are covering this week. at kramer books in washington dc, brookings institution senior fellow elaine explains why americans become disenchanted with political leaders and how to re-forge their relationship. in mountain view, california, antonio martinez, former advisor for twitter and product master for facebook will provide an inside look at the future state of social media. friday at barnes & noble in south lake texas former sniper nicholas irving will discuss his missions as third ranger regiment, a look at some other programs booktv is covering this week, many of these events are open to the public, look for them to air in the near future on booktv on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

>> ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the shakespeare company barred association's annual dinner and mock trial. before we begin the trial please silence all electronic devices that may disrupt this evening's proceedings. photography at tonight at trial is strictly prohibited. please join me in welcoming chair of the barred association, abbe lowell. [applause] >> good evening. thanks for joining us tonight at the annual dinner and mock trial presented by the shakespeare theater company and the barred association, the affinity group of lawyers, those associated with the community and those who support the legal community to bring the best we can to the

stage of this wonderful theater. as you know, tonight's performance, tonight at trial is based on a production of "1984" that was presented by the shakespeare 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 -- the country's government vacuums up enormous amounts of data about its citizens in the name of national security, where a country's leader worked hard to keep people scared and divided to prevent newcomers in serious opposition by among other techniques encouraging people to have daily sessions where they yell their anger and hate against anyone who disagrees with them. where the opposition creates a

sort of resistance by installing an off-line communication system, not in the mainframe of the government, to protect private communications. maybe not so far-fetched. at the conclusion of tonight's argument you will be asked to serve as the jewelry and vote on the following questions. given the context of war and the threat to national security. should the oceania defendant in the winston smith lawsuit be held liable for the treatment of winston smith in 1984? if you believe these officials should not be held liable please vote with a red token you were given for now. if you believe the oceania officials should be liable vote with a blue token for yes. i would now like to introduce to you and welcome tonight's participants. please join me in welcoming

supreme court marshall pamela talkin. [applause] >> please welcome to the stage counsel to partition or winston smith, amy jeffress from the law firm arnold and palmer. [applause] >> now counsel for the respondents, the state of oceania, bob bauer of perkins to e. and of course the members of the esteemed bench of the supreme court of the state of oceania, sipping court justice ruth bader ginsburg presiding, justice stephen breyer, patricia millett, judge cornelia pillard. [applause] [applause] be change

oh yea oh yea oh yea, the supreme court of oceania is now in session, please be seated. welcome to 1984 is perceived by people living in 2016. we will hear first from the

petitioner represented by amy jeffress. >> thank you, your honor. may it please the court. my cocounsel, represent winston smith. mister smith is not present this evening as we understand he may have been vaporized, which goes straight to the first point of our argument. there is a clear threat of iraq verbal -- irreparable injury in this case. which is why this court must enjoin the state from the unlawful practices of big brother that president freeman promised to end. what injury? winston smith has already been wrongfully arrested, detained, interrogated and tortured and

now possibly vaporized. further, he like all other citizens is subject to the state's constant unwarranted surveillance. as george orwell rose, a party member lives from birth to death under the eye of the thought police. a state of life in oceania is literally orwellian. the alleged national security reasons for the state policies are vastly overblown. the state has not identified any concrete information collected through it intrusive surveillance that has been useful in defending national security. to the contrary, so far this surveillance has only been used to ensure that oceania citizens are using the appropriate bathrooms. [laughter and applause] be change that is right, the state is surveilling its citizens solely to enforce the birth sex bathroom statute, known by their

acronym bs bs. and how is the state conducting this surveillance? we understand the state has pushed malware to all cell phones, tablets and computers in oceania and had unfettered access to encrypted cameras on any device in oceania. these policies will not make oceania great again. [laughter] >> which is what the thought police might claim. the era of big brother is not over as president freeman has promised, which leads me to the second argument, the officers responsible -- >> before we move on, president freeman could be making a lot of money running casinos or reality tv programs or giving private speeches to investment bankers.

instead he cares enough to be our president devoted totally to taking care of the people. it seems like pure conjecture that the thoughtful police would abuse the powers of observation they have only to keep us safe. >> he cares about only one thing, 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 surreptitiously gaining access to your pulmonary briefs. you did not identify what sanctions, you did not tell us what was in those briefs that you disclaim, so if you would respond to those threshold

questions, what sanctions and what do you now disclaim that was in your prior briefs? >> we merely disclaim our prior briefs to protect the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege. we knew that the state was monitoring all our communication so we did not write anything we thought would be damaging if released because we all know we live under constant surveillance but we did move for sanctions. it is important for this court to acknowledge the state has abused its authority and the malware affecting all our devices is improper and must be enjoined. we would like monetary damages and we would like to enjoin the state from any further intrusive surveillance of our clients and all citizens of oceania. >> a preliminary question. i and all of my colleagues were

appointed by president freeman. do you think that you can gain impartial justice on this tribunal? [laughter and applause] >> i understand president freeman is in his last term in office. would you move that we move this proceeding in a ban until elected? >> that is an excellent question, your honor, that i had not thought of but quite brilliantly put. i am 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, an affiliate of the oceania civil

liberties union and we can get a fair hearing from these judges so thank you for the question but only this court can protect the rights of winston smith and the other citizens of oceania. >> you expressed concern about surveillance in your work and i want to assure you that there are, will not be any cameras in the supreme court here. [applause] or smack >> i want to ask you to focus on your argument about qualified immunity and ask the question that is key to this case. good thinking officers, and merryman doubleplus inside the poll, how could merryman be clear wise established? you don't speak new speak?

>> your honor, i speak excellent new speak. >> you can answer the question in english or new speak. >> for the benefit -- >> congratulations. >> reasonable officers understood and moved the principles of english socialist and merryman is counter to that principle, how could a reasonable officer possibly know the rule of the case, in other words you can't win. >> for the benefit of the audience i will respond in english. winston smith rights to be free from wrongful arrest, interrogation, culture and unjustified surveillance were

well-established at the time officers mistreated him. the constitution is in force in oceania despite the laws big brother brought into play. no reasonable officer could believe it was lawful to subject winston smith to routine beatings and psychological torture. >> i have a pulmonary question, how can you say your client faced the threat of irreparable harm? he can't even show standing. you read our claptrap decision. your argument seems to rest on contingencies with no risk that is impending. just because the state has surveillance powers under the patriot act to monitor every last communication of its subjects doesn't mean the government will actually use those powers. >> your honor is in the claptrap

case did find the plaintiffs had only a speculative claim of harm as a result of government surveillance practices. here, winston smith can demonstrate the government intends to inspect his cell phone and likely far worse, arrest, detain and torture him. it is worth noting the dissenters in clapper were correct, the plaintiffs were starting to have their communications intercepted and monitored but we need not rely on their dissent because the majority ruling does not bind the court on these different facts. >> you are asking us to intervene at the preliminary injunction stage. why shouldn't we wait until a full record is developed, the permanent injunction stage? why should we proceed on skimpy rhetoric rather than everything you want to put in? >> winston smith and the

citizens of oceania need immediate relief and only this court can provide that relief and it must be done right away. we would note there is no national security threat as we have said. big brother claims war is peace. when the fictitious war is merely a pretext to maintain the repressive social order and the party's coupon power. >> don't you have a serious causation problem we need to establish a record for? in particular you argue in your brief the party systematically destroyed continuing if president freeman, the people's capacity for independent analysis and critical thought. i think about causation and wonder whether keeping up with the kardashians and other reality tv had already done that to us. >> we are all suffering on a regular basis, that is a perfect example.

>> well. [laughter] the change there is a man who wrote about what you say was done and the name of that man was hamilton. before i say you should get your way i want to know what that man did say. [laughter and applause] >> your honor, if hamilton were here i know he would say defendants in this case, the thought police, should be held liable for illegal mistreatment of winston smith which our founding fathers would not have tolerated the abusive authority big brother has brought to the state of oceania. >> i have a question about this case. both sides have experience rewriting history. the government, through its truth department and that is

where winston smith worked, rewriting history. how can we doubt that anything either side is telling us is true? >> the court must be referring to doublethink among other concepts, the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's line simultaneously and accepting both of them. bob bauer piece is based on indoctrination of its citizens in doublethink. >> you realize on ex parte merryman that was written by chief justice haney who also wrote the dred scott decision. is he a reliable source for civil liberty principles? >> we like that case because the plaintiff won.

[applause] >> that case was about suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and why isn't that strictly academic in this case? because whether it is executive or legislature, legislature in oceania is under the thumb of the executive. >> that is correct. my opponent relies on the silence of congress as a sent by congress and we would argue we cannot rely on congress to protect the rights of the citizens of oceania. >> having congress effectively acquiesce in the unconstrained presidential powers president freeman is exercising congress hasn't acted meaningfully in years. in fact, government leaders care so much for the people's safety

that they have almost nothing but fake seats left in congress. >> exactly right. that is why we rely on this court for the relief winston smith seeks. >> those actions happened 32 years ago. are you discriminating against those with age? is there a time when we turn the page? [applause] >> the thought police, like all officials, are presumed to have knowledge and respect for basic unquestioned constitutional rights as set forth by our founding fathers to be free from unlawful arrest, detention and torture. >> i have another question about qualified immunity which i will ask you. you say in your brief, quote,

nothing was illegal. since there were no lawyers, the quote in your brief, doesn't that mean that no law could be clearly established? >> that is a concern we have with the entire concept of qualified immunity in this case, there is no rule of law in a state like oceania. we submit that only this court can restore the rights of the citizens of oceania. in conclusion, your honors, we insist that the defendants, the thought police, be held liable for their illegal mistreatment of winston smith. they must be held liable. no other outcome is consistent with the constitution, the vision of the founding fathers that justice breyer has quoted and not some, no other outcome is consistent with justice.

>> your whole argument sees premised on the idea that we are in some sort of dystopian science fiction police date or something. >> the scenario is 1984. >> you are asserting a privacy right. your client is all over google and facebook and twitter and instagram and snapchat. for this audience, linkedin. he even posted lebron james. what privacy right is left? would you concede that apple, google and facebook know more about him than the state could ever learn? >> that is an excellent point. our clients did try to lead a private life and have a relationship with a lover in the state that he was unable to have because of the state of interest

of surveillance so there is privacy which he sought. in addition i noticed through the malware placed on our devices it is impossible to know whether social media was initiated by smith were placed by the ministry of truth for which he worked and for which he and others regularly use to transmit propaganda, the oppressive regime. >> they made some mention of practices in foreign countries but you didn't, you seem to focus on domestic law. are you aware justice breyer just published a book called the court in the world, american line the new reality, are you disrespecting his views as a lawyer? >> i am aware of the book and would never disrespect them. >> did you read the book?

>> i bought the book. >> you are the one. [laughter] >> i don't understand, given winston smith's own description of his condition after his reeducation by the state, he said, quote, that he, quote, loves big brother. but he understood that the party helped him, quote, win the victory over himself. this seems to be a happy content this. what do people say about it? >> the state also argues that winston smith's problems are of his own making, he is a victim only of his own mind but is

someone paranoid if everyone is truly out to get him as the state clearly is in this case? this is the case for winston smith. he is the victim. the state criticizes his very thoughts. how is the state aware of these private thoughts? through constant, unlawful, unrelenting surveillance, exactly the practice that smith challenges today. >> we might as well dismiss now smith's case, if i'm understanding you correctly, asserts a reasonable expectation of privacy. the essence of which is his unwillingness to show everything which has and he effectively played himself out-of-court? unwillingness to share everything via iphone is contrary it -- contrary to the i patriot act. >> he would not be showing everything if the state did not have it infected by malware to make its every communication

available to the state. >> what about his facebook posts? everything is out there, right? why -- what is your line between privacy, what you are sharing on social media and what you want to share with the state? why can't the state find out too? >> in oceania he is not free to share his own post because the thought police and ministry of truth control everything. i would like to reserve the remaining 5 minutes of my time for rebuttal. [applause] >> we will now hear from counsel for oceania bob bauer. >> madam chief justice, if, as we strongly recommend, it please the court, petitioner paint

oceania as lawless. what is the legal proceeding? judges, counsel, case all open to the public except the unfortunates who cannot afford the ticket price. all the world can see the violent criminal history, is now free to be a litigant and this transition is the hallmark of a rule of law society. the petitioner claims he has been lawless the tortured background that in a record that is replete with paranoia that is so 1984. everyone is out to get him. of state officials are whispering cryptically to him in hallways, we say oh please. he also says our surveillance program is sure to land him in prison but how can he know that? why would we not have done it before now before this spectacle? and put him away quietly sparing him unimaginable legal expense? the court will note our moderation to defend against east asia and eurasia.

we propose to build an incredible wall and have them pay for it. if they refuse, it is not our fault. now the petitioner says he should be able to sue the officials who interrogated him for damages by the x party merryman, brute digital force assisted by the heroic lincoln, lincoln arrested and exiled opposition, he shutdown newspapers but like our aptly named for president freeman he committed measures to be temporary. when a petitioner visits the marble memorial outside the reflecting pool that each year attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors and pigeons, what does he imagine that he sees? the tonnie memorial? know. we stand with lincoln and the officers who acted on authority of the order issued in the constitutional print edition he forged. let me close now in the words of

shakespeare, when this thief, this trader, who all the while has reveled in the night, shall see us rising in our throne, sees it blushing in his face, not able to endure the site of day but self of righted, tremble at his sin. to put it more to be, deny the claim, we will take it from there. [laughter and applause] >> counsel, 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 oceania. who does have standing? >> surely somebody who has not

already been vaporized has standing. they could hardly be standing if they are a vapor. [up laughter] >> i think -- >> [laughter] >> anyone who has not yet been vaporized has standing? >> it is a good start. >> everybody is subject to this 24/7 surveillance. among those, everybody. >> as you know, the cell phones were equipped with a device activated only upon the application of certain criteria. the petitioner doesn't know what these criteria are, does not fight them and has no reason to believe he will be arrested because of their application. ..

>> frankly i couldn't figure out how to question the government how it was designed to make questioning the government impossible. i want to ask you this about surveillance.

less likely under irrational targeted criteria for surveillance. i don't see how that is consistent for the 1984 policy. and later making them disappear. if you look towards witness. >> i should point out to you that the record shows that by the end of the book winston smith is still very much with us and counsel today chose not to appear with him he is represented. there must be an engagement letter. >> did you mean lincoln the president or link in the automobile? >> i meant the one that runs

in compliance of all applicable safety standards. >> how do you turn on a cell phone? >> you don't have to worry about that at all we will turn it on for you when we please. you are actually understating the level of intrusion. it's not just the monitoring through the phones but isn't it true that you recently adopted a so-called microstate track program designed to keep us all tapped -- trapped in our homes for the next year? left mac. >> i did not hear all of your questions. you are not responsible for

the traffic in the city all you. the metro safe track program did you start that. >> it's entirely a pilot project . but i'm getting very interested now. why are you doing all of these things? >> we are doing what is necessary to protect the state of oceana against the threat that petitioners or the kinds of threats. the threat of insurgency in aid to her enemy. the threat that that book would go on and on. >> my book? >> no i would like to speak to you afterwards about the audio version.

let's go back to your point. white winston smith he has already been vaporized what about the popular refrain we did it before and we can do it again. understanding particularly what is good about the registered law if you do it once you are likely to do it again. so this position is if they did it before they are likely to do it again. what he doesn't account for is that we have irregular us re- as get -- reeducation program with funded and our goal there was to provide what we call a gore curriculum. to make sure that when mr. smith emerges he is a change in better man.

the very contented man that he has identified so quickly in the book. >> i want to follow up on the question now for the poor man winston smith i want to know why the government is in trying to surveillance. that is a problem when you are a danger to the state after all. it implies doctrine. >> brian is not my client but he authorizes a payment of my bills. therefore a more responsive to him. but i want to say about that is o'brien does it admit to the authorship of that book. it is a thinly guided track of a democracy in dictatorship and it advocates the most violent message to unsettle a

democracy. brain is part of the solution and not at all part of the problem. >> why wasn't juliet prosecuted did she play the woman card? it is a merciful state. there was no indication she was anything other than someone who in love with this man have been induced to enter into the conspiracy. it's a shame to say that it locks the rule of law when it's brimming over with that kind of empathy. i have a question about rule of law. the legitimacy of the administration that if they went in the election they win by their you are representing the state and not the individual defendant. i think you are in missing an

opportunity here. so you could have the illusion of the rule of law and do whatever you want if you just pin it on the individual defender. it's all their fault. not ours. you are here appealing avoid liability and let the individuals take the fall. isn't that core. >> thank you for suggesting it. it sounds very appealing. >> is very good yes. how can you possibly claim qualified immunity for the individual defendant in the case . we do have a constitution it is stipulated and is still enforced are you asking us for

unqualified immunity to forget about those principles? >> your honor as you know we have adopted the united state constitution. as not to say we fully believe in it. we are adopting it to current conditions but one thing we know for sure is that the executive order pursuant to which these officials acted was well known for years there is no reason to believe they thought it was anything other than lawful. for the errors or the misdeed of the higher law. and in turn could never be prosecuted for the misdeeds because they're not capable of committing them. >> setting aside the executive orders would you at least conceive that another officer but it was unlawful a wire cage number one i would say we

have no testimony other than smith's own for that particular episode that you cite. but even if it's true everybody is a critic. >> how far does estate go in these emergency patterns of its claiming. that it's committed detention of people torture of people torture is okay in a time of terror is that your position. that's not our position at all. as anybody who has attended middle school in the united states knows there's a thin

line between reeducation and torture. it's really norman more than anything else. if there is how do you define it. i have heard presidential debates this year that have gone on for three and had honors that i would characterize as torture yes. you claim that prerogative to suspend it. does only the legislature can suspend habeas corpus i'm just trying to understand whether you are contending that its inability to fulfill even the most basic functions assigned to it gives the president powers that would rest with the congress. congress has not been in

active. i heard it was so long that no one even write it? >> that is true. i don't think it is an accurate statement either that we are saying congress had no rules in the suspension of the habeas corpus congress in that instance acted only years after that. and here we have a whole time and it is far better than gridlock. >> is that your answer does that rest on the doctrine. the point i make here is asking you exactly is that you are representing the

government in the truth department. it has concluded. how do we have any basis for using the history policy that big brother are not continuing. how can we allow them. >> i think it's an important point. yes you did. what i would like to stress is that in the thin lined discussed line discussed earlier one should not confuse line or deception with public relations and smart public relation strategies. what smith did is now in this town as a violent variety it's not lies. but you did as you heard minor things like a person's cage.

there were whole bunch of things here pretty bad. in your state it was really the higher ups not these clients so why don't we indict the higher ups or would you consider that judicial activism. as i said earlier i think it's very difficult to find higher-ups who are doing anything other than their level best to protect the country but one thing we know whatever the record shows about this misdeeds they may will be committed to pursuing that this case is about smith and smith is a fevered paranoid discontent who was glad to draw a salary until everything went apart on him and we reeducated him he has been permitted to leave and if you are allowed to go free and you are represented by councils of this country than all guarantees have been

fulfilled. i don't have the impression from the record. i did have a different impression. if they're there continuing the policy why don't we impeach president friedman also. >> as i said to you earlier if there is no law what are we doing here is as this a fund raising event? stipulated that we have the constitution. what constitutional rights does he have first amendment rights does had fourth amendment rights. does he had eight amendment rights does he have any of this. there is no question whatsoever. we embrace the constitution in any time that mr. smith wants

some exposure to those rights he's free to inspect them. they are enclosed in glass in the national archives. >> i'm not sure this is relevant but i can't resist the opportunity since we have you here i understand that two plus two equals five i wonder if that is code for a gun plus a gun equals due process. that i think your honor is a new math that has been created didn't you really crossed the line into clearly unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment when you made that. quite the contrary your honor.

they are the best very best steaks found anywhere. as you know we also offered an opportunity to have those stakes with the book we supplied called art of the meal. mr. bauer i want to assure you that current given the current of conduct. this is not a fundraiser. >> under the holding this you are probably right. there's a theory about the constitution displaced in the time of terror and is known as the death chair theory of constitutional rights. when we are at peace we have all of the constitutional rights that we could have but when storm clouds gather it's

folded up in all the rights go away. is that the view that you're trying to get this court to accept. that constitutional rights are for sunshine and not the stormy weather. if i can liken it for example to a domed baseball stadium. most people like to watch baseball in the open air with a bright and sunny blue skype but every now and then the weather interferes. when this is a major an ongoing problem they close the roof at the game of baseball continues. i think that is a misleading analogy. are you listening to his cell phone or are you not.

>> our impression is that it was vaporized along with him. we are not getting a signal to be honest. is it legal to vaporize people? >> if their cell phones are not working we see no harm in that. is it okay to look at the law of other countries to determine whether that is a disproportionate punishment. the problem we had is there only three countries on the face of the earth and the other two are our mortal enemies. we are to be very cautious about misdirection on that part. that is covered in your book.

one other question is and it's really whether this is the means are disproportionate to the end. if you want to get into sight of side of our cell phones do we really need to authorize the government to do it can't most teenagers do it? >> your wishes fulfilled. it is currently being run by teenagers. in conclusion the petitioner has come here or not in fact because he's no longer with us to claim that he has standing. he does not had standing. he should not be here attempting to suggest that the state in this courtroom in this legal proceeding with this public in attendance is

in it anyway flawless. were just meeting the demands of the moment the best that we can and as i said earlier we stand in the tradition of some of our greatest presidents had had to take the steps in times of crisis. thank you. [applause]. >> i think you had five minutes remaining. my opponent i would like to thank him for his eloquent argument today and for the fact that he has conceded the critical point which is that he need not defend the individual officers in this case. he is representing big brother and leaving the individual officers out to dry. >> i am a little tired of all the references to big brother. isn't it time to break the gap -- glass ceiling and have a big sister?

>> big sister would not be so abusive in exercising its authority. >> think you your honor. my opponent has outright admitted that the government is placing surveillance devices on its citizens including justice breyer. the state has argued that winston smith is a member of the insurgency that must be prevented from terrorizing us whichtestifies the priming depriving him of civil rights. he has not established that his civil rights are being violated. this is exactly the kind of doublethink that we would depend on this court to put an end too. big brother cannot be trusted

president freeman is nothing but a thinly disguised incarnation a big brother. only this court can protect citizens like winston smith from the abuses of power that the state have committed here. they must find from 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. >> think you counsel. [applause]. our bench well now deliberate.

please be seated. our jury will also decide by placing a red or blue token in the basket that has been passed along. the question to remind you is given the context of war or threat to national security should the officials name the defendant be held liable for their treatment of winston smith in 1984 i can if you think they should not be held liable you place the red token in the basket. again the question as is given the context of work or the threat to national security should the officials name the defendant be held liable for this treatment in 1984.

no for red yes for blue. ladies and gentlemen please welcome abby david lowell for tonight's discussion. as our tradition why the judges deliberate i wanted to make sure that we can continue the conversation so please let me bring to the state a person i had known for a while and someone who has insights into the themes that this book and play address. he is a trial lawyer and advisor about crisis and media events and was one of the lead lawyers in advising apple in the controversy that it is having with the government

namely the fbi. they were involved in litigation in dealing with the issues that were both in court in the media and continued to be so. in a play and a trial about 1984 what more apt and relevant can it be then to walk sent to welcome to the state someone who is living why he only imagined. so let's start with the first question i know everybody here knows the issue or is the controversy of apple versus fbi. i have in my conversations including my own thoughts about it's very misunderstood. some liken it a case about privacy some about taking of the government let's start off i finally get the font to tell us what the dispute is really

about. thank you for setting the standard so high that i should be entertained by plane myself. i do appreciate the chance to talk with you. we did not think about it as apple versus the fbi it raised very important issues about national security and importance for law enforcement at the same time the privacy and security of citizens. and just a quick recap of what happened after the tragic events in december the government immediately ask asked apple to produce information that it have regarding the two killers from phones that they have and other information. it has a policy of cooperating with the government in response to warrants and subpoenas but then they went a step further and it took the extra step of seeking a parfait order from the court

asking that the court compel apple to develop new software that would destroy security protections on one of the iphones. it was protected by a password. apple has been working to protect all of our data from hackers and cyber criminals interest one of the more recent features that they have included kind of the cherry on top of the security protocol and protections is that it's your password. that is there. and certainly equipped did data in your phone and your actual phone cannot be activated by anybody who doesn't know the password including apple. the government did know the password the individual was dead. it was the employer's phone. didn't know the password.

the government said it needed to get into that phone and asked the court to do something extra night which was have apple sent six to ten engineers into the lab so to speak to develop a brand-new operating system that would allow the government to hack into the phone and it would destroy security protections. >> as you are getting ready to argue a big argument it seems that it blinked and it didn't get to there. what is the status right now. i have just finished that. i came back to my office and my assistant said the u.s. attorney was on the phone they might have found a solution that made the cooperation unnecessary they wanted to cancel the hearing.

and that in another case in new york where a judge have issued a very strong really insane that the separation of powers precluded the court. they have invoked. an all-powerful magic wand of the government they could do. now congress will take the ball now the controversy is a little bit outside the courts. this is an issue the american people must decide from their elected representatives. where the security and privacy those were all important issues and those were political and policy issues the fbi director said the same thing. i think they had called for a commission these are really important issues. let me ask you the first obvious question?

in 1949 many would say it but we live with today is not as bad as he envisioned someone say it's worse not only do we have big brother or semi big sisters watching us but as a question indicated there is google and amazon you can get on they know what you bought and what you're thinking of buying. place where you buy close for your kids. with your new perspective what do you think is it as bad as they thought or better. >> i think were in much better shape let me get that on the table. now we have this information capability and yes we all give up certain secrets and things but the difference and if you look at the famous ad of all time that the mother was to

break out of conformity that individualism would flourish with the iphone and other devices and they would allow individuals to communicate speak. big brother was using these surveillance things to suppress freedom. i think it's a big difference. has a law regulating government and private technology kept up with the technology? >> it really hasn't. it was enacted in 1789. that was what the government had to use to try to get the support there. to allow the government to get

into devices and one of the things we argued that was the subject in the grand prize for hackers to steal that software and then use it and miss use it for purposes. then they relied on that. they were required to decipher something. that was a law that they were relying on task for the brand-new order from the court. i think the lot does need to be looked at. as you suggested there is incredible techniques that the government now has we want government to be the government to be able to use that to protect the countries in citizens to go after terrorists but at the same time we have different interest in our country, privacy, security we need the laws to be revised in a way that check the government so we don't start going at least small steps down the big

brother road. >> the question with the bedrock principle and the check up power in that way is expectation of privacy. so given what we now know exists from the nonstop social media to cameras on every street corner to the ability of the government and private enterprise as i said to be involved every time we turn on our computer has the expectation of privacy changed so that the law will now reflect that we do not want that place where you shut your door is that one of the things that now needs to be addressed? by quick decision or legislation. i think we all have a different expectation of privacy and we did 20 years ago because of these advances the information we choose to give out but we give it out in order to participate in these incredible apps in

technology. i do think the courts will be important with the new technology when drones and other drums and other things are being used. i do think it has an effect. we have seen some backlash. i think there was a sense there of a pushback in terms of something that still private. we have to look at it differently. they protect privacy data. we all had so much crucial data. we need the law to protect that and we need to look at these other interests that are important as well? >> if you have that ability the one thing that they should legislate the one thing what would that one thing be?

>> there should be encryption to protect at the end of the line to protect data and not to give a backdoor to the government because of all of the risk that entails. the defense secretary during the controversy that we just went through said end-to-end encryption is the most important part of security. i would start with that premise in the competing laws. start with that premise and then think about how to we address the other issues. that remains there. i take it we are ready to live with the proposition that if the government can't get at the data through their means they don't have the power to compel it by any other means. >> our system is built on the fact that at some point we

recognize a law enforcement or other interests give way to other important interests. like first amendment rights. forcing them to write code to do something that they leave against would force compel a speech in the supreme court has said our bill of rights exist to say at some point we may not be able to get every piece of evidence but it's worth it to get that up into protect the overwriting values and rights. >> this is a special audience that is supporting this we can agree among us to keep this among ourselves. when is the iphone seven coming out? >> thank you very much [applause].

all rise. please be seated. please welcome back abby david

lowell to read the jury's decision. >> i think i will defer to the bench first. as i was saying counsel's performance was superb and what was the audience will agree a more difficult case and it usually presented. you are both excellent. and on the merit the majority has concluded that this is a very easy case because there is no excuse for any of these

extraordinary measures. and if i can interject a serious note a great tourist with the question suppose the police suspect that they have apprehended someone who knows where and when the ticking bomb is going off in the police used torture to get the information the answer was simple torture never. because we can hand our enemies no way a victory and are concerned for security we

lose all the basic values that make us a human society. [applause]. and now i will ask my colleagues on the bench to add concurring and in one case a dissenting view. >> with my colleague i agree that it's as good as an opinion i ever did see. besides that she has clout because she knows what she's talking about.

i concur in the judgment in part because a state's overly expressive of what it's doing. at the goal here is to stop the 1% of people who are terrorist there is an alternative plan discussed in the public and that would be to tax the 1% and take all of that money to buy food. >> i would say that the government is not entitled to qualified immunity it does not apply where the law is established and because it makes the law and must know the law whether it's been announced by any court or not.

>> with all due respect to my colleagues and this will be the first time the supreme court has not agreed with me i don't feel that i'm in a position to decide this case. they each represent clients who have been rewriting history for decades. the country through its predecessor in the truth department so i have absolutely confidence in the record. as a result i would issue an order requiring each of them to submit in 30 days an affidavit.

to figure out what actually happened here. [applause]. and now can we have the jury's verdict. >> i would like to say that in the way the theater has always given its audience has final say the tokens represent if you remember blue for those who believe that the officials should be held liable for their actions againswinston smith in the red that note they should not be held liable.

this concludes the 1984 presented by the shakespeare company bar association. enjoy the rest of your evening.