they didn't put white only in the fountains? they didn't have to. assumed they were white only. they were colored but not white only. that apartheid world that was not created until the early years of the 20th century. that's what's interesting. that's when they came in. when i talked about that boycotting being system being segregated in mobile, up until then it was a very different world. not that they often had the money to go there but they could go to white restaurants but that changed. the south is at a crucial juncture now and we will see which way things go. okay, thank you very much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> this is book tv on c-span2 and we want to know what's on your summer reading list. send us your choices at book tv as our twitter handle. you can also post it on our facebook page, facebook.com/booktv or you can send an e-mail to book tv at c-span.org. what's on your summer reading list, book tv wants to know.

>> ladies and gentlemen welcome to the shakespeare annual dinner and mock trial. before we begin the trial please take this time to silence all electronic device that is may disrupt this evening's proceedings. photography is strictly prohibited. please join me in welcoming trustee of association abby david lole. [applause] >> good evening. thanks for joining us tonight to the annual dinner and mock trial event presented by the shakespeare theater company and affinity group of lawyers associated with the legal community and those who support the legal community to bring the best that we can to this wonderful theater. as you know, tonight's performance, tonight's trial is based on the production of 1984

that was presented by the shake spears theater company a few short months ago and which in turn is based on the 1949, that's right, 1949 book by george orwell predicting what 1984 might look like. i know you all know the story very well. a completely far-fiched story where a country's government vacuums up enormous amount of data about citizens and the name of national security. [laughter] >> where a country's leader worked hard to keep the people scared and divided to prevent new comers and serious opposition by among other techniques and encouraging people to have daily session where is they yelled anker and hate to anyone who disagrees with them and the opposition creates a sort of resistance by installing an offline communication system not in the mainframe of the government, to protect private communications.

[laughter] maybe not so farfetched. you're going to be asked to serve as a jury and vote on the following question. given the context of war and threat to national security, should the officials name as defendants in winrestaurant smith lawsuit be held liable for the treatment of winston smith in 1984. if you believe they should not be held liable please vote with a red token that you were given for no. if you belief officials should be held liable, boat for a blue token for yes. i would like no introduce you to tonight's participants, please join me in welcoming supreme court marshall pamela. [applause]

>> please welcome to the stage down petitioner, amy from the law firm of arnold and porter. [cheers and applause] >> and now counselor for the respondent, the state, bob. [cheers and applause] >> and, of course, the members of the bench of the supreme court of the state, supreme court justice ruth presiding justice steven brier, judge patricia and judge cornelius. [cheers and applause]

[applause] >> oh yeah, oh yeah, the supreme court of oceanea is now in session. please be seated. were r welcome to 1984 as perceived by people living in 2016. [laughter] >> we will hear first from the petitioner, represented by amy jeffreys.

>> thank you, your honor and may it please the court, my cocounsel sally pay and i represent our client winston smith, mr. smith is not present this evening, however, and we understand that he may have been vaporized. [laughter] >> which goes straight to the first point of our argument. [laughter] >> there is a clear threat of injury in this case, which is why this court must enjoin the state from unlawful practices of big brother that president freedman promised to end. what injury, winston smith has been wrongfully arrested, detained, interrog rated and tortured and now possibly vaporized and further like other citizens are to the state

constant surveillance, a party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the police. the alleged national security reasons for the state policies are vastly overblown. the state has not identified any concrete information that has been useful in defending national security. to the continuerary, so far this surveillance has been used to ensure that oceanea citizens are using the appropriate bathrooms. [laughter] [laughter] [applause] >> that's right the state is surveilling its citizens known as acronym bsbs.

[laughter] >> we understand that the state has pushed malware to all cell phones, tablets and computers and has access to unencrypted data. thesepolis, your honors will not make oceanea great again. [applause] [laughter] >> which is what the police might claim. era of big brother is not over as president freeman has promised, which lead us to second argument. >> before you move on, president freedman could be making a lot of money running casinos or reality tv programs or -- [laughter] >> or giving private speeches to investment bankers.

the thoughtful police would abuse the powers of observation they have only to keep us safe. >> he cares about only one thing, your honor, that is his own power. >> let's back up because you have introduced a threshold question. you have asked for sanctions to be set by this court for gaining access to your preliminary breech, you did not identify what sanctions you thought and you did not tell us what was in those briefs that you disclaim, so if you would respond to those thresholds questions. what sanctions and what do you now disclaim that was in your prior briefs? >> your honor, we merely disclaim our prior briefs in order to protect the

attorney-client privilege. we knew that the state was monitoring all of our communications as we all know. so we did not write anything that we thought would be damage if released because we all know that we live under constant surveillance but we did move to sanctions because we believe it's important for this court to acknowledge that the state has abused its authority and the malware infecting all of our devices is improper and must be -- must be injoint. >> and the sanctions that you seek are? >> sanctions, we would like monetary damages, of course, and we would like to enjoin the state from any further intrusive surveillance of our client and oceanea. >> one more preliminary question . i and all of my colleagues were appointed by president freedman

so do you think that you can gain impartial justice of this tribunal or i understand that president freedman is in his last term in office, so would you move that we hold this whole proceeding in a bank until the election? [laughter] [applause] >> that is an excellent question, your your honor, that i had not thought of but quite brilliantly put. i'm confident that we can get a fair hearing from this bench. i would note that approximately half of you have previously worked for the aclu, which is an affiliate, of course, at the civil liberty union and we believe we can get a fair hearing from the judges and so we thank you for the question,

only this court, your honor, can protect the rights of winston smith and the other citizens of oceanea. >> i know, counsel, you expressed concern about surveillance. there are and cannot be any cameras here in the supreme court here. [laughter] [applause] >> i will ask you to focus on your argument about qualified immunity. i want to ask you the question key to this case. [inaudible] >> how could be a savage? [laughter] >> your honor speaks excellent you speak.

your honor, that does -- [laughter] >> thank you, your honor. >> translation first. >> the principles of socialism, how could a reasonable officer possible know the meaning of that case, in other words he can't win. [laughter] >> your honor, for the benefit of the audience i will respond in english. thank you. winston smith writes to be free from wrongful arrest,ing, interrogation and the constitution is still in force despite the laws that big brother has brought into play.

no reasonable officer could have believed that it was lawful to subject winston smith to routine beatings and psychological torture. >> i really have a preliminary question. how can you say your clients face a threat of harm. you read our decision. your arguments seem to rest on a mere chase of contingencies without risk of impending. just because the state has surveillance powers to monitor every last communication of its subject doesn't mean the government will actually use those powers. [laughter] >> your honor is correct that the court in the case did find that the plaintiffs there had only claim of harm as a result of the government's surveillance practices. here, however, winston can

demonstrate that the government intends and largely far worse, arrest, detain and torture him. it's worth noting that they were certainly correct. the plaintiffs there were virtually certain to have communications intercepted and monitored but we need not to rely because the majority ruling does not bind the support on these significant very different facts. >> are you asking us to intervene at the preliminary injunction stage, why shouldn't we wait until a full record is developed, permanent injunction stage? >> your honor, winston smith and the citizens need immediate release and only this court can provide that relief and it must be done right away.

we would note that there is no national security threat as we have said. big brother claims that war is peace. when the war is merely a pretext to maintain social order and party's grip on power. >> don't you have a serious causation problem that we need to establish a record for? i know you argue that the party systemically destroyed and continuing with president freedman destroyed capacity for independent analysis and critical thought but as i think about causation i remember with keeping up with the kardashians and other reality tv have done that to us? >> we are all suffering on a regular basis, your honor, that's a perfect example. [laughter] >> there's a man who wrote about what you say was done and the

name of that man was hamilton and before i can say you should get your way, i want to know what that man did say. [laughter] [applause] >> your honor, if ham it own were here i know he would say that the defendants in this case, the police should be held liable for illegal mistreatment of winston smith, our founding fathers would not have tolerated the abusive authorities that big brother has brought to the state of oceanea. >> both sides have experienced in history and that's where winston smith worked, right? >> he worked in many --

>> how can we confidence that any you decide to el us is true? >> your honor, the court must be referring to power of holding two contradictory believes in one's mind and accepting both of them. >> i also note that you -- [laughter] >> you rely on a case called party mar aim by chief justice tenney who wrote the decision, is he a reliable source? >> we like the case because the plaintiff won. [laughter] >> that case about habius

corpus? whether it's executive or the legislature, legislature in oceana is under the thumb of the executive. >> that is correct, your honor, my opponent relies on the silence of congress as a sent of congress and we realize that we cannot rely on the citizens of oceanea. >> i would see that differently. i mean, congress hasn't acted meaningfully in years. [applause] >> in fact, the government leader's care so much for the people's safety that they almost have nothing but safety left in congress. >> that is exactly right

justice, that is why we rely on the court for the release that win stone smith seeks. >> yeah, but those action that is you are complaining, they happened 32 years ago, are you discriminating against those with age? isn't there a time where we turn the page? [laughter] >> your honor, the police like all officials are presumed to have knowledge for beacon constitutional rights set forth by our founding father to be free from unlawful arrest, detention and torture. >> i have another question that qualify -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> quote, nothing was illegal since there were no longer any laws according to according to your brief.

doesn't that mean that no law could have been clearly established? >> that is a concern that we have with the entire concept of qualified immunity in this case, your honor, is that there is no rule of law in a state like oceanea. again, we would submit that only this court can restore the rights of the citizens of oceanea. so in conclusion, your honors, we encyst that the defendants, they must be held liable. no other outcome is consist weent the constitution, the vision of the founding fathers that justice briar has quoted and no other outcome is consistent with justice. [laughter] >> i don't know, your whole argument seems premise in the idea that we are in this science fiction police or something.

[laughter] >> the scenario is 1984. >> but you are inserting a privacy right. your client is all over google, facebook, twitter, snapchat and for this audience linkedin and posted selfies with lebron james, is my understanding. what privacy right is left. apple, google and facebook know more about him than the state could ever learn? >> your honor, that is an excellent point. our client, however, did try to live a private life and tried to have a relationship with a lover in the state that he was unable to have because of the state's interest of surveillance. there is privet cri which he thought.

it's impossible to know whether the social media was truly originated by winston smith or had been placed there by the many truth -- ministry of which he worked an others regularly use to transmit propaganda to support the regime. >> i've also noted that they made mention to foreign countries but you didn't. you seem to focus only on domestic law and are you aware that justice briar published a book american law in and new global law. rudies respecting his views of the law? [laughter] >> i am aware of the book, your honor, and would never disrespect -- >> yeah, but did you read the book? [laughter] >> i bought the book. [laughter] >> you're the one.

>> i don't understand, i don't understand how you can put here given winston owns description of the condition, he said, quote -- [inaudible] >> he understood that the party had helped him, quote, win a victory over himself. this seems to be a happy contentment. >> your honor, the state also argues that winston smith problems are of his own making and he is a victim only of his own mind but if someone -- if someone is paranoid, this is the

case for winston smith. he is the victim. the state criticizes his very thoughts and how is the state aware of the private thoughts, through its constant unlawful, unrelenting surveillance, exactly the practice that smith challenges today. >> but precisely we might as well dismiss now, next case if i'm understanding you correctly, asserts a reasonable expectation of privacy. the essence of which is his unwillingness to show everything, so hasn't he effectively pled himself out of court because of unwillingness to share everything by iphone is contrary to the patriot act. >> he would not be showing everything through his iphone if the state did not have it infected by malware to make its every communication available to the state. >> what about his facebook post. everything is out there.

what is your line between privacy, what you're sharing on social media and what you want to share with the state, what can the state find out too? >> in oceanea winston smith is not free to share the own posts because the thought police and the ministry control everything and i would like to reserve the remaining five minutes of my time for rebuttal, may i please the court? >> thank you, thank you. [applause] >> we will now hear from counsel of oceanea, bob broward. >> madame chief justice and as if we strongly recommend please the court, petitioner paints oceanea as lawless what is legal proceedings, judges, counsel, case all open to the public

except those unfortunate who cannot afford the price. all can see that violent history is now free to be a litigant and this transition is the hallmark of a rule of law society, petitioner claims that he has been tortured but grounds that in a record that is replete with paranoia, so 1984. everybody is out to get him. state officials are whispering to hidden hallways and we say, oh, please. he also says that our surveillance is sure to land him in prison but how can he know that, why would we not have done this before this skeptical and put him away quietly sparing him unimaginably legal expense. the court would know our moderation to defend against east asia and build incredible wall and have them pay for it. now petitioner says he should be

able to sue the officials who interrogated him, that one man show of judicial force rightly resisted by the heroic lincoln, yet lincoln arrested, yes, he shut down newspapers but like our named president freedman committed that the measures would be temporary. so when petitioner visit it is memorial but the reflecting pool that attracts thousands and pigeons, we stand with lincoln. so allow me to close now in the words of shakespeare. when this trader who all the while have rebelled in the night should see us rising in our

throne, the treason and not able to endure sight of day but tremble or to put it in more simply deny the claim, we will take it from there. [laughter] [applause] >> counselor, you have made some pretty strong arguments against winston smith but as i read your argument you seem to be saying that no one has standing to object to what is going on in oceanea. the threshold argument is no standing go away. who does have standing? >> well, surely somebody who has not already been vaporized has standing. they could hardly be standing if they are a vapor.

[laughter] >> so anyone who has not been vaporized has standing? >> well, it's a good start. [laughter] >> everybody is subject to 24/7 surveillance so among those everybody who -- >> well, as you know the cell phones were equipped with a device activated upon application of certain criteria, the petitioner doesn't know what the criteria are, does not fight them and has no reason to believe that he would be arrested because of the application so we would have to have a petitioner coming in and say, here are the reasons why i'm confident the cell phone will be turned on and i will be followed and we are quite confident that nobody is going to have the nerve to come in and say that.

>> i think you're argument that the risk of harm to smith is con guestial is too much because in your view even thinking about this lawsuit made smith guilty of thought crime. once you file you have to go after him or admit that you don't care what people think and if the government doesn't care how people think how could it defend a surveillance regime under the patriotic act? >> we wouldn't be equipping the cell phones with surveillance devices. [laughter] >> i don't have a question for you. i couldn't figure out how to question the government in a way designed to make questioning the government impossible. [laughter] >> so i want to ask you about surveillance, less likely under

any targeting criteria, i don't see how that's consistent with policy. [inaudible] >> making them disappear. >> well, i should point out to you, judge, that the record shows by the end of the book winston smith is very much with us and though counsel today chose not to appear he's represented there must some where be an engagement letter. [laughter] >> you mean link tone president or lincoln the automobile? [laughter] >> i meant the one that runs in compliance with all applicable safety standards imposed by the

state of oceanea. >> my other question is how do you turn on its cell phone anyway? [laughter] >> how does he turn on -- >> how do i turn on -- [laughter] >> you don't have to worry about it at all justice briar, we are going to turn it on for you. [laughter] >> i thought for your brief and argument here you're understating the level of intrusion. it's not just the monitoring through the phones but isn't it true that you recently had dropped a so-called metro safe track program that keeps us trapped in our homes for the next year to keep us monitored? [laughter] [applause] >> judge, i didn't hear all your question -- >> you're not responsible for the traffic in this city, are you?

>> that was your question. >> the metro safe program that keeps everybody locked in their homes, could you start that? >> it's entirely a pilot project. [laughter] >> no, but i'm getting very interested now. this is -- why did -- why are you doing all of these things? [laughter] >> we are doing what is necessary to protect the state of oceanea against the threats that petitioners admitted to committing. >> what kinds of threats? >> the threat of internal and aid to our enemy, the threat that would go on and on and on. [laughter] >> my book? [laughter] >> no justice, but i would like to speak to you after about the audio version.

>> let's go back to your point why winston smith has very been vaporized, what about the popular refrain we did it before and we can do it again, that common sense understanding? particularly think about the sexual offender registration law, the whole premise is if he did it once he's likely to do it again. so winston smith's position is the state it before and they are likely to do it again. >> but what mr. smith doesn't account for is that we have a rigorous reeducation program that as you know we have funded the race to the bottom and our goal there was to provide a gore curriculum, the effective which is to make sure that when mr. smith emerges he's a changed and better man, the contented man that judge has identified

correctly in the book. >> i want to follow up on the question. she asked you why we are going after this poor man, winston smith, i want to know why the government isn't trying to surveil -- he's a for more danger to the state after all. [inaudible] >> he's far more dangerous. >> well, he's not my client although he authorizes the payment of my bill. therefore i'm most responsive to him, your honor. what i want to say about that o'brian doesn't admit to the authorship of that book. that book is a thinly guide track of a volume -- democracy and dictatorship by leon and advocates the most violent to

unsettle a democracy and oh -- o'brian is part of the solution and not part of the problem. >> why wasn't julia prosecuted? did she play the woman card? >> you know, oceanea applies the law on the specific facts. there was no indication she was anything other than someone who was in love with this man had been induced to entering into the conspiracy. it's ashame that oceanea blocks the law when it's blooming on that kind of empathy. >> it seems like the legitimacy that by winning election they won civil liberties. o'brian is your client. i think you're representing and not the individual defendants and i think you're missing an opportunity here. right, so you could have the

illusion of the rule of law and do whatever you want if you just pin it on the individual defendants, like why are you even here with a qualified immunity appeal. oceanea says it's all their faults. not ours but you're appealing, let -- avoid liability for the freedman administration and let the individual take the fall. isn't that core? >> that sounds very appealing. thank you for suggesting it. >> we want to start all over again. >> that's very good. >> how can you possibly claim qualified immunity in a case. we have a constitution. are you asking us unqualified

immunity to forget a number of principles? >> your honor, as you know we've adopted the united states constitution. that isn't to say we fully believe in it. we are adapting it to current conditions but one thing we know for sure is that the executive order for to which officials acted was well known for years. there's no reason to believe they thought it was anything other than lawful. and the higher up in turn can never be prosecuted because they're not capable of committing them. a reasonable officer -- unlawful to put on smith's --

[inaudible] >> your honor, first of all, i would answer in two parts. number one that we have no eyewitness -- testimony but even if it's true everybody is a critic. [laughter] >> how far did the state go in the emergency that is claiming? torture of people, torture is okay in a time of terror; is that your position? >> no. chief justice ginsburg, that's not our position at all. anybody who has attended middle school in the united states knows there's a thin line between reeducation and torture.

it's really a matter of nomenclature more than anything else. >> how do you define it? >> i have presidential debates that have gone for three and a half hours that i would characterize as torture, yes. >> you claim the prerogative to suspend habeas corpus but isn't it the case that only the legislature can defend habeas corpus? i want to understand congress' ability to most basic functions assigned to it such as consent, gives the president powers that would ordinarily raised with congress. >> congress has not been enacted.

it took enormous amount of work. so what it needs to rise to the occasion, it does so. >> i believe it's so long that nobody actually read it. >> that includes members who passed it, your honor. yes, your honor. i don't think it's accurate statement either that we are saying congress had no rule in the suspension on habeas, congress in that ib substantiate acted years after lincoln ignored and here we have -- [inaudible] >> that's my case. the point i made with cocounsel, you represent a government that

-- [inaudible] >> how do you have any basis, history policies of big brother are not continuing or how can we rely on anything that you told us today? >> well, i would like to respond to that judge because i think that's an important point. >> that's why i raised the question. >> yes, you did. and what i would like to stress is that i think as in the thin line discussed earlier one should not confuse lying or dye deposition with public relations and public relations strategy. what smith did is known in this town as spin, violent variety, it's spin, it's not lies. >> you did as you heard, you know, minor things like rats and

so forth on cage or whenever he was and a whole bunch of things that are pretty bad and you're saying it was really the higher-ups and not the clients and why don't we indict the higher-ups or would you consider that judicial activism? >> your honor, as i said earlier, i think it's very difficult to find higher-ups in oceanea that are doing their very best to protect the countries. one thing we know, whatever the record we show and president freedman may be well committed to pursuing, this case is about smith and smith is a paranoid discon innocent that would draw salary until everything went a part on him and we educated him and he isn't permitted to leave and he has a lawyer and if you were represented by counsel in this country then all constitutional guaranties of every meaning have been

fulfilled. >> if there's no law, why can't we just be activists? >> as i said to you earlier justice, what are we doing here, is this a fundraising event? [laughter] >> what constitutional rights does smith have? does he have first amendments rights? does he have fourth amendment rights? does he have eighth amendment rights? does he have any of those rights? >> yes, he absolutely does, chief justice ginsburg and any time that mr. smith wants some exposure to those rights he's free to inspect them at the

national archives. >> i'm not sure that this is relevant to the case before us but i can't resist the opportunity since we have you here, i understand that in oceanea two plus two equals five and i wonder if that's code for a gun plus a gun equals due process. [laughter] [applause] >> that, i think, your honor, is the math created by voter rage. >> but didn't you really cross the line into clearly unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishments when you -- [laughter] >> quite the contrary, your honor. they are the very best steaks

found anywhere. [laughter] >> as you know, we also offered him an opportunity to have the steaks with a book called art of the mule. [laughter] >> i want to assure you that given the current judicial conduct which the administration has reenacted this is not a fundraiser. [laughter] >> the -- you are probably right. [laughter] >> there's a theory about the constitution's place in the time of terror and it's known as the death chair of constitutional rights, that is when the sun is shining and we are at peace we have all the constitutional right that is we could have, but when the storm clouds gather the

death chairs have holded up and all rights go away. is that your view that you're trying to get the court to accept. constitutional rights are not the stormy weather. if i can liken it to a dome baseball stadium, most people like to watch baseball with open air and every now in the weather interferes and they close the roof but the game of baseball continues. that i think is an appropriately misleading analogy. [laughter] >> are you listening to the cell phone. >> are you not? >> are you listening to mr. smith's cell phone?

>> mr. smith, that's the problem. [laughter] >> our impression is that it was vaporized along with him. we are not getting a signal. >> all right, is it legal to vap orize people? >> there's no harm in that. >> good point. >> is it okay to look at the laws of foreign countries to decide whether vaporization is uncruel punishment? >> we have to be very cautious. >> you forgot the country of vaporia. >> that's covered in your book, justice, thank you. [laughter] >> i had one other question for you and that is really whether

this is your means or disproportionate to the end. if you want to get inside of our cell phones, do we really need to authorize the government to do it? can't most teenagers do it? >> well, yes, your honor, but your wish is fulfilled. the government is currently being run by teenagers. [laughter] [applause] >> in conclusion -- in conclusion, petitioner has come here or not, in fact, because he's no longer with us to claim that he had standing, he does not have standing, he does not have standing and she should not be here attempting to suggest that this state in this courtroom, in this legal proceeding with this public in attendance is in any way lawless, we are merely meeting the demands of the moment the

best that we can and as i said earlier, we snand the tradition in greatest presidents that are taken the steps in times of crisis. thank you. [applause] >> i think you have five minutes. >> thank you, your honor. i would like to thank my opponent and the fact that he has conceded the critical point that he need not defend the individual officers in this case. he is representing big brother and leaving the individual officers out to dry. >> can i just say that i'm a little tired of all of these references to big brother. isn't it time to break the glass ceiling and have -- [laughter]

>> many would like that it's not abusive. [laughter] >> thank you, your honor. >> my opponent has outright admit that had the government is placing surveillance devices on its citizens including justice briar. [laughter] >> i am shocked. [laughter] >> the state has argued that winston smith is a member of the insurgency and then the state argues that he has not establish that had the civil rights are being violated. this is the exactly the kind of double think that big brother has brought to oceanea and we depend on the court to put on end to. big brother cannot be trusted.

president freedman is a friendly disguise incarnation of big brother. only this court can protect win stone smith from abuses of power that the state has committed here. the court must find for winston smith and if there are no further questions i would like to conclude because some members of the audience may have to return home by metro safe track. >> thank you, counsel. [applause] >> thank you, your honor. >> all rise, the honorable bench will now deliberate.

>> please be seated. while the honorable bench deliberates our jury will also decide the -- cast vote by placing red or blue token in the bask eats passed along. given the context of war the threat of national security should officials name its defendant in this lawsuit be held liable for the treatment of winston smith in 1984. again, if you think they should not be held liable you place the red toke nn the basket. if you think they should be held liable you place the blue toke nn the basket. again, the question is given the context of war were the threats of national security, should the oceanea officials named as defendants be held liable of treatment of winston smith in 1984, no for red and yes, blue.

[inaudible conversations] [laughter] [laughter] >> as is our tradition as the judges deliberate, i wanted to make sure that we could continue the conversation, to please let me bring to the stage, a person who i have known for a while, somebody who has insight that is this book and this place address es. child lawyer adviser about crises and media events and one of the lead lawyers advising appear until the controversy that it has had and is having with the government namely the

fbi that was involved in litigation and advised to the company in dealing with the issues that were both in court, in the media and continue to be so. in a play, in a trial about 1984 what more relevant can it be than to welcome to the stage somebody that's living and somebody imagined tedd. [applause] >> so let's start with the first question. i know everybody here knows the issue or knows of the controversy of apple versus fbi but i have actually in my conversations including my own thoughts that it's very misunderstood. some case of privacy, taking of people's property. let's start off by finally getting the font to tell us what is the dispute really about. >> well, thank you. thanks for setting the standard

so high that i should be entertaining but playing myself. i will try to arise to the occasion here. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about the apple case. we didn't really think about apple versus the fbi because it really -- the case raised important issues about national security, importance to law enforcement and at the same time a recap of what happened, after the tragic i want in san bernardino in december the government immediately offered information regarding the two killers and from phones that they had and other information. apple did that and has policy of cooperating with the government and assisting the government in response to warrants and subpoenas but the government then went a step further and it took the extraordinary step of seeking order in san bernardino

asking that the court compel apple to develop new software that would destroy security protection on one of the iphones used by the killers protected by password. one of the most recent features was the cherry on top of the security protocol and protections of the iphone is your passwordment once your put your password that is all other security measures and encrypted data in your phone, your actual phone cannot be accessed by anyone who doesn't know the password including apple. the government didn't know the password. the individual is dead. it was the employer's phone and didn't know the password and the

government needed to get into that phone and asked the court to do something extraordinary which was have apple send, we estimated six to ten rl engineers into the lab, so to speak to