SPEAKER: We have a significant capacityto engage in surveillance domestically.The question is the extent to which we should do itor should not do it.Our surveillance technologies now are really very, very goodand their potential for being very intrusive is there.For example, we all know about Skype interviewsor using Skype.

SPEAKER [continued]: Well, those can be hacked into.They can be taped.You don't know who's watching you always.Also, engaging in surveillance of computers.Those can easily be accessed.So whatever you think you're doing,someone else could be watching.Now, the thing is that that's notgoing to happen routinely or regularly.

SPEAKER [continued]: There has to be good reason for someoneto begin surveillance domestically.There are legal parameters.There is the need for perhaps a warrant from a federal court.There are a lot of different hurdlesthat have to be overcome, but it can be done.Now, how much should it be used domesticallydepends on the threat.

SPEAKER [continued]: If there is a specific threat, of course,then the federal government can fairly easilyengage in surveillance.They can have a court order, have a warrant,or whatever it might be.If there's an emergency, though, if there is another attackand the time is of the essence, well,perhaps these warrants or whatevershould be released much faster, much quicker.

SPEAKER [continued]: Then we have to ask about the scope of the surveillance.Should it be targeted against a specific person,specific facility, specific computer?Or should the federal government,should the intelligence agencies,just have an umbrella approach to surveillance?Should there be keywords that would turn on a switch.For example, on texting or cell phone,

SPEAKER [continued]: if I began making jokes about bombs,should that automatically trigger surveillance?Well, these are open questions.Simply because you have to look at how plausiblethe threat is within the current environment.And if there is a serious threat,if we are under siege, for example,if there is a terrorist campaign in the United States,then perhaps we will let those surveillance safeguards slip.

SPEAKER [continued]: It's very possible that that could happen.And there are cases in which intelligence agencieshave gone too far.It happened fairly recently with a congressional officewhere the intelligence agency beganlooking at their computers.And initially, the director of the intelligence agencysaid, no, of course that's not happening.

SPEAKER [continued]: He did an internal investigation and it had happened.And the particular lawmaker was of course livid about it.But the bottom line is, it happened.Even though the apology came later.So the potential is there.And the examples are there that it has happened before.Well, we'll see what happens during the next emergency.We shall see what happens if the environment becomes very

SPEAKER [continued]: dangerous, if it comes red hot.Perhaps we, meaning the American people,will say it's necessary.It could become popular.And that is a worrisome scenario wherethis intrusive surveillance becomes popular.And that has happened before and it's likely to happen again.