Stevia is a wild card in the marketplace. Made from the Stevia or sweetleaf plant, it is a natural but non-nutritive high-intensity sweetener with up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar, making it extremely desirable in the low-calorie food market. Stevia and its derivatives are currently only approved for sale as dietary supplements in the United States. However, there are industry expectations for approval on the horizon for use in food and beverages, and applications in place for patent protections for a stevia derivative developed jointly by Coca-Cola and Cargill, as well as one developed by PepsiCo and Merisant Co., under brand names Purevia and Truvia.

"Various health, consumer and market trends will affect the sweetener market," says Tatjana Meerman, publisher of Packaged Facts. "A focus on low-glycemic-index foods supports growth for high-intensity non-nutritive sweeteners; concerns about health effects of high-fructose corn syrup may slow its sales as marketers switch to alternatives; continued trending toward natural ingredients will drive growth for natural and organic sugar and sweeteners."

"Trends in the U.S. Market for Sugar, Sugar Substitutes and Sweeteners" examines the latest information on market size, projections for future growth, future trends and opportunities, consumer demographics, retail landscape, and leading producers. For further information visit: http://www.packagedfacts.com/Trends-Sugar-Substitutes-1767538/.

About Packaged Facts - Packaged Facts, a division of Market Research Group, publishes market intelligence on a wide range of consumer industries, including consumer goods and retailing, foods and beverages, demographics, pet, and financial products. Packaged Facts also offers a full range of custom research services. For more information contact Jenn Tekin at 240-747-3015 or jtekin@marketresearch.com.

Contact:
Jenn Tekin
Packagedfacts.com
240-747-3015
jtekin@marketresearch.com

11200 Rockville Pike
Suite 504
Rockville, Maryland 20852

800.298.5294
240.747.3004 f
www.PackagedFacts.com

SOURCE: Packaged Facts

mailto:jtekin@marketresearch.com
http://www.PackagedFacts.com

Ara spoke both with her drums and lit up the stage. The female Nigerian musical export is now being packaged by Detail Solicitors, which says a lot for the firm of lawyers who dared to move away from straight-jacketed dinners, seminars and conferences by thinking and acting out of the box.

According to the firm's top entertainment lawyer, Dolapo Kukoyi, "In our culture of promoting clients, we are set at Detail Solicitors to promote Ara who is a client of ours. Ara is an enigma and she will be releasing an album soon. We are quite proud of who she is, what she has achieved and what more she is set to achieve."

Ayuli Jemide, Lead Partner, Detail Solicitors, opened with a short welcome remark introducing the 15 lawyers that constitute the Detail team. He urged everyone to "Enjoy!" And in compliance to his request, everyone had fun - with good Chinese cuisine, great roots music, plenty to drink and a load of surprises.

In Ara's first performance of the evening, she came out as Ara the Entertainer (not just the performer she's known to be). The thrill began with a treasure hunt as Ara in an abracadabra fashion asked all the guests to reach under their tables for dozens of 'shekere' (a local hand-held percussion instrument with beads around a calabash).

The guests delightfully launched their 'shekeres' as Ara challenged them to imitate the sounds she made on her talking drum. It was a rip-roaring time as everyone 'shekere-d' in unison.

As though that was not enough excitement for one night, Ara came on stage after dinner for a second performance and it was the crescendo. She played the Nigerian and American national anthems on her talking drum.

Her on-stage choreography wowed everyone and then she came off the stage and courted her appreciative audience, making dance partners of the more than willing guests.

All is now set as D'banj, Faze, Julius Agwu and Ego storm Lagos in the Xpose musical concert.

Scheduled to hold in XQZMOI, Lekki, the artistes have promised to let it all hang out when, in an active exchange with their audiences, each would reveal personal secrets that their fans want to know.

Talking about the show, the Koko master, D'banj said, "I like being honest with my fans and I think it would be fun to devote a part of the concert to interacting with them. And that's what Xpose is all about- more fun and getting closer to the people."

Faze is ready to 'expose' his best kept secrets as well. According to him, "Everybody wants to know the personal secrets of the popular entertainers. So, in between the songs, we are going to come on stage together and challenge each other to let it all hang out and Xpose who we really are. It's going to be absolutely crazy."

Faze, a former member of the Hip-hop group Plantashun Boyz, solo album Faze Alone sold more than a million copies before the release date. Like D'banj, he has won dozens of awards and nominations. "I've always said my music is about who I am. It is honest music, so while we are going to talk about things that would surprise a lot of people we are going to give them the time of their lives. What they are going to be surprised to find out is that Nigerian entertainers are not as irresponsible as some people think," Faze said.

As to what he would 'expose' Faze said, "Come to the show and be the first to know."

According to Ego, the former Lagbaja sidekick, "It's gonna be wild. Everybody thinks I have a certain secret I've been hiding for some time now. At the Xpose concert they are going to find out the real truth," she said with a wink.

Julius 'De Genius' Agwu - the comedian and showbiz impresario, who pioneered the music/comedy entertainment genre, would anchor the event.

When entertainment newsmen gathered last Saturday at the Planet One, Maryland, Lagos for the unveiling of this new music group called N-jection, nothing prepared us for what we saw: 3 kids aged between 13 and 8 were the focus.

Nazerene called Naz, Napthali aka Tali for short and Naomi, the 8-year-old diva in the group were presented as members of the new group N-jection.

The three siblings surnamed Eke are managed by their mother Mrs Njideka Ezenwa-Eke who spoke on the children's love for music and how the group was formed.

According to her, the kids have shown amazing talents since birth and will usually run to the keyboard every morning after they awake.

Naz, the eldest in the group who also plays the keyboard has led the group to perform at the Regional Art Gallery on American Democracy project, MTN Homecoming 2007, United Nations International Children's Day and Bank PHB staff and customers' Easter party.

The kids who were only brought into the country about five years ago already have a mental picture of what they would like to do in future.

With an album being packaged already and due for release in the first quarter of next year, they gave guests a foretaste of what their debut album will contain by playing two tracks titled 'Our Family' and 'The World We Want' to which many gave approval.

I think we've done a lot with respect to physical infrastructure. We've done a lot with respect to borders and things of that sort, but the cyber area has been a tough area. And the reason we've been able to tackle it is becausewe've been able, for the first time, to bring all of the elements of the federal government together in a joint effort so that we can leverage some of the exceptional tools that the Defense Department has along with our ability to interact with theprivate sector in a way that will not only enable us to secure our government domains, which are the first priority in the near term, but to be able to offer the private sector some assistance and to enable them to secure their domains.

It's not a secret that, you know, if you look at what happened in Estonia, looked at what happened in Georgia, if you look at that massive identity theft that occurred in California that I announced we had made some arrests this past August,we're becoming more and more acutely aware of the vulnerability we have at all levels: denial of service, corruption of information, theft of identity, exfiltration of confidential information. All of these are critical issues.

Let me end by saying that there's a tendency to view the issue of cyber security as being only at the high tech end of the spectrum that this is about preventing people from hacking in over the Internet. And that's clearly part of thestrategy. But, you know, there are other parts of the strategy, too. For example, protecting the supply chain.

When we buy software and hardware, particular software and hardware that comes from other parts of the world, are we confident that that is what it's represented to be, that it's not counterfeit, that it doesn't have embedded withinit something that is potentially dangerous to the system or that could be used to extract information from the system? So we've got to look at that issue, too.

The issue of insider misbehavior, people stealing passwords or thumb drives or things of that sort from within an organization. That's the kind of old-fashioned type of espionage, you know, human-enabled espionage, but that's also athreat. Protecting the physical infrastructure that enables the Internet, the stations where the routers are located, the various kinds of network, physical elements of the network. That has to be protected, too.

So our approach is to look at this holistically. Our model is, particularly with the private sector, to work with them in partnership to see how we can help them. And I want to emphasize as far as the private sector is concerned, this is a voluntary issue. This is not the government mandating the private sector to do things. It is the government working with the private sector to enable them to protect these very, very important assets.

So with that, I will be happy to throw it over.

Moderator: If I could just ask you to maybe identify yourself before your first question.

Question: Okay. My name is Jonah Czerwinski. Great to see you again, Mr. Secretary. I'm from HLSWatch.com and delighted to be here. You had recently gotten the budget passed, and about $350 millionin there for DHS cyber.

Secretary Chertoff: Right.

Question: Could you tell us a little bit about what that is going to go toward? Is it enough for this initial phase of it, and if it isn't, what's been put aside? What do you think we should look for down the road?

Secretary Chertoff: Obviously there's a big piece that's classified that's not in our Department which I can't talk about. From our standpoint in the next year, it is actually slightly more than we requested. And whatwe're doing is we're building the basic infrastructure. We are taking our Einstein 1.0, which is our current detection tool, we are now upgrading it to Einstein 2.0 and testing it out, and we're going to be also -- we're also inthe process of looking at turning it from a passive detection to an active detection device, active meaning that we would have the ability to actually stop an attack as opposed to merely warn about an attack..

So the money gets spent on things like equipment, personnel. We're recruiting -- I think we've got over 100 people in the pipeline that we're trying to bring on, that's programmers and people who can actually operate Einstein.Some of this will be necessary, for example, for additional space, you know, all the kind of prosaic things you need in order to expand capability -- leasing, you know, various utilities and things of that sort.

It will also enable us to kick in our share to support the Cyber Security Center, which we're in the process of standing up. So I think that's where the money is going to go. And what we're looking to do in the first instance is getour control over the dot.gov domain. We are currently every -- someone said to me every 45 days we are reducing by half and consolidating the number of Internet connections. So that is part of the process of getting control of the dot.gov once we'veconsolidated those Internet connections down from what started at as a thousand and we hope will be in the neighborhood of a hundred or two. It will be easy for us to then use Einstein 2.0 as a way of getting real time detection warning, which of coursewill be a big step forward from the current general model, which is after the fact, we find there's an attack and then we tell people, you know, how to respond to it.

Question: So a quick follow-up on that if I could. There's a mention you made of Einstein 3.0 even down the road, which would be shifting us even further down the spectrum from defense to offense.

Secretary Chertoff: No, it's still defense. It's like -- it's just a blocking capability. In other words, right now -- what 2.0 does is if I know malicious code is coming in, it enables me to give a real time warning. Someonedescribed it the other day to me; it's like a traffic cop sitting on the highway seeing people speed and he can immediately call in and say someone with license plate XYZ is speeding, and give warning down there.

3.0 would allow the traffic cop to make the arrest right on the spot.

Question: Gotcha. Okay. So it would still be prompted by [inaudible]

Secretary Chertoff: Right.

Question: [inaudible] an act by somebody else?

Secretary Chertoff: Right. It would be based on -- it would be when you detected the attack, you would stop it cold.

Question: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Question: I'm Jeff Fox from ConsumerReports.org. Thank you for inviting me. We've been tracking for several years the impact of cyber insecurity on consumers, for about four or five years. We estimate that in the past couple of years Americanconsumers have lost at least $8.5 billion to cyber crime. We've also found that there are significant government leaks of ID theft. I don't know if you've seen the September issue. I'll give you a copy afterwards.

Recently, I think about a year ago, the TSA lost about 100,000 records, personnel records. So I'm wondering what DHS is doing, you know, specifically to protect consumers both in terms of --

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah. Let me -- there are two elements to this. One is -- of course, you're always reading about people having information on laptops and their laptops are stolen. And, you know, that's a challenge for every business becauseyou could say, for example, in a business, you can't put information on a laptop. That's a tradeoff between the ability to work with the information in a way that's helpful and securing the information. You can encrypt the information.

But I would actually make the case -- and this is not with the Cyber Security Initiative, but it's another initiative we've talked about -- that part of what we need to do is we need to change from a model in which your assets are controlled by your,for example, your Social Security number, which is a very weak way to control your assets, to a way in which your assets are controlled by some combination of a biometric, a token, and maybe some secret knowledge that isn't kept in a database.

If you -- bear with me for a second. If you had a system where in order to access my bank account you had to use my biometric and a token as well as a number, it wouldn't matter if you stole the number, because the number wouldn't doanything for you. It would be like having my name. It doesn't do anything for you. So I actually think we need to step out -- I mean, in the short run, you want to protect the information by encrypting it and securing it.

But in the long run, I think you want to move away from a model which I consider inherently vulnerable, where the very information that you're trying to protect is the information you have to disseminate in order to validate yourself. So as you -- the more effective use you make of the information, the more vulnerable you become. I'm suggesting we paradigm shift.

On the issue of theft of data over the Internet, whether it's wireless interceptions like we had out in California, there again, a lot of the key is encryption. It is a different architecture for how we validate and verify people so that wedon't have -- so that getting a single piece of information about you doesn't really do any good, because it's not enough to get you into an ability to corrupt somebody. And of course, part of it is just doing what we can to secure thenetworks against hacking or intrusions.

But, mind you, you know, it's not just about hacking. It can be about interception of wireless transmissions. It can be about theft of data by insiders. You know, someone told me that people stick a lot of data on a thumb drive. You'd beamazed how many thumb drives are found on the floor of airplanes, commercial airplanes, because people drop them out.

Question: A lot of the losses that we track are due to malware infections. You can -- you know, they can -- Zombie, you know, a home computer.

Secretary Chertoff: Right. You have Botnets.

Question: Botnets.

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah. What I'm saying is, there's a whole spectrum of threats. And what I want to encourage is not just to think about the obvious thing or the thing that gets written about, but to look at what I call gamechangers, ways to actually organize protection of our identity so that we are not so vulnerable to the theft of a single piece of information or a Social Security number, because that is insufficient to allow someone to actually seal someone'sassets.

And I think this is a huge issue. You can tell I'm interested in it because I'm talking about it a lot. And the cyber security strategy certainly is a big piece of that, but there's some other things as well.

Question: Sorry. Ben Bain with Federal Computer Week. A couple of weeks ago in releasing the preliminary findings of the CSIS Cyber Commission kind of on cyber security for the 44th President, there was some suggestion that the coordination ofthe government's cyber security needed to be raised up to the level of the White House, because we're dealing with something that's a homeland security threat, a defensive issue, offensive issue, all the way on down the line. Is DHS theplace where coordination should happen? And does the Department have the authority necessary to --

Secretary Chertoff: There's no -- you know, we don't -- I think the report kind of looks at things as they maybe were a year or so again. So let me tell you where we are this year. First of all, we do coordinate on an interagencybasis, and it does involve high-level engagement by the White House, including by the President himself. So at the policy level, this is a matter that's coordinated by the White House because it's interagency.

At an operational level, most of the coordination occurs between three actors: the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the DNI. And the reason for that is there are three sets of legal authorities that come into play in dealingwith this world. There are our authorities for homeland security. They're the intelligence community's Title 50 authorities, and there's Department of Defense Title 10 authorities.

The Department of Defense, as you would imagine, has a lot to do with things going on if we do something offensive. Intelligence community if we're collecting information overseas, and of course we are protecting the homeland. So I thinkoperationally we now have the three locations where operational activities are going to take place, closely coordinated together, and in general, the policymaking does take place under White House supervision. So that's really the model we areusing.

What I would hesitate to do is create new officials and new layers of bureaucracy. But I think we've got to refine that to a very small team that not only coordinates the policy but is able to coordinate the operational activity.

The Cyber Security Center, when it's fully operational, will be the operational forum or meeting ground where the various people operating their authorities will come together. And I think that's going to be efficient. It doesn'trespect, though, the fact that legally, you know, the Defense Department is generally supposed to operate overseas. For example, if they start to do domestic law enforcement, that's illegal. Likewise, I'm not sure people would be wild aboutthe intelligence community sitting over the Internet here. So we're trying to respect legal boundaries, but I think we've got a mechanism now that actually does work well to coordinate.

Question: Just a follow-up question then. In terms of the actual authorities, the legal framework that exists, another suggestion was that new laws, new authorities are necessary. Do you think that the current legal framework, current policiesare sufficient for doing this?

Secretary Chertoff: You know, you can't exclude as we go along that we may decide there need to be some new authorities and new laws. But I think this is an area where we ought to proceed in a measured way for the following reason. In thearea of protecting military assets and government, I think the authorities are quite clear. We have plenty of authority to do what we have to do.

People have raised the question in the commercial domain whether the government should have more authority. I just want to tell you, the architecture of the Internet and the culture of the Internet is one where I'd be very careful before Isuggested the government ought to get into -- intrude in a bigger way.

And, you know, we have a history in this country of everybody says let's do a lot, pass a lot of laws and really, you know, do a lot of active stuff, and then everybody repents at leisure. The Internet, maybe more than any other place, has adistinctive culture that you don't want to break in order to protect. So, my suggestion has been we proceed in a voluntary way and we proceed in a 21st century kind of collaborative way.

You know, Rod Beckström, who we brought in to run the Cyber Security Center, is -- I mean, his expertise is in collaboration, and that's why we did that. We wanted someone who was attuned to a different culture of operating with the privatesector than the command-and-control culture of the 20th century.

So I wouldn't close the door on new laws and new authorities, but I would be careful. I would be cautious as we deal with the private sector to make sure we're invited in rather than pushing our way in.

Question: Thanks.

Question: Mr. Secretary, John Solomon from In Case of Emergency Blog. Thank you again for having us. I wanted to go back to what Jeff was talking about, the public and the consumer piece of this. I'm clearly a lay person in this, so it may be adumb question. But I was trying to understand the public's role here and how they should understand the role. In the cyber month, we're talking about both commercial and terrorism as well.

And as the public kind of looks at this and does some of the things that you recommend, is their exposure basically a commercial exposure and worrying about losing money, or are they part and parcel of the country's exposure to terrorism? And howshould they look at, and what should they be doing based on?

Secretary Chertoff: I think, you know, I think that's a great question. Of course there's public in your own personal life and there's the business community. The business community obviously, to the extent they operate critical infrastructure,they have a role to be responsible not only to themselves and their own businesses, but to the wider community that depend upon them.

Because we are interdependent. If the power grid goes down because somebody hasn't adequately protected their systems from an IT denial of service attack, that's going to have implications for everybody who relies on that power.

So there's an awful lot the private sector has to do. It reminds me of the Y2K period when the private sector was required to step up and make sure it was protecting its assets.

So part of what we've been in the process of doing is we've set up a committee with the private sector built upon the model that we've been using successfully over the past several years to create a National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

And the idea is to have a -- it's a critical infrastructure coordinating committee that looks in particular at computers and spans all of the sectors, recognizing that each sector is going to have unique challenges and is going to want to look atdifferent kinds of issues.

From a homeowner standpoint or personal standpoint, you know, obviously you don't want your computer turned into a -- you know, taken over by bots and then converted into an attack vector. But on a more prosaic level, you don't want your personalstuff, your financial records exfiltrated. You don't want to have your computer become sluggish and unable to operate.

And, you know, this is really an area -- it is like the disaster area where personal responsibility is important. If you don't change your password periodically, if you don't update your firewalls and your anti-virus, you're just -- you know what it'slike? It's like taking your wallet and throwing out on the street. And no one would suggest doing that. No one suggests just leaving your door wide open without a lock.

For many people, that's how they view the computer, and, you know, whether it's -- to make a larger point, whether it's preparing yourself for physical disaster with water and food as we've talked about, John, or whether it's taking reasonablesecurity over your computer, people have got to do this. Because otherwise, they're going to get victimized and then they're going turn and say, well, who's going to help me? And the answer is, it's going to be a lot harder to help them after the factthan if they take reasonable precautions.

Question: Just to follow up and taking up on the preparedness, one of the challenges is to figure out what in fact is the message. You don't want to give too much, but you want to give substantive. And looking at some of the recommendations,for example, creating a strong password, but frequently changing your password. I know as I was doing my Amtrak reservation last night, it's lucky I remembered. I've got a hundred passwords.

Is that realistic? But or is it something that really is front and center should be something that Americans, as a pain in the neck as it is, and maybe there's an opportunity for technology helping us to deal with that, but is really in your mind avery important thing even if it is a pain?

Secretary Chertoff: You know, I think that actually -- this is really again a great question, because there is a balance. I mean, I've seen circumstances where the requirements for getting into the system are so cumbersome that people stopusing the system, and that's not a good answer.

I think it's risk management. In a business where there's a huge consequence to having data stolen. Like in our world. In our world we're required to change our password frequently, and also there are all kinds of rules about what it has to be thatare, you know, frankly inconvenient. But it's important because of the data we have.

Now you might make a judgment at home that what's at risk is less and the attractiveness of stealing it is less, and therefore you might be a little bit more moderate. I do think it's important for people to be realistic. If you set too high a bar,then it's not going be honored. And that's part of the judgment here is, it's managing the risk to the appropriate level of consequence.

Question: Secretary Chertoff, this is Jeff Stein from Congressional Quarterly. Nice to see you again. I ran into a former top cyber security official in the Clinton Administration, and I asked him about Chinese -- it's well reported -- Chinesepenetration of American government computer systems, and I said how do you get them out of there? And he said, semi-seriously, you'd have to shut down the whole system for two days and reboot.

My two-part question is, what is the status of Chinese penetration of government networks that you know about? And two, what do you think about that comment?

Secretary Chertoff: Well, I don't think I can get into a specific discussion about individual penetration by particular countries. I don't think you would need to reboot, but I do think a part of the cyber strategy obviously is protecting notonly government networks in general but classified networks. And that, depending on the nature of the network, it's either DOD takes the lead in that or will be taking the lead in that.

And there are capabilities we have that would address the issue of sophisticated people entering the network. People enter the network or entities enter the network for different reasons. Some do to steal information. Some do to potentially denyservice. So you have to configure your defenses based upon the particular concern.

You know, one of the issues people forget is, one of the great vulnerabilities is they're traveling with laptops to foreign countries. They're traveling with BlackBerries to foreign countries. A lot of these are wireless. You know, this is maybe not apersonal view here. I think that sometimes there's a low tech solution to the problem, which is maybe you just don't necessarily take all of your electronics everywhere around the world. Maybe you have a travel electronics and non-travel electronics.

I mean, at some level -- that's why I want to emphasize it -- there's not going to be a magic bullet that's going to solve this. There's going to be a series of appropriate measures. Different things will suit different circumstances, but I thinkthat's why this is -- it's a very complicated area, to be honest with you, and it's going to take work to fully deploy it. But the short answer, I don't think we have to reboot in order to deal with the issue of penetration, but we are very activelydeveloping important tools that will protect us.

Question: Just one quick follow-up. Are you experiencing now these ways of attack that we've seen in the past at DHS?

Secretary Chertoff: You know, we've -- from time to time, we've been attacked, others have been attacked, private sector people have been attacked. I remember years ago I was out in Silicon Valley and someone showed me, one of the privatecompanies, showed me they were under constant attack, literally, you know, hundreds of attacks a day, maybe thousands, many of them low-level things, hackers, stuff that's just nuisance. But then you'd get more sophisticated ones, too. And I think thishas touched, you know, pretty much, you know, every sophisticated user at some point or another.

Question: Jena McNeill with the Heritage Foundation. I was wondering what you thought should be the top priority short-term for cyber security of government systems.

Secretary Chertoff: Well, what we're going do in the short term is we need to reduce the number of Internet access connections because it's harder to control 8,000 than to control 800 or 80. And then we need to deploy Einstein 2.0, and we'retesting it now.

We also -- each of the departments and agencies need to make sure they meet a minimum standard in terms of their own security capabilities. You know, some departments stand watch 24/7. There's always someone available if there's attack that canimmediately react. Some may not. Some may work, you know, business hours. Some may not have the same capabilities. So that's got to be a general upgrade across the system. That's the first priority, and that's something which I think is our shortterm.

But I also think that we have to be able to do more than one thing at the same time. And we are reaching out to the private sector actively to get them to think about what they need to do, and to also talk about how do we use some of the capabilitiesthat we have and make it available to them in a way that doesn't compromise classified information but that gives them the benefit of some of the stuff that the government's been able to take advantage of.

Question: Well, to follow up on that, has the private sector been able to also give the best practices back to the government?

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah. And they do. I mean, the private sector, particularly the firms interested in this, are looking, for example, at how do you validate or standardize software and hardware? How do make sure you're not buying softwarethat's corrupted in some way and is going to become a problem for you?

So they're doing a lot of that on their own. Of course, they're doing a lot with respect to sophisticated, you know, firewalls and things of that sort. And we do work very closely with major players in the private sector who are doing a lot of thiscutting-edge stuff. So there's a lot of cross-pollination, and that's good, because this is not something the government can dominate.

Question: [Julian Sanchez from ArsTechnica] There was a report in the spring by the IEEE on surveillance architecture as security risk. An example they cited very prominently is one in Greece a few years back when the wiretapping architecturebuilt into the national cell network was taken over by hostile parties.

And then just yesterday, there was a National Academy of Sciences report on behavior analysis and sort of data aggregation for terrorist profiling that faulted some of the -- I guess if there were set procedures in place to determine the effectivenessrelative to the potential of exposure risk created by again, sort of that sort of data aggregation.

And I'm just wondering if part of the decision process when you're deciding what kind of data collection to do involves trading off the sort of actionable intelligence produced against the -- in a sense the security risk created by that kind ofcollection.

Secretary Chertoff: Well, the short answer to that is yes. Now let me just distinguish between several things which get confused. Because the word "data mining" is an imprecise word, and people mean different things.

I think -- I didn't read the NAS study, which I think goes back to 2005 when it was kicked off. Data mining I think in the classic sense of the word means trying to take behavioral characteristics in general and then extrapolate from that how anindividual who exhibits those characteristics, how likely they are to have certain propensities. So when you get on Amazon.com and you buy three books and they tell you you're probably going to like this book, they've looked at everybody who's boughtthat book and they've made some extrapolations.

That is a pretty narrow band of what is often being done. It shouldn't be confused with another kind of data collection, which is if I see you have made 25 phone calls to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's house back in Pakistan, that's a pattern, but that'snot based on my behavioral analysis. That's based upon my having a specific link. And there's a tendency in the press to confuse those two.

Likewise, behavioral analysis that's individualized, like I see you behaving in way that is suspicious, that's not data mining. That's individualized analysis. I want to separate those three things out.

I would say in general, yeah, of course you always want to see the tradeoff between whether you're creating greater vulnerability or lesser vulnerability, and that's why, you know, we've talked about -- this is where the architecture matters. We'vetalked about the question of should you have, you know, one place where you collect all the data or should you distribute it in different places so you'd have to pulse different places? And it might be in the long run, the best way to protect data is tohouse it in different databases and be able to pulse the databases to get a validation up/down, which is sometimes called the ping system, as opposed to having it all pulled together in a database.

The more information you have in a single database, the greater the obligation you have to protect that. So, for that reason, you want to make sure that in the most sensitive and important databases, you have the most robust protections, and that'scertainly true of the government. And I do think it's a fair point to ask, you know, whenever you build a database, what is the most secure way we could build it? What is the way that would minimize the loss of data, and, you know, how much can weminimize the loss of data risk and still have the benefit of being able to use the system?

So, I mean, I think these are all fair questions. What I get -- sometimes is troubling is though that there's a tendency to mix totally different types of systems, which are really -- is a bad mistake.

Question: [Jonah Czerwinski, HLS Watch] So, I'd like to go back to the governance issues we were talking about toward the beginning and the ways you were describing the interagency coordination, which -- as well as the coordination with theprivate sector.

So, the division of labor seems to make a lot of sense to me. DHS does the defensive front line kind of work. Intelligence community does its part, and DOD does its part. The private sector has a lot to offer, but also has a lot to gain.

Both of those areas require some kind of real-time decision-making process wherein the interagency part, someone is in charge of saying actually, that's a DHS role. Could you tell us more about that? And then on the private sector part, you mentionedthe critical infrastructure consultative mechanism with the private sector. Are there more of those? And maybe you could speak to that.

Secretary Chertoff: In terms of how we do in the government operationally, that's real time. I mean, policy is not going to -- is rarely going to be real time. So operationally, the concept of the Cyber Security Center is, it is the -- actually, there's physical co-location ultimately, as well as virtual co-location of the major operating centers at DOD, the intel community, Department of Justice, DHS. And this is the area where -- it's like when the fly ball comes up and somebody saysthat's yours.

That's where this gets deconflicted, and that's supposed to be a real -- that's going to be a real time thing. It's literally, you know, with people either physically co-located and then a large group virtually co-located with what I call adeconfliction mechanism. In other words, you got it, you got it, you got it, but not a command and control mechanism. Once you have it, you execute under your orders.

In terms of the private sector, we have -- the acronym is CPAC. Now I wish I could remember. It's Critical Infrastructure something something Committee.

Moderator: Advisory.

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah, Advisory Committee. It basically works off of our 18 sector coordinating councils and government coordinating councils we have in the -- under our national infrastructure protection plan. That's been working for yearsnow. People like that. They know how that works.

There's an executive committee consisting of DHS, DOD and DNI, and some of the CEOs who basically work to manage this process. And this is where we interface with the private sector. And the idea is you go -- let's say to the electricity people. Andyou say, what are your vulnerabilities? Let's talk about how we can help you manage.

Now some of them are not going to require a high tech issue. I mean, some of it may be building redundancy into the system or resiliency against physical damage or attack. But to the extent that they're concerned about someone infiltrating their ITcontrol systems, that's an area where we can say to them, okay, we can give you some best practices. We might be able to give you the benefit of some of what we are capable of doing in terms of detection and blocking if you want it.

And I want to emphasize if you want it, because I would not want to mandate our blocking mechanisms on the private sector. I would want the private sector to say, the electricity people to say, you know, we want to have stuff that comes through oursensitive control systems go through a blocking mechanism and help us construct that. That's fine. They want to do it. They've made the choice. That's great.

That's how I see this working. In some areas there might actually be comparatively low risk of Internet attacks, and they might not be interested in having us work on that element. They might be interested in something else. But to me this is anoutgrowth of what's actually been a quite successful model for dealing with infrastructure protection by bringing together the community and the government to say, what do you need, what can we bring you to the table, and what do you want us to withit?

Moderator: Guys, we can take one final question.

Question: [Jeff Stein, CQ] Just an aside on that, do you mandate controls, security controls on DHS contractors, however?

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah. If you're going to be working within our system, then our data, you have -- we set the parameters and standards for control. Now if you have other stuff to do it on your own, that's your business. But if it's going tobe a threat to us, you've got to live up to our standard.

Moderator: Last one. Real quick.

Question: [Jeff Fox, Consumer Reports] I'm wondering -- there's going to be a new administration coming in within a few weeks --

Secretary Chertoff: Not a few weeks.

Question: Well, 12 or whatever. Well, they're going to be preparing in a few weeks --

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah. That's right.

Question: -- once they know. What is the Department doing to prepare for transition to a new administration?

Secretary Chertoff: Well, we're doing a lot. In this particular area, you know, we've done a lot of outreach in general in the community, and I think that involves discussions with people who are probably going to wind up being active no matterwho the president is going to be.

I hope that -- you know, we put together a very comprehensive briefing we've done for the Hill, we've done for the private sector. I sat through a version of it yesterday, frankly, and I would encourage at the earliest possible opportunity, evenbefore the election, people who might be serving in the administration or being part of the transition, to sit through that briefing, to see what's been done. A lot's been done, but there's no question it has to be followed through.

And this has been really a bipartisan effort. We've had, you know, both Republicans and Democrats working on this, because it affects all of us.

And so, yes, it's important to get briefed. Some of it will require people to get high-level clearances, but once they get those clearances, and I understand that some of that is being worked now through --

Question: So you're offering that to --

Secretary Chertoff: Yeah.

Question: -- staffers on the new administration?

Secretary Chertoff: Yes, just got to get a clearance.

Moderator: Thanks, guys. I'm sorry. Got to cut it off for now. Appreciate everybody's time.

Secretary Chertoff: All right. Thanks, guys.

###

What do you get when you bring America's favorite shot brand and America's hottest rock bands together for America's most anticipated concert experience? That's right, the Jagermeister Music Tour. On the road for seven years and running, Jagermeister is proud to bring rock music fans yet another awesome line-up of artists featuring ultra-talented, rock and roll anthem band, Hinder, high energy and riff-roaring LA based, Trapt and the party boys from New York, Rev Theory. Of course the night wouldn't be complete without a warm welcome from your favorite local Jagermeister sponsored band so check out www.jagermeistermusictour.com for updates on who's playing where. The tour kicks off on October 24th in Salt Lake City, Utah. Entire list of cities and dates listed below.

Combining raw riffs with big hooks and insanely strong vocal harmonies, Hinder takes their cues from rock legends like Aerosmith, AC/DC, KISS, and Guns N' Roses. Their triple platinum debut Extreme Behavior documented the decadence and strained relationships of these retro rock giants, whose subsequent cover of Steppenwolf's "Born to Be Wild" became an anthem for their life on the road. Hinder continues their escapades with Jagermeister this fall and they couldn't be more pumped up about it. "Since there are two things we love, Jager and music, it only makes sense to put the two together on the Jagermeister Music Tour," says the guys from Hinder, "It's an honor to get to go out and play for our fans, support a great company and our favorite drink at the same time. We'll also have our Jagermeister Tap Machine on our tour bus for easy access to ice cold Jager 24/7!" Hinder fans with tickets to the show will be among the first in the world to see the band perform tracks from their new album "To the Limit" along with favorite hits from the past.

Headstrong and psyched to tour with Jagermeister, Trapt will jump on stage to perform everyone's favorite tunes along with kick-ass tracks from their third studio album "Only Through the Pain". Chris Taylor Brown, lead singer for Trapt knows good times are in store for all and says, "We are honored to be part of the Jagermeister Music Tour and to perform with our friends in Hinder and Rev Theory. This tour is going to be a blast so make sure you come prepared!"

New York's grunge rock band Rev Theory can't wait to warm up the crowd when they perform tracks from their new album "Light it up". Performing in the vein of Nickelback and vintage Alice in Chains, Rev Theory is the perfect band to round out the bill and they couldn't be more excited to hit the open road. "We are so pumped to be a part of the Jagermeister Music Tour!" says Julien Jorgensen, guitarist for Rev Theory, "Jagermeister has been a big supporter of our music from the beginning and we're psyched to take our relationship to the next level."

"What a lineup!" says Rick Zeiler, Director of Strategic Marketing for Jagermeister, "We work long and hard to create the perfect synergy for each and every Jagermeister Music Tour and I believe we've hit the nail on the head with this one. We've been sponsoring Hinder for over three years and they're one of our favorite bands. Coincidentally, Jagermeister is Hinder's favorite shot. It doesn't get much better than that!"

The Tour will rock through December and each show will be rounded out with a local Jagermeister sponsored band. On the road since 2002, The Jagermeister Music Tour, now produced by GMR Entertainment, has become THE rock show to see. For less than $30 a ticket, fans will not only have the opportunity to experience a great show, but also have a chance to snag some great Jagermeister prizes and giveaways like JagerMusic compilation CD's, as well as plenty of Jagermeister shirts, hats, and more. Other prizes provided by Tour sponsors include custom items from Schecter Guitars, Peavey Electronics, and JVC Mobile Entertainment.*

The Jagermeister Music Tour will be advertised in print and on radio. For more information, check out www.JagermeisterMusicTour.com or www.Ticketmaster.com . Tickets on sale soon! Get ready to rock!

Jagermeister is dedicated to music, not underage drinking.

About Jagermeister

Imported from Germany and made with herbs and spices, Jagermeister is the most popular shot brand in the United States and the leading imported cordial. Known for its creative marketing and innovative promotions, Jagermeister is proud to be a part of the music scene and an active supporter of up-and-coming musicians. Jagermeister is imported by Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. of New Rochelle, NY who encourages all those 21 and over to drink responsibly.

About GMR Entertainment

GMR Entertainment offers clients comprehensive services including: music/entertainment strategy and consulting; talent procurement and licensing; experiential live activation; entertainment partnerships; brand integration/product placement; and digital consulting and marketing.

GMRE has received numerous industry accolades including awards for its work with clients such as AXE, Nokia and Verizon FiOS. With offices in Milwaukee, Chicago, Charlotte, Detroit, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York Seattle, Toronto and London, GMRE is a division of GMR Marketing which is a member of The Radiate Group, a global network of independently branded marketing services agencies operating within the Omnicom Group Inc.

*Must be 21 or over to be eligible for prizes. Giveaways and raffle prizes are subject to state and local laws and are not available in California and may not be available at other shows.

    Jagermeister Music Tour Fall 2008 Tour featuring Hinder dates and cities:
    10/24 Magna, UT             Great Salt Air
    10/25 Blackfoot, ID         El Rey Events Center
    10/28 San Diego, CA         4th and B Theater
    10/29 Tucson, AZ            Rialto Theatre
    10/30 Las Vegas, NV         The Palms Theater Palms Casino Resort
    11/1 Reno, NV               Grand Sierra Resort Theatre
    11/2 Anaheim, CA            The Grove of Anaheim
    11/4 Los Angeles, CA        Wiltern Theatre
    11/10 Ft Walton Beach, FL   The Swamp
    11/12 Baltimore, MD         Rams Head Live
    11/14 Worcester, MA         The Palladium
    11/15 Allentown, PA         Crocodile Rock
    11/16 Montclair, NJ         Wellmont Theatre
    11/19 New York, NY          Nokia Theatre
    11/20 Atlantic City, NJ     House of Blues
    11/22 Myrtle Beach, SC      House of Blues
    11/23 Knoxville, TN         Valarium
    11/24 Starkville, MS        Rick's Cafe
    11/26 Tulsa, OK             Cain's Ballroom
    11/28 Springfield, MO       Shrine Mosque
    11/29 Omaha, NE             Sokol Auditorium
    11/30 Wichita, KS           TBA
    12/2 Minneapolis, MN        First Avenue
    12/3 Des Moines, IA         Val Air Ballroom
    12/4 Kansas City, MO        The Beaumont Club
    12/7 Houston, TX            Verizon Wireless Theater
    12/11 Milwaukee, WI         The Eagles Club
    12/12  Cincinnati, OH       TBA
    12/13 Ft Wayne, IN          Piere's
    12/15 Dayton, OH            Ervin J Nutter Center
    12/17 Grand Rapids, MI      TBA
    12/18 Youngstown, OH        Wedgewood Entertainment Center
    12/19 Detroit, MI           TBA
    12/20 Cleveland, OH         TBA
    12/22 Indianapolis, IN      Egyptian Room @ Murat Centre

(ABOVE DATES SUBJECT TO CHANGE, CHECK LOCAL LISTINGS)

    For more information, contact:
    Sarah Zeiler
    619-857-2774
    szeiler@sidneyfrankco.com

SOURCE Jagermeister Music Tour

http://www.jagermeistermusictour.com