FISA

“Some Kind of Oversight”: William C. Banks Discusses FISA Section 702 and its Reauthorization with Bloomberg Law

Congress Faces Deadline on Controversial FISA Program

(Bloomberg Radio | Dec. 22, 2017) William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University School of Law, discusses whether or not Congress will vote to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008—and specifically FISA Section 702—which allows the NSA to collect emails and other communications from U.S. companies and persons while pursuing overseas foreign targets. He speaks with Bloomberg’s Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio’s “Politics, Policy, Power and Law.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2017-12-22/congress-faces-deadline-on-controversial-fisa-program-audio

Under Surveillance: William C. Banks Speaks to WIRED About Kushner, Russia, FBI, & FISA

EVEN IF KUSHNER CAN’T RECALL HIS RUSSIA TALKS, THE FBI WOULD

(WIRED | July 24, 2017) On Monday, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the press that he did not “collude with Russia” or “know of anyone else in the campaign who did so.” In his prepared remarks for Congress, Kushner described several interactions he had with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, but also claimed to have no record or recollection of other conversations that have been previously reported by the media.

“The Russian ambassador has probably been under surveillance since before you and I were born.”

Fortunately, investigators don’t need to rely on Kushner’s apparently porous memory about whom he spoke with when, and about what. The Federal Bureau of Investigation likely has it all on tape.

Listening In

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA for short, permits intelligence agencies to collect the communications of any “agents of a foreign power,” including diplomats. “The Russian ambassador has probably been under surveillance since before you and I were born,” says William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University Law School and director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism.

That means that while Kushner failed to report many of his meetings with foreign officials on his official SF-86 form—an innocent mistake by his assistant, Kushner insists—Congressional investigators and indeed the Department of Justice’s special counsel Robert Mueller could easily check Kushner’s statements with the FBI’s own intercepts–particularly the two reported 2016 phone calls that Kushner says he does not remember. (The FBI handles FISA collection in the US, which would include the Russian embassy, while the NSA listens in abroad) …

To read the whole article, click here.

 

A Serious Standard: William C. Banks Discusses FISA Warrants, Carter Page With WIRED, VOA

The Carter Page Surveillance Doesn’t Prove Anyone’s Conspiracy Theory

(WIRED | April 12, 2017) It’s easy for all sides to read too much into the news that the FBI reportedly obtained a warrant to surveil former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page. Those convinced of Trump’s Russia ties may see validation and proof of a grander conspiracy. Others may see this lending credence to Trump’s allegations that the Obama administration ordered illegal, politically motivated surveillance in the heat of last year’s presidential campaign. In truth, it does neither. At least, not yet.

“In FISA you have the probability of a possibility of foreign intelligence connection. In criminal cases you have a probability of criminality.”

In truth, the most important takeaway from this week’s Washington Post report has little to do with Trump directly at all. The focus should instead be on one key implication: That Russia didn’t just interfere in the US election; they may have had help from the inside.

It’s a tantalizing report, one that’s tempting to read too much into from a few different directions.

Courting Surveillance

According to unnamed US officials in the Post report, the FBI attained its Page surveillance warrant through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If that’s true, it means that when asking for the warrant, the FBI presented the secretive FISA court with enough probable cause that the judge granted the request.

That’s both a big deal and not at all uncommon; the FISA court granted 1,456 requests for surveillance warrants in 2015 alone. The National Security Agency routinely uses these warrants to monitor the phone calls and emails of foreign nationals. It generally doesn’t take much to get a request through. If there’s a chance that the target could provide intelligence value, FISA judges give the green light.

What is less common, though, is surveilling a US citizen, like Carter Page. As you might guess, that makes for a tougher sell to a court that focuses on foreign intelligence.

“At a basic level, the standard under FISA is higher for US persons than a non-US person,” says Carrie Cordero, a national security lawyer who has worked directly on FISA process issues. “For a US person, the individual would have to be knowingly engaged in clandestine intelligence activities, or aiding and abetting others” doing the same.

Emphasis on the knowingly. “The facts to establish probable cause need to go beyond that the person is an unwitting dupe,” says Cordero. In other words, you can’t just Mr. Magoo your way into FISA surveillance. Intelligence officials have to demonstrate that the person in question has been working as a foreign agent, or on behalf of a foreign power.

Don’t get tripped up by that use of “probable cause,” which has a different meaning here than it does on Law & Order reruns. “It’s the same phrase, but it’s very different,” says William Banks, director of Syracuse University’s Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism. “In FISA you have the probability of a possibility of foreign intelligence connection. In criminal cases you have a probability of criminality.”

That’s still a serious standard—especially given that to obtain a FISA warrant against a US citizen, the intelligence community has to prove that the surveillance is necessary to protect national security. For a foreign diplomat, that eavesdropping just has to be ‘relevant.’

And in either case, FISA approval requires evidence aplenty. “It could be any number of things,” says Banks. “Visual sightings, he said-she said, listening to conversations from a public place, or an informant.” According to the Post, in Page’s case that included multiple meetings with Russian agents …

The Carter Page Surveillance Doesn’t Prove Anyone’s Conspiracy Theory

SEE ALSO:

Sorting Out US Surveillance Methods, Laws (VOA News | April 12, 2017)

… Until the attacks of September 11, 2001, FISA surveillance mostly targeted foreign spies and diplomats. But with “the arrival of international terrorism on our shores, there has been more focus on that side of things,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University …

 

 

Surveillance of Presidents and People: William C. Banks Speaks to CNN, Bloomberg, Other Media

In the wake of two surveillance-related stories in the past few days, the media have turned to the national security expertise of INSCT Director William C. Banks.

The first story concerns the explosive March 4, 2017, claim made by President Donald J. Trump on Twitter that former President Barack Obama personally ordered a “wiretap” of the Trump presidential campaign before the November 2016 election, presumably to ascertain links between the campaign and the Russian government. This claim led to media questions about how and why a wiretap of phones or electronic communications could be made by the government, the workings of the FISA court (where such a request might lawfully be made), and whether or not President Trump could find and release this information in order to quell confusion and concern. Banks addressed these issues nationally with CNN’s Erin Burnett Outfront (see video clip below); MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show (on background); and the Sinclair Media Group (“Congress poised to investigate Trump’s wiretap claims”).

Secondly, on March 7, 2017, Wikileaks released thousands of documents that appeared to catalog the CIA’s domestic cybersurveillance and cyberespionage capabilities, and in particular new technology that enables the agency to surveil targets via personal electronic devices. Banks discussed this issue on Bloomberg Radio with fellow national security expert Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law (see audio clip below).

Graham Threatens Subpoena for Trump Wiretap Info

(CNN Erin Burnett Outfront | March 8, 2017)

WikiLeaks Reveals CIA Cyber-Spying Tactics

(Bloomberg Radio | March 8, 2017) Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, and William Banks, Director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University College of Law, discuss new documents released by WikiLeaks, which, if true, show the extent of the CIA’s abilities to use personal technology devices to monitor seemingly private conversations and messages. They speak with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio’s “Bloomberg Law.”

 

An “Extraordinary” Claim: William C. Banks Discusses Trump, Wiretaps, & the FISA Court With CNY Central

Congress poised to investigate Trump’s wiretap claims

(CNY Central | March 6, 2017) Members of Congress appear ready to investigate allegations that the Obama administration may have authorized surveillance on Donald Trump during his candidacy, a claim the president made over Twitter on Saturday.

“These orders are secret. They are deliberated in the court in a secret proceeding, and the president is not privy to them.”

Without providing any evidence or context for the accusation, President Trump tweeted, “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found.” He sent out three more messages on the subject questioning whether it was legal for “a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election?”

By early Sunday morning, White House press secretary Sean Spicer called on Congress to investigate Trump’s wiretap claims into their investigation into Russian election interference to determine “whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016.” He added that “neither the White House nor the President will comment further until such oversight is conducted.”

The allegations made by the president are extremely serious — if they are true. And despite round the clock media coverage of the story, there are very few actual facts that have been made public to back up Trump’s “Nixon/Watergate” claims against former President Obama.

In fact, it appears Trump’s tweets stemmed from a Breitbart news story published on Friday. The story included analysis from conservative radio show host Mark Levin who outlined a series of open-source media reports that the Obama Department of Justice sought twice to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court order to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several campaign advisers. The request filed in October was reportedly rejected, while another filed in August was approved. Those original claims, citing unnamed government officials, were first published by HeatStreet, a UK-based publication, citing two sources “with links to the counter-intelligence community” …

… Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) pointed to the complete lack of evidence in Trump’s claims, saying on Monday, “I have seen no evidence to substantiate the President’s claims … The White House has provided no facts to support President Trump’s rogue comments.”

Gaining access to the evidence to substantiate or refute Trump’s claims that Obama had Trump Tower bugged during the 2016 election will be an incredibly difficult feat, especially because of the highly secretive nature of the FISA Court.

The process for releasing FISA Court orders and opinions is extremely selective and really only got started after the passage of the 2015 USA FREEDOM Act, explained William Banks, Syracuse University law professor and director of school’s national security and counter-terrorism institute. Information is released either through annual reports, which include the gross number of requests and fulfilled FISA Court orders, or from time to time the court will release its opinions, if it is deemed in the public interest.

Under the law, not even the president can access current or previous court orders. “These orders are secret. They are deliberated in the court in a secret proceeding, and the president is not privy to them,” Banks stated. In that respect, the president could not have learned about the alleged FISA Court through official channels. “It just cant happen,” the professor argued. “So what he’s doing here is repeating something he read in Breitbart.”

Reports claiming that Trump learned about the FISA Court orders through his senior White House counsel are also specious. The New York Times quoted a senior White House official over the weekend claiming the Donald F. McGahn was trying to secure access to what he believed was a FISA Court order authorizing surveillance related to Trump and his associates. Banks reacted to the report saying, “That would be extraordinary. The law does not provide for it” …

To read the whole story, click here.

William C. Banks Speaks to WAER About Phone Data Collection

Sunset of the Patriot Act Leads to a Rise in Restrictions of Collection of Americans’ Phone Data

[pullquoteright]When the government has been pressed to identify cases that have been thwarted or instances where viable intelligence has been collected they have not identified any specifics.”[/pullquoteright](WAER, June 4, 2015) A Syracuse University counter-terrorism expert says the changes to federal surveillance powers will result in needed oversight and transparency of the government’s activity. In six months, the national security agency will no longer be able to collect bulk data from all domestic phone records. Instead, the NSA will have to request the information on a case-by-case basis from the phone companies by obtaining a court order. William Banks directs SU’s Institute for National Security and Counter Terrorism, and says the additional oversight is welcome.

Banks says the balance between security and liberty is an elusive one, which can make it hard to cut back or justify the programs. He says part of the problem is no one really knows how effective the phone record surveillance program has been.

“What we really like to know has not been shared. When the government has been pressed to identify cases that have been thwarted or instances where viable intelligence has been collected they have not identified any specifics. They say it has been helpful, but we do not know that for sure …

To read the whole story and to listen to the radio segment, click here.

William C. Banks to Join Cybersurveillance Symposium

On January 23 and 24, 2015, INSCT Director William C. Banks will be a panelist at the Washington and Lee Law Review Lara D. Gass Symposium on “Cybersurveillance in the Post-Snowden Age.”

Banks will speak on the panel “Post-Snowden Litigation and Post-Snowden Reforms,” moderated by Mark A. Drumbl, Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law and Director of the Transnational Law Institute, Washington and Lee University School of Law. The symposium’s keynote speaker will be Gen. Michael Hayden, Principal, Chertoff Group and Former Director, U.S. National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency

More information can be found here.

[separatorline]

Symposium Agenda

Jan. 23, 2015

4 p.m.  Opening/Welcome

Nora V. Demleitner, Dean and Roy L. Steinheimer Jr. Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law

4:15 p.m.-5:30 p.m.  “The Snowden Disclosures and Framing the Cybersurveillance Debate”

Moderator:

  • Russell A. Miller, Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law

Panelists:

  • Margaret Hu, Assistant Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law
  • Jeffrey Kahn, Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School of Law
  • Gregory S. McNeal, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
  • Stephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law

5:30 p.m.-6:45 p.m.  “Post-Snowden Litigation and Post-Snowden Reforms”

Moderator:

  • Mark A. Drumbl, Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law and Director of the Transnational Law Institute, Washington and Lee University School of Law

Panelists:

  • William Banks, Director, Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, Maxwell School of Syracuse University
  • Ashley Deeks, Associate Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
  • Christopher Slobogin, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Program, Vanderbilt Law School
  • Patrick Toomey, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project

7:30 p.m.-9 p.m.  Dinner Keynote

  • General Michael Hayden, Principal, Chertoff Group and Former Director, National Security Agency and Central Intelligence Agency

Jan. 24, 2015

8:15 a.m.-10 a.m.  Interpreting the Fourth Amendment after Snowden”

Moderator:

  • Erik Luna, Sydney and Frances Lewis Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law

Panelists:

  • Jennifer Daskal, Assistant Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law
  • David Gray, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Frances King Carey School of Law
  • Timothy C. MacDonnell, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Black Lung Clinic, Washington and Lee University School of Law
  • Russell Weaver, Professor of Law and Distinguished University Scholar, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

10:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m.  “Snowden Disclosures and the Corporate Impact”

Moderator:

  • Marcy Wilder, Privacy and Information Management Practice Group, Hogan Lovells US LLP

Panelists:

  • Danielle Citron, Lois K. Macht Research Professor of Law, University of Maryland Frances King Carey School of Law
  • Joshua A.T. Fairfield, Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law
  • John Falk, Founder and CEO, Vigilent Inc.
  • David Lieber, Policy Counsel, Google

11:45 a.m.-1 p.m.  “Data Privacy and Data Protection”

Moderator:

  • Peter S. Margulies, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law

Speakers:

  • David Medine, Chairman, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
  • Bart Forsyth, Chief of Staff, Congressman James Sensenbrenner
  • Ashkan Soltani, Chief Technologist, Federal Trade Commission

1 p.m.-2:15 p.m.  “National Security Ethics, Privacy, and Executive Power”

Moderator:

  • Angela Smith, Roger Mudd Professor of Ethics and Professor of Philosophy, Roger Mudd Center for Ethics, Washington and Lee University

Panelists:

  • Aly Colón, Knight Professor in Media Ethics, Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communications, Washington and Lee University
  • Woodrow N. Hartzog, Associate Professor, Cumberland School of Law, Samford
  • Rachel Levinson-Waldman, Counsel, Liberty and National Security Program, Brennan Center for Justice
  • Robert O’Harrow, Reporter, Washington Post

2:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m.  “Emerging Technologies and the Future of Cybersurveillance”

Moderator:

  • Mark Rush, Stanley D. and Nikki Waxberg Professor of Politics and Law, Williams School, Washington and Lee University

Panelists:

  • Christopher Jenks, Assistant Professor of Law and Director of the Criminal Justice Clinic, SMU Dedman School of Law
  • Toni Locy, Associate Professor of Journalism and Mass Communications, Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communications, Washington and Lee University
  • Geoffrey S. Corn, Professor of Law and Presidential Research Professor, South Texas College of Law
  • Gavin Corn, Chief Counsel, International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center, U.S. Department of Justice

5:30 p.m.-7 p.m.  Dinner Keynotes (Point/Counterpoint)

  • Ben Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
  • Shane Harris, Senior Writer, Foreign Policy Magazine and ASU Future of War Fellow, New America Foundation

Symposium Sponsors

  • Provost Office, Washington and Lee University Mudd Center for Ethics, Washington and Lee University
  • Dean’s Office, Washington and Lee University School of Law Frances Lewis Law Center, Washington and Lee University School of Law
  • John S. and James L. Knight Program in Media Ethics
  • Dept. of Journalism & Mass Communications, Washington and Lee University Department of Politics, Williams School, Washington and Lee University

Audio from ABA National Security Conference Now Online

The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law and National Security has released audio files of sessions from the 24th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law Conference. 

INSCT Director William C. Banks spoke on Panel III: The Future of Foreign Intelligence, with Moderator Laura Donohue and fellow discussants Jameel Jaffer and Robert Litt (David Kris, although scheduled, was unable to join the panel).

[button link=”http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/multimedia/law_national_security/24thannualreview/podcasts/Day1/Panel%203%20(Day%201)%20-%20final.authcheckdam.mp3″ size=”medium” color=”grey” rounded=”yes”]Listen to the Panel[/button]

[separatorline]

Full Conference Audio

Opening Remarks & Panel I – Executive Branch Updates on Developments in National Security Law 

Panel II – Role of the Judiciary in National Security

Moderator: Viet Dinh; Discussants: the Hon. John D. Bates, the Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, the Hon.  M. Margaret McKeown, and Benjamin Wittes

Keynote Address – Protecting Critical Infrastructure in a Heightened Risk Environment

The Hon. Suzanne E. Spaulding

Panel III – The Future of Foreign Intelligence

Moderator: Laura Donohue; Discussants: William Banks, Jameel Jaffer, David Kris, and Robert Litt

Panel IV – Ethical Issues Facing Lawyers Practicing National Security Law: A Discussion

Discussants: Harvey Rishikof and the Hon. James Baker

Panel V – The Economic & Financial Threat Domain: Making Smart Sanctions Smarter

Moderator: John Norton Moore; Discussants: Ilan Berman, Richard Newcomb, Steve Perles, Andrew Davenport and Juan Zarate

Keynote Address

Vice Admiral Nanette DeRenzi, US Navy

Panel VI – Military Justice: Continuity or Change?

Moderator: Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF (Ret.);Discussants: Lieutenant General Flora Darpino, U.S. Army, Rachel VanLandingham, Gary Solis and Captain Lindsay Rodman, USMC

Panel VII – Cybersecurity: Will We Ever Be Secure?

Moderator: Jill Rhodes; Discussants: Judith Miller, Keith Lowry and Kathleen Rice

24th Annual Review of the Field of National Security Law

[infobox color=”orange”]

WHEN: Nov. 6, 2014 – Nov. 7, 2014
WHERE: Capital Hilton | 1001 16th St. NW, Washington, DC
CO-SPONSORS: American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security; Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law; Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, Duke University School of Law; and Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown Law.

More information at: americanbar.org/natsecurity

[/infobox]

CONFERENCE PROGRAM (Download)

Thursday, Nov. 6, 2014

8:00 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.   Conference Overview and Welcome

  • James McPherson, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security
  • William Hubbard, President, American Bar Association

8:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.   Panel I – Executive Branch Updates on Developments in National Security Law

Moderator

Benjamin Powell, Partner, WilmerHale

Discussants

  • Caroline Krass, General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency
  • Robert Litt, General Counsel, Office of the Director of National Intelligence
  • Brig. Gen.Richard C. Gross, Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Army
  • Rajesh De, General Counsel, National Security Agency
  • Cynthia Ryan, General Counsel, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
  • John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General National Security Division, US Department of Justice

10:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.   Panel II – Role of the Judiciary in National Security

Moderator

Viet Dinh, Professorial Lecturer in Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Partner, Bancroft, PLLC

Discussants

  • The Hon. John D. Bates, Judge, US District Court for the District of Columbia
  • The Hon. Brett Kavanaugh, Judge, US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
  • The Hon. M. Margaret McKeown, Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, Brookings Institution

1:15 p.m. – 2:15 p.m.   Keynote Address

The Hon. Suzanne E. Spaulding, Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs Directorate, US Department of Homeland Security

2:30 – 4:15 p.m.   Panel III – The Future of Foreign Intelligence

Moderator

Laura Donohue, Professor of Law and Director, Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown Law

Discussants

  • William Banks, Director, INSCT
  • Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union
  • David Kris, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Intellectual Ventures, and Former Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, US Department of Justice
  • Robert Litt, General Counsel, US Office of the Director of National Intelligence

6:00 p.m.   Dinner with Keynote Address “Changes in the World Economy and Its Impact on National Security”

Sir James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn Fund Management, and Former President, The World Bank

Friday, Nov. 7, 2014

8:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m.   Welcome and Opening Remarks

8:30 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.   Panel IV – Ethical Issues Facing Lawyers Practicing National Security Law

  • Harvey Rishikof, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security Advisory Committee
  • The Honorable James Baker, Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

10:30 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.   Panel V – The Economic & Financial Threat Domain: Making Smart Sanctions Smarter

Moderator

John Norton Moore, Walter L. Brown Professor of Law and Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law

Discussants

  • Ilan Berman, Vice President, American Foreign Policy Council
  • Richard Newcomb, Partner, DLA Piper and Former Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, US Department of the Treasury
  • Steve Perles Senior Attorney & Founder, Perles Law Firm, PC
  • Andrew K. Davenport, COO, RWR Advisory Group
  • Juan C. Zarate, Chairman, Financial Integrity Network and Former National Security Advisor, US Secretary of the Treasury

1:15 p.m. – 1:45 p.m.   Keynote Address

Vice Adm. Nanette DeRenzi, Judge Advocate General, US Navy

2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.   Panel VI – Military Justice: Continuity or Change?

Moderator

Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF (Ret.), Professor of  Practice and Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security, Duke University School of Law

Discussants

  • Lieutenant General Flora Darpino The Judge Advocate General, US Army
  • Rachel E. VanLandingham, Associate Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School
  • Gary D. Solis, Professor of Law, Georgetown Law
  • Capt. Lindsay L. Rodman, US Marine Corps

Judge Advocate

3:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.   Panel VII – Cybersecurity: Will We Ever Be Secure?

Moderator

Jill D. Rhodes, Vice President and Chief Information Security Officer, Trustmark Companies

Discussants

  • Judith Miller, Co-Chair, ABA Cybersecurity Legal Task Force
  • Susan Ginsburg Principal, US Civil Security, LLC
  • Keith Lowry, Security Liaison Officer, Office of Security Operations, US Food and Drug Administration
  • Kathleen Rice, Counsel, Faegre Baker Daniels