(Also see Hillary Clinton in 2008 Info Center Hub.)
NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS
And finally when it comes to national security, we’ve seen to our dismay that this Administration is not doing a good enough job in protecting the personal information of veterans, Medicare and Medicaid patients. And we have grave doubts about whether it even cares to protect personal information about citizens.
We learned just a couple of days ago that in September of last year, a computer hacker was able to steal the personal records of at least 1,500 employees and contractors of the National Nuclear Safety Administration. That is the federal agency charged with guarding our country’s nuclear weapons stockpile.
This time it was personal information. Next time who knows what kind of information will be compromised or how, either, forms of information could be used. The writing is on the wall. It is in neon. It is time to get serious about cyber-security. Unfortunately, the task of beefing up our cyber-security has been kicked around multiple offices at the Department of Homeland Security. Several political appointees have quit in frustration. We are just living on borrowed time.
We need to make sure that we are better prepared against cyber-attacks than we turned out to be against hurricanes.
BALANCING PRIVACY RIGHTS AND NATIONAL SECURITY
We also face the challenge of balancing the vital role that information technology plays in defending our national security with our citizens’ rights to privacy... We track terrorists across continents through their cell phones. We monitor terrorist supporters through Internet chat rooms. We had phone intercepts that should have given us advance notice of 9-11, if we had been paying attention.
Now, although our Founding Fathers could not have imagined data mining or terror cells, they did anticipate differences of opinion between the Executive and Legislative Branches, and even within them. And they created the system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution.
Now, I believe that the President, and I mean any President, must have the ability to pursue terrorists and defend our national security with the best technology at hand. But we have existing law that allows that: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or so-called FISA.
We have judicial mechanisms in place that this Administration could have used to obtain authority for what it did. We have a system of Congressional oversight and review that this Administration could have used to obtain a legislative solution to these challenges.
Instead, they relied on questionable legal authority and bypassed our system of checks and balances...
In denying Congress and the courts any information, the Administration’s refrain has been "trust us." ... That’s unacceptable. Their track record does not warrant our trust...
The answer to this delicate security dilemma is neither blank checks nor blanket opposition; it is to use the judicial and legislative mechanisms we have to build a consensus about what is necessary, what is legal, and what is effective.
So first Congress must have an oversight role and help decide where to draw the line between privacy and national security. But we can’t draw anything without knowing the facts...
If the executive needs additional authority to legitimately monitor and track terrorists, it should not just simply overlook and ignore the law. The President feels he needs to more flexibility in order to protect our security, he should engage the Congress... It is a cause for deep concern that the Administration did not seek changes to the FISA law to legitimize its surveillance program, but instead deliberately chose to act outside of that law.
Second, the judiciary also has a critical role to play in guarding our privacy from unnecessary government intrusion. As a general rule, when the government wants to conduct electronic surveillance in the United States, it must go before a judge and obtain a warrant...
Third, any framework for domestic surveillance must ultimately facilitate, not hinder, effective intelligence-gathering to prevent terrorism. Our surveillance capabilities must have speed, agility, and flexibility. They must also be accurate... This can be done within our system of checks and balances and within the rule of law.
The rule of law is not an obstacle, despite what some in the Executive Branch seem to believe. In fact, the rule of law facilitates our safety and security.
Without clear rules, our intelligence analysts don't have guidance on how they should gather intelligence; the intelligence they do collect is distributed haphazardly throughout government agencies; and useful intelligence that could help bring terrorists to justice could be rendered worthless because it was gathered through extra-legal means.
If we want to protect our safety and our privacy, we need clear guidelines and we need to get smart about technologies.
