INTELLIGENCE-S.M.A.R.T. versus HIGHLY CREATIVE GENIUS~FIVE FREEDOMS FIRST AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE I, SECTION V

Donald MacLean Kerr, Jr.

(b. April 8, 1939) ~current Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence >> SEE BELOW FOR DKERR INFO >>On October 23, 2007, Kerr gave a memorable speech at the annual "GEOINT" conference on Geospatial Intelligence (to an audience including many people from his prior NRO job). He said,

"[W]e really need to realize what a loaded word security really is. When I’m at work, and throughout my day, security is safety, as a barrier against physical or emotional harm. When I go home at night, security is privacy, as an expectation of freedom from unnecessary burdens. In the intelligence community, we have an obligation to protect both safety and privacy, and over the course of GEOINT 2007, as we talk about the hows of new technologies and tradecraft, I’d like to take a step back right now and talk about the whys >> "Safety and privacy – it's common thinking that, in order to have more safety, you get less privacy. I don’t agree with that. I work from the assumption that you need to have both. When we try to make it an either/or proposition, we’re bound to fail."

Later in the speech, he said,

"Too often, privacy has been equated with anonymity; and it's an idea that is deeply rooted in American culture. The Lone Ranger wore a mask but Tonto didn’t seem to need one even though he did the dirty work for free. You’d think he would probably need one even more. But in our interconnected and wireless world, anonymity – or the appearance of anonymity – is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

"Anonymity results from a lack of identifying features. Nowadays, when so much correlated data is collected and available – and I’m just talking about profiles on MySpace, Facebook, YouTube here – the set of identifiable features has grown beyond where most of us can comprehend. We need to move beyond the construct that equates anonymity with privacy and focus more on how we can protect essential privacy in this interconnected environment.

"Protecting anonymity isn’t a fight that can be won. Not with me in my current job. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that. Instead, privacy, I would offer, is a system of laws, rules, and customs with an infrastructure of Inspectors General, oversight committees, and privacy boards on which our intelligence community commitment is based and measured. And it is that framework that we need to grow and nourish and adjust as our cultures change.

"I think people here, at least people close to my age, recognize that those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all. It's a need to have it be adjustable to the needs of local societies as they evolve in our country. Eventually, we can only hope that people's perceptions – in Hollywood and elsewhere – will catch up."

These remarks produced major news coverage that said he'd said that "privacy no longer can mean anonymity...Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards [sic] people's private communications and financial information."

OK. Let me just say that it’s – I want to thank everyone for, I think, a very, very fascinating and informative debate. We’ll be able to view the program again on the ABA website, which is www.americanbar.org/natsecurity >>  But I think – I’m going to just quote from the Constitution. I think there’s a tension, and the tension is there, and I – that’s why I think we’re going to continue to have more debates about this area, because the Newseum is famous for the – protecting the First Amendment and, they like to say, the five freedoms. I could call on someone to ask them what the five freedoms of the First Amendment are, but we all know it’d be slightly embarrassing. So I’ll just read what the five freedoms are of the First Amendment.

MR. POLICINSKI: Bless you.
MR. RISHIKOF: They are

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

 

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

 

or the right of the people preferably – peaceably to assemble,

 

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

But the tension is Article 1, Section 5.

 

Article 1, Section 5, is very rarely read, but it’s ready by people who are in the intelligence business and the Congress. Article 1, Section 5, says,

 

“Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy” – secrecy’s actually mentioned in the Constitution, and privacy is not – “and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

The Congress is really the focus of understanding where secrecy should be. The executive branch has its perspective, and the judiciary has its, but the Congress is really, I think, where the center of gravity is.

And what I hope that – is that you enjoyed this particular event, and I’m looking forward to more ABA Newseum events in which we actually explore these issues in such a mature, thoughtful way. I think we had more light than heat, which is what really one focuses for. And I again want to thank the Newseum, Medill, and the McCormick Foundation for supporting this, and I particularly would like you to join me in thanking our panelists, who I think were extremely enlightening and helpful this afternoon. (Applause.)

So that ends the proceedings, and I look forward to seeing some of you later. But I want to thank you again for taking time and doing this.

Again, www.americanbar.org/nationalsecurity

If you’d like to receive future notices of programs such as this one, please send your email address to the contact link on our website.

I want to call your attention to three books that we have that are on – for sale. The first is the – “National Security Law in the News,” which I highly recommend, which goes through many, many areas of the national security law and how journalism interact. A number of people on the panel have written actually chapters and it’s extremely informative.

We have another book, called “Patriots Debate,” which looks at contemporary issues in national security, and then “National Security Law: Fifty Years of Transformation.” I think Jill Rhodes is in the audience, and she – it’s another book that sort of lays out the big issues.

(END) 

 

Donald MacLean Kerr, Jr.

He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Thursday, October 4, 2007. He most recently was the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office. He was sworn into that position July 2005 by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. Prior to his position at the NRO, he was Deputy Director of Science and Technology at the Central Intelligence Agency from 2001 to 2005. He was also Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Kerr was nominated to be Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence by President George W. Bush on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 by a vote of 12-3, reported out the nomination of Kerr to serve as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.

Dr. Kerr was educated at Cornell University, receiving his BSEE in 1963, MS in Microwave Electronics in 1964, and Ph.D in plasma physics in 1966 for "Electronic Properties of the Penning Discharge Plasma".

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Donald_Kerr