

10 FCC regulations, and I'm not an FCC lawyer by any 

11 means, but that the FCC regulation relates to toll 

12 billing records. 

13 It's not at all clear to me that if all 

14 providers moved to a system where there are no 

15 longer -- first of all, that doesn't include local 

16 calls. And second, if providers move to an 

17 environment where none of them are billing for 

18 toll calls at all whether those records would be 

19 retained even pursuant to the FCC regulation.

20 MS. BRAND: Thank you. You just 

21 answered my next question.

22 MR. LITT: Sorry, Rachel.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

22

1 MS. BRAND: Perfect. No, that's good. 

2 Relatedly, we've heard some talk about 

3 sort of a competition downwards in terms of 

4 retention requirements where it's not required by 

5 FCC regulation that providers for sort of 

6 commercial competitive reasons would decrease 

7 their own record retention periods. Have you seen 

8 any evidence of that actually happening or is that 

9 more of a theoretical concern? 

10 MR. DE: I can't speak to that 

11 particular issue but I probably should add one 

12 other point in addition to what Bob and Pat made. 

13 In order to run a program like the 215 program the 

14 data has to be provided or kept in a way that 

15 allows it to be integrated. 

16 And so I think in addition to the 

17 availability of the records, they have to be 

18 available in a way that would allow for the sort 

19 of analysis that the 215 program allows.

20 MS. BRAND: Can you, any of you, speak 

21 to whether there might be some privacy concerns 

22 that would be created if, just posit for a moment 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

23

1 that there is a record retention requirement of, 

2 say, two years for something more than toll 

3 billing records, or perhaps even just toll billing 

4 records, does that in your mind create additional 

5 privacy concerns? 

6 And relatedly, would there be any 

7 reason why those retained records could not be 

8 sought in civil litigation, divorce proceedings, 

9 criminal proceedings, immigration proceedings or 

10 any other kind of legal process?

11 I don't know who wants to take that, 

12 maybe DOJ. Brad, do you want to?

13 MR. WIEGMANN: Sure. So, you know, 

14 these are records that the companies keep for at 

15 least some period of time now and they can be 

16 obtained, as Pat mentioned, through an NSL or 

17 through grand jury subpoena, etcetera. So these 

18 are records that don't enjoy Fourth Amendment 

19 protection under the Supreme Court's holdings. 

20 But I think the longer you require the 

21 companies to keep them, then that's data that is 

22 being kept by a company for a longer period of 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

24

1 time. 

2 So if you create a five-year period 

3 then that's information that's available there and 

4 can be subpoenaed. You know, private lawyers can 

5 subpoena the data. I mean the data is not, it's 

6 not private in that sense, but to the extent 

7 people have concerns about the data being 

8 compelled, it would be held for a longer period of 

9 time by the private sector rather than by the 

10 government. So that's at least conceivably a 

11 privacy concern for them.

12 MR. KELLEY: In addition to that, once 

13 the data's destroyed by the companies, of course 

14 then it's not available, which is on the privacy 

15 side a good thing because hackers can't get into 

16 it, and as you indicated in your questioning it 

17 couldn't be used for other purposes. 

18 I've been told, for example, that if 

19 the data exists, other levels of law enforcement 

20 from local, state, federal would want it for 

21 whatever law enforcement purposes they were 

22 authorized to obtain it, and civil litigation 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

25

1 could also seek to obtain it for such things 

2 relatively mundane as divorce actions. Who's 

3 calling who and your spouse if it's a contested 

4 action, for example. 

5 So if the data is kept longer by the 

6 companies then I think the privacy considerations 

7 certainly warrants some scrutiny.

8 MS. BRAND: The hacking point that you 

9 raised is to my mind both a national security 

10 concern and a privacy concern, but I have to ask 

11 in light of some of recent revelations, do you 

12 think that, is the data in the government's 

13 possession more protected from hacking than it 

14 would be if it were in the possession of the 

15 private sector? And what are you doing and what 

16 can you do to make sure that it is?

17 MR. DE: I think that's a great 

18 question and I think that any evaluation of where 

19 else to keep such data should take that comparison 

20 into account.

21 So we don't have any reason to believe, 

22 based on current assessment, that Edward Snowden 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

26

1 had access to raw material in the business records 

2 database. Now why is that the case? 

3 I think I'd make the case that the 

4 current program is one of the most highly 

5 regulated programs in the federal government today 

6 and I think that regardless of the benefit of 

7 folks who have privacy concerns or interests in 

8 the protection of such data. 

9 So what do I mean when I say it's a 

10 highly regulated program? For one, pursuant to 

11 the court's orders, the data has to be kept 

12 segregated from all other types of raw 

13 intelligence.

14 Two, the purpose of the program is 

15 purely for counterterrorism purposes so this data 

16 can't be used for other purposes, as we've just 

17 been discussing might be the case in other 

18 circumstances. 

19 Three, the program is re-authorized 

20 every 90 days by the Foreign Intelligence 

21 Surveillance Court. We at NSA, together with 

22 Justice report to the FISC every 30 days on the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

27

1 use of the data. The program is audited every 90 

2 days by the Department of Justice. 

3 Pursuant to the court's orders only 22 

4 senior officials may approve queries into the data 

5 and those queries have to be based on a reasonable 

6 articulable suspicion that the number used is 

7 associated with a specific foreign terrorist 

8 organization. 

9 Only seven officials by court order are 

10 authorized to disseminate information to the FBI, 

11 for example, if any U.S. person information is 

12 involved. 

13 There are significant technical 

14 controls limiting access to the data. So for 

15 example, a typo in this case can't go through in a 

16 query because there are technical controls that 

17 only allow RAS approved numbers to be used as 

18 query terms. 

19 And finally, pursuant to the court's 

20 orders there are rules for the Inspector General 

21 at NSA and of course we have oversight from the 

22 Department of Defense which has its own inspector 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

28

1 general, as well as the ODNI which has its own 

2 inspector general. 

3 MS. BRAND: I just want to follow-up on 

4 the RAS, the reasonable articulable suspicion 

5 standard, and I have a series of questions which 

6 I'll continue in the next round if I need to.

7 But can you explain what that means? 

8 What is RAS? Give me an example of how much 

9 information would be enough to meet it. Is this 

10 the Terry stop standard? Is it something more? 

11 MR. DE: So this is a legal standard 

12 that does sort of have origins in Terry stop 

13 jurisprudence. And I'll turn to Brad in a minute 

14 to articulate that. 

15 But what that would mean is it's 

16 effectively the same standard that's used for stop 

17 and frisk for a law enforcement officer to pat 

18 down somebody on the street. Every single RAS 

19 determination has to be documented before a query 

20 is made.

21 MS. BRAND: But give me an example of 

22 what would be enough. Give me an example of sort 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

29

1 like the basis for a RAS determination.

2 MR. DE: So it could be, for example, 

3 through other intelligence a known connection of a 

4 telephone number to an Al Qaeda operative, for 

5 example. 

6 The intent of the standard is to be 

7 significant enough that a query can't be made on a 

8 hunch or for no particular reason at all, but 

9 sufficiently able to be met so that the tool can 

10 in fact be used as a discovery tool to discover 

11 unknown operative, which is the whole point of the 

12 program.

13 MS. BRAND: And what is the paper 

14 trail, what kind of records create the basis for a 

15 RAS determination?

16 MR. DE: So every RAS determination is 

17 documented and kept in a computer database. They 

18 are only, every RAS determination is only valid 

19 for a set period of time pursuant to the court 

20 orders. It's 180 days if it's a U.S. number or 

21 365 days if it's a non-U.S. number. 

22 NSA as a matter of proactive 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

30

1 compliance, reexamines RAS determinations in half 

2 that time. Every 90 days the Justice Department 

3 comes to NSA and audits RAS determinations, 

4 written RAS determinations, as does our Inspector 

5 General, pursuant to the court's orders.

6 MS. BRAND: And after 180 days does the 

7 RAS selector disappear? Can you get it 

8 re-authorized? What happens with that?

9 MR. DE: It may not be used to conduct 

10 queries unless a new RAS determination is made or 

11 a continuing viability of the existing RAS 

12 determination.

13 MS. BRAND: And what's that 

14 re-authorization process? Is it simply reliance 

15 on the evidence that was provided the first time 

16 or does that evidence have to be reverified?

17 MR. DE: It certainly has to be 

18 reverified as of the time of the determination. 

19 So any time a RAS determination is made the 

20 information used to support that determination has 

21 to be to the best of our knowledge current at the 

22 time of the determination.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

31

1 MS. BRAND: So one suggestion that 

2 we've heard to improve the process would be for 

3 DOJ to have more involvement in the RAS process, 

4 the process of approving a particular RAS 

5 selector. I think the theory there is that DOJ 

6 has more experience with determining whether 

7 standards of proof have been met. 

8 Does the administration have a position 

9 on that suggestion? Brad, I'm looking at you 

10 because you're from DOJ, but anyone can answer it.

11 MR. WIEGMANN: I really think I 

12 understand that argument but I think the better 

13 analogy is to the operator on the street who's 

14 making that determination. I mean lawyers don't 

15 make that determination if there's reasonable 

16 articulable suspicion to stop someone and frisk 

17 them on the street because they're suspected of 

18 criminal activity. 

19 I think for the same reason here we're 

20 not going to be in as good a position as an 

21 intelligence operative is to know whether there's 

22 suspicion that a number is associated with a 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

32

1 particular foreign terrorist organization 

2 overseas. So I think we've got it about right 

3 where we have it now to leave that with the 

4 operators. 

5 So the example I always think of, you 

6 ask what would be a RAS determination would be, 

7 you know, a laptop is obtained when a foreign 

8 government arrests a terrorist overseas and that's 

9 a laptop that we believe is used to communicate, 

10 that terrorist has used to communicate with other 

11 terrorist operatives, and on that laptop there's a 

12 bunch of phone numbers. 

13 That's the type of situation where a 

14 phone number obtained on that, and you look up and 

15 you see there's a U.S. phone number, the 

16 government wants to know who is he calling in the 

17 United States. 

18 And so that's the kind of classic 

19 example I always think of, and that's something I 

20 think that's really more operational and not so 

21 much a DOJ lawyer sitting back in Washington 

22 making that judgement.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

33

1 MR. MEDINE: Thank you.

2 Ms. Cook?

3 MS. COLLINS COOK: Thank you. And I 

4 wanted to thank you guys for coming today. I 

5 think it's helpful to have the opportunity to ask 

6 some more and more specific questions as we are 

7 moving through our process of analyzing these 

8 programs.

9 I did want to ask one follow up 

10 question, Brad, on what you were just talking 

11 about. It's certainly true that the police 

12 officers are the ones on the street making the 

13 determination in a specific case, but that's 

14 typically after a long period of training, a lot 

15 of thought given on how the training is developed 

16 and implemented.

17 To what extent is DOJ involved in the 

18 development of the RAS standard, the training of 

19 that and the oversight to ensure that the operator 

20 on the street is in fact appropriately using the 

21 RAS standard?

22 MR. WIEGMANN: Well, we do, as Raj 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

34

1 said, we do review each and every RAS 

2 determination after it's made at the Department of 

3 Justice. We're not doing it in real time because 

4 we think, as I said before, and on the front lines 

5 that's the operators who are in the best position 

6 to do that.

7 But also to say, the point I didn't 

8 make was that this is designed as kind of an alarm 

9 system. It's a kind of rapid reaction program so 

10 that the government, when they have this number 

11 they want to know right away whether that number's 

12 calling any numbers in the United States to see 

13 whether we can find out if there are any contacts 

14 and whether there's terrorist plotting that's 

15 occurred. 

16 But given a little more time, 

17 absolutely, lawyers are involved, heavily involved 

18 in reviewing every single RAS determination to 

19 look back at all the facts and say, was there 

20 enough there. 

21 So there is that kind of balance. You 

22 have both the operators, but then the lawyers come 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

35

1 in after the fact to make sure that those were all 

2 correct. 

3 And if we were to find a compliance 

4 problem with a RAS determination that would be 

5 reported, and is reported, to the court, again, in 

6 conjunction with those 90 day reviews that Raj 

7 mentioned.

8 MR. DE: If I could add one point onto 

9 this. I think the now-public court orders 

10 authorizing the program expressly articulate that 

11 which actually happens in practice, which is we 

12 and Justice work together on all significant legal 

13 interpretations of the 215 program and that 

14 includes training materials and other things like 

15 that.

16 MS. COLLINS COOK: So I wanted to go 

17 back to something you had mentioned earlier, Raj. 

18 You started off by saying that there's a lot of 

19 talk about how many plots have been disrupted or 

20 thwarted, and you said that's not the right 

21 question.

22 So I have a two-part question for you, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

36

1 what is the right question and how frequently is 

2 the Department of Justice asking the question, how 

3 often is NSA asking the question in a serious and 

4 systematic way, is this an effective program? It 

5 turns out it's going to be a three-part question, 

6 and when you do so what metrics are you using? 

7 MR. DE: So I think that is a very 

8 valuable question to ask across the board for NSA 

9 intelligence programs, and I'm sure Bob will speak 

10 to intelligence programs regardless of the agency. 

11 So let me give you a few data points for the 215 

12 program.

13 As I mentioned, this program is 

14 re-authorized every 90 days by the FISC --

15 MS. COLLINS COOK: Actually can I stop 

16 you there. I'm asking about the effectiveness of 

17 the program and not necessarily compliance or 

18 whether it continues to meet legal requirements, 

19 but as a counterterrorism tool, whether as rapid 

20 response, as Brad, you've characterized it, or 

21 prevented it, as Pat, you've characterized it, the 

22 effectiveness of the program. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

37

1 MR. DE: So every 90 days we submit a 

2 declaration both from NSA and from the 

3 intelligence community that articulates the need 

4 for the program and how, as part of the relevant 

5 standard. 

6 And so in other words, the standard to 

7 make the relevance showing needs to articulate why 

8 such telephone records are helpful in the 

9 counterterrorism mission, to put it in lay person 

10 terms. 

11 And so I would say at a minimum every 

12 90 days there's some internal mechanism built-in 

13 to at least revalidate the program. 

14 I'd also add that as Congress has been 

15 doing recently adding legislative sunsets to 

16 provisions, regardless of whether one thinks 

17 that's a good idea or a bad idea, that is a built18 in idea that Congress should reevaluate the 

19 effectiveness of intelligence programs.

20 The 215 program was re-authorized twice 

21 within the last five years and apart from current 

22 efforts is up for expiry in 2015. And so those 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

38

1 are natural points to evaluate the effectiveness 

2 of the program.

3 The third thing I'd mention is like all 

4 federal agencies, NSA has significant resource 

5 constraints and so apart from the mission value of 

6 the program, we are constantly reevaluating all 

7 sorts of programs, particularly expensive ones 

8 like the 215 program, to see if they're worth the 

9 expenditure. 

10 And then the fourth data point I'd add 

11 is there's been some public discussion of another 

12 metadata program that was conducted on email 

13 metadata that's no longer in existence. And that 

14 program was ended in 2011 precisely for the reason 

15 you raise which was, at least in part, an 

16 evaluation was made that it wasn't meeting 

17 operational effectiveness needs.

18 MR. KELLEY: And if I could add to 

19 that, it's very difficult to say, just say we've 

20 stopped this number of attacks, or opened this 

21 number of cases, or produced this number of 

22 intelligence reports. But as I indicated before, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

39

1 we have provided publicly some numbers and some 

2 illustrations, including a plot that was to bomb 

3 the New York subway system. So that's one case 

4 and one plot disrupted. 

5 There was a similar attack in Madrid 

6 several years ago, as you know, and hundreds of 

7 people were killed and wounded in that single 

8 attack. 

9 So when you evaluate effectiveness, 

10 it's not just numbers that you have to look at, 

11 but you have to look at victims who are no longer 

12 victims or never were victims. And I think to put 

13 everything into context here is very important. 

14 So I think that question deserves a lot of public 

15 attention and looking at the full spectrum of the 

16 value includes everything from people who are not 

17 victims up to intelligence reports that are 

18 produced.

19 MS. COLLINS COOK: You had mentioned 

20 earlier in response to some of the questions that 

21 Rachel had asked that you could end up with a 

22 situation without the 215 program where you would 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

40

1 have data perhaps up to 18 months, the age of the 

2 data would be 18 months, as opposed to five years 

3 now. 

4 To what extent do you in a systematic 

5 and regularized way assess the helpfulness of the 

6 data that is two years old, three years old, four 

7 years old, five years old? Is there an empirical 

8 basis for believing that these older records are 

9 still in fact useful?

10 MR. KELLEY: I'm not aware of any study 

11 where we've gone back to look at those specifics. 

12 But again, in this counterterrorism environment we 

13 have to look in terms of a very broad programmatic 

14 review, not just attacks thwarted but how 

15 terrorism organizations exist, what their finances 

16 are, what their objectives are, how they operate. 

17 So if we, for example, had a different 

18 type of tool to obtain numbers, most of those 

19 numbers that we would obtain would be going 

20 forward. We wouldn't have the ability to look 

21 back. So if the data is retained for a shorter 

22 period of time then ours to analyze is also 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

41

1 reduced. 

2 So again, I don't think that we can put 

3 precise numbers or definitions on it, but I do 

4 think that in the long run the more dots we have 

5 to look at these analytical or through these 

6 analytical tools, then the better we will be at 

7 connecting them. 

8 MS. COLLINS COOK: And I just wanted, I 

9 think I have -- yes, good, I still have a little 

10 bit more time. You had indicated there could be 

11 limits on the use of either grand jury subpoenas 

12 or NSLs because you would only get what you 

13 referred to as the first hop. But couldn't you do 

14 sequential NSLs or sequential grand jury subpoenas 

15 to obtain exactly that second or third hop type of 

16 information?

17 MR. KELLEY: I think we perhaps could. 

18 I don't know if we could get the second and third 

19 layer, as you said, without going repeatedly. We 

20 would end up probably going to court very 

21 frequently and very routinely. 

22 As Raj indicated, the systems that we 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

42

1 have, we have to go back to court every 90 days as 

2 it is and get the determination of the court that 

3 what we're doing is warranted, and part of that 

4 includes the relevancy and the value judgement 

5 that allows the system to go forward.

6 MS. COLLINS COOK: Although just to be 

7 clear, you would not have to go to court to use 

8 national security letters.

9 MR. KELLEY: No, I'm sorry, that's 

10 correct. 

11 MS. COLLINS COOK: Which may be a 

12 different reason not to use national security 

13 letters, but just to be clear on that.

14 MR. WIEGMANN: So I think part of the 

15 concern on that is that, one, it's a slower 

16 process to issue NSLs and grand jury subpoenas, 

17 and as Pat said, you have to do it repeatedly. 

18 And then critically you'd have to do it 

19 across providers. So if you have multiple 

20 providers participating then you have to go to 

21 provider A, and then if that number calls someone, 

22 the number is for provider B then you have to 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

43

1 issue an NSL to provider B and C, and then you see 

2 the networking. In other words, you're having to 

3 do multiple. 

4 And if those numbers are calling 

5 numbers back again across the different data 

6 streams from different providers it makes it 

7 infinitely more complicated to start to try to do 

8 NSLs or grand jury subpoenas to multiple different 

9 providers for multiple hops. So I think that's 

10 part of the reason why it's complicated. 

11 In addition to the fact you said about 

12 how long is the data to ensure as a legal matter 

13 that it has to be retained. And again, I think 

14 it's important to say that some of these providers 

15 may retain the data voluntarily for a length of 

16 time but without something like this order you 

17 don't have a guarantee that they're going to keep 

18 the data.

19 MR. MEDINE: Thank you.

20 Mr. Dempsey?

21 MR. DEMPSEY: Thanks, and good morning 

22 again. Listening to the discussion about the RAS 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

44

1 and you know, thinking about Terry vs. Ohio, which 

2 is the reasonable specific articulable facts 

3 giving reason to believe, it seems to me there are 

4 two issues there. 

5 One of course is when you think about 

6 it, that's the very standard the New York City 

7 police has used in its stop and frisk program, 

8 which is at the very least highly controversial 

9 and a lot of people feel has ended up being 

10 implemented in a discriminatory way. The police 

11 in New York City would say, well, every single one 

12 of those stops was based upon a RAS. 

13 Secondly, in the police stop case it 

14 seems to me that the good aspect of it and the bad 

15 aspect of it is, is that the issue is resolved 

16 immediately. Either the police find something and 

17 they arrest you or they let you. Again, in New 

18 York there was the humiliation of being stopped, 

19 which is not nothing clearly, but it's resolved 

20 immediately. 

21 And it seems to me that you've picked 

22 up the first half of Terry, specific and 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

45

1 articulable facts giving reason to believe, but 

2 the second half of Terry was that some criminal 

3 activity is afoot, that there's some suspicion of 

4 criminal conduct which you resolve immediately 

5 through the stop, which is the purpose of the 

6 stop. 

7 But here I'm wondering about the second 

8 half, so specific and articulable facts giving 

9 reason to believe, and then it seems to get vaguer 

10 that the selector being used is associated with a 

11 terrorist group and associated -- is there a way 

12 to make that more concrete? 

13 You cite the example of, well, we've 

14 got a terrorist's computer and there were phone 

15 numbers in it. Well, yeah, let's find out who 

16 those phone numbers are calling and are any of 

17 them in the United States. 

18 But what else could associated with 

19 mean? And then how can you give it more 

20 concreteness so you avoid this problem? 

21 Because it seems to me that you make 

22 the determination and then the information is 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

46

1 tipped, so to speak, or given to the FBI to 

2 pursue. And it's not the kind of thing that can 

3 be so immediately resolved. 

4 So I'm wondering even is the Terry 

5 example the right reference point here, or is 

6 there another way to define what you're looking 

7 for? You know, reason to believe that a search of 

8 the number will be likely to uncover somebody in 

9 the United States who may be engaged in terrorist 

10 activities for example, something more definitive 

11 than this just associated with.

12 MR. LITT: So let me offer some 

13 comments on that. The first is that I think 

14 actually the comparisons to the police Terry stop 

15 all run in favor of this program as a considerably 

16 lesser intrusion. For one thing I think the 

17 actual degree of intrusion based on the 

18 determination is considerably less. 

19 A Terry stop involves a policeman 

20 stopping you and frisking you on the street, which 

21 is by itself a considerably greater intrusion on a 

22 person's privacy than simply running a telephone 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

47

1 number that's not associated with any individual 

2 name against a bunch of other telephone numbers 

3 that aren't associated with any individual name.

4 The second thing is that the 

5 consequences that can flow from that are 

6 considerably different. Obviously one of the 

7 consequences that can flow from a police Terry 

8 stop is an immediate arrest without any subsequent 

9 review, without any intervening review or judicial 

10 determination. 

11 In this case the only consequence that 

12 can flow is that a telephone number is tipped to 

13 the FBI for further investigation, and that 

14 further investigation requires independent legal 

15 justification. And in particular if there's any 

16 desire to intercept anybody's communications, any 

17 American's communications, that requires a 

18 judicial warrant based on probable cause. 

19 The third difference I think is the 

20 degree of oversight. As was mentioned before, to 

21 my knowledge generally speaking there's no 

22 systematic oversight by prosecutors and/or 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

48

1 inspectors general and/or others of day-to-day 

2 determinations that lead to Terry stops by police. 

3 That's one of the reasons why there's the 

4 litigation in New York. As Raj has said at some 

5 length, there is systematic oversight here. 

6 So I think that all of those 

7 determinations make this a considerably lesser 

8 intrusion than the police Terry stop. 

9 In terms of the possibility of an 

10 alternate standard, obviously there are a number 

11 of alternate standards that could be applied. But 

12 the important thing to remember is that this 

13 program is a discovery program. 

14 The whole idea of this program is to 

15 identify avenues that warrant investigation and to 

16 rule out avenues that don't warrant investigation. 

17 And the more you require, the more you add on to 

18 the standard that's required before you can even 

19 investigate, the less useful the tool becomes. 

20 So for example, if you talk about 

21 reason to believe that the number may lead to a 

22 contact in the United States, well that's exactly 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

49

1 what we're trying to find out here. We've got a 

2 number. If we've got a terrorist's phone number, 

3 exactly what we're trying to find out is do we 

4 have information to think that this may lead to 

5 productive investigation in the United States.

6 MR. DEMPSEY: And just one quick thing 

7 Raj, if I could. On the question of follow-up, 

8 Pat or others, there's very close review of the 

9 RAS determinations itself. What sort of review is 

10 there of how does the FBI use the information that 

11 is generated? 

12 MR. KELLEY: Well, we use the 

13 information, as Bob indicated, to further our 

14 investigative efforts, so we can open a 

15 preliminary investigation perhaps or we can open a 

16 full investigation.

17 MR. DEMPSEY: But my question is, does 

18 the, sort of review process go and look at what 

19 was the outcome, how was it used, how did we 

20 confront or not confront an individual? Sort of 

21 tracing all the way down to the street or to the 

22 FBI's follow-up investigation, what sort of 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

50

1 assessment or tracking is there of that?

2 MR. KELLEY: Well, I think what you're 

3 referring to is our oversight and compliance 

4 efforts. We have both internal and external up to 

5 and through Congress, as well as the Department of 

6 Justice, the Department of Justice Inspector 

7 General, the Department of Justice Office of 

8 Intelligence routinely do reviews and audits 

9 internally. 

10 From the street level, for example, the 

11 investigative cases that we have are reviewed by 

12 supervisors every 90 days to see what the status 

13 is. 

14 In addition to that, the FBI has an 

15 Office of Integrity Compliance where we are 

16 continuously looking at the risk that we will, in 

17 executing our mission, not to follow the letter of 

18 the law. 

19 So through all of those internal and 

20 external systems of oversight we are continuously 

21 reviewing the way we conduct our business.

22 MR. DEMPSEY: Raj, you had a point?
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

51

1 MR. DE: I want to add one point. Just 

2 to put a fine point on the comparison to the New 

3 York controversy because I think at NSA we're 

4 really worried about conflation of the public 

5 record, so I just want to give folks a sense of 

6 what using the Terry stop standard means here, the 

7 comparison to a stop and frisk. 

8 That would mean a police officer writes 

9 down the reason for a stop and frisk, as we do for 

10 telephone metadata, before they did that activity. 

11 It would mean that only one of 22 

12 supervisors would approve that stop and frisk 

13 before it happened.

14 It would mean that, in our case, the 

15 data is all anonymous, as opposed to a stop and 

16 frisk where have a physical human being, Bob was 

17 alluding to that point, in front of you.

18 The stop and frisk standard, we have 

19 post-query audits every 90 days, so that would 

20 mean a police department audits every 90 days what 

21 happened.

22 And we also report to a court every 30 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

52

1 days and get it re-authorized every 90 days. 

2 So while, yes, in some legal sense the 

3 standard, the legal standard derives from the 

4 Terry stop standard, I think just those factors 

5 alone distinguish the use of that standard in this 

6 context and clearly evidence that it's a far, far 

7 more regulated and rigorous process than is 

8 feasible in the physical search context.

9 MR. DEMPSEY: Thank you. 

10 Judge Wald?

11 MS. WALD: Thank you. I'm going to 

12 open with a kind of a general question. Since the 

13 revelation of the 215 program, which was a secret 

14 program before, there have been, as you well know, 

15 a plethora of suggested reforms, quote, reforms, 

16 or suggested changes, etcetera. 

17 I'm interested in whether or not you 

18 think any of these suggested reforms that you're 

19 aware of deserve, not just serious consideration, 

20 but perhaps adoption.

21 Let me just give you sort of an 

22 example. It was a secret program, it's now no 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

53

1 longer the fact of the program and many of its 

2 operational details that the government has 

3 revealed, are no longer secret. 

4 Now I assume from the fact that you're 

5 here today and from many of your answers that you 

6 think that the program deserves to be continued. 

7 So there are two parts to my question.

8 You know, one is whether or not any of 

9 the reforms suggested by various people that you 

10 think are worthy of consideration, or two, do you 

11 think the fact that you want the program to 

12 continue could cast some doubt on the need for 

13 secrecy of the fact of the program to begin with, 

14 which of course is one of the big questions being 

15 debated, whether or not when you have a bulk 

16 collection program of any kind that affects a lot 

17 of citizens, a lot of residents, the fact of that 

18 program, if not all the details of its operation, 

19 deserve to be debated publicly in Congress and 

20 known to the public?

21 It's kind of a double-barreled 

22 question. I'll let anybody that wants to.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

54

1 MR. LITT: I'd like to take a crack at 

2 that, but first I have a personal favor to ask and 

3 that is if Jim Dempsey could turn his tent a 

4 little because the floodlight is shining. Thank 

5 you very much. I'm getting blinded by it.

6 So to answer your second question first 

7 about secrecy, I don't think you can draw from the 

8 fact that we want the program to continue the 

9 conclusion that the program should never have been 

10 secret. 

11 There are many intelligence programs 

12 that operate more effectively when they're not 

13 known because disclosure of what we obtain and how 

14 we obtain it can enable our adversaries to avoid 

15 or take steps to avoid what we're doing. 

16 That said, that doesn't mean that once 

17 they've been disclosed they're entirely 

18 ineffective. There's no question in my mind that 

19 this program is at least potentially less useful 

20 now than it would have been before disclosure. 

21 Whether it's actually less useful or not is going 

22 to take time to determine. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

55

1 But going forward obviously we have 

2 declassified and released the last two orders of 

3 the FISA Court and we are obviously under the 

4 President's direction in a more forward leaning 

5 mode with respect to transparency. 

6 But we still, as sort of custodians of 

7 the intelligence apparatus that protects the 

8 nation, we still have to be sensitive all the time 

9 to the fact that disclosures do risk compromising 

10 our capabilities.

11 With respect to your first question, I 

12 think that we have repeatedly said that we're open 

13 to consideration of a variety of possible reforms 

14 to the program, so long as they don't eliminate 

15 its utility.

16 We've talked about shorter retention 

17 periods. We've talked about possible limitations 

18 of the number of hops that we can make queries 

19 out. We've talked about some sort of process for 

20 after the fact review of RAS determinations by the 

21 FISC. We've talked about providing greater 

22 transparency as to the manner and the extent to 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

56

1 which the program is used. 

2 All of these are subject, again, to the 

3 qualification that we don't want to impose such 

4 restrictions, that they would eliminate the 

5 utility of the program. And we don't want to 

6 impose on ourselves burdens that we can't meet. 

7 Some of the transparency proposals are things that 

8 we simply can't do with any reasonable 

9 effectiveness, so.

10 MS. WALD: But to follow-up a little 

11 bit on that, there have been some articles 

12 recently in the paper, and I think they contain 

13 some polls, I know there are lots of polls, but 

14 suggesting that there's widespread public distrust 

15 of NSA as a result of many of the revelations over 

16 the last several weeks. 

17 Do you think that there's some need for 

18 some, whatever you want to call it, remedial 

19 effects, making changes, some more types of public 

20 disclosure? 

21 For instance one, you've suggested that 

22 there may be, but one area that's covered in some 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

57

1 of the bill in Congress is that need for a more, I 

2 think the word used is secure foundation for the 

3 215 program and specific, legislative. I know 

4 it's been re-authorized, but in a specific 

5 legislative acknowledgment of that program. 

6 There's certainly been a fair amount of 

7 confusion and some criticism of the fact that if 

8 you read 215, the public records bill, on its 

9 face, you don't get much notion that this might be 

10 involved, etcetera. And so as you know, some of 

11 the efforts are said to put it on a sound specific 

12 legislative basis that everybody knows what you're 

13 going to do or that there is such a program, 

14 etcetera. What are your feelings about that?

15 MR. DE: Can I speak to the first 

16 point, Judge, which I think -- 

17 MS. WALD: Yeah, sure.

18 MR. DE: Is a very valid point. So you 

19 know, as the General Counsel for NSA my first duty 

20 to is to make sure that our activities are lawful. 

21 But I view my role and all of the 

22 senior officials at NSA to ensure the extent 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

58

1 possible given the nature of our work, the public 

2 legitimacy of what our agency does. There is no 

3 doubt that is an important factor. 

4 That being said, I think this 

5 particular program had historically all the 

6 indicia of institutional legitimacy that one could 

7 expect given the current setup of the FISC and 

8 institutional oversight that we have. 

9 So in other words, and some of this is 

10 obviously known to you all but just to make sure 

11 members of the public are aware, not only was this 

12 program approved by the Foreign Intelligence 

13 Surveillance Court every 90 days, it was twice, 

14 the particular provision was twice re-authorized 

15 by Congress with full information from the 

16 Executive Branch about the use of the provision.

17 Now as to whether that should be 

18 codified separately or not as a confidence 

19 building measure, for all intents and purposes I 

20 think the public debate we're having now 

21 effectuates the public legitimacy aspect of the 

22 program, and we'll see how it plays out and how 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

59

1 the reform measures are taken. 

2 But I don't think a separate 

3 codification is necessary for the legal legitimacy 

4 of the program but I think your point is well 

5 taken that public confidence needs to be ensured. 

6 I would only suggest that to the extent public 

7 confidence is shaken, in part that is as a result 

8 of historical secrecy and in part it's a result of 

9 a large amount of misinformation and confused 

10 public debate. And it's hard to separate the two. 

11 Those are two, they're intermingled of course. 

12 And so I think it's the former that is certainly 

13 necessary for a democratic institution to 

14 continue.

15 MS. WALD: So if there were another -- 

16 I'm sorry, go ahead.

17 MR. LITT: I just want to add one very 

18 brief comment to Raj's in terms of the extent to 

19 which Congress was kept informed. By statute 

20 we're required to provide copies of significant 

21 opinion and decisions of the FISC to the 

22 Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of both 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

60

1 Houses of Congress and they got the materials 

2 relating to this program, as we were required to 

3 by law.

4 MS. WALD: So last question on my last 

5 minute. If there were, if there were another bulk 

6 data, metadata program type to come along, based 

7 on your experience with this, all that's happened 

8 with 215, do you think it would be desirable, 

9 undesirable for it to become a matter of public 

10 knowledge and open discussion in Congress? Not 

11 the details of the program but that there was to 

12 be a bulk program which would affect a large 

13 amount of the citizenry?

14 MR. LITT: So I think that really very 

15 much depends upon the nature of the program and 

16 what it is. 

17 I think if the nature of it can be 

18 disclosed without compromising intelligence 

19 sources and methods, then that's something that 

20 would be considered. 

21 But if the public discussion is going 

22 to lead to a considerably disclosure of sources 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

61

1 and methods, I don't see how we can do that. This 

2 is why the Intelligence Committees of Congress are 

3 set up. This is why we're required to notify the 

4 Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of things 

5 that we do pursuant to FISA because they 

6 essentially stand as the proxies for the people in 

7 overseeing sensitive intelligence collection 

8 programs.

9 MR. MEDINE: I guess we'll turn to the 

10 subject of oversight of the program. As I 

11 understand it there is judicial approval of the 

12 program itself but there is not judicial approval 

13 of the selection of particular phone numbers, the 

14 RAS determination, reasonable articulable 

15 suspicion, either before, nor is the court 

16 afterwards apprized of what selectors have been 

17 chosen so that they can evaluate whether the 

18 program is operating consistent with the 

19 authorization for the program itself. 

20 Would it be practical, assuming that 

21 there was an exception for exigent circumstances, 

22 where there was an urgent need to pursue a 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

62

1 particular phone number with perhaps after the 

2 fact reporting, would it be practical with that 

3 exception for the court to approve the RAS 

4 determination in advance or to review RAS 

5 determinations after the fact, perhaps as part of 

6 the 90 day review process and approval process, to 

7 make sure the program is operating as the court 

8 expected it to be operating.

9 MR. DE: So we are, we're certainly 

10 open to an increased role for the FISC, I think. 

11 And the same, in particular I know ODNI and other 

12 agencies feel the same. 

13 I'd make a couple of points. One, I 

14 think among the criteria that are necessary to 

15 maintain the usefulness of the program, we've 

16 heard a variety of things this morning. We tend 

17 to summarize them in sort of four kind of major 

18 buckets. 

19 One is maintaining privacy protections. 

20 We hit on that earlier. One is maintaining the 

21 comprehensiveness of the data. The third is 

22 maintaining the depth of the data, the number of 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

63

1 years you keep it. And the fourth is operational 

2 agility, getting to the question you've just 

3 raised.

4 I think we have concern that it will be 

5 difficult and not practical to preserve the 

6 operational agility of the program, to have 

7 ex-ante approval by a court for every RAS 

8 determination.

9 But I think you've raised a very 

10 valuable point that we currently have reporting 

11 requirements to the FISC, and in fact we report to 

12 the FISC every 30 days in fact, even though the 

13 program is authorized every 90 days. And so that 

14 30 day vehicle could well be a useful vehicle to 

15 provide RAS determinations to the FISC, for it to 

16 review the documented determinations that are made 

17 today. 

18 I'd just note that those 

19 determinations, and Brad mentioned this earlier, 

20 are currently reviewed by the Justice Department. 

21 But to the extent it builds public confidence I 

22 think it would be of no concern for NSA in 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

64

1 particular to have the FISC review those after the 

2 fact.

3 MR. LITT: One concern that we have 

4 actually talked about in our own internal 

5 discussions with the idea you articulated of 

6 ex-ante review with an emergency exception is that 

7 given that the nature of this program is such that 

8 we're frequently operating in exigent circumstance 

9 we'd be a little uncomfortable with a scheme 

10 that's set up where the statutory exception 

11 essentially swallows the statutory rule.

12 MR. MEDINE: And what about after the 

13 fact? The court has, I think indicated publicly 

14 that it's difficult for the court to assess 

15 compliance with its own orders. What if there's a 

16 mechanism for every 30 days to report back on the 

17 RAS determinations that were made so it wouldn't 

18 interfere with operational concerns but it would 

19 give the court the chance to, say, correct 

20 direction if you're exceeding the court's 

21 expectations or give validation if you are 

22 squarely within what the court expected you to be 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

65

1 doing?

2 MR. LITT: I think that that's 

3 something we're very open to, to considering. 

4 Obviously all of these things, it depends upon 

5 what exactly the proposal is, but I think that in 

6 concept that's something that we would be 

7 comfortable with.

8 MR. WIEGMANN: We also have to keep in 

9 mind the burdens on the court as well and what 

10 their resources are to do that. But for the 

11 reasons that Raj and Bob explained, I agree that 

12 post, ex-post review of RAS is an idea worth 

13 considering.

14 MR. MEDINE: I want to shift to the 702 

15 program briefly, which is the electronic 

16 communication service provider program. As we 

17 know, over the last couple of weeks there's been a 

18 lot of concern by non-U.S. persons, foreign 

19 citizens about being subject to surveillance. 

20 What are your thoughts about whether, 

21 that this program essentially is designed to focus 

22 on the rights of U.S. persons being surveilled and 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

66

1 court approval for U.S. citizen? What do you 

2 think about extending some degree of protection to 

3 non-U.S. persons who are being, whose 

4 communications are being reviewed pursuant to the 

5 702 program?

6 MR. DE: So I think maybe I can start 

7 and then you can speak. Just as a general matter, 

8 one, there is in fact for all of our collection a 

9 policy process in place, an interagency process to 

10 determine that for which we conduct foreign 

11 intelligence generally. 

12 And so I would like to make sure folks 

13 don't have the misimpression that intelligence 

14 gathering is not directed in the first instance. 

15 Secondly, all collection has to be 

16 related to an authorized FI purpose. That 

17 includes our 12333 collection. 

18 And our 702 collection in particular 

19 has to be conducted pursuant to certain 

20 certifications that are submitted to the court for 

21 particular foreign intelligence purposes. 

22 The third point I'd make is that even 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

67

1 though we have a number of protections in place 

2 for U.S. person, information beneficiaries of that 

3 also are foreign nationals who may be subjects of 

4 investigation. So in other words, our retention 

5 limits and other protections that are currently in 

6 place in fact serve as protections for any subject 

7 of intelligence collection.

8 And then fourth, I know the DNI is 

9 currently considering whether we want to document 

10 any further protections for non-U.S. persons 

11 beyond those that are articulated today.

12 MR. LITT: So if I can just follow on, 

13 there is I think a good reason why not only the 

14 United States but most nations provide a greater 

15 degree of protection for their own citizens and 

16 nationals and others with respect to intelligence 

17 activities.

18 Historically the great fear of 

19 intelligence agencies has been that like the 

20 example everybody always gives of the Stasi, that 

21 their powers will be directed inappropriately 

22 towards repression of their own citizenry. And I 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

68

1 think that's why historically in this country we 

2 have a greater degree of protection for U.S. 

3 persons, but as Raj says that doesn't mean that 

4 there are no protections for other persons.

5 In that regard I think it's worth 

6 noting the letter that the NSA Inspector General 

7 sent to, I believe it was Senator Grassley a month 

8 or six weeks ago, which has now been released 

9 publicly, which identified a dozen or so instances 

10 in which they had determined that NSA personnel 

11 had inappropriately used collection authorities. 

12 And I believe that the majority of 

13 these involved -- first of all, they were all 

14 under Executive Order 12333. None of them were 

15 under FISA. There's never been a finding of a 

16 willful violation of FISA. 

17 But even in this case the majority of 

18 these were improper queries of information about 

19 non-U.S. persons. And so it's not only the fact 

20 that we have rules that protect non-U.S. persons 

21 but those rules are actually enforced. These 

22 people were disciplined or resigned from NSA as a 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

69

1 result of this. 

2 And I would just reiterate what Raj 

3 said, which is that we are open to considering 

4 whether there's some value in formalizing and 

5 making more public the rules that we do have for 

6 protecting the personal information about non-U.S. 

7 persons.

8 MR. MEDINE: And so turning to the 

9 protections for U.S. persons, as I understand it 

10 under the 702 program when you may target a 

11 non-U.S. person overseas you may capture 

12 communications where a U.S. person in the United 

13 States is on the other end of the communication. 

14 Would you be open to a warrant 

15 requirement for searching that data when your 

16 focus is on the U.S. person on the theory that 

17 they would be entitled to Fourth Amendment rights 

18 for the search of information about that U.S. 

19 person?

20 MR. DE: Do you want me to take this?

21 MR. LITT: Thanks, Raj. Raj is always 

22 easy, he raises his hands for all the easy ones.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

70

1 MR. DE: I can speak for NSA but this 

2 obviously has implications beyond just NSA as 

3 well.

4 MR. LITT: I think that's really an 

5 unusual and extraordinary step to take with 

6 respect to information that has been lawfully 

7 required. 

8 I mean I started out as a prosecutor. 

9 There were all sorts of circumstances in which 

10 information is lawfully acquired that relates to 

11 persons who are not the subject of investigations. 

12 You can be overheard on a Title III wiretap, you 

13 can overheard on a Title I FISA wiretap. 

14 Somebody's computer can be seized and there may be 

15 information about you on it. 

16 The general rule and premise has been 

17 that information that's lawfully acquired can be 

18 used by the government in the proper exercise of 

19 authorities. 

20 Now we do have rules that limit our 

21 ability to collect, retain and disseminate 

22 information about U.S. persons. Those rules, as 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

71

1 you know, are fairly detailed. But generally 

2 speaking, we can't do that except for foreign 

3 intelligence purposes, or when there's evidence of 

4 a crime, or so on and so forth. 

5 But what we can't do under Section 702 

6 is go out and affirmatively use the collection 

7 authority for the purpose of getting information 

8 about U.S. persons. 

9 Once we have that information I don't 

10 think it makes sense to say, you know, a year 

11 later if something comes up we need to go back and 

12 get a warrant to search that information.

13 MR. MEDINE: One last question on this 

14 round, which is that under 702, as I understand 

15 it, you can collect information about a target 

16 rather than to or from the target, and some 

17 concerns have been raised about the breadth of 

18 that, the scope of that authority.

19 What impact would there be if that was 

20 narrowed to limiting targeting of communications 

21 to or from the person that's about this person of 

22 interest?
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

72

1 MR. DE: Let me make a couple of 

2 general points. One, I think a balanced 

3 collection, just speaking at the most general 

4 level, is helpful from a discovery standpoint. 

5 And it's hard to articulate more in an open 

6 setting exactly how that collection is useful. 

7 But it has uses beyond that of to or from 

8 collection.

9 I'd say a couple of points in terms of 

10 the privacy protections around a balanced 

11 collection. The data that comes in, in that way, 

12 and it's hard to get more specific, is treated 

13 differently than other data, and in fact has a 

14 shorter retention period. So there are procedures 

15 in place that are intended to account for the 

16 greater privacy impact of a balanced collection. 

17 And those procedures have been approved by the 

18 FISC.

19 MR. MEDINE: Thank you.

20 Ms. Brand?

21 MS. BRAND: Thank you. I want to 

22 follow-up on a couple of things that have been 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

73

1 raised before, I'm going back to 215 now. 

2 Bob, you said there were certain, in 

3 response to Pat's question about what proposals 

4 the administration could accept, you said there 

5 are certain transparency proposals that we just 

6 couldn't do. What ones are those? 

7 MR. LITT: Well, in the absence of 

8 interagency clearance and OMB approval I'm 

9 reluctant to state official administration 

10 positions on any particular proposals.

11 MS. BRAND: What ones do you think we 

12 can do? 

13 MR. LITT: I do think that proposals, 

14 for example, that require us to count things that 

15 we aren't now counting and that might be difficult 

16 to count present problems for us. 

17 For example, I don't know if there is 

18 such a proposal, but if there were a proposal, for 

19 example, that says tell us the number of U.S. 

20 person telephone numbers that have been acquired 

21 every 90 days pursuant to this, that might be a 

22 very difficult thing for us to accomplish because 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

74

1 we don't go out and count that.

2 So things that impose substantial 

3 burdens on us like that might be the sort of thing 

4 that would present problems for us. And again, 

5 I'm not speaking with respect to any specific 

6 proposal but that's the kind of consideration that 

7 we would take into account.

8 MS. BRAND: Okay. I'm going to come 

9 back and --

10 MR. KELLEY: I have a point on that. 

11 Again, not talking or addressing any specific 

12 proposal, but if we were required to for a 

13 particular service provider, carrier, 

14 telecommunication provider to disclose the number 

15 of orders that were served on them, that would 

16 give our adversaries a very good indicator, 

17 perhaps depending on the relative numbers, whether 

18 to use that service provider or not use that 

19 service provider.

20 The adversaries are listening just as 

21 we all are to this discussion so that kind of 

22 specificity is very, very difficult for us to 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

75

1 accept.

2 MR. DE: If I may add to that. One 

3 thing which presumably the panel is aware of, the 

4 DNI has announced a proactive transparency measure 

5 which is an annual report of the number of orders 

6 issued under various provisions of FISA and the 

7 numbers of targets affected. 

8 And so I think what you're seeing is 

9 the Executive Branch trying to the extent possible 

10 to take the proactive steps towards transparency 

11 that can be taken consistent with operational 

12 effectiveness. And so that report would delineate 

13 the number of orders and targets affected for FISA 

14 orders that are based, premised on probable cause, 

15 FISA orders under Section 215, orders under 

16 Section 702 of FISA and so forth.

17 MS. BRAND: Okay. And I want to come 

18 back to FISA or transparency, especially in the 

19 FISC context if I have time, but I did want to 

20 follow-up on the discussion about a return 

21 requirement on RAS selectors to the FISC. 

22 That sounds like a good idea in the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

76

1 abstract but I'm a little unclear about what 

2 exactly it would add in practical reality.

3 What exactly would the court do with 

4 it? I mean I presume the way it would work, I 

5 guess, is on a regular basis, 30 days for example, 

6 you would provide a list of RAS selectors to the 

7 court, along with some documentation. I'd be 

8 interested to hear what that documentation would 

9 be. What would the court do with that 

10 information?

11 MR. DE: I'll defer to Brad on the 

12 second part of that, but in terms of the 

13 documentation itself, today we keep the 

14 documentation of the factual basis that 

15 established the predicate for the query in the 

16 first place. 

17 And so at least from NSA's perspective 

18 we keep that sort of documentation and it wouldn't 

19 be a great burden to provide it to another 

20 oversight mechanism. 

21 But as to how the FISC would handle 

22 that, I'll defer to Brad who, the Justice 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

77

1 Department represents us all obviously before the 

2 FISC.

3 MR. WIEGMANN: One option would be all 

4 those RAS determinations and if it found 

5 compliance problems on its own, then it could call 

6 in the government and say I'm not comfortable with 

7 how the program is being implemented. And so --

8 MS. BRAND: Can I just, I think there's 

9 something wrong with Brad's microphone. I'm not 

10 sure what we can do about that.

11 MR. WIEGMANN: I got a new one. Is 

12 this better? 

13 MS. BRAND: Yes, thank you.

14 MR. WIEGMANN: So in other words, it 

15 could function much like current. Right now if 

16 the Justice Department identifies problems with 

17 RAS determinations we report those to the court 

18 and information could be purged. The court could 

19 respond if we have a compliance incident and order 

20 relief. They could suspend the operation of the 

21 order, suspend the program. They could take 

22 whatever remedial steps that they thought were 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

78

1 appropriate in order to enforce the requirements 

2 of the order.

3 So this could be the same mechanism, 

4 except that it would, the Justice Department 

5 wouldn't necessarily be the intermediary in 

6 between -- 

7 MS. BRAND: I guess I'm wondering --

8 MR. WIEGMANN: Rather than us reporting 

9 the compliance then the court could on its own 

10 independently review the RAS determinations.

11 MS. BRAND: Well, that's what I'm 

12 getting at. I'm not asking exactly about what the 

13 court would do if it found a compliance problem, 

14 but how the court would figure out if there is a 

15 compliance problem, if you would expect them to be 

16 literally looking at every RAS selector and 

17 assessing whether the evidence justified the 

18 determination or what? 

19 MR. LITT: So I think it's important to 

20 remember that in the last year there were 288 RAS 

21 selectors, so we're not talking about thousands 

22 and thousands. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

79

1 But somebody, I think it was the 

2 chairman, may have mentioned the idea of having 

3 some sort of outside assessment of are we in fact 

4 applying the RAS standard appropriately. 

5 And it seems to me that a judge could 

6 look at, in the same way that judges review the 

7 validity of Terry stops by police, was this 

8 information sufficient to form a reasonable and 

9 articulable suspicion to support a stop and frisk, 

10 a judge could look at the documentation that NSA 

11 has and say, are you setting the line in the right 

12 place? Are your people, do your people in fact 

13 understand what the RAS standard is and are they 

14 applying it appropriately? 

15 And if a judge felt that they were 

16 either being, setting too high a standard or too 

17 low a standard the judge could provide that 

18 feedback, along with whatever remedial measures 

19 Congress deemed were appropriate.

20 MS. BRAND: And is that, just stop me 

21 and tell me if we need to talk about this in a 

22 different setting. But in the analogous return 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

80

1 requirement in Section 105 of FISA for multi-point 

2 wiretaps, is that what the court does with 

3 information returned to it under that provision? 

4 MR. WIEGMANN: I'd have to get back to 

5 you on that.

6 MS. BRAND: Okay. If you would get 

7 back to me on that, that would be great. That's 

8 something I've been wondering about.

9 I wanted to ask you about a provision 

10 in the Leahy bill which would change the standard 

11 under 215. As I understand it, that first it 

12 would add the words material, so relevant and 

13 material to a FISA investigation. And then it 

14 would limit 215 to being used to seek information 

15 that pertains to a foreign power or agent of a 

16 foreign power, activities of a suspected agent of 

17 a foreign power who's under investigation, or 

18 someone in contact with or known to a suspected 

19 agent of a foreign power. 

20 So you may not have an official 

21 administration position on this provision yet but 

22 I'd like to ask you about it anyway, and answer it 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

81

1 to the extent that you can. First of all, what do 

2 the words and material add? What would the court 

3 do with that?

4 MR. LITT: I had the same question as I 

5 read this bill over the weekend. I'm not sure 

6 what the intent is. I think you'd have to ask the 

7 chairman. 

8 I think the obvious intent is to try 

9 to, I think it's no secret that the sponsors of 

10 this bill want to eliminate the bulk collection 

11 program and I think that the intent of the 

12 language that they're proposing is to prevent bulk 

13 collection. How it accomplishes that, I'm not 

14 entirely sure.

15 MS. BRAND: Do you have a sense of what 

16 evidence you present to the court to establish 

17 materiality that's additional to or different from 

18 what establishes relevance, any of you? 

19 MR. WIEGMANN: I don't. I mean I'm not 

20 sure how it would be different.

21 MS. BRAND: And then can you address 

22 the other limitation, sort of three categories of 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

82

1 information that would be allowed and how that 

2 would practically impact investigations since this 

3 would be no longer like the current 215, which is 

4 sort of a general subpoena authority under FISA?

5 MR. LITT: So I think that the purpose 

6 of this pertain to language is -- I believe that 

7 the intent is to try to ensure that queries, that 

8 business records can only be obtained with respect 

9 to identifying individuals. I think that's what 

10 their intention is here. And for the reasons 

11 we've previously discussed, that would essentially 

12 shut down the program.

13 MS. BRAND: How would it affect though 

14 individual, sort of run of the mill, 215 orders, 

15 or would it? I mean is your opinion that it 

16 affects only bulk collection or would it affect 

17 your everyday 215 application?

18 MR. KELLEY: Well, I think that from 

19 our perspective the proposal is flawed in the 

20 sense that it has the assumption or presumption 

21 that we know the person that we're after, and 

22 that's the essence of the terrorism prevention is 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

83

1 we don't know who we're after. So if we are 

2 limited to seeking numbers from a known, then 

3 we're not going to be very effective. 

4 Again, it bears repeating that we're 

5 connecting the dots here, so the fewer dots that 

6 we have the fewer connections we will make. So 

7 again, I don't think that model works. 

8 I think given the type of data that 

9 we're talking about that is susceptible to 

10 analytical connectivity, unlike other types of 

11 business records, then we need large volumes of 

12 that data in order to make those connections. 

13 So whether we are changing the standard 

14 from relevant to relevant and material, or saying 

15 that there must be a connection to someone who's 

16 known, you are reducing the amount of data 

17 available and therefore making it much more 

18 difficult to make the connections that we need to 

19 make.

20 MR. WIEGMANN: Just to add to that, I 

21 think it is important to recognize that those 

22 changes would apply not only to the bulk 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

84

1 collection but to regular 215 orders. 

2 I mean people are forgetting, because 

3 this is the authority used in the bulk context, 

4 that the predominant use of the authority is to 

5 obtain individual records in a more targeted way 

6 and this would essentially change the standard to 

7 closer to the pre-PATRIOT Act standard. 

8 So rather than a broader relevance 

9 standard, which gives you more of the flexibility 

10 that Pat was talking about, in your ordinary case 

11 where, let's say you want to get hotel records, or 

12 car rental records, or whatever that might be 

13 relevant to your investigation, you'd have to meet 

14 that higher showing in order to get those regular 

15 records that are more targeted in an 

16 investigation.

17 So it would have a kind of collateral 

18 impact on ordinary 215 orders that have nothing to 

19 do with the activities that are the current 

20 subject of controversy.

21 MS. COLLINS COOK: Thank you. Raj, 

22 going back to what you were talking about that the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

85

1 administration is going to be disclosing in terms 

2 of the types of requests by, I think you said 

3 target, which I understand in the electronic 

4 surveillance context where the statute explicitly 

5 talks about targets of surveillance. What does 

6 that mean for Section 215? 

7 MR. DE: So right now the DNI is 

8 leading a process to figure out how we can best 

9 articulate that language in a way that's 

10 meaningful to the public, because obviously in the 

11 context of 215, we would have one order but it 

12 involves quite a significant amount of records. 

13 We would want to make sure we provide some 

14 information that's useful, and in fact transparent 

15 in some way. 

16 And the same sort of analysis is 

17 happening now with respect to Section 702 as well. 

18 What's the best means to provide insight into 

19 orders and targets affected but at the same time 

20 preserve the sort of national security needs we 

21 need too. So that process is underway and the DNI 

22 is leading that.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

86

1 MS. COLLINS COOK: I also wanted to 

2 follow-up, there's been a lot of discussion about 

3 the ability of private sector, I will call them 

4 partners and their ability to disclose on a 

5 company by company basis their cooperation with 

6 the government. 

7 Do you think that there are proposals 

8 out there that would allow company by company 

9 disclosures that would be advisable or feasible?

10 MR. LITT: So first of all, this is a 

11 matter that's currently in litigation. As you 

12 know, there are papers that have been filed 

13 articulating positions of the companies and of the 

14 government on this.

15 MS. COLLINS COOK: Sure. Putting aside 

16 whether or not it's permissible under the current 

17 regime, whether there could be a statutory regime 

18 that would be advisable or feasible.

19 MR. LITT: So again, I think the point 

20 is that we, the proposals that we've articulated 

21 would allow on the one hand a government -- for 

22 the public to know on the one hand on a 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

87

1 government-wide basis how often various 

2 authorities are used. 

3 And number two, on a company by company 

4 basis how often they are turning over information 

5 about their subscribers to the government. 

6 Where we start to have a problem is, as 

7 Pat said, when you allow the companies to 

8 breakdown on an authority by authority basis what 

9 they're providing, because that starts to give a 

10 lot more granularity about what our capabilities 

11 are against particular platforms, given the kinds 

12 of authorities that we are exercising. 

13 If all of a sudden a company that has 

14 not had a large number of Title I FISAs all of a 

15 sudden has a spike in Title I FISAs, that's 

16 something that's going to be noticed by our 

17 adversaries and may lead them to shift away from 

18 that provider.

19 I think the flip side of that is from 

20 the viewpoint of public transparency what's 

21 important to the subscribers is to know how often 

22 is the government going to get my information. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

88

1 And in particular I think frankly from our 

2 perspective how rarely it happens compared to the 

3 overall number of subscribers, that the number of 

4 subscribers of these services, the percentage 

5 whose information is provided to the government is 

6 a minuscule fraction, even when you take into 

7 account all of the government authorities 

8 together.

9 So the overriding concern we have is 

10 not having this information broken down at a level 

11 of detail that would enable people to avoid 

12 surveillance.

13 MS. COLLINS COOK: So following up on a 

14 couple of questions that came up in the first 

15 round. There are now a fair number of proposals 

16 and discussions about alternative means for 

17 accomplishing the Section 215 program or something 

18 approaching that program. 

19 My question to you is, how often do you 

20 assess alternate means during the course of a 

21 program?

22 So absent the public disclosures, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

89

1 absent the need to opine on legislative proposals, 

2 how often are you internally considering ways to 

3 do programs through means which might raise fewer 

4 privacy concerns? 

5 MR. DE: So let me speak first to that. 

6 I think there's a very valid and reasonable 

7 question of the intelligence community generally 

8 and to NSA in particular as to how often programs 

9 are reevaluated and on what sort of rigorous 

10 schedule does that happen. 

11 As I mentioned earlier there's some 

12 natural points at which that happens, whether it 

13 is in the context of renewals of authorities, 

14 whether it's in the context of congressional 

15 re-authorizations, whether it's in the context of 

16 budget decisions that need to be made. 

17 And frankly, in a place like NSA, it 

18 happens every day in the context of normal work 

19 assessments. As to whether there should be a more 

20 focused process for periodic reevaluations of 

21 assessment of reporting requirements, I think 

22 that's something we should be thinking about.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

90

1 MS. COLLINS COOK: So following up on 

2 something that Pat had asked earlier and one of 

3 the themes and one of the themes that she was 

4 hitting, do you think that this discussion today 

5 and the amount of information that is currently 

6 publicly available about the Section 215 program 

7 is predictive of our ability to have a similar 

8 conversation about other programs, whether they 

9 are current or future? 

10 And that's probably to Brad or to Bob.

11 MR. LITT: I guess I'm not sure I 

12 understand the question.

13 MS. COLLINS COOK: I think we've heard 

14 a few times that the fact that we're having this 

15 hearing or the fact that the government's legal 

16 rationale has now been made public, that certain 

17 FISC orders and accompanying materials have been 

18 made public demonstrates that we could have this 

19 type of discussion about any range of programs, 

20 whether current or future. Do you think that that 

21 position is logical or correct?

22 MR. LITT: So I can start by recounting 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

91

1 the story that may or may not be apocryphal about 

2 Zhou Enlai, who reportedly was asked what he 

3 thought about the French Revolution and his answer 

4 was, it's too soon to tell. 

5 And I think that's very true here. 

6 It's too soon to tell really what the effect of 

7 these disclosures is going to be. In the 

8 intelligence community we are always looking at 

9 risks. What's the risk that if this comes out 

10 into the public there is going to be damage? 

11 And it's unquestionably and irrefutably 

12 true that if information about how we collect 

13 intelligence becomes public, it provides an 

14 opportunity for our adversaries to avoid that. 

15 Will they take advantage of that? We'll only know 

16 over an extended period of time whether that's the 

17 case or not. I mean we may never know for 

18 certain. We may only see certain kinds of 

19 information dry up without having somebody post a 

20 sign that says, we are no longer doing this 

21 because we know the United States can collect 

22 this.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

92

1 MR. KELLEY: I'll just follow up. In 

2 the FBI, if you've been to FBI headquarters, as I 

3 know you have, if you looked in the courtyard 

4 there's a saying on the wall there that says the 

5 most effective weapon against crime, including 

6 terrorism is cooperation, cooperation of the 

7 public. 

8 We rely on the public. We want the 

9 public. We need the public. It's our FBI but 

10 it's their FBI as well. It's important for us 

11 therefore to be sure that we understand where the 

12 lines are and we want to go right up to the line 

13 but we don't want to cross the line. 

14 So the debate is helpful but at the 

15 same time, as Bob has indicated, we have a process 

16 in place for that debate. All three branches of 

17 government have looked at the 215 program and have 

18 said it was okay.

19 It took an unauthorized disclosure to 

20 bring about this discussion, and we don't fear the 

21 discussion. We think that the American public is 

22 somebody we'd like to have a discussion about. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

93

1 But it's the adversaries that we're concerned 

2 about, because for every disclosure that the 

3 public has, the American public has, our 

4 adversaries have it as well. 

5 So if we can stick within the 

6 established channels to have that discussion to 

7 protect the things that need to be secret, then I 

8 think institutionally and individually we're 

9 better off.

10 MR. DE: If I can add I think to your 

11 question though as to the logical syllogism that 

12 we're having this debate and discussion today does 

13 that mean that the program never should have been 

14 classified, clearly that's not true for the 

15 reasons Bob articulated. We don't know the harms 

16 yet and there may be harm happening today. 

17 But given the disclosure happened and 

18 the harms that will be effectuated are being 

19 effectuated, I think what you're seeing is an 

20 effort by the Executive Branch to try to be as 

21 transparent as possible under the circumstances. 

22 And to that point I think it's 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

94

1 certainly possible to think that greater public 

2 discourse about intelligence matters is a good 

3 thing without thinking that it took an illegal act 

4 to expose lawful programs in and of itself was a 

5 good thing.

6 MS. COLLINS COOK: One final question, 

7 Raj, for you in this round. You had referred to 

8 minimization procedures and they're traditionally 

9 collection, retention and dissemination use.

10 Can you give an example of a collection 

11 minimization requirement? I think that's 

12 something that, you know, you look to the typical 

13 Title III context and traditionally folks stopped 

14 listening when you heard someone who wasn't the 

15 target, you took the headphones off, and how that 

16 translates into the national security context.

17 MR. DE: Let me try to address it in a 

18 little bit more of a general sense and perhaps in 

19 a classified setting we can get into the more 

20 technical details. 

21 I think here we're talking about where 

22 collection is directed, how collection is 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

95

1 directed, the technical means by which it's 

2 effectuated. There are a range of mechanisms in 

3 order to minimize to the extent possible, minimize 

4 the incidental collection of U.S. person 

5 information on the front end as much as feasible 

6 given the national security imperative of doing 

7 the collection in the first place. 

8 And then there are, we take, as you 

9 alluded to, we take those steps that are the steps 

10 possible at every stage in the process, not just 

11 collection, but during use of information, 

12 analysis, dissemination and retention of 

13 information.

14 MR. LITT: If I can just add another 

15 sort of conceptual type of minimization procedure 

16 at the collection end in this regard is that in a 

17 number of areas there are heightened requirements 

18 of approval and legal review before collection can 

19 be undertaken against U.S. persons.

20 MR. MEDINE: Mr. Dempsey?

21 MR. DEMPSEY: Thanks. I had a question 

22 about the relationship between the government and 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

96

1 the communication service providers, particularly 

2 in the sort of world of globalized information 

3 services and American companies providing services 

4 to people around the world.

5 Do you agree that it's important that 

6 there be an arms length relationship between the 

7 government and the service providers and that 

8 there be a perception, that there be a reality of 

9 an arms length relationship and that there be a 

10 perception of an arms length relationship? 

11 MR. DE: Yes.

12 MR. DEMPSEY: I've seen reference to 

13 the NSA referring to corporations as its partners, 

14 service providers as its partners, presumably 

15 partners in surveillance.

16 Doesn't that undermine the perception 

17 of an arms length relationship, referring to 

18 corporations as the government's partners? Can 

19 you see how that would be miss or interpreted 

20 suggesting a close relationship?

21 MR. DE: I think this question probably 

22 evinces the problem with selective and misleading 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

97

1 disclosures generally because certainly I review a 

2 lot as the general counsel at NSA. I don't want 

3 to review every PowerPoint. I don't review every 

4 single employee's articulation of things. 

5 I think the term partnership is 

6 probably one that's used across government in a 

7 variety of contexts. And so I take your point 

8 that one wouldn't want to leave the public with 

9 the misimpression that there isn't an arms length 

10 relationship between any private entity and any 

11 government entity.

12 On the other hand, I think I would 

13 caution folks reading too much into particular use 

14 of words in any given PowerPoint or whatever was 

15 at the basis of your question.

16 MR. DEMPSEY: Under the 215 program 

17 there's this thing referred to in the opinions as 

18 the corporate store. So searches are run with the 

19 RAS selectors, and as I understand it, the tree of 

20 data that results from that goes into the 

21 so-called corporate store where it's not subject 

22 to the limitations that you've discussed today. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

98

1 In terms of searching it, can it be now searched 

2 without limitations. 

3 Is there any quantification or could 

4 there be a quantification of how much data is in 

5 that corporate store? 

6 MR. DE: I might have to take that for 

7 the record and get back to you. I'm just probably 

8 not prepared to speak to it today.

9 MR. DEMPSEY: And going to this 

10 question of sort of 215, one question is, what's 

11 next, or what could be next? 

12 What if the government were to decide 

13 that it wanted to go back and start using 215 for 

14 Internet metadata. 

15 All of the rationale -- well, I guess 

16 the question, would the rational for telephony 

17 metadata apply to Internet metadata? And then 

18 would all of the controls carry over to that, or 

19 how would such a program be developed and 

20 structured? 

21 MR. LITT: So let me offer a couple of 

22 thoughts. First is to bear in mind that Section 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

99

1 215 requires that you obtain business records. 

2 There have to be records in existence that you are 

3 obtaining. 

4 As we discussed earlier, the telephone 

5 companies keep and maintain the metadata for their 

6 own business purposes and that allows us to use 

7 215 to get that. It's not clear to me that the 

8 same legal authority could be used with respect to 

9 Internet service providers.

10 More generally I think that the FISA 

11 Court's approval of the use of 215 for --

12 MR. DEMPSEY: But just on that I mean, 

13 it's my understanding that Internet service 

14 providers do maintain data, sometimes for a short 

15 period of time, sometimes for a longer period of 

16 time, but under the rationale of 215 even holding 

17 it for a minute or an hour is enough to -- 

18 MR. LITT: I don't know enough about 

19 the technicalities of that. But I'm just saying 

20 there's a general limitation on 215. It has to be 

21 some sort of documents or tangible things.

22 More generally the FISA Court's 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

100

1 approval of the business record collection was 

2 based, number one, in part on a specific showing 

3 that was made that the collection of the metadata 

4 in bulk was relevant to an investigation and that 

5 it had to be collected in bulk in order to be 

6 relevant. And we'd have to make that same showing 

7 to the FISA Court for another category of data.

8 Number two, I think that while it may 

9 or may not be strictly a part of the statutory 

10 standard, I think that the FISA Court's approval 

11 of this collection was based very much on the 

12 limitations and restrictions that were imposed on 

13 our ability to use the data. 

14 It's not at all clear to me, we've 

15 never made the request, but it's not at all clear 

16 to me that the FISA Court would ever have approved 

17 a request that said we want to collect all the 

18 telephony metadata and use it for whatever purpose 

19 we want to without any controls or restrictions.

20 So I would anticipate that if there 

21 ever, if there were another bulk collection 

22 program that we wanted to institute, the FISA 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

101

1 Court would look at the controls that were 

2 proposed and the manner in which relevance of the 

3 bulk collection was established and template them 

4 up against each other and ensure that in fact both 

5 the statutory standard and the Fourth Amendment 

6 were met.

7 MR. DEMPSEY: You know right now you've 

8 got 215 relevance and that covers everything from 

9 one guy's hotel reservation at one hotel to 

10 potentially every hotel reservation at every hotel 

11 of everybody ongoing indefinitely, and all of that 

12 hinges on relevance. 

13 Is it possible to bifurcate 215, have 

14 your more particularized requests under the 

15 standard that's explicit in the statute and then 

16 take this set of concepts and limitations that has 

17 built up around the telephony metadata program and 

18 come up specifically with a statute tailored for 

19 something which I see as quite different, which is 

20 the sort of bulk collection, the ongoing 

21 collection? 

22 MR. LITT: I think in the abstract, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

102

1 yes, but statutes aren't written in the abstract. 

2 And the question is what it would do, what that 

3 statute would provide, whether it would work to 

4 allow us to do what we think we need to be able to 

5 do.

6 MR. DEMPSEY: Well, for example, in the 

7 215 program, the telephony metadata program you 

8 have something more than mere relevance. You have 

9 a concept of necessity, which is not in the 

10 statute explicitly but I think which is a premise 

11 of the program, which is it's necessary to collect 

12 all the data in order to be able to get the value. 

13 Isn't that a standard that could be codified? 

14 MR. LITT: Well, I mean I guess Brad 

15 can perhaps speak to this better than I can. My 

16 understanding of the basis on which the FISA Court 

17 determined that the bulk collection was relevant 

18 was in fact in part the necessity, that it wasn't 

19 a separate concept that was -- 

20 MR. DEMPSEY: Necessity is not 

21 something that comes from the law of relevance 

22 because if you look at the law of relevance, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

103

1 necessity is not, I think.

2 MR. WIEGMANN: Actually I mean if you 

3 look at -- I think my mic still may not be working 

4 so I've got some issues here.

5 If you have other contexts where let's 

6 say computerized data is obtained, let's say under 

7 a grand jury subpoena or in civil discovery, and 

8 the question is always, like, okay, I want to get 

9 a certain amount of data and how broadly can I 

10 scoop in order to get the core data that I want? 

11 And with the courts in looking at that 

12 say, well, how broadly is necessary for you to be 

13 able to get that core amount of data? Is it 

14 necessary to seize the whole computer because 

15 there are files on it that you know you can get? 

16 And the courts have generally said, yeah, you can 

17 get the whole computer maybe in order to get 

18 certain information on it. 

19 Or there's other cases about financial 

20 records and some of the things the government had 

21 cited in its white paper that we've published, 

22 talk about this context in terms of analogies and 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

104

1 from other sayings. 

2 So I think there are analogies that 

3 show that basically you're kind of using a least 

4 restrictive means test, or the means that if it's 

5 necessary to get a larger amount of data in order 

6 to get the core amount of data that's relevant to 

7 your investigation, that that's okay. 

8 But all that having been said, if you 

9 wanted to codify that and set up -- I mean your 

10 question is could you set up, could you segregate 

11 the ordinary 215 applications from bulk and set up 

12 special rules for bulk because it raises different 

13 concerns? Sure, you could do that. I mean we 

14 would just have to look at that and make sure that 

15 it met the needs of the program and so forth, but 

16 absolutely you could do that.

17 MR. DEMPSEY: That's it for this round. 

18 Thanks.

19 MR. MEDINE: Judge Wald?

20 MS. WALD: I just want to nail down one 

21 thing factually to make sure I understand it. And 

22 that's with the 215 collected metadata which 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

105

1 includes all the telephone metadata for all calls 

2 made in the United States those, that body of data 

3 is subject, as I understand it or am I 

4 understanding it correctly, to the regular 

5 dissemination exceptions in Executive Order 12333 

6 for any evidence of crime, or certain kinds of 

7 personnel decisions, or to, quote, understand 

8 foreign intelligence, is that right or not? 

9 MR. LITT: You're talking about the 

10 actual bulk collection itself?

11 MS. WALD: Yes, yes.

12 MR. LITT: Yes, it's subject to those 

13 rules but more importantly it's subject to far 

14 more stringent rules imposed by the FISC.

15 MS. WALD: Okay, but the actual program 

16 as it's put forth by the government would -- the 

17 reason I'm asking the question obviously is that 

18 because there's been certainly perceived unrest or 

19 unhappiness among some segments of the public with 

20 knowing that all of their telephone metadata 

21 though it may be, is out there, the notion of, 

22 well, if it's out there but you're not subject to 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

106

1 any queries because the number that's actually 

2 queried is very small, as you've reported, still 

3 the question arises, well, would the data of 

4 people who never get queried never get brought 

5 into the query system still be subject to these 

6 kinds of disclosures? 

7 So you say, you point out that the FISC 

8 Court may have interpreted it to require more 

9 stringent data but still am I correct that some of 

10 this evidence, metadata evidence can be 

11 disseminated even under those restrictions for --

12 MR. LITT: Only the results of queries. 

13 So the data --

14 MS. WALD: So if it's my phone --

15 MR. LITT: Can I just, just to make 

16 this clear.

17 MS. WALD: Yeah, I want to get that 

18 clear.

19 MR. LITT: The bulk data that is 

20 collected can only be disseminated pursuant to the 

21 procedures approved by the FISC, which supercede 

22 the more general rules --
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

107

1 MS. WALD: 12333.

2 MR. LITT: 12333 in this regard. To 

3 the extent that 12333 -- I mean 12333 governs 

4 everything we do, but with respect to this 

5 particular collection the FISC limitations are 

6 much more stringent and we can only disseminate 

7 query results and even -- and the 12333 then comes 

8 on top of that, which is to say that the query 

9 results can't even be disseminated unless they 

10 meet the test of 12333.

11 MS. WALD: All right. Well, I just 

12 wanted to get that.

13 MR. WIEGMANN: And so for any U.S. 

14 person information, it's only for counterterrorism 

15 purposes is the standard.

16 MS. WALD: I understood that part. 

17 Okay, thank you. 

18 Following up a little bit on the 

19 necessity question that Jim asked, I think it was 

20 pointed out in the white paper that came out on 

21 the 215 program that it was necessary, it was said 

22 this widespread collection was necessary. And the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

108

1 necessity fell within the usual formula of being 

2 necessary to a, quote, authorized investigation 

3 included the relevance of necessity to the 

4 technological tools, or getting the haystack, as 

5 it were, rather than exclusively to the more 

6 traditional interpretation of what related to an 

7 authorized investigation means in criminal law, or 

8 has meant in criminal law, as despite we could 

9 fight about the grand jury cases, how far they go 

10 on that. But usually the traditional 

11 interpretation was it's related to an 

12 investigation if it's going to lead to the actual 

13 evidence relating to the subject matter of the 

14 investigation. 

15 To get down to the question would be, 

16 if 215's relevance is keyed in part to the 

17 technological capacity of your search instruments 

18 then can that be further expanded if new tools, 

19 new technological tools would allow you greater 

20 search capacity in this or in other bulk programs, 

21 could the, quote, haystack be made as big as the 

22 technological tools that you have to use it are? 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

109

1 As opposed to the more traditional 

2 grand jury which may have some exceptions, but 

3 they weren't huge, which related to, is this going 

4 to actually lead to evidentiary-wise to some 

5 evidence that's relevant to the subject matter of 

6 the investigation.

7 Sorry for the wordiness of the 

8 question, but I think you know what I'm asking.

9 MR. WIEGMANN: So if your question is 

10 do the changes that technology could allow for 

11 different --

12 MS. WALD: Yeah. Yeah, you've said it 

13 better.

14 MR. WIEGMANN: Standards, right. I 

15 think it is. That was one of the factors that the 

16 court looked at is what the technological means 

17 that NSA had available to it to search this data 

18 and how effective could those tools be in that 

19 particular context. 

20 So yes, I think as NSA develops new 

21 tools or as other parts of the intelligence 

22 community do that, that would be a factor that's 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

110

1 considered. 

2 But it's not a dispositive factor. The 

3 fact that you have the tools means that 

4 automatically ipso facto you have the ability to 

5 get whatever data that those tools permit you to 

6 get if it leads to the information, because you 

7 have to look at all the other factors that the 

8 court considered. How important is the 

9 information? How necessary is it to get the 

10 information in a larger quantity? What's the 

11 nature of the information? 

12 And obviously that's a critical factor 

13 here that the information is not protected by the 

14 Fourth Amendment. It's just phone numbers, it's 

15 not content and so that's obviously a key 

16 consideration that would not make this program 

17 available for other contexts, particularly with 

18 respect to content information. 

19 So I don't know if that answers your 

20 question but I do think --

21 MS. WALD: Yeah, yeah. 

22 MR. WIEGMANN: I do think technological 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

111

1 changes do make a difference.

2 MS. WALD: It does. I'm trying to get 

3 at what to some has seemed an open-ended notion of 

4 having a technology driving the extent of the 

5 collection authority, as opposed to the old 

6 fashioned method of is this going to lead to some 

7 evidence.

8 Okay. That leads into my -- I think 

9 I've got time for one more question, yeah. And 

10 that is, as I read it the government's legal 

11 justification as laid out in its papers and in 

12 some of the material that's been disclosed for the 

13 current 215 program has to and does rely heavily 

14 on the Smith, Maryland notion that the telephone 

15 metadata in that case did not constitute a Fourth 

16 Amendment or legally cognizable privacy interest.

17 Now certainly Smith v. Maryland we all 

18 recognize is still on the books, but there have 

19 been some intimations of possible future changes 

20 in the U.S. v. Jones case, both in the D.C. 

21 Circuit and in some of the concurrences in the 

22 Supreme Court, as well as since Smith v. Maryland 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

112

1 we've had a lot of research pointing out the 

2 potential informative value of a lot of metadata 

3 on a person. If you can find out really not 

4 content but a lot of the metadata on the kinds of 

5 communications the person has had, the places 

6 they've gone, etcetera, etcetera, you're going to 

7 know as much in many cases, maybe more in some, 

8 than you'd get from the actual content of those 

9 communications, suggesting to some that that 

10 dichotomy is not such a definite one. 

11 I guess my basic question is if in the 

12 future Smith v. Maryland should be changed to take 

13 account of some of these trends or as suggested 

14 metadata, some situations may well have privacy 

15 value, cognizant legal privacy value? 

16 Would programs like 215 lose their, in 

17 your view, lose their legal foundation, their 

18 legal legitimacy?

19 MR. WIEGMANN: So I think that remains 

20 to be seen. I understand you're referring to the 

21 Jones case in the Supreme Court that talked about 

22 Smith v. Maryland. Obviously it's fundamental, as 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

113

1 we've explained in our briefs, to the analysis of 

2 the court here that the information is not 

3 protected by the Fourth Amendment under Smith 

4 because it's been shared with the phone company.

5 Again, the basic idea of Smith is 

6 information that is a billing record that belongs 

7 to the phone company that you have voluntarily 

8 exposed to the phone company in making a phone 

9 call is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. 

10 To the extent that that changes in the 

11 future because of changes in technology, changes 

12 in how the courts perceive privacy in the context 

13 of large amounts of metadata, I think it remains 

14 to be seen. 

15 I mean the holding in Smith and Jones, 

16 again to be clear, was not based on that change, 

17 it was based on the idea that there was a trespass 

18 in putting a GPS device on your individual car. 

19 So it was about a GPS device put on the bumper or 

20 on the underside of a vehicle and tracking that 

21 vehicle in that manner. And it was based on the 

22 physical intrusion, which we wouldn't have in this 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

114

1 context certainly. So we don't think Jones is 

2 controlling or causing to question our current 

3 authorities.

4 But obviously if there are future 

5 developments in the law those would have to be 

6 reevaluated by the FISA Court and other courts as 

7 they evaluate such a program, so. 

8 MR. LITT: And if I can make one point 

9 here, which I think is very important. There 

10 certainly are a lot of academic studies that say 

11 you could take metadata and extract a lot of 

12 information from it. We aren't allowed to do 

13 that. We don't do that. 

14 We have a very specific, limited 

15 purpose for which we use this metadata and that's 

16 all we're allowed to use it for. 

17 And I think, as I said earlier, I think 

18 there would have been a very different situation 

19 presented if we had asked the FISA Court to say we 

20 want to get this metadata and we want to do 

21 anything we want with it.

22 MR. DE: I just want to echo that point 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

115

1 that Bob made because it's really important for 

2 folks who are engaged in this public discussion to 

3 not conflate the very legitimate point you've 

4 made, Judge, which is that perhaps a great deal 

5 could be discerned from metadata in a variety of 

6 contexts.

7 But in terms of this particular 

8 program, it's only for counterterrorism purposes 

9 per order of a court. There's no subscriber 

10 information involved. And so I've heard people 

11 spinning out threads that one could determine what 

12 doctors one visits, who are one's best friends, 

13 and a variety of things that in the abstract and 

14 without any legal or policy controls in place 

15 might be possible, but that's not the world we're 

16 in with this particular program.

17 MR. KELLEY: And Judge, if I may, just 

18 one final comment in that regard. The white paper 

19 also pointed out that the relative balancing of 

20 the minimal invasion of privacy compared to the 

21 significant, the greatest interest of the 

22 government in this particular fight against 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

116

1 terrorism.

2 We're not talking about local crime, 

3 we're not talking about even organized crime. 

4 We're talking about terrorism where I don't have 

5 to say it, there are lots of compelling national 

6 interests at stake. 

7 So the government's interest in this 

8 particular question is at its very greatest 

9 compared to the minimal invasion of privacy, even 

10 if it were protected under the Fourth Amendment. 

11 I think that the key question is, is that outcome 

12 reasonable under the Constitution, a reasonable 

13 search, seizure? And I think the answer would be 

14 yes.

15 MR. MEDINE: I think we have time for a 

16 quick five minute round and still come in on time. 

17 A lot of these programs were developed 

18 outside the public view and we certainly have seen 

19 that there's been a very strong public reaction to 

20 the programs. 

21 What steps could be taken to consider 

22 privacy and civil liberties concerns as these 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

117

1 programs are developed and also public acceptance 

2 concerns, because obviously we answer to the 

3 American public, as we go forward in developing 

4 these types of surveillance programs? 

5 MR. LITT: I'm going to punt on that 

6 question in the sense that, as you know, this is 

7 one of the things that the President has asked the 

8 intelligence community and you to look at.

9 MR. MEDINE: We're seeking your 

10 guidance.

11 MR. LITT: And I think that rather than 

12 offer views right now on how that could be done, I 

13 think I'd just say that this is a process that's 

14 ongoing and we're very sensitive to see whether 

15 there are ways that that can be done.

16 MR. MEDINE: No other comments?

17 Going back to a question that was 

18 raised in an earlier round about the age of data 

19 in the 215 program. Do you track, and I'm not 

20 asking you to reveal which cases you believe there 

21 have been success stories in the use of the data, 

22 but in those such cases, do you track the age of 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

118

1 the data that was used to determine whether it was 

2 five year old data was necessary, whether three 

3 year old data might have sufficed?

4 I know last week there was some 

5 administration testimony that you might be willing 

6 to accept a three year retention period instead of 

7 a five year retention period. Was that based on a 

8 study of the effectiveness of the data?

9 MR. DE: We have tried in view of 

10 current discussions to do the best possible 

11 assessment as to where the greatest value has been 

12 gleaned in the past. 

13 And so it's some of that evaluation 

14 that has come into play in the public statements 

15 that three years probably would be where the knee 

16 of the curve is in terms of the greatest value.

17 Historically it's been difficult to 

18 piece together. As you can imagine it's quite 

19 complex to figure out where any particular piece 

20 of data, phone record in a particular query, five 

21 years ago came from and how available it was in 

22 subsequent steps in the intelligence process. But 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

119

1 folks have tried their best under the current 

2 circumstance to make that evaluation, and that's 

3 where that three years comes from.

4 MR. MEDINE: I know there's been a 

5 great interest in more transparency with regarding 

6 how these programs operate, and currently 

7 providers to the government of 215 data are 

8 restricted in their ability to disclose 

9 government requests. 

10 Would you support reducing that 

11 nondisclosure period to 30 days after a request?

12 MR. DE: We'd probably have to take 

13 that into consideration as the government as a 

14 whole.

15 MR. LITT: I guess my view is that 

16 arbitrary limits really don't take account of 

17 operational realities. And obviously most 

18 limitations that I've seen allow for renewal. 

19 I would think that requiring us to go 

20 back every 30 days in what could be a lengthy 

21 investigative period might put a burden on us. 

22 But again, we'd have to look at specific 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

120

1 proposals.

2 MR. WIEGMANN: And I think it's 

3 unlikely that the need for secrecy in these 

4 contexts in intelligence investigations is likely 

5 to fade after a 30 day period.

6 MR. MEDINE: And a final question is, I 

7 just wanted to follow up on an answer I think 

8 Mr. Litt gave earlier in response to Mr. Dempsey's 

9 question about the corporate store, the 

10 information that's collected under 215 as a result 

11 of a query. 

12 What are the standards that govern when 

13 that collected data can be queried? That is, is 

14 there a RAS determination, is there a 12333 

15 criteria? What restricts access to the data? And 

16 also is there an audit trail for requests, 

17 inquiries into that database?

18 MR. LITT: Actually I don't think I 

19 gave any such answer so I'm going to kick this to 

20 Raj, who might know the answer.

21 MR. DE: That data would be subject to 

22 our background minimization procedures that are 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

121

1 there. There's something called use 18. This a 

2 Department of Defense, Attorney General approved 

3 set of guidelines. 

4 But to your auditing question, 

5 everything that NSA does in terms of queries of 

6 internal data is auditable and so we think that's 

7 an important protection that we have in place. 

8 And the law applies here as well.

9 MR. MEDINE: All right, thank you. 

10 Ms. Brand.

11 MS. BRAND: Thank you. Concern was 

12 recently raised to me about the absence of a 

13 privacy officer at NSA. 

14 Could you tell me two things. First of 

15 all, how soon do you think you will have one? 

16 What is your process for appointing one? And what 

17 would that person's role be in programs like the 

18 ones we're discussing? 

19 MR. DE: So today we in fact have a 

20 privacy officer and a civil liberties officer 

21 separately. But a decision was made to put those 

22 positions together in a role that would be a 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

122

1 direct report to the director. 

2 This was announced over the summer and 

3 we've been proceeding with the hiring process. If 

4 I recall correctly I think the request for resumes 

5 and for interest closes in the first week of 

6 November. It's been publicly advertised. And 

7 from that point forward we will proceed 

8 expeditiously with the hiring process. 

9 The one thing I would I would note 

10 though is not only are those functions ones that 

11 we think are critically important, today we also 

12 work very closely with the DNI's Chief Civil 

13 Liberties and Privacy Officer. 

14 I think the attention, focused 

15 attention that such a person could bring at the 

16 NSA as programs are developed would be an 

17 effective tool going forward.

18 MS. BRAND: I think you would be well 

19 served to make that process as expeditious as 

20 possible. 

21 I wanted to ask a general question in 

22 probably the two minutes I have left. With 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

123

1 respect to changes to the way the FISC operates, 

2 both in terms of transparency and adversarial, 

3 just to lump those together in the interests of 

4 time, what changes could the administration 

5 support? 

6 MR. LITT: Again, not speaking for the 

7 administration as a formal position, but I think 

8 we have articulated that we are open to some kind 

9 of a process for allowing the FISC to seek amicus 

10 participation in cases that present important 

11 legal or privacy concerns. 

12 We have both practical and legal 

13 concerns that need to be worked through in the 

14 context of how one accomplishes that, but I think 

15 that we are open to that. 

16 In terms of transparency again, there 

17 are already requirements for providing opinions to 

18 Congress. We're already working on declassifying 

19 opinions. It's not something where you can just 

20 snap your fingers and say this opinion is going to 

21 be released. 

22 As you know, any judicial opinion is an 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

124

1 application of law to a set of facts. And it's 

2 frequently, as Judge Walton, who's the Chief Judge 

3 of the court has said, it's frequently very 

4 difficult to separate out the classified facts 

5 from the unclassified portions that can be 

6 released. 

7 I think we take very seriously the idea 

8 that it's appropriate to get as much of these into 

9 the public domain as possible, it's just, speaking 

10 as one who's been personally involved in it, it is 

11 a very, very time consuming and difficult process 

12 and risks creating a document that is either 

13 incomprehensible because of all the redactions or 

14 affirmatively misleading because important parts 

15 of it are left out.

16 MS. BRAND: When you say you can 

17 support some kind of a mix, do you mean literally 

18 an amicus process or do you mean some version of 

19 the special advocate that has been suggested?

20 MR. LITT: As I said I think there are 

21 both practical and legal concerns with a special 

22 advocate. I think there's an Article III issue 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

125

1 with respect to the standing that a special 

2 advocate would have in the court. 

3 I think that there's also a sort of 

4 precedential issue that we're very concerned 

5 about.

6 MS. BRAND: Precedential you said?

7 MR. LITT: Yes. There are all sorts of 

8 warrant requirements that are traditionally done 

9 ex parte and an argument was made, I think this 

10 was made by Chairman Rogers at the hearing last 

11 week, are you going to set up a process that 

12 provides more protection for foreign terrorists 

13 than for Americans who are the subject of criminal 

14 search warrants. 

15 I think this is the sort of thing we 

16 need to think through. I think that a proposal to 

17 have the court have the ability to draw on lawyers 

18 who can in an individual case present opposing 

19 arguments I think accomplishes the need that 

20 people feel that there be alternative arguments 

21 presenting in a manner that is much less legally 

22 problematic.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

126

1 MR. MEDINE: Thank you. 

2 Ms. Cook. 

3 MS. COLLINS COOK: I'd like to follow 

4 up on this conversation. We'll be having an 

5 entire panel devoted to this. The next panel will 

6 be discussing the operations of the FISC. 

7 But I think many of the proposals that 

8 we've seen are predicated on the notion that 

9 because the process is not currently adversarial 

10 it lacks rigor. Folks have pointed to what I 

11 would call a win loss record of the government in 

12 front of the FISC. 

13 And I think it would be helpful to the 

14 following panel if Brad or Raj, whoever is 

15 situated to talk about this, can talk about how 

16 the FISC operates and the process of seeking 

17 authorization for a program like this, whether 

18 it's helpful at all to simply look at a win loss 

19 record.

20 MR. WIEGMANN: Yeah, so the FISC has 

21 come under a microscope obviously as a result of 

22 this, the recent disclosures. But we want to say 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

127

1 on behalf of the Department of Justice, the 

2 National Security Division represents the 

3 government in front of the FISC. 

4 These are regular, life-tenured Article 

5 III judges. They apply the same standards and 

6 approach to doing their work as they do in their 

7 regular cases, whether criminal or civil cases, 

8 that they're handling during their regular work 

9 the rest of the year. They're sitting on a 

10 rotating basis so that means, I don't know, how 

11 many, 13 judges or whatever on the FISC? Eleven 

12 judges Raj tells me. They are coming in and 

13 rotating through and doing a FISA docket in an 

14 individual week. 

15 I could tell you they apply 

16 extraordinary rigor and care to every single 

17 matter that they look at in this process. 

18 The Executive Branch has already 

19 applied a lot of rigor and care in making these 

20 applications in the first instance. I mean 

21 whereas an ordinary warrant can be approved at a 

22 much lower level, or a Title III wiretap, these 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

128

1 warrant applications can only be approved by the 

2 Attorney General or the Assistant Attorney General 

3 for National Security. They go through a lot of 

4 review on the front end. 

5 And then as Judge Walton, the Chief 

6 Judge of the FISC, has explained on the back-end 

7 the fact that the court may have granted an 

8 application doesn't mean that it hasn't been 

9 modified. 

10 And I think that he's publicly revealed 

11 in a letter that upwards around 25 percent of the 

12 cases that are submitted to him involve some 

13 significant modification beyond just a typo or 

14 something like that. But that's a much higher 

15 number than you would have in the context of 

16 regular Title III applications where I think the 

17 overwhelming majority are approved without change. 

18 So I think actually if you look at just 

19 the, quote, unquote, win loss record it shows that 

20 the FISC is applying a very rigorous standard of 

21 review. But you would expect in this context, you 

22 wouldn't expect the government to be filing a lot 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

129

1 of frivolous applications to conduct foreign 

2 intelligence. You don't want, I think, a Justice 

3 Department that's bringing and getting, you know, 

4 50 percent win rate or something, or 50 percent 

5 rate, because that would reflect a problem in 

6 terms of us applying for things that really were 

7 not justified in the first instance.

8 So the FISC really is not a rubber 

9 stamp. If you look at the opinions that have been 

10 released is the other thing I would say, we have 

11 declassified some opinions now. You can see the 

12 extent of review on some very complex and 

13 significant constitutional issues that they've 

14 looked at in conjunction with the bulk programs. 

15 And they really are looking to 

16 scrutinize to make sure that all of the 

17 collection, to understand the highly technical 

18 issues that are sometimes presented in these cases 

19 and to ensure that the Constitution and the 

20 requirements of the statute are being followed. 

21 So I don't know if that answers your 

22 question or if Raj and Bob want to.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

130

1 MR. LITT: I just want to emphasize 

2 what Brad said about the review that the 

3 Department of Justice gives these before they ever 

4 get to the FISA Court.

5 MS. COLLINS COOK: I understand. That 

6 gives small comfort I would say to folks who are 

7 concerned about the lack of an adversarial process 

8 and I think y'all have made very clear the 

9 professionalism with which you approach internally 

10 and the high levels of accountability. You're 

11 talking Senate confirmed individuals who are 

12 signing off on each and every one of those. I 

13 understand that.

14 MR. LITT: No, but it's relevant to 

15 assess, to put the so-called win rate in context, 

16 which is to say things don't ever get made, 

17 applications don't ever get made to the FISA Court 

18 unless the Department of Justice is very, very 

19 confident that they are legally well-supported. 

20 And they give them a wire brushing before they 

21 ever get out of the Department of Justice.

22 MS. COLLINS COOK: A final question. I 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

131

1 think the some of the proposals also speak to 

2 congressional oversight, and there again I think 

3 there's some perception that the semiannual report 

4 goes up to Congress and it's never looked at, and 

5 perhaps if a sunset is coming up then oversight is 

6 conducted.

7 Can you talk a little bit about your 

8 experience with day-to-day congressional oversight 

9 to the extent that that occurs?

10 MR. DE: Sure. So I would definitely 

11 like to put to rest any notion that it's not 

12 rigorous or frequent or exceptionally open, at 

13 least I can speak to NSA's perspective. We work 

14 with the Senate intel and House intel committees. 

15 It's hard for me to describe, but on a very 

16 frequent and detailed basis, sending people down 

17 to provide briefings, informal notifications and 

18 so forth. 

19 As you know, pursuant to statute, the 

20 Executive Branch must provide all significant FISC 

21 opinions to both the intel and judiciary 

22 committees. NSA in particular is not only 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

132

1 responsive to the intel committees but we're also 

2 part of the Defense Department so we're responsive 

3 to the armed services committees. As I mentioned 

4 the judiciary committees are also relevant to us. 

5 And finally, given our role in cyber activities 

6 the homeland security committees of both the House 

7 and Senate perform oversight of us as well.

8 MR. MEDINE: Thank you.

9 MR. DEMPSEY: A couple of questions on 

10 702, and then also related 12333. 

11 On 702 collection of the content 

12 program, some of the communications that are 

13 acquired are communications persons reasonably 

14 believed to be overseas are to and from people in 

15 the United States. And it's my understanding that 

16 those are lawfully collected. It's not 

17 inadvertent, it's intentional and lawful. 

18 But then once that data is in it can be 

19 searched looking for communications of a U.S. 

20 person. So you have very low, sort of front-end 

21 protections, then am I right to say, or let me put 

22 it this way, what protections occur then on the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

133

1 search side? 

2 And I understand Bob's point that if 

3 it's lawfully collected the rule is you can search 

4 it and use it for a legitimate purpose. But even 

5 with the 215 data you've imposed this RAS standard 

6 and it's lawfully collected. Zero constitutional 

7 protection but you've nevertheless surrounded it 

8 with a lot of limitations. 

9 What are the limitations surrounding 

10 the incidentally but advertently collected U.S. 

11 person communications?

12 MR. DE: So maybe I can start just with 

13 the initial premise that you raised. So you're 

14 correct that we must target non-U.S. persons 

15 reasonably located to be abroad. 

16 But one important protection is that we 

17 can't willfully target a non-U.S. person in order 

18 to reverse target a U.S. person, which I know the 

19 panel is familiar with, but just so other folks 

20 are familiar with that.

21 Our minimization procedures, including 

22 how we handle data, whether that's collection, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

134

1 analysis, dissemination, querying are all approved 

2 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

3 There are protections on the 

4 dissemination of information, whether as a result 

5 of a query or analysis. So in other words, U.S. 

6 person information can only be disseminated if 

7 it's either necessary to understand the foreign 

8 intelligence value of the information, evidence of 

9 a crime and so forth. 

10 So I think those are the types of 

11 protections that are in place with this lawfully 

12 collected data.

13 MR. DEMPSEY: But am I right, there's 

14 no, on the query itself, other than it be for a 

15 foreign intelligence purpose, is there any other 

16 limitation? We don't even have a RAS for that 

17 data.

18 MR. DE: There's certainly no other 

19 program for which the RAS standard is applicable. 

20 That's limited to the 215 program, that's correct. 

21 But as to whether there is, and I think 

22 this was getting to the probable cause standard, 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

135

1 should there be a higher standard for querying 

2 lawfully collected data. I think that would be a 

3 novel approach in this context, not to suggest 

4 reasonable people can't disagree, discuss that. 

5 But I'm not aware of another context in which 

6 there is lawfully collected, minimized information 

7 in this capacity in which you would need a 

8 particular standard.

9 MR. DEMPSEY: Minimized here just means 

10 you're keeping it.

11 MR. DE: I'm sorry?

12 MR. DEMPSEY: Minimized here means 

13 you're keeping it, doesn't it?

14 MR. DE: It means -- there are 

15 minimization requirements, both in terms of how 

16 it's collected, how it's processed internally. I 

17 mean we can go into more detail in a classified 

18 setting. How it's analyzed and how it's 

19 disseminated. So the statute requires 

20 minimization to apply in every stage of the 

21 analytic process. 

22 MR. DEMPSEY: Okay. Am I right, the 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

136

1 same situation basically applies to information 

2 collected outside of FISA? So FISA collection 

3 inside the United States, 12333 collection outside 

4 the United States, but those communications 

5 collected outside the United States might include 

6 collections to or from U.S. citizens, U.S. 

7 persons, and again, those can then be searched 

8 without even a RAS type determination, is that 

9 right? 

10 MR. DE: I think, yeah, I don't know if 

11 we've declassified sort of minimization procedures 

12 outside of the FISA context, but there are 

13 different rules that apply.

14 MR. DEMPSEY: One question on that 

15 because we're trying to keep to the five minutes.

16 MR. DE: If I could just --

17 MR. DEMPSEY: We have asked about, in 

18 fact months ago, several months ago we asked about 

19 guidelines for other types of collection, and 

20 where do we stand on getting feedback on that? 

21 Because you said 18, for example, is 

22 the minimization provisions for collection outside 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

137

1 the United States, and that's pretty old. Where 

2 do we stand on looking at how that data is 

3 treated?

4 MR. LITT: I think we're setting up a 

5 briefing for you on that. I believe we're setting 

6 up a briefing for you on that. We did lose a few 

7 weeks.

8 MR. DEMPSEY: No, I understand. I was 

9 wondering if you could go beyond saying we're 

10 setting up a briefing.

11 MR. LITT: Well, I mean we're in the 

12 process of reviewing and updating guidelines for 

13 all agencies under 12333. It's an arduous 

14 process. You know, it's something that we've been 

15 working on for some time and we're continuing to 

16 work on it.

17 MR. MEDINE: Thank you.

18 Judge Wald, for the last round.

19 MS. WALD: Okay. This is another 702 

20 question. Because of the pretty generalized 

21 nature of the certification requirement that the 

22 Attorney General and the DNI make under 702 yearly 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

138

1 I think it is, maybe it's biannually, and the 

2 statutory authorization for very much I'll use 

3 short-term category type of targeting that's shown 

4 to the FISA Court, and the pretty standard, as I 

5 understand it, minimization procedures that are 

6 required in 702, there has been some suggestion 

7 that the meat of 702, if there is to be any 

8 control on it, lies in the so-called tasking 

9 orders, which are then approved internally by the 

10 government but never shown to the FISC Court, you 

11 know. 

12 And according to some of the 

13 information or some of the opinions of outsiders, 

14 including some of the providers, these don't get 

15 any kind of outside look on whether or not they 

16 really do strike the right balance between the 

17 certification, the category targeting, etcetera, 

18 certainly for privacy purposes. 

19 So it has been suggested that there be 

20 some review outside of the government on the 

21 tasking orders, at least in maybe not an 

22 individualized 702, but in any kind of large 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

139

1 categories. Maybe it would be after the fact, 

2 maybe it would be along the RAS.

3 Do you have some reaction as to whether 

4 or not any mechanism of that kind is, from your 

5 point of view, tolerable, or what are the 

6 downsides? 

7 MR. DE: Maybe I can just start with 

8 the basics of how 702, targeting the mechanics, 

9 work today.

10 MS. WALD: That would help because not 

11 only do some of us have questions about it, but 

12 the more you read the newspaper articles it seems 

13 to me they don't understand it either.

14 MR. DE: So we have at NSA internal 

15 requirements that the targeting rationale to 

16 establish that the target is a non-U.S. person 

17 reasonably located abroad be written, documented. 

18 That has to at least have multiple levels of 

19 approval inside of NSA before it's effectuated. 

20 And then every 60 days the Department of Justice 

21 and the Director of National Intelligence review 

22 each and every documentation of every single 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

140

1 targeting decision that takes place.

2 Now I know that's not getting to the 

3 question you asked but at a minimum folks should 

4 understand that there is a multi-agency review of 

5 every single targeting decision made.

6 MS. WALD: I don't -- I am 

7 interrupting, but am I correct though that the 

8 targeting can be, at least this was debated when 

9 it was re-authorized, the targeting can be a very 

10 broad, I mean it isn't always a particular 

11 individual, it can be a broad target.

12 MR. DE: I think what we've said is 

13 what goes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

14 Court are certifications that aren't individual 

15 selector-based targeting decisions, but what I was 

16 speaking of in fact are quite specific. 

17 And probably to get more specific, we 

18 need to do it in a different setting, but the 

19 targeting decisions that are made by individual 

20 analysts, reviewed by the Director of National 

21 Intelligence and reviewed by the Justice 

22 Department are in fact quite specific.
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

141

1 MS. WALD: So therein lies any control 

2 over keeping the targeting to that which is useful 

3 but not overly-broad? 

4 MR. LITT: Yeah, so if I can just 

5 emphasize here what we're talking about is 

6 targeting of non-U.S. persons --

7 MS. WALD: I understand.

8 MR. LITT: Outside of the United 

9 States. And it's a rather extraordinary step like 

10 we have --

11 MS. WALD: But it brings in 

12 incidentally, it can bring in U.S. persons.

13 MR. LITT: Of course it can and so can 

14 lots of other things that the intelligence 

15 community does. 

16 And I think it's a rather extraordinary 

17 step that we have in this country judicial 

18 involvement in the targeting of non-U.S. persons 

19 outside of the United States. And I think it's 

20 very important to bear in mind the potential 

21 operational consequences of increasing that 

22 judicial involvement. 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

142

1 When FIA was passed I think there was a 

2 conscious decision made as to what the proper 

3 balance is between judicial involvement and 

4 operational necessity. And I think that if you 

5 start to say, well, the FISA Court needs to 

6 approve every targeting decision, you're going to 

7 bring the intelligence community to a halt.

8 MR. MEDINE: Any final questions?

9 Well, I want to thank all the panelists 

10 this morning for a long but very, very helpful 

11 session, so we appreciate you appearing before the 

12 board. 

13 We're going to take a lunch break now 

14 and resume at 1:15 on a panel that will address 

15 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

16 Thank you. 

17 (Meeting adjourned for lunch)

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

1

A

abilities 17:6

ability 19:21

40:20 70:21

86:3,4 90:7

100:13 110:4

119:8 125:17

able 19:6,8,14

19:17 20:15

29:9 102:4,12

103:13

abolish 13:12

abroad 133:15

139:17

absence 73:7

121:12

absent 88:22

89:1

absolutely 16:7

34:17 104:16

abstract 76:1

101:22 102:1

115:13

academic

114:10

academics 3:14

9:5

accept 73:4 75:1

118:6

acceptance

117:1

access 26:1

27:14 120:15

accompanying

90:17

accomplish

73:22

accomplishes

81:13 123:14

125:19

accomplishing

16:10 88:17

account 25:20

72:15 74:7

88:7 112:13

119:16

accountability

130:10

acknowledgm...

57:5

acquired 70:10

70:17 73:20

132:13

act 1:8,10 2:10

2:11 6:4 7:8,9

9:1 11:16 84:7

94:3

acting 2:17 10:8

action 25:4

actions 6:7,9

25:2

activities 12:19

46:10 57:20

67:17 80:16

84:19 132:5

activity 31:18

45:3 51:10

actual 46:17

105:10,15

108:12 112:8

add 21:7 22:11

35:8 37:14

38:10,18 48:17

51:1 59:17

75:2 76:2

80:12 81:2

83:20 93:10

95:14

adding 37:15

addition 22:12

22:16 24:12

43:11 50:14

additional 23:4

81:17

additionally

19:17

address 11:5

81:21 94:17

142:14

addressing

74:11

adjourned

142:17

administration

31:8 73:4,9

80:21 85:1

118:5 123:4,7

administrative

7:2

adoption 52:20

advance 62:4

advantage 91:15

adversarial

123:2 126:9

130:7

adversaries

54:14 74:16,20

87:17 91:14

93:1,4

advertently

133:10

advertised

122:6

advisable 86:9

86:18

advisory 6:17

advocate 124:19

124:22 125:2

affect 60:12

82:13,16

affidavit 18:8

affirmatively

71:6 124:14

afoot 45:3

afternoon 8:21

age 40:1 117:18

117:22

agencies 8:16

38:4 62:12

67:19 137:13

agency 2:16 6:2

10:7,17 36:10

58:2

agent 80:15,16

80:19

agile 17:9 20:4

agility 63:2,6

ago 39:6 68:8

118:21 136:18

136:18

agree 65:11 96:5

agreed 7:5

agreeing 6:21

ahead 59:16

al 29:4

alarm 34:8

allegations

10:12

allow 22:18

27:17 86:8,21

87:7 102:4

108:19 109:10

119:18

allowed 82:1

114:12,16

allowing 123:9

allows 10:16

18:2 22:15,19

42:5 99:6

alluded 95:9

alluding 51:17

alternate 48:10

48:11 88:20

alternative 19:2

88:16 125:20

amendment

23:18 69:17

101:5 110:14

111:16 113:3,9

116:10

amendments

7:9

american 4:7

20:7 92:21

93:3 96:3

117:3

americans 18:21

47:17 125:13

amicus 123:9

124:18

amount 13:6

57:6 59:9

60:13 83:16

85:12 90:5

103:9,13 104:5

104:6

amounts 13:1

113:13

analogies

103:22 104:2

analogous 79:22

analogy 31:13

analysis 22:19

85:16 95:12

113:1 134:1,5

analysts 140:20

analytic 135:21

analytical 41:5

41:6 83:10

analyze 6:7 17:6

40:22

analyzed 135:18

analyzing 33:7

announced 5:10

75:4 122:2

annual 75:5

anonymous

51:15

answer 31:10

54:6 80:22

91:3 116:13

117:2 120:7,19

120:20

answered 21:21

answers 53:5

110:19 129:21

anticipate

100:20

anybody 53:22
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

2

anybodys 47:16

anyway 80:22

apart 37:21 38:5

apocryphal 91:1

apparatus 55:7

appeared 9:1

appearing

142:11

applicable

134:19

application

82:17 124:1

128:8

applications

104:11 127:20

128:1,16 129:1

130:17

applied 48:11

127:19

applies 121:8

136:1

apply 83:22

98:17 127:5,15

135:20 136:13

applying 79:4

79:14 128:20

129:6

appointing

121:16

appreciate

142:11

apprized 61:16

approach 127:6

130:9 135:3

approaching

88:18

appropriate

78:1 79:19

124:8

appropriately

6:12 33:20

79:4,14

approval 61:11

61:12 62:6

63:7 66:1 73:8

95:18 99:11

100:1,10

139:19

approve 27:4

51:12 62:3

142:6

approved 12:10

27:17 58:12

72:17 100:16

106:21 121:2

127:21 128:1

128:17 134:1

138:9

approving 31:4

arbitrary

119:16

arduous 137:13

area 56:22

areas 95:17

arent 47:3 73:15

102:1 114:12

140:14

argument 31:12

125:9

arguments

125:19,20

arises 106:3

armed 132:3

arms 96:6,9,10

96:17 97:9

arrest 44:17

47:8

arrests 32:8

article 11:6,9

12:22 124:22

127:4

articles 12:17,20

56:11 139:12

articulable 27:6

28:4 31:16

44:2 45:1,8

61:14 79:9

articulate 28:14

35:10 37:7

72:5 85:9

articulated 64:5

67:11 86:20

93:15 123:8

articulates 37:3

articulating

86:13

articulation

17:21 97:4

aside 86:15

asked 39:21

90:2 91:2

107:19 114:19

117:7 136:17

136:18 140:3

asking 36:2,3,16

78:12 105:17

109:8 117:20

aspect 44:14,15

58:21

assess 8:9 40:5

64:14 88:20

130:15

assessing 78:17

assessment

25:22 50:1

79:3 89:21

118:11

assessments

89:19

assistant 2:13

10:10 128:2

associate 4:7

associated 27:7

31:22 45:10,11

45:18 46:11

47:1,3

assume 53:4

assuming 61:20

assumption

82:20

assurance 4:4

attack 39:5,8

attacks 16:2,11

20:7 38:20

40:14

attention 39:15

122:14,15

attorney 2:13

3:10 10:10

12:11 121:2

128:2,2 137:22

audit 120:16

auditable 121:6

audited 27:1

auditing 121:4

audits 30:3 50:8

51:19,20

authorities

68:11 70:19

87:2,12 88:7

89:13 114:3

authority 71:7

71:18 82:4

84:3,4 87:8,8

99:8 111:5

authorization

61:19 126:17

138:2

authorized

24:22 27:10

63:13 66:16

108:2,7

authorizing

35:10

automatically

110:4

availability

22:17

available 22:18

24:3,14 83:17

90:6 109:17

110:17 118:21

avenue 1:17 5:8

avenues 48:15

48:16

avoid 45:20

54:14,15 88:11

91:14

aware 40:10

52:19 58:11

75:3 135:5

aye 5:19,20

B

b 42:22 43:1

back 32:21

34:19 35:17

40:11,21 42:1

43:5 64:16

71:11 73:1

74:9 75:18

80:4,7 84:22

98:7,13 117:17

119:20

backend 128:6

background

120:22

bad 37:17 44:14

baker 3:4

balance 34:21

138:16 142:3

balanced 6:9

72:2,10,16

balancing

115:19

ballroom 5:7

based 25:22

27:5 44:12

46:17 47:18

60:6 75:14

100:2,11

113:16,17,21

118:7

basic 112:11

113:5

basically 104:3

136:1

basics 14:13

139:8

basis 29:1,14
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

3

40:8 57:12

76:5,14 86:5

87:1,4,8 97:15

102:16 127:10

131:16

bear 98:22

141:20

bears 83:4

behalf 127:1

believe 25:21

32:9 44:3 45:1

45:9 46:7

48:21 68:7,12

82:6 117:20

137:5

believed 132:14

believes 8:11

believing 40:8

belongs 113:6

beneficial 14:1

beneficiaries

67:2

benefit 26:6

benefits 8:10

best 8:12 30:21

34:5 85:8,18

115:12 118:10

119:1

better 16:10

18:3 31:12

41:6 77:12

93:9 102:15

109:13

beyond 67:11

70:2 72:7

128:13 137:9

biannually

138:1

bifurcate 101:13

big 53:14 108:21

bill 57:1,8 80:10

81:5,10

billing 21:12,17

23:3,3 113:6

bipartisan 6:1

bit 41:10 56:11

94:18 107:18

131:7

blinded 54:5

board 1:3 2:1

5:4,14,15 6:5

6:21 7:22 8:5,7

8:11 9:8 36:8

142:12

boards 6:6 7:1

bob 22:12 36:9

49:13 51:16

65:11 73:2

90:10 92:15

93:15 115:1

129:22

bobs 133:2

body 105:2

bomb 39:2

books 111:18

brad 2:13 10:9

13:21 23:12

28:13 31:9

33:10 36:20

63:19 76:11,22

90:10 102:14

126:14 130:2

bradford 6:22

brads 77:9

branch 6:2,7

58:16 75:9

93:20 127:18

131:20

branches 92:16

brand 2:4 5:16

20:10,11 21:8

21:20 22:1,20

25:8 28:3,21

29:13 30:6,13

31:1 72:20,21

73:11 74:8

75:17 77:8,13

78:7,11 79:20

80:6 81:15,21

82:13 121:10

121:11 122:18

124:16 125:6

breadth 71:17

break 8:20 9:20

9:22 142:13

breakdown 87:8

brief 9:12 59:18

briefing 137:5,6

137:10

briefings 131:17

briefly 65:15

briefs 113:1

bring 92:20

122:15 141:12

142:7

bringing 129:3

brings 141:11

british 10:17

broad 40:13

140:10,11

broader 84:8

broadly 103:9

103:12

broken 10:13

88:10

brought 15:10

106:4

brushing 130:20

buckets 62:18

budget 89:16

building 58:19

builds 63:21

built 37:17

101:17

builtin 37:12

bulk 13:17

53:15 60:5,12

81:10,12 82:16

83:22 84:3

100:4,5,21

101:3,20

102:17 104:11

104:12 105:10

106:19 108:20

129:14

bumper 113:19

bunch 32:12

47:2

burden 76:19

119:21

burdens 56:6

65:9 74:3

bureau 2:18

10:8

business 7:11

26:1 50:21

82:8 83:11

99:1,6 100:1

C

c 1:18 3:16 5:9

43:1 111:20

cables 10:19

call 5:18 16:21

16:22 17:1

56:18 77:5

86:3 113:9

126:11

called 10:16

19:15 121:1

calling 25:3

32:16 34:12

43:4 45:16

calls 14:16

18:21 21:16,18

42:21 105:1

cant 11:5 22:10

24:15 26:16

27:15 29:7

56:6,8 71:2,5

107:9 133:17

135:4

capabilities

55:10 87:10

capacity 108:17

108:20 135:7

capture 69:11

car 84:12

113:18

care 127:16,19

carr 3:6

carrier 74:13

carry 10:20

98:18

case 26:2,3,17

27:15 33:13

39:3 44:13

47:11 51:14

68:17 84:10

91:17 111:15

111:20 112:21

125:18

cases 17:13

38:21 50:11

103:19 108:9

112:7 117:20

117:22 123:10

127:7,7 128:12

129:18

cast 53:12

categories 81:22

139:1

category 100:7

138:3,17

cause 47:18

75:14 134:22

causing 114:2

caution 97:13

cell 14:18

center 3:19 4:3

centers 10:15,20

ceo 3:18

certain 13:6

66:19 73:2,5

90:16 91:18,18

103:9,18 105:6

certainly 25:7

30:17 33:11

57:6 59:12

62:9 94:1 97:1
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

4

105:18 111:17

114:1,10

116:18 134:18

138:18

certification

137:21 138:17

certifications

66:20 140:14

chairman 2:3

5:3,12 6:5

20:11 79:2

81:7 125:10

chance 64:19

change 1:6

80:10 84:6

113:16 128:17

changed 112:12

changes 52:16

56:19 83:22

109:10 111:1

111:19 113:10

113:11,11

123:1,4

changing 83:13

channels 93:6

characterized

36:20,21

charged 15:22

chief 7:2,3

122:12 124:2

128:5

chosen 61:17

chris 12:3

circuit 111:21

circumstance

64:8 119:2

circumstances

26:18 61:21

70:9 93:21

circumvent

11:15

cite 45:13

cited 103:21

citizen 66:1

citizenry 60:13

67:22

citizens 53:17

65:19 67:15

136:6

city 44:6,11

civil 1:3 5:4 6:10

23:8 24:22

103:7 116:22

121:20 122:12

127:7

classic 32:18

classified 93:14

94:19 124:4

135:17

clear 8:4 21:13

42:7,13 99:7

100:14,15

106:16,18

113:16 130:8

clearance 73:8

clearly 44:19

52:6 93:14

client 9:3

close 49:8 96:20

closely 122:12

closer 84:7

closes 122:5

codification

59:3

codified 58:18

102:13

codify 104:9

cognizable

111:16

cognizant

112:15

collateral 84:17

colleagues 15:18

15:19

collect 13:1

14:17 70:21

71:15 91:12,21

100:17 102:11

collected 12:14

100:5 104:22

106:20 120:10

120:13 132:16

133:3,6,10

134:12 135:2,6

135:16 136:2,5

collection 7:11

7:17 12:1,6,7,9

12:13 13:14

53:16 61:7

66:8,15,17,18

67:7 68:11

71:6 72:3,6,8

72:11,16 81:10

81:13 82:16

84:1 94:9,10

94:22,22 95:4

95:7,11,16,18

100:1,3,11,21

101:3,20,21

102:17 105:10

107:5,22 111:5

129:17 132:11

133:22 136:2,3

136:19,22

collections

136:6

collects 7:12

13:4

college 4:8

collins 2:7 5:16

33:3 35:16

36:15 39:19

41:8 42:6,11

84:21 86:1,15

88:13 90:1,13

94:6 126:3

130:5,22

come 34:22 60:6

74:8 75:17

101:18 116:16

118:14 126:21

comes 30:3

71:11 72:11

91:9 102:21

107:7 119:3

comfort 130:6

comfortable

65:7 77:6

coming 33:4

127:12 131:5

commencing

1:18

comment 59:18

115:18

comments 9:16

46:13 117:16

commercial

22:6

commission 6:4

committee 3:22

committees

59:22 61:2,4

131:14,22

132:1,3,4,6

commonly

19:15

communicate

32:9,10

communication

10:14,18 65:16

69:13 96:1

communicatio...

7:19 16:20

47:16,17 66:4

69:12 71:20

112:5,9 132:12

132:13,19

133:11 136:4

community 37:3

89:7 91:8

109:22 117:8

141:15 142:7

communitys

15:8

companies

10:21 23:14,21

24:13 25:6

86:13 87:7

96:3 99:5

company 18:19

23:22 86:5,5,8

86:8 87:3,3,13

113:4,7,8

compared 88:2

115:20 116:9

comparison

25:19 51:2,7

comparisons

46:14

compelled 24:8

compelling

116:5

competition

22:3

competitive

22:6

complement

15:11

complex 118:19

129:12

compliance 30:1

35:3 36:17

50:3,15 64:15

77:5,19 78:9

78:13,15

complicated

43:7,10

composite 19:22

comprehensiv...

62:21

comprised 6:4

compromising

55:9 60:18

computer 3:10

4:2 29:17

45:14 70:14

103:14,17

computerized

103:6

conceivably
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

5

24:10

concept 65:6

102:9,19

concepts 101:16

conceptual

95:15

concern 22:9

24:11 25:10,10

42:15 63:4,22

64:3 65:18

88:9 121:11

concerned 93:1

125:4 130:7

concerns 6:11

13:13 22:21

23:5 24:7 26:7

64:18 71:17

89:4 104:13

116:22 117:2

123:11,13

124:21

conclusion 54:9

concrete 45:12

concreteness

45:20

concurrences

111:21

conduct 30:9

45:4 50:21

66:10 129:1

conducted 38:12

66:19 131:6

confidence

58:18 59:5,7

63:21

confident

130:19

confirmed

130:11

conflate 115:3

conflation 51:4

confront 49:20

49:20

confused 59:9

confusion 57:7

congress 3:20

7:6 9:5 37:14

37:18 50:5

53:19 57:1

58:15 59:19

60:1,10 61:2

79:19 123:18

131:4

congressional

89:14 131:2,8

conjunction

35:6 129:14

connect 10:14

16:8,9 19:20

21:6

connected 19:13

connecticut 1:17

5:8

connecting 41:7

83:5

connection

11:10 29:3

83:15

connections

14:7 83:6,12

83:18

connectivity

83:10

conscious 142:2

consent 5:22

consequence

47:11

consequences

8:11 47:5,7

141:21

consider 7:22

116:21

considerably

46:15,18,21

47:6 48:7

60:22

consideration

1:6 52:19

53:10 55:13

74:6 110:16

119:13

considerations

25:6

considered 6:12

60:20 110:1,8

considering

65:3,13 67:9

69:3 89:2

consist 8:15

consistent 61:18

75:11

constantly 38:6

constitute

111:15

constitution

116:12 129:19

constitutional

129:13 133:6

constraints 38:5

consuming

124:11

contact 48:22

80:18

contacting

17:19

contacts 34:13

contain 56:12

content 14:15

16:19 110:15

110:18 112:4,8

132:11

contested 25:3

context 17:7

39:13 52:6,8

75:19 84:3

85:4,11 89:13

89:14,15,18

94:13,16

103:22 109:19

113:12 114:1

123:14 128:15

128:21 130:15

135:3,5 136:12

contexts 97:7

103:5 110:17

115:6 120:4

continue 16:1

28:6 53:12

54:8 59:14

continued 53:6

continues 36:18

continuing

30:11 137:15

continuously

50:16,20

contributes 14:5

control 138:8

141:1

controlling

114:2

controls 27:14

27:16 98:18

100:19 101:1

115:14

controversial

44:8

controversy

51:3 84:20

conversation

90:8 126:4

cook 2:7 5:16

33:2,3 35:16

36:15 39:19

41:8 42:6,11

84:21 86:1,15

88:13 90:1,13

94:6 126:2,3

130:5,22

cooperation

86:5 92:6,6

copies 59:20

copy 10:19

core 103:10,13

104:6

corporate 97:18

97:21 98:5

120:9

corporations

96:13,18

correct 35:2

42:10 64:19

90:21 106:9

133:14 134:20

140:7

correctly 105:4

122:4

costs 8:10

couldnt 24:17

41:13 73:6

counsel 2:15,17

2:19 3:22 10:6

10:8 57:19

97:2

count 73:14,16

74:1

counterterror...

6:18 7:7,14

17:11 26:15

36:19 37:9

40:12 107:14

115:8

counting 73:15

country 68:1

141:17

countrys 6:18

couple 62:13

65:17 72:1,9

72:22 88:14

98:21 132:9

course 24:13

27:21 44:5

53:14 59:11

88:20 141:13

court 3:2,7,8

7:16,20 8:3 9:2

18:9 26:21

27:9 29:19

35:5,9 41:20

42:1,2,7 51:22

55:3 58:13
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

6

63:7 64:13,14

64:19,22 65:9

66:1,20 76:3,7

76:9 77:17,18

78:9,13,14

80:2 81:2,16

100:7,16 101:1

102:16 106:8

109:16 110:8

111:22 112:21

113:2 114:6,19

115:9 124:3

125:2,17 128:7

130:4,17 134:2

138:4,10

140:14 142:5

142:15

courts 23:19

26:11 27:3,19

30:5 64:20

99:11,22

100:10 103:11

103:16 113:12

114:6

courtyard 92:3

cover 11:22 14:6

coverage 11:13

11:20 12:5,11

13:6

covered 11:21

11:21 56:22

covers 101:8

crack 54:1

create 23:4 24:2

29:14

created 22:22

creating 124:12

crime 3:10 71:4

92:5 105:6

116:2,3 134:9

criminal 23:9

31:18 45:2,4

108:7,8 125:13

127:7

criteria 62:14

120:15

critical 16:7

110:12

critically 42:18

122:11

criticism 57:7

cross 92:13

current 25:22

26:4 30:21

37:21 58:7

77:15 82:3

84:19 86:16

90:9,20 111:13

114:2 118:10

119:1

currently 63:10

63:20 67:5,9

86:11 90:5

119:6 126:9

curve 118:16

custodians 55:6

cyber 132:5

D

d 1:18 5:9

111:20

damage 91:10

data 10:15,19,20

16:20 17:7

18:20 19:21

22:14 23:21

24:5,5,7,19

25:5,12,19

26:8,11,15

27:1,4,14

36:11 38:10

40:1,2,6,21

43:5,12,15,18

51:15 60:6

62:21,22 69:15

72:11,13 83:8

83:12,16 97:20

98:4 99:14

100:7,13

102:12 103:6,9

103:10,13

104:5,6 105:2

106:3,9,13,19

109:17 110:5

117:18,21

118:1,2,3,8,20

119:7 120:13

120:15,21

121:6 132:18

133:5,22

134:12,17

135:2 137:2

database 26:2

29:17 120:17

datas 24:13

date 16:22

david 2:3 5:2

12:3

day 35:6 62:6

63:14 89:18

120:5

days 26:20,22

27:2 29:20,21

30:2,6 36:14

37:1,12 42:1

50:12 51:19,20

52:1,1 58:13

63:12,13 64:16

73:21 76:5

119:11,20

139:20

daytoday 48:1

131:8

de 2:15 10:6

11:4 13:19

18:22 22:10

25:17 28:11

29:2,16 30:9

30:17 35:8

36:7 37:1 51:1

57:15,18 62:9

66:6 69:20

70:1 72:1 75:2

76:11 85:7

89:5 93:10

94:17 96:11,21

98:6 114:22

118:9 119:12

120:21 121:19

131:10 133:12

134:18 135:11

135:14 136:10

136:16 139:7

139:14 140:12

deal 115:4

dean 4:7

debate 15:4,17

58:20 59:10

92:14,16 93:12

debated 53:15

53:19 140:8

decide 98:12

decision 121:21

140:1,5 142:2

142:6

decisions 59:21

89:16 105:7

140:15,19

declaration 37:2

declarations

18:6

declassified

55:2 129:11

136:11

declassifying

123:18

decrease 22:6

deemed 79:19

defense 27:22

121:2 132:2

defer 18:22

76:11,22

define 46:6

definite 112:10

definitely

131:10

definitions 41:3

definitive 46:10

degree 46:17

47:20 66:2

67:15 68:2

degrees 8:16

delineate 75:12

democratic

59:13

demonstrates

90:18

dempsey 2:6

5:16 10:1

43:20,21 49:6

49:17 50:22

52:9 54:3

95:20,21 96:12

97:16 98:9

99:12 101:7

102:6,20

104:17 132:9

134:13 135:9

135:12,22

136:14,17

137:8

dempseys 120:8

department

2:14 3:10

10:11 27:2,22

30:2 34:2 36:2

50:5,6,7 51:20

63:20 77:1,16

78:4 121:2

127:1 129:3

130:3,18,21

132:2 139:20

140:22

depending

74:17

depends 60:15

65:4

depth 62:22

deputy 2:13

10:9
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

7

derives 52:3

describe 131:15

deserve 52:19

53:19

deserves 39:14

53:6

designed 34:8

65:21

desirable 60:8

desire 47:16

despite 108:8

destroyed 24:13

detail 88:11

135:17

detailed 71:1

131:16

details 11:6 53:2

53:18 60:11

94:20

determination

28:19 29:1,15

29:16,18 30:10

30:12,18,19,20

30:22 31:14,15

32:6 33:13

34:2,18 35:4

42:2 45:22

46:18 47:10

61:14 62:4

63:8 78:18

120:14 136:8

determinations

30:1,3,4 48:2,7

49:9 55:20

62:5 63:15,16

63:19 64:17

77:4,17 78:10

determine 20:21

54:22 66:10

115:11 118:1

determined

68:10 102:17

determining

31:6

developed 33:15

98:19 116:17

117:1 122:16

developing

117:3

development

6:12 33:18

developments

114:5

develops 109:20

device 113:18

113:19

devoted 126:5

dialed 16:22

diane 7:3

dichotomy

112:10

didnt 34:7

difference 47:19

111:1

different 15:10

16:3 40:17

42:12 43:5,6,8

47:6 79:22

81:17,20

101:19 104:12

109:11 114:18

136:13 140:18

differently

72:13

difficult 16:15

18:11 20:1

38:19 63:5

64:14 73:15,22

74:22 83:18

118:17 124:4

124:11

direct 122:1

directed 66:14

67:21 94:22

95:1

direction 55:4

64:20

director 2:20

3:18 4:3 7:1

18:8 122:1

139:21 140:20

disagree 135:4

disappear 30:7

discerned 115:5

disciplined

68:22

disclose 74:14

86:4 119:8

disclosed 54:17

60:18 111:12

disclosing 85:1

disclosure 54:13

54:20 56:20

60:22 92:19

93:2,17

disclosures 55:9

86:9 88:22

91:7 97:1

106:6 126:22

discontinued

18:17

discourse 94:2

discover 14:20

29:10

discovery 14:20

29:10 48:13

72:4 103:7

discriminatory

44:10

discuss 11:11

135:4

discussed 82:11

97:22 99:4

discussing 26:17

121:18 126:6

discussion 8:13

9:6 15:4 38:11

43:22 60:10,21

74:21 75:20

86:2 90:4,19

92:20,21,22

93:6,12 115:2

discussions 64:5

88:16 118:10

dispositive

110:2

disrupted 35:19

39:4

disseminate

27:10 70:21

107:6

disseminated

106:11,20

107:9 134:6

135:19

dissemination

94:9 95:12

105:5 134:1,4

distinguish 52:5

district 3:7,7

distrust 56:14

division 2:14

10:11 127:2

divorce 23:8

25:2

dni 67:8 75:4

85:7,21 137:22

dnis 122:12

docket 127:13

doctors 115:12

document 67:9

124:12

documentation

76:7,8,13,14

76:18 79:10

139:22

documented

28:19 29:17

63:16 139:17

documents

99:21

doesnt 21:15

54:16 68:3

96:16 128:8

135:13

doing 25:15

34:3 37:15

42:3 54:15

65:1 91:20

95:6 127:6,13

doj 3:4 15:19

23:12 31:3,5

31:10 32:21

33:17

domain 124:9

domestic 14:8

14:21

dont 10:1 11:4

13:19 23:11,18

25:21 31:14

41:2,18 43:17

48:16 54:7

55:14 56:3,5

57:9 59:2 61:1

66:13 71:9

73:17 74:1

81:19 83:1,7

92:13,20 93:15

97:2,3 99:18

110:19 114:1

114:13 116:4

119:16 120:18

127:10 129:2

129:21 130:16

130:17 134:16

136:10 138:14

139:13 140:6

dots 16:9,9

19:20 21:6

41:4 83:5,5

doublebarreled

53:21

doubt 53:12

58:3

downsides

139:6

downwards

22:3

dozen 68:9

draw 54:7
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

8

125:17

driving 111:4

dry 91:19

duty 57:19

E

earlier 35:17

39:20 62:20

63:19 89:11

90:2 99:4

114:17 117:18

120:8

early 16:16

easy 69:22,22

echo 114:22

education 4:3

edward 25:22

effect 91:6

effective 20:6

36:4 83:3 92:5

109:18 122:17

effectively 28:16

54:12

effectiveness

36:16,22 37:19

38:1,17 39:9

56:9 75:12

118:8

effects 56:19

effectuated

93:18,19 95:2

139:19

effectuates

58:21

effort 93:20

efforts 6:14,18

7:4 18:4 37:22

49:14 50:4

57:11

either 8:6 11:20

41:11 44:16

61:15 79:16

124:12 134:7

139:13

electronic 7:18

65:15 85:3

element 17:12

eleven 127:11

eliminate 55:14

56:4 81:10

elisebeth 2:7

5:16

email 38:12

emergency 64:6

emphasize

130:1 141:5

empirical 40:7

employees 97:4

enable 54:14

88:11

ended 38:14

44:9

energies 18:3

enforce 78:1

enforced 68:21

enforcement

24:19,21 28:17

engaged 46:9

115:2

enjoy 23:18

enlai 91:2

ensure 6:11

33:19 43:12

57:22 82:7

101:4 129:19

ensured 59:5

ensuring 6:9

entire 126:5

entirely 54:17

81:14

entitled 69:17

entity 97:10,11

environment

21:17 40:12

escalate 17:22

especially 75:18

essence 82:22

essentially 6:16

61:6 64:11

65:21 82:11

84:6

establish 81:16

139:16

established 6:2

76:15 93:6

101:3

establishes

81:18

etcetera 23:17

52:16 57:10,14

112:6,6 138:17

eugene 4:2

evaluate 38:1

39:9 61:17

114:7

evaluation

25:18 38:16

118:13 119:2

event 7:4 15:14

everybody 11:8

13:5 57:12

67:20 101:11

everyday 82:17

evidence 22:8

30:15,16 52:6

71:3 78:17

81:16 105:6

106:10,10

108:13 109:5

111:7 134:8

evidenced 14:22

evidentiarywise

109:4

evinces 96:22

ex 125:9

exactly 41:15

48:22 49:3

65:5 72:6 76:2

76:3 78:12

example 17:17

17:20 19:8

24:18 25:4

27:11,15 28:8

28:21,22 29:2

29:5 32:5,19

40:17 45:13

46:5,10 48:20

50:10 52:22

67:20 73:14,17

73:19 76:5

94:10 102:6

136:21

exante 63:7 64:6

exceeding 64:20

exception 61:21

62:3 64:6,10

exceptionally

131:12

exceptions

105:5 109:2

exchange 9:13

exclusively

108:5

executing 50:17

executive 4:3

6:2,7 7:1 11:14

58:16 68:14

75:9 93:20

105:5 127:18

131:20

exercise 70:18

exercising 87:12

exigent 61:21

64:8

exist 40:15

existence 38:13

99:2

existing 30:11

exists 24:19

expanded

108:18

expect 12:18

58:7 78:15

128:21,22

expectations

64:21

expected 62:8

64:22

expeditious

122:19

expeditiously

122:8

expenditure

38:9

expensive 38:7

experience 31:6

60:7 131:8

experts 3:14

expired 20:10

expiry 37:22

explain 10:22

28:7

explained 65:11

113:1 128:6

explicit 101:15

explicitly 85:4

102:10

explore 8:9

expose 94:4

exposed 113:8

expost 65:12

expressly 35:10

extended 91:16

extending 66:2

extent 24:6

33:17 40:4

55:22 57:22

59:6,18 63:21

75:9 81:1 95:3

107:3 111:4

113:10 129:12

131:9

external 50:4,20

extract 114:11

extraordinary

70:5 127:16

141:9,16

extremely 14:1

16:7 18:14
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

9

F

face 57:9

fact 18:12,12

29:10 33:20

35:1 40:9

43:11 53:1,4

53:11,13,17

54:8 55:9,20

57:7 62:2,5

63:11,12 64:2

64:13 66:8

67:6 68:19

72:13 79:3,12

85:14 90:14,15

101:4 102:18

110:3 121:19

128:7 136:18

139:1 140:16

140:22

facto 110:4

factor 58:3

109:22 110:2

110:12

factors 12:2

52:4 109:15

110:7

facts 17:21

34:19 44:2

45:1,8 124:1,4

factual 76:14

factually 104:21

fade 120:5

fair 57:6 88:15

fairly 71:1

familiar 133:19

133:20

far 52:6,6

105:13 108:9

fashioned 111:6

favor 5:19 46:15

54:2

fbi 13:22 15:1

15:18 27:10

46:1 47:13

49:10 50:14

92:2,2,9,10

fbis 49:22

fcc 20:22 21:10

21:10,11,19

22:5

fear 67:18 92:20

feasible 52:8

86:9,18 95:5

federal 2:17 3:6

4:1 5:11 7:7

10:8 24:20

26:5 38:4

feedback 79:18

136:20

feel 44:9 62:12

125:20

feelings 57:14

fell 108:1

felt 79:15

fewer 83:5,6

89:3

fi 66:16

fia 142:1

fiber 10:19

fight 108:9

115:22

figure 78:14

85:8 118:19

filed 18:6,8

86:12

files 103:15

filing 128:22

final 94:6

115:18 120:6

130:22 142:8

finally 9:4 27:19

132:5

finances 40:15

financial 103:19

find 15:14,20

34:13 35:3

44:16 45:15

49:1,3 112:3

finding 68:15

fine 51:2

fingers 123:20

first 5:5 8:15,19

9:6,10 19:12

21:15 30:15

41:13 44:22

46:13 54:2,6

55:11 57:15,19

66:14 68:13

76:16 80:11

81:1 86:10

88:14 89:5

95:7 98:22

121:14 122:5

127:20 129:7

fisa 3:8 7:9

11:19,21,21,22

12:11 55:3

61:5 68:15,16

70:13 75:6,13

75:15,16,18

80:1,13 82:4

99:10,22 100:7

100:10,16,22

102:16 114:6

114:19 127:13

130:4,17 136:2

136:2,12 138:4

142:5

fisas 87:14,15

fisc 9:2 12:12

18:8 26:22

36:14 55:21

58:7 59:21

62:10 63:11,12

63:15 64:1

72:18 75:19,21

76:21 77:2

90:17 105:14

106:7,21 107:5

123:1,9 126:6

126:12,16,20

127:3,11 128:6

128:20 129:8

131:20 138:10

five 5:14 9:10

21:2 37:21

40:2,7 116:16

118:2,7,20

136:15

fiveyear 24:2

flawed 82:19

flexibility 84:9

flip 87:19

floodlight 54:4

flow 47:5,7,12

flows 10:19

focus 17:15 18:2

18:3 65:21

69:16

focused 20:5

89:20 122:14

folks 12:3 26:7

51:5 66:12

94:13 97:13

115:2 119:1

126:10 130:6

133:19 140:3

follow 33:9

50:17 67:12

92:1 120:7

126:3

followed 129:20

following 88:13

90:1 107:18

126:14

followup 20:12

28:3 49:7,22

56:10 72:22

75:20 86:2

foreign 1:9 2:11

3:2 7:15,18,19

8:2,22 11:15

14:7 26:20

27:7 32:1,7

58:12 65:18

66:10,21 67:3

71:2 80:15,16

80:17,19 105:8

125:12 129:1

134:2,7,15

140:13 142:15

forgetting 84:2

form 79:8

formal 123:7

formalizing

69:4

former 3:8,9,19

3:22 8:22 9:5

59:12

formerly 3:4

formula 108:1

forth 71:4 75:16

104:15 105:16

131:18 134:9

forward 40:20

42:5 55:1,4

117:3 122:7,17

found 77:4

78:13

foundation 57:2

112:17

founder 3:9

four 6:4 9:5

40:6 62:17

fourth 23:18

38:10 63:1

67:8 69:17

101:5 110:14

111:15 113:3,9

116:10

fraction 88:6

franklin 7:1

frankly 88:1

89:17

fred 3:16

french 91:3

frequent 131:12

131:16

frequently 36:1
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

10

41:21 64:8

124:2,3

friends 115:12

frisk 28:17

31:16 44:7

51:7,9,12,16

51:18 79:9

frisking 46:20

frivolous 129:1

front 34:4 51:17

95:5 126:12

127:3 128:4

frontend 132:20

full 17:22 18:10

39:15 49:16

58:15

fulltime 6:5

function 15:9

77:15

functions 6:17

122:10

fundamental

112:22

fundamentally

16:3

further 15:1

47:13,14 49:13

67:10 108:18

future 90:9,20

111:19 112:12

113:11 114:4

G

gather 18:19

gathering 66:14

gchq 10:18

general 2:13,15

2:17,19 10:6,8

10:10 11:7

12:8,11 27:20

28:1,2 30:5

48:1 50:7

52:12 57:19

66:7 68:6

70:16 72:2,3

82:4 94:18

97:2 99:20

106:22 121:2

122:21 128:2,2

137:22

generalized

137:20

generally 47:21

66:11 71:1

89:7 97:1

99:10,22

103:16

generated 49:11

george 3:17

getting 54:5

63:2 71:7

78:12 108:4

129:3 134:22

136:20 140:2

give 18:6 28:8

28:21,22 36:11

45:19 51:5

52:21 64:19,21

74:16 87:9

94:10 130:20

given 33:15

34:16 46:1

58:1,7 64:7

83:8 87:11

93:17 95:6

97:14 132:5

gives 67:20 84:9

130:3,6

giving 44:3 45:1

45:8

gleaned 118:12

globalized 96:2

go 19:14,18

20:16 27:15

35:16 42:1,5,7

42:20 49:18

59:16 71:6,11

74:1 92:12

98:13 108:9

117:3 119:19

128:3 135:17

137:9

goes 97:20 131:4

140:13

going 15:13

31:20 36:5

40:19 41:19,20

43:17 52:11

54:21 55:1

57:13 60:21

73:1 74:8 83:3

84:22 85:1

87:16,22 91:7

91:10 98:9

108:12 109:3

111:6 112:6

117:5,17

120:19 122:17

123:20 125:11

142:6,13

good 5:2 16:12

20:19 22:1

24:15 31:20

37:17 41:9

43:21 44:14

67:13 74:16

75:22 94:2,5

google 10:15

gov 9:15,18

govern 120:12

government

7:12 8:15 9:2

10:18 13:15

24:10 26:5

32:8,16 34:10

53:2 70:18

77:6 86:6,14

86:21 87:5,22

88:5,7 92:17

95:22 96:7

97:6,11 98:12

103:20 105:16

115:22 119:7,9

119:13 126:11

127:3 128:22

138:10,20

governments

25:12 90:15

96:18 111:10

116:7

governmentwi...

87:1

governs 107:3

gps 113:18,19

grand 19:9

20:15 23:17

41:11,14 42:16

43:8 103:7

108:9 109:2

granted 128:7

granularity

87:10

grassley 68:7

great 25:17

67:18 76:19

80:7 115:4

119:5

greater 46:21

55:21 67:14

68:2 72:16

94:1 108:19

greatest 9:12

115:21 116:8

118:11,16

group 45:11

guarantee 43:17

guess 18:16 61:9

76:5 78:7

90:11 98:15

102:14 112:11

119:15

guidance 117:10

guidelines 121:3

136:19 137:12

guys 33:4 101:9

H

hackers 24:15

hacking 25:8,13

half 30:1 44:22

45:2,8

halt 142:7

hand 15:1 86:21

86:22 97:12

handle 76:21

133:22

handling 127:8

hands 69:22

happen 89:10

happened 15:6

51:13,21 60:7

93:17

happening 22:8

85:17 93:16

happens 30:8

35:11 88:2

89:12,18

hard 59:10 72:5

72:12 131:15

harder 16:3

19:22

harm 93:16

harman 3:18

harms 93:15,18

hasnt 128:8

haystack 108:4

108:21

headphones

94:15

headquarters

10:18 92:2

hear 76:8

heard 22:2 31:2

62:16 90:13

94:14 115:10

hearing 1:4,16

5:5,10,18,19

6:20 7:21 8:8

11:3 13:10
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

11

90:15 125:10

heavily 34:17

111:13

heightened

95:17

held 1:16 13:15

24:8

help 14:6 139:10

helpful 9:21

15:21 16:8

18:14 33:5

37:8 72:4

92:14 126:13

126:18 142:10

helpfulness 40:5

hes 128:10

high 79:16

130:10

higher 84:14

128:14 135:1

highly 26:4,10

44:8 129:17

hinges 101:12

hiring 122:3,8

historical 59:8

historically

11:22 58:5

67:18 68:1

118:17

hit 62:20

hitting 90:4

holding 99:16

113:15

holdings 23:19

homeland 132:6

hop 41:13,15

hops 19:15 43:9

55:18

hotel 1:17 5:7

84:11 101:9,9

101:10,10

hour 99:17

house 3:22

17:20 131:14

132:6

houses 60:1

huge 109:3

human 51:16

humiliation

44:18

hunch 29:8

hundreds 39:6

I

id 12:15,15 13:7

14:10 15:18

26:3 37:14

38:3,10 54:1

62:13 63:18

66:22 72:9

76:7 80:4,22

117:13 126:3

idea 37:17,17,18

48:14 64:5

65:12 75:22

79:2 113:5,17

124:7

identified 68:9

identifies 77:16

identify 48:15

identifying

14:16 82:9

ii 3:1

iii 3:13 70:12

94:13 124:22

127:5,22

128:16

ill 28:6,13 53:22

76:11,22 92:1

138:2

illegal 94:3

illustrations

39:2

im 5:2,3 11:5

16:13 21:10

31:9 36:9,16

40:10 42:9

45:7 46:4

52:11,17 54:5

59:16 73:1,8

74:5,8 76:1

77:6,9 78:7,11

78:12 81:5,13

81:19 90:11

98:7 99:19

105:17 109:8

111:2 117:5,19

120:19 135:5

135:11

imagine 118:18

immediate 47:8

immediately

44:16,20 45:4

46:3

immigration

23:9

impact 11:1

12:1 71:19

72:16 82:2

84:18

imperative 95:6

implementation

6:13

implemented

33:16 44:10

77:7

implementing

6:3

implication

11:12

implications

70:2

implore 12:16

important 17:12

18:13 39:13

43:14 48:12

58:3 78:19

83:21 87:21

92:10 96:5

110:8 114:9

115:1 121:7

122:11 123:10

124:14 133:16

141:20

importantly

105:13

impose 56:3,6

74:2

imposed 100:12

105:14 133:5

improper 68:18

improve 31:2

inaccurate

11:17

inadvertent

132:17

inappropriately

67:21 68:11

incident 77:19

incidental 95:4

incidentally

12:14 133:10

141:12

include 8:22 9:4

21:15 136:5

included 108:3

includes 35:14

39:16 42:4

66:17 105:1

including 39:2

92:5 133:21

138:14

incomprehens...

124:13

increased 62:10

increasing

141:21

indefinitely

101:11

independent 6:1

47:14

independently

78:10

indicated 16:18

18:9 24:16

38:22 41:10,22

49:13 64:13

92:15

indication 18:7

indicator 74:16

indicators 20:3

indicia 58:6

individual 47:1

47:3 49:20

82:14 84:5

113:18 125:18

127:14 140:11

140:14,19

individualized

138:22

individually

19:20 93:8

individuals 82:9

130:11

ineffective 54:18

inevitably 15:5

infinitely 43:7

informal 131:17

information 4:4

7:18 10:20

12:14 13:2,4

13:14 14:17,18

16:4 17:18

18:19 19:11

20:17,17 21:4

24:3 27:10,11

28:9 30:20

41:16 45:22

49:4,10,13

58:15 67:2

68:18 69:6,18

70:6,10,15,17

70:22 71:7,9

71:12,15 76:10

77:18 79:8

80:3,14 82:1

85:14 87:4,22

88:5,10 90:5

91:12,19 95:5

95:11,13 96:2
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

12

103:18 107:14

110:6,9,10,11

110:13,18

113:2,6 114:12

115:10 120:10

134:4,6,8

135:6 136:1

138:13

informative

112:2

informed 20:4

59:19

initial 133:13

inquiries 120:17

inside 136:3

139:19

insight 85:18

inspector 27:20

27:22 28:2

30:4 50:6 68:6

inspectors 48:1

instance 56:21

66:14 127:20

129:7

instances 68:9

institute 100:22

institution

59:13

institutional

58:6,8

institutionally

93:8

instruments

108:17

integrated 22:15

integrity 50:15

intel 131:14,14

131:21 132:1

intellectual 3:11

intelligence 1:9

2:11,20 3:2,5

7:14,15,18,20

8:2,22 10:17

11:16 15:8,9

15:16 26:13,20

29:3 31:21

36:9,10 37:3

37:19 38:22

39:17 50:8

54:11 55:7

58:12 59:22

60:18 61:2,4,7

66:11,13,21

67:7,16,19

71:3 89:7 91:8

91:13 94:2

105:8 109:21

117:8 118:22

120:4 129:2

134:2,8,15

139:21 140:13

140:21 141:14

142:7,15

intended 11:22

14:6 72:15

intent 29:6 81:6

81:8,11 82:7

intention 82:10

intentional

132:17

intents 58:19

interagency

66:9 73:8

intercept 47:16

interest 17:2

71:22 111:16

115:21 116:7

119:5 122:5

interested 52:17

76:8

interests 26:7

116:6 123:3

interfere 64:18

intermediary

78:5

intermingled

59:11

internal 37:12

50:4,19 64:4

121:6 139:14

internally 50:9

89:2 130:9

135:16 138:9

international

14:21

internet 98:14

98:17 99:9,13

interpretation

108:6,11

interpretations

35:13

interpreted

96:19 106:8

interrupting

140:7

intervening 47:9

intimations

111:19

introduce 10:5

introduced

13:11

intrusion 46:16

46:17,21 48:8

113:22

invasion 115:20

116:9

investigate

48:19

investigation

2:18 10:9 15:2

17:11,17,22

18:1,12 47:13

47:14 48:15,16

49:5,15,16,22

67:4 80:13,17

84:13,16 100:4

104:7 108:2,7

108:12,14

109:6

investigations

18:10 70:11

82:2 120:4

investigative

17:4 18:4 19:4

49:14 50:11

119:21

involve 12:9

14:15,16

128:12

involved 27:12

33:17 34:17,17

57:10 68:13

115:10 124:10

involvement

31:3 141:18,22

142:3

involves 7:17

14:14 46:19

85:12

ipso 110:4

irrefutably

91:11

isnt 97:9 102:13

140:10

issue 11:13

22:11 42:16

43:1 44:15

124:22 125:4

issued 75:6

issues 44:4

103:4 129:13

129:18

ive 24:18 80:8

96:12 103:4

111:9 115:10

119:18

J

james 2:6 3:4,6

5:16

jane 3:18

janosek 7:3

jim 54:3 107:19

jones 111:20

112:21 113:15

114:1

judge 3:6,6,8

9:1 52:10

57:16 79:5,10

79:15,17

104:19 115:4

115:17 124:2,2

128:5,6 137:18

judgement

32:22 42:4

judges 79:6

127:5,11,12

judicial 47:9,18

61:11,12

123:22 141:17

141:22 142:3

judiciary 3:22

59:22 61:4

131:21 132:4

jump 10:3

jurisdictional

11:20

jurisprudence

28:13

jury 19:9 20:16

23:17 41:11,14

42:16 43:8

103:7 108:9

109:2

justice 2:14 3:10

10:11 26:22

27:2 30:2 34:3

35:12 36:2

50:6,6,7 63:20

76:22 77:16

78:4 127:1

129:2 130:3,18

130:21 139:20

140:21

justices 13:22

justification

47:15 111:11

justified 78:17

129:7
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

13

K

k 3:21

keep 9:12 20:22

21:1 23:14,21

25:19 43:17

63:1 65:8

76:13,18 99:5

136:15

keeping 135:10

135:13 141:2

keeps 21:2

kelley 2:17

15:20 16:17

19:3 20:19

24:12 38:18

40:10 41:17

42:9 49:12

50:2 74:10

82:18 92:1

115:17

kelly 10:7

kept 22:14

23:22 25:5

26:11 29:17

59:19

kerr 3:16

key 12:2 110:15

116:11

keyed 108:16

kick 120:19

killed 39:7

kind 23:10

29:14 32:18

34:8,9,21 46:2

52:12 53:16,21

62:17 74:6,21

84:17 104:3

123:8 124:17

138:15,22

139:4

kinds 87:11

91:18 105:6

106:6 112:4

knee 118:15

know 11:18,19

13:10 23:11,13

24:4 31:21

32:7,16 34:11

39:6 41:18

44:1 46:7

52:14 53:8

56:13 57:3,10

57:19 62:11

65:17 67:8

71:1,10 73:17

82:21 83:1

86:12,22 87:21

91:15,17,21

92:3 93:15

94:12 99:18

101:7 103:15

109:8 110:19

112:7 117:6

118:4 119:4

120:20 123:22

127:10 129:3

129:21 131:19

133:18 136:10

137:14 138:11

140:2

knowing 105:20

knowledge

30:21 47:21

60:10

known 17:19

29:3 53:20

54:13 58:10

80:18 83:2,16

knows 57:12

L

lack 11:5 130:7

lacks 126:10

laid 111:11

language 81:12

82:6 85:9

laptop 32:7,9,11

large 59:9 60:12

83:11 87:14

113:13 138:22

larger 104:5

110:10

late 16:13

law 3:17 4:6,8

6:13 24:19,21

28:17 50:18

60:3 102:21,22

108:7,8 114:5

121:8 124:1

lawful 19:4

57:20 94:4

132:17

lawfully 70:6,10

70:17 132:16

133:3,6 134:11

135:2,6

lawyer 21:10

32:21

lawyers 9:1 24:4

31:14 34:17,22

125:17

lay 37:9

layer 41:19

lead 48:2,21

49:4 60:22

87:17 108:12

109:4 111:6

leading 85:8,22

leads 14:21

110:6 111:8

leahy 80:10

leaning 55:4

learned 12:3

leave 13:7 32:3

97:8

left 122:22

124:15

legal 7:3 23:10

28:11 35:12

36:18 43:12

47:14 52:2,3

59:3 90:15

95:18 99:8

111:10 112:15

112:17,18

115:14 123:11

123:12 124:21

legally 111:16

125:21 130:19

legislative 13:11

37:15 57:3,5

57:12 89:1

legitimacy 58:2

58:6,21 59:3

112:18

legitimate 115:3

133:4

length 16:22

43:15 48:5

96:6,9,10,17

97:9

lengthy 119:20

lesser 46:16

48:7

letter 19:10

50:17 68:6

128:11

letters 42:8,13

level 50:10 72:4

88:10 127:22

levels 24:19

130:10 139:18

liberties 1:3 5:4

6:11 116:22

121:20 122:13

liberty 6:11

lies 138:8 141:1

lifetenured

127:4

light 25:11

likelihood 21:3

limit 70:20

80:14

limitation 81:22

99:20 134:16

limitations

55:17 97:22

98:2 100:12

101:16 107:5

119:18 133:8,9

limited 83:2

114:14 134:20

limiting 27:14

71:20

limits 41:11

67:5 119:16

line 12:21 13:3

79:11 92:12,13

lines 34:4 92:12

links 10:14

list 76:6

listening 43:22

74:20 94:14

literally 78:16

124:17

litigation 23:8

24:22 48:4

86:11

litt 2:19 16:13

21:7,9,22

46:12 54:1

59:17 60:14

64:3 65:2

67:12 69:21

70:4 73:7,13

78:19 81:4

82:5 86:10,19

90:11,22 95:14

98:21 99:18

101:22 102:14

105:9,12

106:12,15,19

107:2 114:8

117:5,11

119:15 120:8

120:18 123:6

124:20 125:7

130:1,14 137:4

137:11 141:4,8
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

14

141:13

little 16:14

34:16 41:9

54:4 56:10

64:9 76:1

94:18 107:18

131:7

livingston 1:22

llc 3:21

local 21:15

24:20 116:2

located 5:8

133:15 139:17

location 12:5,5

14:18

logical 90:21

93:11

long 20:21 33:14

41:4 43:12

55:14 142:10

longer 21:15

23:20,22 24:8

25:5 38:13

39:11 53:1,3

82:3 91:20

99:15

look 19:21 32:14

34:19 39:10,11

40:11,13,20

41:5 49:18

79:6,10 94:12

101:1 102:22

103:3 104:14

110:7 117:8

119:22 126:18

127:17 128:18

129:9 138:15

looked 92:3,17

109:16 129:14

131:4

looking 31:9

39:15 46:6

50:16 78:16

91:8 103:11

129:15 132:19

137:2

lose 112:16,17

137:6

loss 126:11,18

128:19

lot 13:13 15:4

20:6 33:14

35:18 39:14

44:9 53:16,17

65:18 86:2

87:10 97:2

112:1,2,4

114:10,11

116:17 127:19

128:3,22 133:8

lots 15:10 56:13

116:5 141:14

low 79:17

132:20

lower 127:22

lump 123:3

lunch 8:20

142:13,17

lynne 1:22

M

m 1:18 5:6

madrid 39:5

mail 9:18

main 10:14

maintain 18:20

62:15 99:5,14

maintaining

62:19,20,22

major 62:17

majority 68:12

68:17 128:17

making 7:4 11:7

31:14 32:22

33:12 56:19

69:5 83:17

113:8 127:19

manner 55:22

101:2 113:21

125:21

marc 3:9

maryland

111:14,17,22

112:12,22

material 26:1

80:12,13 81:2

83:14 111:12

materiality

81:17

materials 35:14

60:1 90:17

matter 12:8

29:22 43:12

60:9 66:7

86:11 108:13

109:5 127:17

matters 94:2

mayflower 1:17

5:7

mean 24:5 26:9

28:15 31:14

45:19 51:8,11

51:14,20 54:16

68:3 70:8 76:4

81:19 82:15

84:2 85:6

91:17 93:13

99:12 102:14

103:2 104:9,13

107:3 113:15

124:17,18

127:20 128:8

135:17 137:11

140:10

meaningful

85:10

means 21:11

28:7 51:6

85:18 88:16,20

89:3 95:1

104:4,4 108:7

109:16 110:3

127:10 135:9

135:12,14

meant 108:8

measure 58:19

75:4

measures 59:1

79:18

meat 138:7

mechanics

139:8

mechanism

37:12 64:16

76:20 78:3

139:4

mechanisms

95:2

medine 2:3 5:2,3

5:21 10:2 13:8

18:16 20:9

33:1 43:19

61:9 64:12

65:14 69:8

71:13 72:19

95:20 104:19

116:15 117:9

117:16 119:4

120:6 121:9

126:1 132:8

137:17 142:8

meet 28:9 36:18

56:6 84:13

107:10

meeting 38:16

142:17

member 3:19

9:5

members 2:1

5:14,15 6:5 8:5

9:8,16 58:11

mention 38:3

mentioned

23:16 35:7,17

36:13 39:19

47:20 63:19

79:2 89:11

132:3

mere 102:8

met 29:9 31:7

101:6 104:15

metadata 7:13

14:11,14 16:18

38:12,13 51:10

60:6 98:14,17

98:17 99:5

100:3,18

101:17 102:7

104:22 105:1

105:20 106:10

111:15 112:2,4

112:14 113:13

114:11,15,20

115:5

method 111:6

methods 60:19

61:1

metrics 36:6

mic 103:3

microphone

77:9

microscope

126:21

mill 82:14

mind 23:4 25:9

54:18 65:9

98:22 141:20

minimal 115:20

116:9

minimization

12:10 94:8,11

95:15 120:22

133:21 135:15

135:20 136:11

136:22 138:5

minimize 12:12

95:3,3

minimized

135:6,9,12

minimum 37:11
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

15

140:3

minuscule 88:6

minute 9:9,10

13:20 28:13

60:5 99:17

116:16

minutes 9:20,22

122:22 136:15

misimpression

66:13 97:9

misinformation

59:9

misleading

96:22 124:14

misleads 15:17

mission 14:6

16:10 37:9

38:5 50:17

missions 6:6

mix 124:17

mode 55:5

model 83:7

modification

128:13

modified 128:9

modify 13:12

moment 22:22

month 68:7

months 21:1

40:1,2 136:18

136:18

morning 5:2

16:12 43:21

62:16 142:10

move 21:16

moved 21:14

moving 33:7

mueller 18:8

multiagency

140:4

multiple 42:19

43:3,8,9

139:18

multipoint 80:1

mundane 25:2

muscular 10:16

N

nail 104:20

name 15:4 47:2

47:3

narrowed 71:20

nation 6:8,14

55:8

national 2:14,15

2:20 10:7,10

16:1 19:10,10

25:9 42:8,12

85:20 94:16

95:6 116:5

127:2 128:3

139:21 140:20

nationality 12:4

nationals 67:3

67:16

nations 67:14

natural 38:1

89:12

nature 58:1

60:15,17 64:7

110:11 137:21

necessarily 8:5

36:17 78:5

necessary 59:3

59:13 62:14

102:11 103:12

103:14 104:5

107:21,22

108:2 110:9

118:2 134:7

necessity 102:9

102:18,20

103:1 107:19

108:1,3 142:4

need 6:9,10 16:4

28:6 37:3

53:12 56:17

57:1 61:22

71:11 79:21

83:11,18 85:21

89:1,16 92:9

93:7 102:4

120:3 123:13

125:16,19

135:7 140:18

needs 37:7

38:17 59:5

85:20 104:15

142:5

networking

43:2

never 39:12

54:9 68:15

91:17 93:13

100:15 106:4,4

131:4 138:10

nevertheless

133:7

new 30:10 39:3

44:6,11,17

48:4 51:2

77:11 108:18

108:19 109:20

newspaper

139:12

nexus 14:8

nondisclosure

119:11

nonu 29:21

65:18 66:3

67:10 68:19,20

69:6,11 133:14

133:17 139:16

141:6,18

normal 89:18

northern 3:7

note 12:8 16:15

63:18 122:9

noticed 12:21

87:16

notifications

131:17

notify 61:3

noting 68:6

notion 57:9

105:21 111:3

111:14 126:8

131:11

novel 135:3

november 1:12

5:6 9:18 122:6

nowpublic 35:9

nsa 10:13,17

11:14 12:9,22

13:4 14:17

17:6 18:20

19:7,16 21:2

26:21 27:21

29:22 30:3

36:3,8 37:2

38:4 51:3

56:15 57:19,22

63:22 68:6,10

68:22 70:1,2

79:10 89:8,17

96:13 97:2

109:17,20

121:5,13

122:16 131:22

139:14,19

nsas 14:2 76:17

131:13

nsl 20:16 23:16

43:1

nsls 19:1 41:12

41:14 42:16

43:8

number 13:10

16:20,21 17:5

17:18 18:6

19:12,13 27:6

29:4,20,21

31:22 32:14,15

34:10 38:20,21

38:21 42:21,22

46:8 47:1,12

48:10,21 49:2

49:2 55:18

62:1,22 67:1

73:19 74:14

75:5,13 87:3

87:14 88:3,3

88:15 95:17

100:2,8 106:1

128:15

numbers 17:3

19:5,13 27:17

32:12 34:11,12

39:1,10 40:18

40:19 41:3

43:4,5 45:15

45:16 47:2

61:13 73:20

74:17 75:7

83:2 110:14

nw 1:17 5:8

O

objectives 40:16

obtain 19:5,11

24:22 25:1

40:18,19 41:15

54:13,14 84:5

99:1

obtained 23:16

32:7,14 82:8

103:6

obtaining 99:3

obvious 81:8

obviously 13:22

14:13 47:6

48:10 55:1,3

58:10 65:4

70:2 77:1

85:10 105:17

110:12,15

112:22 114:4

117:2 119:17

126:21

occur 132:22
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

16

occurred 34:15

occurs 131:9

october 5:11

odni 28:1 62:11

offer 46:12

98:21 117:12

office 2:19 3:4

50:7,15

officer 5:13 7:2

7:3 28:17 51:8

121:13,20,20

122:13

officers 33:12

official 73:9

80:20

officials 8:15

27:4,9 57:22

ohio 3:7 44:1

okay 10:3 74:8

75:17 80:6

92:18 103:8

104:7 105:15

107:17 111:8

135:22 137:19

old 40:6,6,7,7

111:5 118:2,3

137:1

older 40:8

omb 73:8

once 24:12

54:16 71:9

132:18

ones 33:12 38:7

69:22 73:6,11

115:12 121:18

122:10

ongoing 101:11

101:20 117:14

online 9:17

open 17:17 18:6

18:10 49:14,15

52:12 55:12

60:10 62:10

65:3 69:3,14

72:5 123:8,15

131:12

opened 17:14,14

38:20

openended

111:3

opening 5:19

operate 40:16

54:12 119:6

operated 1:7

operates 123:1

126:16

operating 61:18

62:7,8 64:8

operation 53:18

77:20

operational

13:20 32:20

38:17 53:2

63:1,6 64:18

75:11 119:17

141:21 142:4

operations 8:2

126:6

operative 29:4

29:11 31:21

operatives 32:11

operator 31:13

33:19

operators 32:4

34:5,22

opine 89:1

opinion 59:21

82:15 123:20

123:22

opinions 97:17

123:17,19

129:9,11

131:21 138:13

opportunity

33:5 91:14

opposed 40:2

51:15 109:1

111:5

opposing 125:18

optic 10:19

option 18:18

77:3

options 8:13

order 5:18 7:15

11:14 14:20

22:13 27:9

43:16 68:14

77:19,21 78:1

78:2 83:12

84:14 85:11

95:3 100:5

102:12 103:10

103:17 104:5

105:5 115:9

133:17

orders 26:11

27:3,20 29:20

30:5 35:9 55:2

64:15 74:15

75:5,13,14,15

75:15 82:14

84:1,18 85:19

90:17 138:9,21

ordinary 84:10

84:18 104:11

127:21

organization

27:8 32:1

organizations

40:15

organized 116:3

origins 28:12

orin 3:16

outcome 49:19

116:11

outside 3:14

79:3 116:18

136:2,3,5,12

136:22 138:15

138:20 141:8

141:19

outsiders 138:13

overall 88:3

overheard 70:12

70:13

overlybroad

141:3

overriding 88:9

overseas 17:20

32:2,8 69:11

132:14

overseeing 61:7

oversight 1:3

5:4 6:17 27:21

33:19 47:20,22

48:5 50:3,20

58:8 61:10

76:20 131:2,5

131:8 132:7

overwhelming

128:17

P

panel 2:9 3:1,13

8:19,21 9:4,9

9:10 10:4,22

11:18 14:13

16:15 75:3

126:5,5,14

133:19 142:14

panelist 9:20

panelists 6:19

9:11 10:5

142:9

panels 8:14 9:7

9:11

paper 29:13

56:12 103:21

107:20 115:18

papers 86:12

111:11

paragraph

12:21 13:2

part 13:20 37:4

38:15 42:3,14

43:10 59:7,8

62:5 76:12

100:2,9 102:18

107:16 108:16

132:2

parte 125:9

participating

6:20 42:20

participation

123:10

particular 11:20

14:11 15:13,14

15:16 18:9,11

19:5,5,11

22:11 29:8

31:4 32:1

47:15 58:5,14

61:13 62:1,11

64:1 66:18,21

73:10 74:13

87:11 88:1

89:8 97:13

107:5 109:19

115:7,16,22

116:8 118:19

118:20 131:22

135:8 140:10

particularized

101:14

particularly

38:7 96:1

110:17

partners 86:4

96:13,14,15,18

partnership

97:5

parts 53:7

109:21 124:14

parttime 6:4

passed 142:1

pat 18:22 22:12

23:16 28:17

36:21 42:17

49:8 84:10

87:7 90:2
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

17

patricia 2:5 5:17

patrick 2:17

10:7

patriot 1:8 2:10

7:8

pats 73:3

patterns 19:6

pclob 5:6 6:1,16

7:5 9:15

pell 3:21

people 20:7 24:7

39:7,16 44:9

53:9 61:6

68:22 79:12,12

84:2 88:11

96:4 106:4

115:10 125:20

131:16 132:14

135:4

perceive 113:12

perceived

105:18

percent 128:11

129:4,4

percentage 88:4

perception 96:8

96:10,16 131:3

perdue 4:5

perfect 22:1

perform 132:7

period 23:15,22

24:2,8 29:19

33:14 40:22

72:14 91:16

99:15,15 118:6

118:7 119:11

119:21 120:5

periodic 89:20

periods 22:7

55:17

permissible

86:16

permit 9:12

110:5

permitted 17:15

person 12:2,14

13:1,4 27:11

37:9 67:2

69:11,12,16,19

71:21,21 73:20

82:21 95:4

107:14 112:3,5

122:15 132:20

133:11,17,18

134:6 139:16

personal 54:2

69:6

personally

124:10

personnel 68:10

105:7

persons 46:22

65:18,22 66:3

67:10 68:3,4

68:19,20 69:7

69:9 70:11,22

71:8 95:19

121:17 132:13

133:14 136:7

141:6,12,18

perspective 15:9

76:17 82:19

88:2 131:13

pertain 82:6

pertains 80:15

phone 18:21

19:5,11,12

32:12,14,15

45:14,16 49:2

61:13 62:1

106:14 110:14

113:4,7,8,8

118:20

physical 51:16

52:8 113:22

pick 10:3

picked 44:21

piece 118:18,19

place 12:12 66:9

67:1,6 72:15

76:16 79:12

89:17 92:16

95:7 115:14

121:7 134:11

140:1

places 112:5

platforms 87:11

play 118:14

plays 58:22

please 10:22

plethora 52:15

pllc 3:9

plot 15:5,13

39:2,4

plots 35:19

plotting 34:14

point 12:15

13:22 14:2,10

22:12 25:8

29:11 34:7

35:8 38:10

46:5 50:22

51:1,2,17

57:16,18 59:4

63:10 66:22

74:10 86:19

93:22 97:7

106:7 114:8,22

115:3 122:7

133:2 139:5

pointed 107:20

115:19 126:10

pointing 112:1

points 11:7 14:3

36:11 38:1

62:13 72:2,9

89:12

police 33:11

44:7,10,13,16

46:14 47:7

48:2,8 51:8,20

79:7

policeman 46:19

policies 6:13

policy 3:5 66:9

115:14

polls 56:13,13

portions 124:5

pose 8:5 9:8

posit 22:22

position 8:12

31:8,20 34:5

80:21 90:21

123:7

positioned 13:1

positions 73:10

86:13 121:22

possession

25:13,14

possibility 48:9

possible 7:4,22

8:10 55:13,17

58:1 75:9

93:21 94:1

95:3,10 101:13

111:19 115:15

118:10 122:20

124:9

post 65:12 91:19

posted 9:15

postquery 51:19

potential 14:21

112:2 141:20

potentially

54:19 101:10

power 80:15,16

80:17,19

powerpoint

97:3,14

powers 67:21

practical 18:18

61:20 62:2

63:5 76:2

123:12 124:21

practically 82:2

practice 35:11

precedential

125:4,6

precise 41:3

precisely 38:14

predicate 76:15

predicated

126:8

predictive 90:7

predominant

84:4

preliminary

17:16,22 49:15

premise 70:16

102:10 133:13

premised 75:14

prepared 98:8

prepatriot 84:7

present 5:14

73:16 74:4

81:16 123:10

125:18

presented

114:19 129:18

presenting

125:21

preserve 63:5

85:20

president 3:18

7:6 117:7

presidents 55:4

presiding 5:12

press 10:12

11:13

presumably

19:1 75:3

96:14

presume 76:4

presumption

82:20

pretty 137:1,20

138:4

prevent 16:2

20:8 81:12

prevented 36:21
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

18

preventing

16:11 20:6

prevention

82:22

previously

82:11

primarily 14:19

17:2

primary 6:6

principal 3:21

privacy 1:3 5:3

6:10 12:2

22:21 23:5

24:11,14 25:6

25:10 26:7

46:22 62:19

72:10,16 89:4

111:16 112:14

112:15 113:12

115:20 116:9

116:22 121:13

121:20 122:13

123:11 138:18

private 9:3 24:4

24:6,9 25:15

86:3 97:10

proactive 29:22

75:4,10

probable 47:18

75:14 134:22

probably 15:6

15:17 22:11

41:20 90:10

96:21 97:6

98:7 118:15

119:12 122:22

140:17

problem 35:4

45:20 78:13,15

87:6 96:22

129:5

problematic

125:22

problems 73:16

74:4 77:5,16

procedure 95:15

procedures

12:10 72:14,17

94:8 106:21

120:22 133:21

136:11 138:5

proceed 5:22

122:7

proceeding

122:3

proceedings 5:1

23:8,9,9

process 23:10

30:14 31:2,3,4

33:7 42:16

49:18 52:7

55:19 62:6,6

66:9,9 85:8,21

89:20 92:15

95:10 117:13

118:22 121:16

122:3,8,19

123:9 124:11

124:18 125:11

126:9,16

127:17 130:7

135:21 137:12

137:14

processed

135:16

produced 38:21

39:18

productive 49:5

professionalism

130:9

professor 3:16

4:2,6

program 7:8,9

7:10,11,13,17

9:14 11:1,3

13:9,12,13,17

13:20 14:1,4

14:12,14 15:18

15:20 16:11,17

18:7,15,17

19:4,7,16

20:20 21:2,4

22:13,13,19

26:4,10,14,19

27:1 29:12

34:9 35:10,13

36:4,12,13,17

36:22 37:4,13

37:20 38:2,6,8

38:12,14 39:22

44:7 46:15

48:13,13,14

52:13,14,22

53:1,6,11,13

53:16,18 54:8

54:9,19 55:14

56:1,5 57:3,5

57:13 58:5,12

58:22 59:4

60:2,6,11,12

60:15 61:10,12

61:18,19 62:7

62:15 63:6,13

64:7 65:15,16

65:21 66:5

69:10 77:7,21

81:11 82:12

88:17,18,21

90:6 92:17

93:13 97:16

98:19 100:22

101:17 102:7,7

102:11 104:15

105:15 107:21

110:16 111:13

114:7 115:8,16

117:19 126:17

132:12 134:19

134:20

programmatic

40:13

programs 1:7

7:7 8:1,17 11:2

11:10 26:5

33:8 36:9,10

37:19 38:7

54:11 61:8

89:3,8 90:8,19

94:4 108:20

112:16 116:17

116:20 117:1,4

119:6 121:17

122:16 129:14

project 10:16

proof 31:7

proper 70:18

142:2

property 3:11

proposal 13:16

65:5 73:18,18

74:6,12 82:19

125:16

proposals 13:11

56:7 73:3,5,10

73:13 86:7,20

88:15 89:1

120:1 126:7

131:1

proposed 101:2

proposing 81:12

prosecutor 4:1

70:8

prosecutors

47:22

protect 6:8,10

6:14 68:20

93:7

protected 25:13

110:13 113:3,9

116:10

protecting 69:6

protection 23:19

26:8 66:2

67:15 68:2

121:7 125:12

133:7,16

protections

62:19 67:1,5,6

67:10 68:4

69:9 72:10

132:21,22

134:3,11

protects 55:7

provide 7:5

16:19 17:7,21

59:20 63:15

67:14 76:6,19

79:17 85:13,18

102:3 131:17

131:20

provided 22:14

30:15 39:1

88:5

provider 19:18

19:19,19 20:16

20:16,21 42:21

42:22 43:1

65:16 74:13,14

74:18,19 87:18

providers 7:19

18:20 21:14,16

22:5 42:19,20

43:6,9,14 96:1

96:7,14 99:9

99:14 119:7

138:14

provides 16:18

17:9,10 19:7

19:16 91:13

125:12

providing 55:21

87:9 96:3

123:17

provision 58:14

58:16 80:3,9

80:21

provisions

37:16 75:6

136:22

proxies 61:6
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

19

public 1:4,16

5:5 7:6 8:13

9:16 11:19

12:16 15:3

38:11 39:14

51:4 53:20

56:14,19 57:8

58:1,11,20,21

59:5,6,10 60:9

60:21 63:21

69:5 85:10

86:22 87:20

88:22 90:16,18

91:10,13 92:7

92:8,9,9,21

93:3,3 94:1

97:8 105:19

115:2 116:18

116:19 117:1,3

118:14 124:9

publicly 14:3

39:1 53:19

64:13 68:9

90:6 122:6

128:10

published

103:21

punt 117:5

purely 26:15

purged 77:18

purpose 7:21

8:8 26:14 45:5

66:16 71:7

82:5 100:18

114:15 133:4

134:15

purposes 7:14

24:17,21 26:15

26:16 58:19

66:21 71:3

99:6 107:15

115:8 138:18

pursuant 1:7

7:15 21:19

26:10 27:3,19

29:19 30:5

61:5 66:4,19

73:21 106:20

131:19

pursue 46:2

61:22

put 37:9 39:12

41:2 51:2

57:11 105:16

113:19 119:21

121:21 130:15

131:11 132:21

putting 86:15

113:18

Q

qaeda 29:4

qualification

56:3

quantification

98:3,4

quantity 110:10

queried 106:2,4

120:13

queries 27:4,5

30:10 55:18

68:18 82:7

106:1,12 121:5

query 27:16,18

28:19 29:7

76:15 106:5

107:7,8 118:20

120:11 134:5

134:14

querying 134:1

135:1

question 15:7

18:16 20:20

21:21 25:18

33:10 35:21,22

36:1,2,3,5,8

39:14 49:7,17

52:12 53:7,22

54:6,18 55:11

60:4 63:2

71:13 73:3

81:4 88:19

89:7 90:12

93:11 94:6

95:21 96:21

97:15 98:10,10

98:16 102:2

103:8 104:10

105:17 106:3

107:19 108:15

109:8,9 110:20

111:9 112:11

114:2 116:8,11

117:6,17 120:6

120:9 121:4

122:21 129:22

130:22 136:14

137:20 140:3

questioning 9:9

24:16

questions 8:4

9:8 20:13 28:5

33:6 39:20

53:14 88:14

132:9 139:11

142:8

quick 49:6

116:16

quickly 17:10

quite 85:12

101:19 118:18

140:16,22

quorum 5:15

quote 52:15

105:7 108:2,21

128:19

R

rachel 2:4 5:15

21:22 39:21

raise 38:15 89:3

raised 13:13

25:9 63:3,9

71:17 73:1

117:18 121:12

133:13

raises 69:22

104:12

raj 16:18 33:22

35:6,17 41:22

48:4 49:7

50:22 65:11

68:3 69:2,21

69:21 84:21

94:7 120:20

126:14 127:12

129:22

rajesh 2:15 10:6

rajs 59:18

ran 20:13

range 8:9 13:12

90:19 95:2

rapid 34:9 36:19

rare 15:13

rarely 88:2

ras 27:17 28:4,8

28:18 29:1,15

29:16,18 30:1

30:3,4,7,10,11

30:19 31:3,4

32:6 33:18,21

34:1,18 35:4

43:22 44:12

49:9 55:20

61:14 62:3,4

63:7,15 64:17

65:12 75:21

76:6 77:4,17

78:10,16,20

79:4,13 97:19

120:14 133:5

134:16,19

136:8 139:2

rate 129:4,5

130:15

rational 98:16

rationale 90:16

98:15 99:16

139:15

raw 26:1,12

reaction 34:9

116:19 139:3

read 12:16,17

13:6 57:8 81:5

111:10 139:12

reading 97:13

real 34:3

realities 119:17

reality 76:2 96:8

realize 17:5,8

really 31:11

32:20 51:4

60:14 70:4

91:6 112:3

115:1 119:16

129:6,8,15

138:16

reason 23:7

25:21 29:8

31:19 38:14

42:12 43:10

44:3 45:1,9

46:7 48:21

51:9 67:13

105:17

reasonable 27:5

28:4 31:15

44:2 56:8

61:14 79:8

89:6 116:12,12

135:4

reasonably

132:13 133:15

139:17

reasons 22:6

48:3 65:11

82:10 93:15

reauthorization

30:14

reauthorizatio...
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

20

89:15

reauthorized

26:19 30:8

36:14 37:20

52:1 57:4

58:14 140:9

recall 122:4

receiving 5:21

recognize 83:21

111:18

recommendat...

1:6 7:22 8:9,12

record 20:18

22:7 23:1 51:5

98:7 100:1

113:6 118:20

126:11,19

128:19

recorded 9:14

records 7:11

20:22 21:12,18

22:17 23:3,4,7

23:14,18 26:1

29:14 37:8

40:8 57:8 82:8

83:11 84:5,11

84:12,15 85:12

99:1,2 103:20

recounting

90:22

redactions

124:13

reduced 41:1

reducing 83:16

119:10

reevaluate

37:18

reevaluated

89:9 114:6

reevaluating

38:6

reevaluations

89:20

reexamines 30:1

reference 46:5

96:12

referred 7:10

41:13 94:7

97:17

referring 50:3

96:13,17

112:20

reflect 129:5

reform 59:1

reforms 52:15

52:15,18 53:9

55:13

regard 68:5

95:16 107:2

115:18

regarding 8:1

119:5

regardless 26:6

36:10 37:16

regime 86:17,17

register 5:11

regular 76:5

84:1,14 105:4

127:4,7,8

128:16

regularized 40:5

regulated 26:5

26:10 52:7

regulation 21:11

21:19 22:5

regulations 6:3

6:13 9:18

20:22 21:10

reingold 7:2

reiterate 69:2

related 6:14

20:13 66:16

108:6,11 109:3

132:10

relatedly 22:2

23:6

relates 21:11

70:10

relating 60:2

108:13

relationship

95:22 96:6,9

96:10,17,20

97:10

relative 74:17

115:19

relatively 25:2

released 55:2

68:8 123:21

124:6 129:10

relevance 37:7

81:18 84:8

101:2,8,12

102:8,21,22

108:3,16

relevancy 42:4

relevant 37:4

80:12 83:14,14

84:13 100:4,6

102:17 104:6

109:5 130:14

132:4

reliance 30:14

relief 77:20

reluctant 73:9

rely 92:8 111:13

remains 112:19

113:13

remedial 56:18

77:22 79:18

remember

48:12 78:20

renaissance

1:16

renewal 119:18

renewals 89:13

rental 84:12

repeatedly

41:19 42:17

55:12

repeating 83:4

report 7:6 8:18

26:22 51:22

63:11 64:16

75:5,12 77:17

122:1 131:3

reported 1:22

35:5,5 106:2

reportedly 91:2

reporting 62:2

63:10 78:8

89:21

reports 38:22

39:17

represent 8:6

representing 9:3

represents 77:1

127:2

repression

67:22

request 100:15

100:17 119:11

122:4

requests 85:2

101:14 119:9

120:16

require 21:1

23:20 48:17

73:14 106:8

required 22:4

48:18 59:20

60:2 61:3 70:7

74:12 138:6

requirement

20:18 23:1

69:15 75:21

80:1 94:11

137:21

requirements

22:4 36:18

63:11 78:1

89:21 95:17

123:17 125:8

129:20 135:15

139:15

requires 47:14

47:17 99:1

135:19

requiring

119:19

requisite 17:21

research 3:16

4:4 112:1

reservation

101:9,10

residents 53:17

resigned 68:22

resolve 45:4

resolved 44:15

44:19 46:3

resource 38:4

resources 17:16

18:3 65:10

respect 6:18

55:5,11 67:16

70:6 74:5 82:8

85:17 99:8

107:4 110:18

123:1 125:1

respond 9:6

17:10 77:19

response 13:16

36:20 39:20

73:3 120:8

responses 9:12

responsibility

8:16

responsive

132:1,2

rest 10:4 127:9

131:11

restricted 119:8

restrictions 56:4

100:12,19

106:11

restrictive 104:4

restricts 120:15

result 15:15

20:5 56:15

59:7,8 69:1
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

21

134:4

resulted 17:12

results 97:20

106:12 107:7,9

resume 142:14

resumes 122:4

retain 43:15

70:21

retained 21:19

23:7 40:21

43:13

retains 13:4

retention 12:13

20:18 22:4,7

23:1 55:16

67:4 72:14

94:9 95:12

118:6,7

retroactively

15:22

return 75:20

79:22

returned 80:3

revalidate 37:13

reveal 117:20

revealed 53:3

128:10

revelation 52:13

revelations

25:11 56:15

reverified 30:16

30:18

reverse 133:18

review 3:5 6:7

34:1 40:14

47:9,9 49:8,9

49:18 55:20

62:4,6 63:16

64:1,6 65:12

78:10 79:6

95:18 97:1,3,3

128:4,21

129:12 130:2

138:20 139:21

140:4

reviewed 50:11

63:20 66:4

140:20,21

reviewing 34:18

50:21 137:12

reviews 35:6

50:8

revolution 91:3

right 15:7 32:2

34:11 35:20

36:1 46:5

77:15 79:11

85:7 92:12

101:7 105:8

107:11 109:14

117:12 121:9

132:21 134:13

135:22 136:9

138:16

rights 65:22

69:17

rigor 12:18 13:6

126:10 127:16

127:19

rigorous 52:7

89:9 128:20

131:12

risk 50:16 55:9

91:9

risks 91:9

124:12

robert 2:19

rogers 125:10

role 6:17 57:21

62:10 121:17

121:22 132:5

rotating 127:10

127:13

round 28:6

71:14 88:15

94:7 104:17

116:16 117:18

137:18

rounds 9:10,10

routinely 41:21

50:8

rubber 129:8

rule 48:16 64:11

70:16 133:3

rules 12:12

27:20 68:20,21

69:5 70:20,22

104:12 105:13

105:14 106:22

136:13

run 22:13 41:4

46:15 82:14

97:18

running 46:22

S

s 3:6 12:1,14

13:1,4 27:11

29:20,21 32:15

65:18,22 66:1

66:3 67:2,10

68:2,19,20

69:6,9,11,12

69:16,18 70:22

71:8 73:19

95:4,19 107:13

111:20 132:19

133:10,14,17

133:18 134:5

136:6,6 139:16

141:6,12,18

safe 17:19

saying 35:18

83:14 92:4

99:19 137:9

sayings 104:1

says 12:22 13:3

68:3 73:19

91:20 92:4

schedule 89:10

scheme 64:9

scholars 12:3

scholarship 4:7

school 3:17

science 4:2

scoop 103:10

scope 13:14

71:18

scrutinize

129:16

scrutiny 25:7

seam 14:6

search 46:7 52:8

69:18 71:12

108:17,20

109:17 116:13

125:14 133:1,3

searched 98:1

132:19 136:7

searches 97:18

searching 69:15

98:1

second 8:21

19:14 21:16

41:15,18 45:2

45:7 47:4 54:6

76:12

secondly 44:13

66:15

secrecy 53:13

54:7 59:8

120:3

secret 52:13,22

53:3 54:10

81:9 93:7

secretly 10:13

section 1:8,9

2:10,11 3:11

7:7 71:5 75:15

75:16 80:1

85:6,17 88:17

90:6 98:22

sector 9:3 24:9

25:15 86:3

secure 57:2

security 2:14,15

4:4 10:7,11

16:1 19:10,10

25:9 42:8,12

85:20 94:16

95:6 127:2

128:3 132:6

see 19:6 20:9

32:15 34:12

38:8 43:1

50:12 58:22

61:1 91:18

96:19 101:19

117:14 129:11

seeing 75:8

93:19

seek 25:1 80:14

123:9

seeking 83:2

117:9 126:16

seen 22:7 96:12

112:20 113:14

116:18 119:18

126:8

segments 105:19

segregate

104:10

segregated

26:12

seize 103:14

seized 70:14

seizure 116:13

selection 61:13

selective 96:22

selector 30:7

31:5 45:10

78:16

selectorbased

140:15

selectors 61:16

75:21 76:6

78:21 97:19

semiannual

131:3

senate 130:11
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

22

131:14 132:7

senator 68:7

sending 131:16

senior 3:6 27:4

57:22

sense 24:6 51:5

52:2 71:10

81:15 82:20

94:18 117:6

sensitive 55:8

61:7 117:14

sent 68:7

separate 59:2,10

102:19 124:4

separately 58:18

121:21

september 5:11

sequential 41:14

41:14

series 28:5

serious 36:3

52:19

seriously 124:7

serve 67:6

served 74:15

122:19

service 7:19

19:18,18,19

20:21 65:16

74:13,18,19

96:1,7,14 99:9

99:13

services 88:4

96:3,3 132:3

session 142:11

set 29:19 61:3

64:10 101:16

104:9,10,11

121:3 124:1

125:11

setting 72:6

79:11,16,22

94:19 135:18

137:4,5,10

140:18

setup 58:7

seven 27:9

shaken 59:7

share 6:21

shared 113:4

sharon 6:22

shift 65:14

87:17

shining 54:4

short 99:14

shorter 40:21

55:16 72:14

shortterm 138:3

show 104:3

showing 37:7

84:14 100:2,6

shown 138:3,10

shows 128:19

shut 13:17 82:12

side 9:2 16:1

19:11 24:15

87:19 133:1

sign 91:20

significance

17:5,8

significant

27:13 29:7

35:12 38:4

59:20 85:12

115:21 128:13

129:13 131:20

signing 130:12

silicon 10:21

similar 39:5

90:7

simply 11:16

13:17 21:5

30:14 46:22

56:8 126:18

single 28:18

34:18 39:7

44:11 97:4

127:16 139:22

140:5

site 14:18

sitting 32:21

127:9

situated 126:15

situation 15:14

32:13 39:22

114:18 136:1

situations

112:14

six 68:8

skp 3:21

slower 20:1

42:15

small 106:2

130:6

smith 111:14,17

111:22 112:12

112:22 113:3,5

113:15

snap 123:20

snowden 25:22

socalled 97:21

130:15 138:8

solving 15:22

somebody 28:18

46:8 79:1

91:19 92:22

somebodys

70:14

soon 91:4,6

121:15

sorry 11:5 16:13

21:22 42:9

59:16 109:7

135:11

sort 22:3,5,18

28:12,22 49:9

49:18,20,22

52:21 55:6,19

62:17 74:3

76:18 79:3

81:22 82:4,14

85:16,20 89:9

95:15 96:2

98:10 99:21

101:20 125:3

125:15 132:20

136:11

sorts 38:7 70:9

125:7

sought 23:8

sound 57:11

sounds 75:22

sources 60:19

60:22

spafford 4:2

speak 12:19

13:19 22:10,20

36:9 46:1

57:15 66:7

70:1 89:5 98:8

102:15 131:1

131:13

speaking 47:21

71:2 72:3 74:5

123:6 124:9

140:16

special 104:12

124:19,21

125:1

specific 27:7

33:6,13 44:2

44:22 45:8

57:3,4,11

72:12 74:5,11

100:2 114:14

119:22 140:16

140:17,22

specifically

101:18

specificity 74:22

specifics 40:11

spectrum 39:15

spike 87:15

spinning 115:11

sponsors 81:9

spouse 25:3

squarely 64:22

stage 95:10

135:20

stake 116:6

stamp 129:9

stand 61:6

136:20 137:2

standard 28:5

28:10,11,16

29:6 33:18,21

37:5,6 44:6

48:10,18 51:6

51:18 52:3,3,4

52:5 79:4,13

79:16,17 80:10

83:13 84:6,7,9

100:10 101:5

101:15 102:13

107:15 128:20

133:5 134:19

134:22 135:1,8

138:4

standards 31:7

48:11 109:14

120:12 127:5

standing 125:1

standpoint 72:4

start 11:4 14:12

43:7 66:6 87:6

90:22 98:13

133:12 139:7

142:5

started 9:21

10:1,2 16:16

35:18 70:8

starts 87:9

stasi 67:20

state 24:20 73:9

statements

118:14

states 32:17

34:12 45:17

46:9 48:22

49:5 67:14
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

23

69:13 91:21

105:2 132:15

136:3,4,5

137:1 141:9,19

status 50:12

statute 11:19

59:19 85:4

101:15,18

102:3,10

129:20 131:19

135:19

statutes 102:1

statutory 64:10

64:11 86:17

100:9 101:5

138:2

step 70:5 141:9

141:17

stephanie 3:21

stephen 4:6

steps 54:15

75:10 77:22

95:9,9 116:21

118:22

stevenson 3:16

stick 93:5

stop 28:10,12,16

31:16 36:15

44:7,13 45:5,6

46:14,19 47:8

48:8 51:6,7,9

51:12,15,18

52:4 79:9,20

stopped 15:15

38:20 44:18

94:13

stopping 46:20

stops 44:12 48:2

79:7

store 97:18,21

98:5 120:9

stories 117:21

story 91:1

strategies 3:21

streams 14:8,9

14:22 43:6

street 28:18

31:13,17 33:12

33:20 46:20

49:21 50:10

strictly 100:9

strike 138:16

stringent 105:14

106:9 107:6

strong 116:19

structured

98:20

studies 114:10

study 40:10

118:8

subject 8:18

11:2 13:9

20:14 56:2

61:10 65:19

67:6 70:11

84:20 97:21

105:3,12,13,22

106:5 108:13

109:5 120:21

125:13

subjects 19:6

67:3

submit 37:1

submitted 9:17

66:20 128:12

subpoena 19:9

20:16 23:17

24:5 82:4

103:7

subpoenaed

24:4

subpoenas

41:11,14 42:16

43:8

subscriber

14:17 115:9

subscribers 87:5

87:21 88:3,4

subsequent 47:8

118:22

substantial 74:2

subway 39:3

success 117:21

sudden 87:13,15

sue 7:1

sufficed 118:3

sufficient 79:8

sufficiently 29:9

suggest 11:11

15:12 59:6

135:3

suggested 18:18

52:15,16,18

53:9 56:21

112:13 124:19

138:19

suggesting

56:14 96:20

112:9

suggestion 31:1

31:9 138:6

summarize

62:17

summer 122:2

sunset 131:5

sunsets 37:15

supercede

106:21

supervision

7:20

supervisors

50:12 51:12

support 30:20

79:9 119:10

123:5 124:17

supreme 23:19

111:22 112:21

sure 21:8 23:13

25:16 35:1

36:9 57:17,20

58:10 62:7

66:12 77:10

81:5,14,20

85:13 86:15

90:11 92:11

104:13,14,21

129:16 131:10

surrounded

133:7

surrounding

133:9

surveillance 1:7

1:10 2:11 3:2

7:16,20 8:3,17

8:22 11:16

14:5 26:21

58:13 65:19

85:4,5 88:12

96:15 117:4

134:2 140:13

142:15

surveilled 65:22

susceptible 83:9

suspected 17:19

31:17 80:16,18

suspend 77:20

77:21

suspicion 27:6

28:4 31:16,22

45:3 61:15

79:9

swallows 64:11

syllogism 93:11

system 21:14

34:9 39:3 42:5

106:5

systematic 36:4

40:4 47:22

48:5

systems 41:22

50:20

T

tailored 101:18

take 9:20,22

23:11 25:19

54:1,15,22

69:20 70:5

74:7 75:10

77:21 88:6

91:15 95:8,9

97:7 98:6

101:16 112:12

114:11 119:12

119:16 124:7

142:13

taken 59:1,5

75:11 116:21

takes 6:8 140:1

talk 22:2 35:19

48:20 79:21

103:22 126:15

126:15 131:7

talked 55:16,17

55:19,21 64:4

112:21

talking 33:10

74:11 78:21

83:9 84:10,22

94:21 105:9

116:2,3,4

130:11 141:5

talks 85:5

tangible 99:21

target 69:10

71:15,16 85:3

94:15 133:14

133:17,18

139:16 140:11

targeted 84:5,15

targeting 71:20

138:3,17 139:8

139:15 140:1,5

140:8,9,15,19

141:2,6,18

142:6

targets 12:5,6

75:7,13 85:5

85:19

tasking 138:8,21
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

24

technical 27:13

27:16 94:20

95:1 129:17

technicalities

99:19

technological

108:4,17,19,22

109:16 110:22

technology

109:10 111:4

113:11

telecommunic...

74:14

telephone 7:13

14:11,14,15

17:3 18:19

29:4 37:8

46:22 47:2,12

51:10 73:20

99:4 105:1,20

111:14

telephony 98:16

100:18 101:17

102:7

tell 73:19 79:21

91:4,6 121:14

127:15

tells 127:12

template 101:3

ten 9:9

tend 62:16

tent 54:3

term 97:5

terms 11:9

15:17 22:3

27:18 37:10

40:13 48:9

59:18 72:9

76:12 85:1

98:1 103:22

115:7 118:16

121:5 123:2,16

129:6 135:15

terrorism 6:8,15

40:15 82:22

92:6 116:1,4

terrorist 16:2,11

17:19 27:7

32:1,8,10,11

34:14 45:11

46:9

terrorists 45:14

49:2 125:12

terry 28:10,12

44:1,22 45:2

46:4,14,19

47:7 48:2,8

51:6 52:4 79:7

test 104:4

107:10

testimony 118:5

thank 6:19,22

20:11 21:20

33:1,3,4 43:19

52:9,11 54:4

72:19,21 77:13

84:21 107:17

121:9,11 126:1

132:8 137:17

142:9,16

thanks 43:21

69:21 95:21

104:18

thats 15:6 16:2

20:19 22:1

23:21 24:3,3

24:10 25:17

28:16 32:8,13

32:18,19,20

33:13 34:5,14

35:20 37:17

38:13 39:3

42:9 43:9 44:6

47:1 48:3,18

48:22 56:22

60:7,19 64:10

65:2,6 68:1

70:4,17 71:21

74:6 78:11

80:7 81:17

82:9,22 85:9

85:14 86:11

87:15,16 89:22

90:10 91:5,16

93:14 94:11

97:6 101:15

104:6,7,17,22

106:1 109:5,22

110:12,15

111:12 114:15

115:15 117:13

119:2 120:10

121:6 128:14

129:3 133:22

134:20,20

137:1 138:3

140:2

themes 90:3,3

theoretical 22:9

theory 31:5

69:16

thereof 11:6

theres 15:4

18:15 31:15,21

32:11,15 34:14

35:18 37:12

38:11 45:3

47:15,21 48:3

49:8 54:18

56:14,17 57:6

64:15 65:17

68:15 69:4

71:3 77:8 86:2

89:6,11 92:4

97:17 99:20

103:19 105:18

115:9 116:19

119:4 121:1

124:22 125:3

131:3 134:13

134:18

theyre 31:17

38:8 43:17

54:12,17 59:11

81:12 87:9

94:8 127:8,9

theyve 54:17

112:6 129:13

thing 16:3 24:15

38:3 46:2,16

47:4 48:12

49:6 73:22

74:3 75:3 94:3

94:5 97:17

104:21 122:9

125:15 129:10

things 7:12 12:4

18:14 21:1

25:1 35:14

56:7 61:4

62:16 65:4

72:22 73:14

74:2 93:7 97:4

99:21 103:20

115:13 117:7

121:14 129:6

130:16 141:14

think 11:6 12:21

13:5 14:2,10

15:3,6,16 18:5

18:10,15 20:5

20:22 22:16

23:20 25:6,12

25:17,18 26:3

26:6 31:5,11

31:12,19 32:2

32:5,19,20

33:5 34:4 35:9

36:7 39:12,14

41:2,4,9,17

42:14 43:9,13

44:5 46:13,16

47:19 48:6

49:4 50:2 51:3

52:4,18 53:6

53:10,11 54:7

55:12 56:12,17

57:2,16 58:4

58:20 59:2,4

59:12 60:8,14

60:17 62:10,14

63:4,9,22

64:13 65:2,5

66:2,6 67:13

68:1,5 70:4

71:10 72:2

73:11,13 75:8

77:8 78:19

79:1 81:6,8,9

81:11 82:5,9

82:18 83:7,8

83:21 85:2

86:7,19 87:19

88:1 89:6,21

90:4,13,20

91:5 92:21

93:8,10,19,22

94:1,11,21

96:21 97:5,12

99:10 100:8,10

101:22 102:4

102:10 103:1,3

104:2 107:19

109:8,15,20

110:20,22

111:8 112:19

113:13 114:1,9

114:17,17

116:11,13,15

117:11,13

119:19 120:2,7

120:18 121:6

121:15 122:4

122:11,14,18

123:7,14 124:7

124:20,22

125:3,9,15,16

125:16,19

126:7,13

128:10,16,18
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

25

129:2 130:8

131:1,2 134:10

134:21 135:2

136:10 137:4

138:1 140:12

141:16,19

142:1,4

thinking 44:1

89:22 94:3

thinks 37:16

third 9:4 19:15

38:3 41:15,18

47:19 62:21

66:22

thought 33:15

77:22 91:3

thoughts 65:20

98:22

thousands 78:21

78:22

threads 115:11

threat 14:7,9,22

three 8:14 26:19

40:6 81:22

92:16 118:2,6

118:15 119:3

threepart 36:5

thwarted 35:20

40:14

tier 19:12,14,15

ties 14:21

time 17:11 18:9

18:13 20:9,13

23:15 24:1,9

29:19 30:2,15

30:18,19,22

34:3,16 40:22

41:10 43:16

54:22 55:8

75:19 85:19

91:16 92:15

99:15,16 111:9

116:15,16

123:4 124:11

137:15

times 90:14

tipped 46:1

47:12

tips 14:22

tireless 7:4

title 70:12,13

87:14,15 94:13

127:22 128:16

today 8:5,14

26:5 33:4 53:5

63:17 67:11

76:13 90:4

93:12,16 97:22

98:8 121:19

122:11 139:9

todays 6:20 7:21

11:2 13:9

told 24:18

tolerable 139:5

toll 21:11,18

23:2,3

tool 14:19,20

15:5,16 16:5,6

16:6 29:9,10

36:19 40:18

48:19 122:17

tools 14:5 15:10

17:4,4 41:6

108:4,18,19,22

109:18,21

110:3,5

top 107:8

tracing 49:21

track 117:19,22

tracking 50:1

113:20

traditional

108:6,10 109:1

traditionally

94:8,13 125:8

trail 29:14

120:16

training 33:14

33:15,18 35:14

transcript 9:15

translates 94:16

transparency

55:5,22 56:7

73:5 75:4,10

75:18 87:20

119:5 123:2,16

transparent

85:14 93:21

transportation

16:14

treated 72:12

137:3

tree 97:19

trends 112:13

trespass 113:17

tried 118:9

119:1

true 12:17 33:11

91:5,12 93:14

try 16:8 19:20

43:7 81:8 82:7

93:20 94:17

trying 49:1,3

75:9 111:2

136:15

turn 13:8,21

17:7 18:2

28:13 54:3

61:9

turning 69:8

87:4

turns 36:5

twice 37:20

58:13,14

two 6:16 7:6 9:1

9:7,11 12:22

20:3 23:2

26:14 40:6

44:4 53:7,10

55:2 59:10,11

87:3 100:8

121:14 122:22

twopart 35:22

type 12:1 32:13

40:18 41:15

60:6 83:8

90:19 95:15

136:8 138:3

types 26:12

56:19 83:10

85:2 117:4

134:10 136:19

typical 94:12

typically 33:14

typo 27:15

128:13

U

u 3:6 12:1,14

13:1,4 27:11

29:20 32:15

65:22 66:1

67:2 68:2 69:9

69:12,16,18

70:22 71:8

73:19 95:4,19

107:13 111:20

132:19 133:10

133:18 134:5

136:6,6 141:12

unanimous 5:21

unauthorized

92:19

unclassified

124:5

unclear 13:3

76:1

uncomfortable

64:9

uncover 46:8

undermine

11:14 96:16

underside

113:20

understand

31:12 61:11

69:9 71:14

79:13 80:11

85:3 90:12

92:11 97:19

104:21 105:3,7

112:20 129:17

130:5,13 133:2

134:7 137:8

138:5 139:13

140:4 141:7

understanding

21:9 99:13

102:16 105:4

132:15

understood

107:16

undertaken

12:7 95:19

underway 85:21

undesirable

60:9

unearth 14:20

unearthed 15:15

unhappiness

105:19

unintended 8:10

united 32:17

34:12 45:17

46:9 48:22

49:5 67:14

69:12 91:21

105:2 132:15

136:3,4,5

137:1 141:8,19

university 3:17

4:5,8

unknown 29:11

unquestionably

91:11

unquote 128:19

unrest 105:18

unusual 70:5

updating 137:12

upwards 128:11
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

26

urged 9:11

urgent 61:22

usa 1:8 2:10 7:8

use 12:13 18:22

19:9 20:15

27:1 41:11

42:7,12 49:10

49:12 52:5

58:16 71:6

74:18,18 84:4

94:9 95:11

97:13 99:6,11

100:13,18

108:22 114:15

114:16 117:21

121:1 133:4

138:2

useful 13:5 40:9

48:19 54:19,21

63:14 72:6

85:14 141:2

usefulness 62:15

uses 11:14 72:7

usual 108:1

usually 108:10

utility 55:15

56:5

V

v 111:17,20,22

112:12,22

vaguer 45:9

valid 29:18

57:18 89:6

validation 64:21

validity 79:7

valley 10:21

valuable 14:4

36:8 63:10

value 15:17 18:7

18:15 38:5

39:16 42:4

69:4 102:12

112:2,15,15

118:11,16

134:8

variety 55:13

62:16 97:7

115:5,13

various 53:9

75:6 87:1

varying 8:16

vast 13:1

vehicle 63:14,14

113:20,21

veracity 11:5

version 124:18

viability 30:11

victims 39:11,12

39:12,17

view 13:22 14:2

57:21 112:17

116:18 118:9

119:15 139:5

viewpoint 87:20

views 6:21 8:6,6

9:13 117:12

violation 68:16

virginia 16:14

visits 115:12

vladeck 4:6

volumes 83:11

voluntarily

43:15 113:7

vs 44:1

W

waiting 9:19

wald 2:5 5:17

52:10,11 56:10

57:17 59:15

60:4 104:19,20

105:11,15

106:14,17

107:1,11,16

109:12 110:21

111:2 137:18

137:19 139:10

140:6 141:1,7

141:11

wall 92:4

walton 124:2

128:5

want 6:19,22

10:2,5 13:8

20:7 23:12

24:20 28:3

33:9 34:11

51:1,5 53:11

54:8 56:3,5,18

59:17 65:14

67:9 69:20

72:21 75:17,19

81:10 84:11

85:13 92:8,12

92:13 97:2,8

100:17,19

103:8,10

104:20 106:17

114:20,20,21

114:22 126:22

129:2,22 130:1

142:9

wanted 33:4

35:16 41:8

80:9 86:1

98:13 100:22

104:9 107:12

120:7 122:21

wants 23:11

32:16 53:22

warrant 47:18

48:15,16 69:14

71:12 125:8

127:21 128:1

warranted 42:3

warrants 25:7

125:14

washington

1:18 3:17 4:8

5:8 32:21

wasnt 38:16

94:14 102:18

way 17:9,10

19:22 22:14,18

36:4 40:5

44:10 45:11

46:6 49:21

50:21 72:11

76:4 79:6 84:5

85:9,15 123:1

132:22

ways 19:4 89:2

117:15

weapon 92:5

wed 19:12 20:4

20:4,5,6 64:9

92:22 100:6

119:12,22

week 10:13

118:4 122:5

125:11 127:14

weekend 81:5

weeks 56:16

65:17 68:8

137:7

weigh 15:19

welcome 5:5

9:17

wellsupported

130:19

wellversed

14:13

weve 14:3 18:5

22:2 26:16

31:2 32:2

38:19 40:11

45:13 49:1,2

55:16,17,19,21

62:15 82:11

86:20 90:13

100:14 103:21

112:1 113:1

122:3 126:8

136:11 137:14

140:12

whats 30:13

85:18 87:20

91:9 98:10

110:10

white 103:21

107:20 115:18

whos 10:6,7,9

25:2 31:13

80:17 83:15

124:2,10

wide 8:9

widespread

56:14 107:22

wiegmann 2:13

10:9 23:13

31:11 33:22

42:14 65:8

77:3,11,14

78:8 80:4

81:19 83:20

103:2 107:13

109:9,14

110:22 112:19

120:2 126:20

willful 68:16

willfully 133:17

willing 118:5

wilson 3:19

win 126:11,18

128:19 129:4

130:15

wire 130:20

wiretap 70:12

70:13 127:22

wiretaps 80:2

wondering 45:7

46:4 78:7 80:8

137:9

woodrow 3:19

word 57:2

wordiness 109:7

words 37:6 43:2

58:9 67:4

77:14 80:12
Public Hearing November 4, 2013

202-220-4158 www.hendersonlegalservices.com

Henderson Legal Services, Inc.

27

81:2 97:14

134:5

work 15:11

35:12 58:1

76:4 89:18

102:3 122:12

127:6,8 131:13

137:16 139:9

worked 123:13

working 103:3

123:18 137:15

works 83:7

world 10:15

96:2,4 115:15

worried 51:4

worth 38:8

65:12 68:5

worthwhile 11:7

worthy 53:10

wouldnt 19:6

40:20 64:17

76:18 78:5

97:8 113:22

128:22

wounded 39:7

writes 51:8

written 9:16

12:4 30:4

102:1 139:17

wrong 77:9

www 9:15

X

Y

yahoo 10:14

yall 130:8

yeah 45:15

57:17 103:16

106:17 109:12

109:12 110:21

110:21 111:9

126:20 136:10

141:4

year 71:10

78:20 118:2,3

118:6,7 127:9

yearly 137:22

years 17:13 18:5

21:2 23:2

37:21 39:6

40:2,6,6,7,7

63:1 118:15,21

119:3

york 39:3 44:6

44:11,18 48:4

51:3

youd 42:18 81:6

84:13 112:8

youre 11:20,21

15:13 31:10

43:2 46:6 50:2

52:18 53:4

57:12 64:20

75:8 93:19

104:3 105:9,22

112:6,20

130:10 133:13

135:10,13

142:6

youve 36:20,21

44:21 56:21

63:2,9 92:2

97:22 101:7

106:2 109:12

115:3 133:5,7

Z

zero 133:6

zhou 91:2

zwillgen 3:9

zwillinger 3:9

0

1

1 142:14

105 80:1

11 6:3 15:21

1127 1:17 5:8

12333 11:14

66:17 68:14

105:5 107:1,2

107:3,3,7,10

120:14 132:10

136:3 137:13

13 127:11

14 9:18

15 142:14

16 5:11

18 21:1 40:1,2

121:1 136:21

180 29:20 30:6

2

20 5:6

20022008 3:8

20036 1:18

2009 18:7

2011 38:14

2013 1:12 5:6,12

2015 37:22

215 1:8 2:10 7:7

7:10 11:3,10

13:9,17 14:11

15:20 16:17

17:6 20:20

21:3 22:13,19

35:13 36:11

37:20 38:8

39:22 52:13

57:3,8 60:8

73:1 75:15

80:11,14 82:3

82:14,17 84:1

84:18 85:6,11

88:17 90:6

92:17 97:16

98:10,13 99:1

99:7,11,16,20

101:8,13 102:7

104:11,22

107:21 111:13

112:16 117:19

119:7 120:10

133:5 134:20

215s 108:16

22 27:3 51:11

25 5:11 128:11

27 18:10

288 78:20

3

30 1:18 13:2

26:22 51:22

63:12,14 64:16

76:5 119:11,20

120:5

365 29:21

4

4 1:12

4th 5:6

5

50 129:4,4

6

60 139:20

7

702 1:9 2:11 7:8

7:17 11:3,10

65:14 66:5,18

69:10 71:5,14

75:16 85:17

132:10,11

137:19,22

138:6,7,22

139:8

8

9

9 1:18 5:6 6:3

15:21

90 26:20 27:1

30:2 35:6

36:14 37:1,12

42:1 50:12

51:19,20 52:1

58:13 62:6

63:13 73:21