it differently, but the country has been at war for 15 years now under two presidents. there seems to be an inclination to look at problems to find military solutions for them. there has been some evidence in the last couple of years under secretary cherry of a more robust diplomacy. do you see that we can take more back from looking for military solutions and having a greater affect by expansion in development and cooperation, ilieance coropation, and diplomacy? -- alliance cooperation -- >> this is a personal view moreso than my personal work. because we are good at things

military and there is the relatively quick often we turn to that instrument often. in principle this seems like a world setup for diplomacy. but that has been less developed in our arsenal of things to do than military options. so i think you are right. i share your sense that we ought to be looking more toward diplomacy and other measures. the problem with economic assistance and those things are very long-term; right? it comes back to the time of the officials and the time that must be adhered to to get something done. and that also increases the temptation to look for military instrument probably. i do your your sense personally as a citizen thinking about these issues that we haven't quite got that balance right. we are just so much better that military things than we are at other things that it is, i think, tempting to turn to those

instruments. >> lady in the front row. >> thank you. i was wondering if you have any comments on the presence of china and russia in latin america especially in those regimes who are at the brink of collapse like venezuela and when everybody is talking about the arrival of the cold war? thank you. >> mostly, i don't worry about the presence of china. i worry a little bit more about russia. but i don't worry about the presence of china in latin america. if venezuela is expecting china to bail them out they will be disappointed. as i look at chinese actions, we are in a period where everything china does looks sinister. but i think much of what they do

is the result of them being bigger and richer than they used to be. if i look at their actions in africa, for example, my judgment is most of what they did is good or a waste of money and in either case i don't care much about it. russia, given the history and all that, is a little difference but i don't worry about their presence in latin america. latin americans looking for china to be a major player will be disappointed >> greg, if your budget could expand and you had freedom to move in a lot of other directions. what new nio's would you establish and would you break any up so you could spend more time providing those issues? >> the first thing i would do would be to have a little unit -- i have a strategic group

and i would have ten people who would be strategic analysts. they would work with the nio's and their deputies. i would like to to have some people freed from the crush of daily support to be more strategic. i think i would do that before creating more nio's. we are always under pressure to create more but i try to resist it. i mind rather have a strategic reserve that would give us more increased reserve to be more strategic and be the ones we are planning and pushing off to the right. >> yes, ma'am, in the front. second row. >> mira daniels. dr. treverton, if there were three tools to improve analytics

generally, even academically, what would they be? you can even give one because i have strong feelings about this. >> good question. i am interested in tools and there are plenty out there. we are doing two things. one is there is this intelligence prediction market. you have probably seen phil headlock has been writing about this and he is on the outside running something called the good judgment project. it has been quite interesting. we are taking it over at the nic. it has been developed by the intelligence community version of darpa. i am pretty excited about it. the good news is, the deadlock is that just like athletes some people are betting at predicting

than others. even better than that is a little training helps. even a couple hours of training makes people better predictors. the training goes to the direction of helping to keep people open minded one secondly longer than they are likely. i want to do two things. i want to make it an in teterna. if there is a likelihood of decline and we know the analyst we can have a conversation. i don't care about the numbers but the conversation. and we will try to extend questions to more strategic longer term. big data is obviously out there. but one thing i am intrigued by running a pilot with my africa account and the presumption is there is not a lot of great

intelligence data about africa but a lot of data out there. i have a data scientist looking for data sets. now the data is good enough that you can foresee disease or famine. the next step is getting good enough to tell analyst to look here and look at this connection. those are the things personally i am excited about at the nic now by way of tools. >> second row here. >> thank you. andy stewart, travel app. i would like to throw out two solve questions. does the nic have different strategic views and assumptions from putin?

we have two different strategies. do you have insight that is driving our thinking being different from his and the gamble that follows? and more critically maybe what can we do to incentvise the sunni arabs to go with us and dump isil? seems like we have are having a hard time. >> those are more policy questions than intelligence questions. let me talk about the putin piece. i don't have much to add to what i had earlier. putin is obviously, i think, at this point relatively pleased with ukraine turned out. he pushed ukraine westward into things he didn't want to. so he is probably regarding it as a semi-success. in syria, we will see. many of the things he is doing,

including his desire to come to an agreement with us, as evidence that he is concerned about the longer-term. he understand that it could be a quagmire. all of the things he has done reduced the pressure on him to commit significant ground forces. >> yes, sir. second row here. >> thank you. irv chapman from bloomberg. you mentioned the overclassification the intelligence agencies indulge in. you have been talking about classifying documents to avoid embarrassment. could you enlighten us how 2,000 documents became classified after politics reared its ugly head? >> i don't really know the

answer. you are certainly right. it is not that people are trying to protect the guilty by classification. there may be some of that. but it is mostly all of the pressure in the system you never get pinged for overclassifying something. but you can get in trouble for letting out something that is classified and not realizing. so all of the setups in the system push to over-classification. about the 2,000 documents you are probably as well informed about that as i am. >> okay. in the middle. the red tie gentlemen. >> thank you. we are seeing that over the past few years russia's influence in the southeast europe or western b b

balkens has been increasing. how do you see this trend over the next few years -- balkans? >> i take putin serious with his claims. the challenge to russia is that almost everything putin has done, from my perspective, are causing russia's downfall. but that is years away. as the saying has it in the long run we are all dead; right? and putin seems oblivious to the harm he is doing to russia in the longer run. he is fixed on the short run. i think the policies he has pursued will continue. he doesn't have the where with

all and doesn't want to take the huge risks i hope. but i imagine he will push to get a seat at the table, try to assert his weight with respect to the former soviet sphere. if you talk to the chinese about central asia they just laugh at russia saying they have no capacity. >> in the back row, please. >> thank you, kevin barron with defense one. could you talk more about the use of covert operations on the rise? touch on the question of over-classification. we heard a lot of officials say the intelligence community needs to do a better job telling its story and they want the american public to understand it more. yet we are fighting a covert war, in the dark, when it comes to terrorism and isis. how can that be reconciled?

what kind of conversations are happening and what changes could or should be made to open up any of this? >> listen, joe, i would not say our actions against isis are covert. some of them are discreet and small units but i would not say there is much secret about th them. that is interesting. in general, you are right. we do a terrible job at helping the american people understand our work, how we do it, and my favorite example is the 2-15 program. the telephone met data program. if you could have imagined intelligence getting out in front of this and saying the purpose of this program is to limit the number of phone calls we listen to. but once snowden gets it out it is mass surveillance which we all know is impossible in any

case. if it were possible to imagine intelligence getting far enough out in front to talk about the 2-15 program. got the numbers out and looked at the number of conversations listened to is pretty small. it is that -- that is the challenge. unfortunately it is hard for me to imagine that intelligence could be that proactive. people say if you do that you will tell the people against us what we are doing but that is the cost of the world you live in particularly if you are going to do things that involve your citizens or inhabitants. >> gentlemen in the middle. third row. >> thank you, greg, for a really fun presentation. i enjoyed. my name is tim tyler and i am a former defense person and i used to fund greg's research back in

the day. >> will you do it again? >> you've got enough now. i noted we had a question about domesic politics and we have observed isis is not an ex existential threat. and we know america needs to take into account domestic politics among our allies if we hope to deploy cruise missiles hence the dual track with the

pea peacekeeping and deployment track. do you find today we have appreciation on the intelligence as we look at the gather issues? if you you were counterpart anywhere in western europe and looked at the united states and its domestic/political situation wouldn't you be spinning in your grave almost? >> yes, is the answer. we obviously pay a lot of attention to domestic politics because we understand our own role. we like to think intelligence is important in determining policy but we recognize it is one factor among many and domestic politics, personal ambition, lots of other things trump intelligence. that is true with other countries as well as our own. it is like -- i like you, if i were my counterpart and i talk

to my british counterpart quite a lot, i would be turning and spinning in my grave. >> the lady in the back on the side, please. >> thank you. sputnick international news. i would just like to get your thoughts first of all on north korea and the fact that in the past 24 hours they put nuclear weapons on high alert. and a second question on russia because there are more and more areas regionally where american and russian interest are intersecting in the middle east and europe so forth. what do you see is the consequences of engagement between russia and the united states and then the consequences of confrontation or as you said

isolation? >> well, north korea, as we all know is a real puzzle. it has this state that is essentially failed in every respect but still has nuclear weapons, sophisticated weapons of some sort. we don't know how sophisticated but it is a puzzle. it is in some ways the only thing they have got. and kim jo -- yong has. it is the only thing that deters regime change in north korea. this latest bout is probably not as surprising as it may seem. we have seen it before. exactly what is happening is not clear. so far it is mostly talk as far as we can tell. but we will see. it is there, again, i said earlier one wild cardthi i worry

is about a nuclear weapon going off and north korea a place where that might come. on russia, i don't have much more to add. you asked about policy preferences really. i think the u.s.-russian relations have gotten pretty bad despite the effort to reset. and there is, i think, a lot of concern about putin personally. if you convince your best friend in europe, angela merkle, that you are a liar that is not helpful and putin managed to do that. i see opportunities for us to engage the russians in some sense the sensational hostilities and the middle east isn't a bad start. it will continue to be a mix obviously of cooperation and some competition. although as i said in the long run it seems to me the russian hand is pretty weak and what

putin did a good job of is playing a weak hand pretty well. >> gentlemen in the second row here. >> thanks very much. dan from kings college london. i wonder if you could reflect on how your job, or the nic's job, has changed in the two decades between your tenure there? and how you relate to your customers and the impact you have with policymakers. global trends is an innovative, analytical product but you mentioned there are 700 pieces of paper that fly out of the building. in those two decades, what types of analytical changes have you seen that gain traction with your customers? what types of product presentation gain traction with your customers? how has it changed and what have you found to be the most

effective changes? >> i think two big changes probably don't go to products but to process. one, as i said, the big change is the involvement of the nic in current intelligence support. that is good and bad. it is good. when i was at the nic before we used to ask if we were relevant. we don't have that anymore. we are up to our eyeballs in relevance. that is the biggest change. the other one is how much more embedded intelligence is in the process than 20 years ago. i suspect that largely resulted from the facts we have been fighting wars for the last 15 plus years. for better or worse you can make policy toward china without intelligence. it is hard to fight a war without intelligence. that is probably the main thing

responsible for the embedding. when i look at e-mail traffic back and forth it is continually. it is continually. those are the things -- i am not sure the products -- maybe they believed have changed more than they have. but what is striking is senior officials still live in an oral and paper world. you know? none of them have time to be out there on their computer looking at anything. that is going to change. now the president gets his daily brief on an ipad. so do i which is nice. and it is only a little worse than paper. as far as i can tell, we spend a lot of money on i-pads and an equal amount taking the guts out of them. it is sort of a reader not an ipad. but it is the first step.

i think sooner or later policy people will want a ton of 24/7 conversations with their intelligence support people on their ipad. i was talking to my australian counterpart the other day and his prime minter is angry he cannot do it now. the prime minister in the morning first thing gets on his ipad and talks to his cabinet members and he is frustrated he cannot do that with his intelligence analyst as well. >> that gentlemen there. >> ryan brown with cnn. i wanted to piggy back on the question about the future trend for extremist violence in the middle east. you said it was going to be sustained for the foreseeable future and talked about the empowerment of smaller groups. i know you said isis reaped their own destruction.

but in terms of how their capabilities will advance over the next five years and also whether or not their ability to attack europe or the united states will advance as well? >> yeah, as i said about attacking, the ones i worry about are the ones we have seen. the ones where they are inspired not necessarily responsible or operati operationally in control. their capacity to do that is growing. i worry about the lone wolves or small groups or people inspired by isis or controlled or guided by them. i think that will continue to be the most significant terror threat. in terms of capabilities, you know, so far isil, nothing surprised us much by the tools they used but they used them effectively. they used social media and other

things for communication and recruiting. no great innovations there. but pretty effective use. but as we look forward, all of the things that we have, from drones to miniaturization, our opponents are going to acquire as well. maybe slightly later we hope than we do. but among the trends that are going the wrong direction are it seems to me the greater availability of lethal, dangerous technology to terror groups. >> stanley, all the way in the back. >> stanley cope. i am puzzled by your comments we do the military stuff well. how is war a continuation of politics by other means? what political results have we achieved by our use of military power? we are very good at blowing stuff up. nobody can stop us if we want to

destroy a target. but look at libya. . what political results are we achieving by the use of our military force? >> that is absolutely the right question. what i meant is we are good at doing military operations; right? whether they achieve their desired result is another question. you put it very well. that is the big question. i think you are exactly right. i think we are better at doing the operations than we are at putting them in the context that actually achieves the outcome we care about. >> one minute. microphone. >> natalie from csi. regarding the lack of government counterparts on the ground in areas of isis control how do you see that affecting the recruitm of human resources for human

operations. >> say it again >> regarding the lack of government counterparts in areas of control of isis, how do you see that affecting recruitment of sources for human operation? >> honestly, i am not an expert on this. i was an expert on the difficult and dangerous operation. someone asked about getting the sunni's on our side. there is a tipping point. if you want to go against isis you have to be convinced you have enough company to protect you. otherwise you will lose your head. one of the liabilities is governing territory. it isn't as easy as it looks. we saw bad things but lots of

good as well. i think in some ways they are caught in something that is ideologically talking about the caliphate on one hand and talking about the apocalypse on the other hand. that is something they have to work out. but i think them trying to hold and govern territory is a liability for them. >> gentlemen here, please. >> thank you very much for your comments. i have two questions for you. one, how do you account for the repeated failures on the part of the u.s. intelligence community to an advertiticipate things li russia's annexation of crimea or russia's decision to involve itself militarily in syria even.

my second question is in your five year and 20 year outlook you never discussed the silk road initiative by china that is transforming the region as we speak. i was wondering to hear your thoughts on this. thank you very much. ...

>> our batting average is not bad. so something like the arab spring, they are the challenge. i don't think intelligence did much better or worse than the academic community. they are the challenges we all knew these places were. it was on every list. we have these lists of instable companies to worry about and policymaker say, that is great but what will happen. predicting that spark, the thing that will touch off, turn latent instability into political turmoil is very hard.

the other thing is, lots of aspects of recent russian behavior are. [inaudible] exactly when you decide to do this or that has been opportunistic. predicting opportunistic. predicting when someone will have an opportunity to see this order. more in line with the tone of your question. the challenge we face by the ebola. the medical community had a story about ebola, and the ebola, and the story was that it would rise in rural areas. you have a story and

circumstances change to make it no longer helpful or relevant. in the case of the russian move into syria, we anticipated, we knew that russia was going to up the ante. but our story was that the uptake of the ante would be the same old thing,thing, weapons, training, not a presence on the ground. >> you have had your hand up for a while. please make the questions brief. >> peter sharp with mitre. we have not taken the terror out of terrorism, but we seem to take in a chair out of weapons of mass distraction. to come in tomorrow what you see is the prospect for technological change in the future making it easier and

therefore more widespread to develop weapons that can kill a lot of people at once. >> yes. i suppose i worry most about biological weapons. you know, so far, that is the kind of dog that has not yet much barked, but as all of these things in biology and biotech happening the possibility of killing a lot of people but targeting with a smaller substance, interesting but not hopeful about the development of what is badly called wmd -- they are such different weapons. but what is interesting is the developments that are in some ways making them more usable, less lethal but more usable, imagine targeted bio weapons that one after a tribe or group, or there is

lots of interest in quite low yield nuclear weapons. the tight pakistanis talk rather openly about using nuclear weapons, even on their own territory systemic conventional attack. the russians have been talking about possible nuclear weapons as de-escalation, not escalation. so as of the kind of transtrends we are watching that could go in both directions. the ones that interest me otherwise they go in the direction sometimes of trying to make these weapons more usable. >> sir. >> stewart died, two quick questions. one relates to russia, germany, russia, germany, and the issue of energy independence or dependence. we seem to not have any discussion about taking the

opportunity to help europe from our.of view to achieve more independence with their exporting, perhaps, and what is germany doing, i think, to turn their back on nuclear making them more dependent, it seems to me, at least for the short term. what is going on on that front? secondly, north korea. i was struck by the fact that in all of the discussions of short-term strategic, the word north korea has not come up until the puzzle peemack. ipoint. i guess, where does that stand on your short-term long-term? >> okay. sorry, the 1st question was? >> energy. >> energy. yes. sorry.

yes, there it is mostly a european issue. as a policy matter i would say we are not doing exports. from an intelligence perspective, i, i am surprised. this would be a wonderful time to get together on energy. they ought to be dictating prices to russia, not taking prices from russia. and this would be a great time to do it, but they continued to not be organized and let the russians pick a country off, put pressure on the country. it is primarily for the europeans to do. there is not more of a move ina move in this period to do something no way of organizing so that they are not placed takers the price setters, basically. the intelligence community spends and thomas t from an enormous amount of effort and time. the big four, russia, china, iran, north korea.

we spent a lot of time and have the separate national intelligence officer. officer.officer. we certainly spend an awful lot of time on it worrying about it, and it is a worry. failure in every aspect except military. awkward. sometimes i have tape -- trouble taking entirely seriously. i understand that i need to. that i need to. >> you get the last question.

>> my question is a regional one, reported last week a small group were reported to nigeria to contribute to an is -- and advise and assist mission. to what extent is the proliferation of terrorist networks and intelligence concern for the nic? is the absence of official intelligence data aa concern that this might be the emergence of a blind spot? >> obviously we are worried a lot about various terrorist groups which is something we pay a lot of attention to and something i would say one of, a focus understandably on counterterrorism. it does have somewhat of a deforming effect on analysis more generally. wegenerally. we like it nigeria and there is not much nigeria. there is not a lot. it does mean that in some ways we understand or are able to identify networks and targets better than we are at understanding where these people are coming from comeau why they are doing this color is going.

yes, we are concerned, and the absence of a lot of intelligence is a problem, but it is obviously one that we spent a lot of effort on with respect to the terrorist groups. >> demonstrated why you are such a fantastic choice. offer a round of applause. >> we thank you all for coming, and you can find out about future events by going to our site on twitter. hope you join us for the next event. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] anahee

to anaheim. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us is eli dourado from george mason university, director of their technology policy program. should apple unlock that phone from san bernardino? guest: i think it would be a terrible precedent to set to unlock, not just unlock the phone but developed a tool that would undercut their existing security measures. badmain reason it would be is it would set a global precedent, and it is not just the u.s. government that would

be making these requests, it would be governments around the world. governments of china and russia and other authoritarian countries who may not use it with the best of intentions. host: james comey testified this week. i want to get your reaction. jobs, toe two investigate cases like san bernardino and to use tools that are lawful and appropriate. our second job is to tell american people that the tools you are using are becoming less and less effective. it is not our job to tell the american people how to resolve that problem. we are not some alien force imposed on america from mars. we only use the tools given to us under the law and so our job is to tell people there is a problem. everybody should care about it. costs and how do we

think about that? guest: i think that director ey is right that the fbi has the obligation to use the tools that are available and under the law. i think there are reasonable arguments that this particular tool they are asking for is not available. apple's brief in the case is quite strong, and we will have to see. i think ultimately this is a question for congress to decide. i think that congress, based on what was said in the hearing, i think congress has shown an interest in accelerating their involvement in the encryption issue, and i think that is what we will end up saying. nationalt about the security aspect, that this was a terrorist and there could be

some information to stop another terror attack? guest: i think it is unlikely that there is information on the phone that the fbi does not already have. phonesrorists used other to plan the attack and destroy does. this was their work phone. it does not appear that he used it for this purpose. he had personal phones that he used for that purpose that were destroyed. the other reason is the fbi has sought from apple and apple has cooperated and given the fbi the icloud back up. apple has turned that information over to the fbi. reseti made a mistake and the password on the icloud account so we do not have the very latest information from the account.

the other reason is the fbi has sought from verizon, the carrier associated with the phone, the phone call and text messaging data from the phone, even for the period that is not covered by the icloud back up's. the fbi has quite a bit of information on what is on this phone already. i think this is not being brought to further this particular investigation but i think it is being brought as a test case, because the facts are so conducive to the issue that you talked about, the public opinion, does this is a very rare terrorist case, national security case. it is the kind of case that is most favorable to the fbi. at the same time, over the same period the fbi made a similar argument in a case in new york and a judge ruled they did not have the authority to ask apple

to create a back door into the iphone. that case was a drug case and i think that is much more typical. law enforcement does not spend most of their time countering terrorism, however important that might be. theirpend a lot of investigative resources on much more petty crimes, including drug use and drug distribution. it is more about, i think, law , thecement wants this tool broad range of investigations it does. host: you all are familiar with the issue we are talking about, the fbi-apple debate. we have divided our lines a little bit differently. if you support apple, if you support the fbi, and all others. if you are supporting apple's

position, (202) 748-8000 is the number for you to call. if you are supporting the fbi and the government, (202) 748-8001. we have our third line as well, (202) 748-8002. the wall street journal saying it is technically possible to unlock a lock iphone without apple's help that would be expensive. what is the downside of opening this one phone? not creating a master key, just opening this one phone. guest: the downside would be the precedent it sets. of apple isg asked for them to develop a new version of the ios operating system. it will take them a few weeks. that operating system will then be loaded on the iphone in question and the fbi will be able to crack the phone in half

an hour or so after this is done. let's suppose that the operating system has been destroyed. case, then in future cases there is nothing stopping the u.s. government you need to take the weeks it takes for us to use in this case. it could happen again. it is not just a slippery slope, this is legal precedents. it is not about -- it is not , i don't think it is a stretch, or a progression. it is impossible to keep the president -- president just this

once. paul from tennessee. what is your view on this issue is m? days beforeited 30 i could get a chance to talk. . would like to ask you i have a question for mr. dourado. simple.pretty this is madness. i would love to see donald trump in the office today because they would bus that phone open. families that live in grief because of a terrorist attack. let's look at fort hood, chattanooga, all the things around the country going on right now. muslims want to kill our people. has told the fbi

to not get in this man's phone. line is a very fine andeen what this man does treason. the president of the united states is muslim and he is going to make sure these people are protected. host: we are not going to address the erroneous comments that the president is a muslim. that,ke this first point hey, these are terrorist attacks. guest: there have been terrorist attacks in the u.s. the latest statistics i have seen it since september 11, there have been nine jihadist in the u.s. and 45 people have died. that is very tragic.

blessedly rare that we have terrorist attacks. the real question that we need how much will cracking this iphone do to stop those attacks? this is the first case where anything of that sort has been suggested. i don't think it is true that this will help solve anything. the information on this phone has already been obtained by the fbi. think this will help the investigation at all. there needs to be weighed against the cost of ruining the security of the iphone more generally. forrmation security

billions of people around the world, everybody who has an iphone or any phone, because apple is not the only company that encrypts their phones. cedentms of the pre that it says, it is going to roll in encryption. -- it is going to ruin encryption. have is the potential to access to the private information on the device of this information leaks. we are weighing it against a that it willbility help the investigation against a potential identity theft, potentially prostitution of authoritarian regimes, spying on journalists, increasing the incentive to mug people to steal

their phones as you now have access to information on their device as well. i don't think it is as obvious as the color suggest. host: next call for eli dourado 's george mason university clearance from casper, wyoming. what is your deal -- view on this issue? government should not require apple to do this. when they are doing it, they aren't saying it is just for this stone, but i have heard nine other cases that have nothing to do with terrorism, but murder cases. backdoors it creates a for this, they will want it for everything else. guest: i don't even think the cases,ases were murder

they were drug cases. the new york county district attorney testified this week saying his office had 205 iphones where they wanted to use a similar tool. the fbi story that it is just this one phone has not lasted very long. this toear they do want become routine. host: the political lines on this issue are all over the board. guest: absolutely. host: jill in maryland. -- joe in maryland. have copiesfbi does of verizon's records. they do not know with the content is. there could be a text message from one person to the terrorists saying, you know, i will leave the gun here. it the fbi will not know until they get into the actual device. the fact they have the records is not useful because they need to look into the phone to see

what the messages were. that is the first thing. encryption, apple had the capability was doing it themselves. that was proprietary-only software. to encryption as a business procedure because they did not want the burden of hundreds of thousands of law enforcement being sent to their offices to download phones. it is a business decision by apple. icloud goes, the icloud is only obtained if the person selects it to be backed up. to phone cannot be backed up the icloud upon your discretion. you have to agree to that. you seem to know a lot about this. why is that? i amr: put it this way,

very familiar with apple and their devices and i am intimately aware of law enforcement's concerns. only suspects we cannot access, it is victims. family victims whose members do not have access coats and are unable to give it to law enforcement. we do not know the intimate details of their family member'' death. this is a major issue. thank you for your perspective. eli dourado? guest: it is true that the verizon data is metadata and not necessarily the data. very often enough to follow up on new leads. they would know for instance who the shooter was texting with and

so on. the leads are preserved to the verizon data. again, it is true that icloud backups are optional. apple walks you through a process when you set up the phone and the default option is to academic to icloud. in this case, that is what the shooter had done. then, so, as far as this phone it is noted, particularly a concern. i think the fbi does have all the information that it's going to get. even if apple were to crack the phone. host: how did you get involved in this conversation in this business? i have always loved technology and my background is in economics. have age mason, we center that this academic

isearch on policy issues and -- hadlled to have been the opportunity to join the four years ago and i now leave their technology policy team. phoneopening this compromises all of this security. this is a tweet. we talk about issues involving technology ended on public policy. this weekend, we are talking and senator ed markey former senator jack field. they wrote the 1996 telecom act. it is still an effect. we talked about a variety of issues, but we asked editor markie -- senator markey about the fbi issue. there is how he responded. >> in my opinion, the apple officials should work with the

government officials to open that iphone. at the same time, to keep that code complete secret so that it does not jeopardize the security of every other iphone in the united states, or the world. here.e to find a balance bill gates has not taken that position. i understand tim cook is on the other side. it is a debate that we have to have because otherwise many of these devices can be used for the fairies purposes. there is a mckinsey in quality to all the technology. and worst the technology simultaneously. it can be great and dbase. eli dourado. guest: it is true that technology has lots of dual use.

encryption is a dual use technology that can be used for good or for evil. general canone in be used for good or evil. the issue with encryption is that it is not just about privacy, it is about security for all kinds of information that americans might have. people keep their medical information on their iphones. they keep making records. -- banking records. we are in a world where we need that kind of security. is a barely this complicated issue. i think that congress will ultimately have to decide it. i think there is moment come behind the idea of an encryption commission in congress. there have been proposals for such a commission. host: an encryption commission?

guest: yes, that would solve the issue through a study that congress would commission. instead of in the courts, right? there is an adage that bad cases make bad laws. the precedentant to be sent in this case versus a careful, deliberate study of the issue that might come up with a different -- host: how quickly would congress get to this issue? proposedere is a bill to create the commission. i think it would have reasonable a time period for study, two years. host: a couple of years before we get to a legislative --

guest: i think that is right. tweet saying why did the fbi changed the password? instructed the san bernardino police department to change the password. weren'tthey just thinking. i think they made a mistake. they did not consult apple about the question. apple said they would have advised not to change the password because then you could take the phone to the wi-fi network and then it would automatically do a new update. kerry int call is akron, ohio. you are on the line with eli dourado. we are talking about the apple/fbi issue. caller: good morning. i have been following this debate for the last several weeks. i see a lot of issues that are

being missed the need to be addressed. plan toa comprehensive deal with the situation. that't say anything at all addresses that. started with the terror attack in san bernardino. the first situation that came out of it was a big rush for gun control because -- on?: which side you fall caller: i follow on the apple's side because it goes to what i was talking about. of what thean issue phone is going on. every time something like that happens, there is going to be a rush to have us give us our

privacy. you so much. loretta lynch, the attorney general, was quoted as saying in a speech in san francisco, she -- apple isas -- is subject to a social contract on this issue. true, butt may be there are a number of national security officials who have sided with apple. the former director of the msa thinks the u.s. is better off with strong encryption. o'connell,ssor, mike thing.e same the same with the department of homeland security.

this is precisely what the issue is, is what is in society's best interest? there are a number of national security officials who think , notwithstanding the difficulties that law enforcement faces, it is still in the national interest of strong encryption. it means u.s. medications can be more secure. it means foreign governments will have less access to american data. -- theot just about national security is a comprehensive issue in terms of putting the need for cyber security for preventing identity theft, foreign espionage, etc. host: here is an article from ." terday's "new york times as carter says he is not in favor of a data back door. barbara in new york. what you think of this issue? even believe't this should be an issue.

i believe apple should release all the information on the phone to the fbi. host: why? caller: because it is a terror attack that happened and they should have access. host: barbara, what if this was a murder case? what if this were a drug deal? should apple release that information to those types of issues as well? caller: absolutely because we are in so much trouble here in the united states that i believe they should have access at all times to anything -- murder cases, anything. i don't think apple should be doing what they are doing right now. they should release all the information regarding that phone. host: think you, ma'am. eli dourado, if this were e-mail they were trying to get or phone old wirelineom an

phone, are those different issues? guest: i think it is different. maybe the color does not understand that apple has turned over everything on the phone. but the court is asking apple to produce something that it doesn't have. asking apple to take its engineers, put them in a room for four to six weeks, creating a new operating system that it does not have that apple believes is too dangerous to create, and then after having that team of 10 engineers working for six weeks, they would have this tool the fbi can then use. , justple has turned over as other companies turnover .-mails when it is a warrant other companies turnover records that they are ready have when there is a proper subpoena.

this is not a subpoena, this is an order to create a neutral. host: robert tweet sent, not collocated at all. fbi can go to court, get a search warrant to search a home or confiscate your computer, same thing. the opposite of what i was just saying. it is not the same thing. again, this order is a fairly unique court order. it is not a subpoena at all. it is not technically a subpoena. a subpoena is when you go to court ended on the court says, the order you to testify, or we order you to produce evidence you already have. this is a court ordering apple to do work that it does not want to do. jeff, maryland, give us your views, jeff. caller: good morning, thank you for having me on. the first thing i want to say is that it is very disappointing

for the guest speaker will be talk about terrorist attacks in our country that we downplay them because one, it is too many. failure ofws us the our government. its greatest responsibility to americans as deemed by our founding documents, which is to protect us. the second point i want to make is the most important aspect of all of this is the fourth commitment. americans -- fourth amendment. americans forget that the fourth amendment protects us. ist we do and what you see the control through fear. as the one caller said, let's wait and see when it is your family member that is murdered. calls, the calls

is liberty. if my child was murdered, i would not expect americans to give up liberty to solve that case. at thisee with apple moment in time. host: thank you, sir. eli dourado. this isn't a fourth amendment issue. the shooter is that in this case. the shooter does not have any fourth amendment rights to privacy. virtue of being a dead person. so, in this case, just the legal issues center around other 1789 is thet justification that the fbi is using for this. apple is opposing the order on lawground of a clinton era

on obligations of communication providers to law enforcement. and on first and fifth amendment grounds. i would caution the caller that is -- that this isn't a fourth commitment issue. privacy is that's not even the issue. this is often being framed as privacy versus public safety. securityhat it is data that is drawn the objections and most -- from apple other people who support apple. host: would we have this conversation with an android or phone?ft guest: it is very possible. android phones have a form of encryption as well. in the android case, the operating system is written by google and the phone is made by different manufacturers. it is not clear exactly how it would apply, but a similar case could be brought in the future. host: the government has said

this is a so-called marketing ploy by apple. is that fair? guest: i don't think that is there at all. when the judge issued a preliminary order, apple asked the judge to do it under seal. apple asked for it to be in secret. they do not want to have this fight in public. they would much prefer to do it in private. that is not consistent with it being a marketing ploy at all. and again, it is the fbi really want to have this battle in public because of the facts of this case are so favorable to them in the court of public opinion. supports terrorism -- nobody supports terrorism or has any , orathy for these shooters their privacy. it is astounding that anyone would care about the privacy of someone who has obviously

committed a terrorist act. ploy by is a marketing the fbi more than a marketing ploy by apple. journal" "wall street -- apple is right on encryption. they write, we found no one on program that waxes and wings on political surveillance. this case is not about privacy. it is about engineering security and its implications of security on all americans. anthony in maryland. when you come down on this issue? caller: thank you very much to speak to you on this channel for the first time in many decades i have been listening to you guys. i support apple. grounduation on the and anreate momentum

interesting situation across the globe. it will not be limited to the united states, it is everywhere. what they are asking is a upnket injunction to open the floodgates. throughybody can go anybody's phone, no privacy, no nothing. i am surprised. it is creating a political divide to address this issue. this is about everybody. the situation that they are -- it will be a situation where nobody has privacy. i do not support the government's position. host: thank you, sir. mr. dourado. guest: i think anthony is

absolutely correct. this is serving going to be a global issue. we should be clear about the that the u.s. is asking something that no other government has asked for. if the u.s. government succeeds in asking for this from apple, it is going to be -- every other government will find cases where reasons, there are either good reasons or bad perspective, our to ask apple to do the same thing. of course, apple, is a multinational company. it operates in china, russia, drop the world. and if illegitimate court in the , or order apple

to produce this backdoor operating system, then a court in any of those countries will be able to order apple to do the same thing. apple will face a choice potentially between having to produce it there, or leaving that country. terrible precedent to set. anshould be supporting oppressive regimes who don't want to have the government have access to all of their information. host: mr. dourado, have any cases, to other countries like this? guest: this is the only time in history where the government has asked apple, or another computer programmer -- another for computer -- another computer

company to produce something like this, a backdoor to their system that does not exist. are -- ourtweet 10, devices spy on us, track of, collect info on less, or they are on crackle fortresses. devices toan use our track ourselves and upload data to the cloud. if that data has been uploaded to the cloud, those companies do need to produce it. my --duce it when asked when asked by a lawful court. we also have the option to use these devices in a very private manner. we don't have to upload everything to the cloud. we don't have to allow the tracking to occur on our devices.

and as far as that is the case, i think we are better and of course there are always going to be some ways that we can be tracked. right now, cell phone towers are still being used, are still collecting data about where we are. law enforcement has access to that data about which cell phone tower you are connecting to, even if you lock down your phone otherwise. it is a bit of both and it depends on how you use the phone. host: daniel, columbia maryland. caller: i just want to speak about the technological aspect of this debate. it seems as though apple has come out with a proof of concept where we can no longer break the encryption and know what people

are saying to each other, what data we have. whether or not we legislate and make a legal solution or a law enforcement, government, solution, thisty technology is out there whether it is apple or another american company, or in the case of a foreign company who is not subject to american laws, they can create communication standards that are not subject to this fbi federal judge ruling saying, you have to unlock this. it is here. we are dealing with encryption standards that cannot be broken means, so how do we as a society deal with that? we move forward understanding that communications are going to be encrypted, we are not going to be able to see them, people are going to use this. daniel, he seemed to have

more than a second level of understanding of this issue. do you work in this area? caller: i do. i went to school for computer science and i have since moved on to government thinks. host: thank you, sir. guest: to some extent, the toothpaste is out of the tube. encryption, even if big companies are subject to court orders, there are open force projects. anybody now has access to these sorts of encryption tools and indeed apple, i would not be surprised if the next generation of iphones is something that even apple cannot break into even if they want to. this is really the future of how we engineer devices, devices that you own, that nobody else can access without your

permission. using encryption to enforce that restriction. i think it is really spitting into the wind to try to undo that legally in the short term. host: this tweet, this is a government phone, we are talking about. it is not his private phone, for heaven sakes. does that make a difference? guest: if it were not encrypted, it could. government would not need an access therder to contents of the phone. but of course, this is encrypted so in practice it does not make a difference. or not the government in san bernardino county want apple to open it, they still need a court order. host: one more call, adrienne in

suffolk, virginia. i come down on the side of the government. i think apple should open the phone. host: why is that? caller: because 14 people were the shootersthink were connected to a terrorist group, and i think the fbi needs all the help they can get to solve that crime. herenk this case right will be the future of crime solving as phones gets more -- phones get more danced. -- more advanced. adrienne, what about in other cases? what if this were not a terrorist case?

murder,it were a robbery, drug dealing case, do the same standards apply? caller: i think so, yeah. i think they should open the phone for those cases, i do. i do not think we really have any privacy anyway. google and apple, i that they collect our information, our activity on our phones. nobody really has any privacy anymore and everybody's social security number is out there. host: thank you, sir. view, this ise's a very dangerous tool and they think it is too dangerous to create. you can imagine that even if they created this, and even if the fbi only used it appropriately, you could still

see hackers from foreign countries, from foreign governments hacking apple's system, stealing the operating system, being able to load it onto the phones of people they want to spy on. this is not just about lawful requests to access data. this is about, should we have a presumption of security on our phones? as other national security officials have said, we have other interests besides making law enforcement's job easier. i fully recognize that what apple is doing makes law enforcement's job more difficult, but we do have other interests that need to be considered. host: the final comment comes from jody on twitter, if you

want your correspondent secure, write it down, put a stamp on it, and mail it u.s. postal.