edgar hoover and other cases did take this right of surveillance and not use it entirely tastefully, and so, you know, i think most people hope that the safeguards are appropriate so that the government isn't totally blind. >> the argument one could make is apple shouldn't be deciding this issue of privacy. yes, there should be privacy, the government should be very careful with this data, but those are decisions to be made by the elected representatives of government, not by a private company. >> well, even apple would agree. i don't think apple is going to defy -- maybe they will take it all the way to the supreme court to make sure the government really insists and that it's totally the government's responsibility and that they can say, okay, we -- either we don't like the safeguards of this country or we don't like the safeguards of other countries and, hey, we resisted this, but we had no choice. other than -- so i think at the end of the day the government will decide about this, and in the meantime, the debate about, oh, do we have the right to safe gord some place, what is th

also, at the same time, in 1962, maybe even earlier, the fbi, itself, will admit that j edgar hoover had targeted dr. king as a possible pawn of the communist movement in america. anybody who participated in civil rights at that time was suspect by the fbi as being not only a troublemaker, but possibly a pawn of the communist movement. so, j edgar hoover use the press and people that he knew to send out rumors and i think it might have been that, more than any racial issue, that caused dissension on the committee. joe: to invite him to speak. carol: because the chairman of the committee resigned in protest when the committee accepted simeon's recommendation to let dr. king speak. joe: the chairman of the speakers committee? carol: yes. this speech, itself, as it will get to later on, is a magnificent speech. and you can tell from the questions that follow debt, that the seat had been planted because there is one question about whether it had been written by stanley levinson, a new york lawyer who was considered by the fbi to be communist tainted. joe: maybe i can get closer with his

edgar hoover, any opportunity where dr. king would be a celebrated person was the last thing in the world he would have wanted. he wanted to destroy his reputation. i have heard secondhand, in fact, i don't have it before me, but i remember reading in the transcript of the wiretapped files. his file before they started tapping the joint file in 1963. anyway, everybody knows this. joe: let me ask a final question from me and then if you can expand, we only have a couple more minutes. that is ok. what was dr. king's reaction after the speech? how did he feel the reception was? what was his thought after his historic speech? dr. jones: i asked him, and i said, how are you received? i was not there. he said, i thought it went over very well. he said, sometimes people -- even some of our friends, they have difficulty when you talk about matters publicly that they are embarrassed to hear. and so from his standpoint, he felt that the mere fact that he spoke at the press club, the mere fact that he talked about the issues, which we

edgar hoover and the f.b.i. that a number of the survivors of the panther leaders in chicago received a big legal settlement tom: if you look at the legacy of civil rights in america i have to say this is why i have this. there was far too much of a criminal he willel in the black panthers -- clarence: you weren't around then, son! tom: i absolutely wasn't. when learn by the u.s. from booker t. washington and martin luther king and -- clarence: that's just like when -- with black lives matter. until somebody raced a fuss there wasn't -- john: talk over one another. we've got four people all talking at the same time. this is a record! pat: you made a mistake in your opening. stokely carmichael was not a member of the black panthers. he was the one that talked, made black power, he was at sncc. he became a marx ivel -- marxist and he went over to africa and he died. clarence: not in the panthers. you may have him mixed up with huey newton or eldridge cleaver. but he did help inspiret black fan thers. there was a b

edgar hoover. >> yeah, i mean, i think that's really important.as always this idea, you hear rumors about the f.b.i. setting out to destroy the panthers, but we were able to obtain f.b.i. memos and used j. edgar hoover's own words where he says clearly, he tells his agents, do anything you can to destroy the panthers, just don't let it get back it's the f.b.i. doing it. these are memos we use in the film. >> brown: and the personalities in the leadership, hughie newton, bobbi bobby seal, eldridge clashing from almost the beginning. >> yes, these are volatile personalities. the film is warts and all, it's a sober, i hope, assessment of the black panther parties, these personalities that are clashing, but also the f.b.i. is setting them against each other. they're writing letters, you know, pretending to be huey writing to eldridge and letters that are supposedly eldridge writing to huey and spurring this conflict on. >> brown: the times, there are some things i look at and it feels very much set in your time and, of course, there are other things a

he talks about to edgar hoover, maybe knows about cointel pro. acknowledges the government has abused powers it has been given in the past. you think is going in a different direction, then he comes up with this platitude which iswe have to strike a balance. who doesn't think we shouldn't strike a balance? it is meaningless. there's no one who would say, "i don't think we need a balance i just think it is one of the her." maybe it is not a coincidence that microsoft is a fitting company and apple's premier one. amy: 80 technologies -- wikileaks has said that 80 tech companies in the past have cooperated with the nsa, the natial secured agency, including microsoft. >>o mu of snowden's revelations were abouts very thing. and thfa that the public knows about corporate cooperation with the government now is in part, i think, what has emboldened apple to push back. if we did not know about these things, i would expect that apple would be quite does quietly cooperating. but they realize now that there's a significant constituency among your customers t

information and used it in ways that we did not expect going all the way back to the fbi under j edgar hooverm hoping now we can have the discussion. i do believe there are safeguards for the government should not have to become legally blind. >> what should be done in this case? >> the courts are going to decide this. apple has said whatever the port best final court decision is, they will abide by. this gives us the opportunity to get the discussion these issues will be decided in congress the patriot act, how that gets involved. you don't want to completely swing away from government access. you want to strike that balance that the united states leads in setting example. it's one of those issues that people working at microsoft and apple will see is fundamental. as greenery was to a previous generation. >> everybody wants to feel like their information is kept private, particularly because more of your activities are in that digital log. people are empowered by technology in terrorist activities, it is not just that they can kill a few people. they can kill a lot. we want government out th

historically and used it in ways that we did not expect going all the way back to the fbi under j edgar hooverg we can discussion. i believe there are sets of safeguards with the government should not be completely blind. >> what is to be done in this case? will decide this and i believe apple said whatever the final court decision is, they will abide by. in the meantime it gives us the opportunity to get this discussion. these issues will be decided in congress. the patriot act and how that gets evolved. you don't want to take the minute after a terror event and swing that direction. nor do you want to completely swing away from government access. you are to strike that balance that united states leads in setting an example. >> is it the same stage now as environmentalism. it's becoming as fundamental to these people as greenery to a previous generation. like to feelwould like their information is kept , because- particularly more and more of your activity is in that digital log. >> they put it all out there. >> when people are empowered by technology in terrorist activities, it's not just th

historically has used it in ways that we cannot expect going all the way back to the fbi under j edgar hooverve thisw we discussion. i believe there are sets of safeguards where the government should not have to be completely blind. >> what specifically should be done in this case, just because you are blind? ll: the courts will decide this. apple says whatever the courts decision is still abided by. in the meantime on it gives us the opportunity to get the discussion, and the issues will be decided in congress. the patriot act, how that gets involved, you do not want to just take a minute after a terrorist event and swing in that direction, nor do you want to completely swing away from government access when you get some abuse being revealed. you want to strike the balance that the united states leads in setting an example. quite the same stage now as environmentalism was perhaps when you were younger. it is one of the issues were people will come to work in microsoft and people will come to work at apple. it is becoming as fundamental to them as -- was to a previous generation. bill: everyb

there are cases -- more j edgar hoover, it's more clear.e idea that you are forcing the discussion about about what would it mean if you cannot trust the government ever to get banking information or call information or iphone information -- it would be great if we could agree on what safeguards would get us back to saying that at least this government is working on our behalf when it is trying to track down terrorists. charlie: apple must have known this was coming because between ios 7 and ios 8 you have a very different situation. bill gates: the information on that phone is accessible to apple. if anybody was confused about that now they are not. that information is accessible to apple. but it doesn't really matter. it's like your bank saying we cannot possibly access your account information. they can and they can resist court orders if they choose to as well. charlie: this is a hard case because of terrorism because there is no violation -- the person who had the phones, two people are dead. >> the issue is the presidential fact, is t

. >> where the government overused, well, more j edgar hoover. is i think more clear. >> rose: absolutely. >> the, and so its idea that you are forcing the discussion about gosh,-- gosh, what would it mean if you can't trust the government ever to get banking information or call information or iphone information. you know, it would be great if we could agree on what safeguards would get us back to saying at least this government is working on our behalf when it's trying to track down terrorists. >> rose: apple muses have known this was coming because between ios7 and ios8 you are presented with a very different situation in terms of encrypted phones. yes or no? >> the information on that phone is accessible to apple. >> rose: right. >> if anybody was confused about that now, they're not. this information is accessible to apple. that's i tech technological-- it doesn't really matter but it's like your bank saying oh, we can't possibly access your account information. your bank can and they can resist court orders if they choose to as well. >> rose

historically and used it in ways that we did not expect, going all away back, say, to the fbi under j edgar hoover am hoping now we can have the discussion. i do believe there are safeguards were the government should not have to be completely blind. was bill gates speaking to bloomberg news. your response? >> it isnteresti. he iso closeo a pivong. healks abo to edgahoover, maybe kns about cointelro. hecknowleds the government has abused pows it haseen gin in theast. you thk is goi in a dierent diction, tn he cos up wit this platide whicis, we he to stre a bance. who doe't thk we shldn' strike balance it i aningles there's no o who wou say, " don't think need a bance i just thi it is o of the other." mayb it is noa coincince th microso is a fiing coany and apple'premier e. amy: 8 tecologies -- wileaks hasaid tt 80 te compans in the past have cooperated with the nsa, the national secured agency, including microsoft. >> so much of snowden's revelations were about this very thing. and the fact that the public knows about corporate cooperation with the government now is in part, i think, what has embo

historically and used it in ways that we do not expect going all the way back to the fbi and j edgar hooverw that we can have the discussion. i do believe there are sets of safeguards or the government should not have to be completely blind. stephanie: what should be done in this case because you were blindsided? going to courts are decide this, and i think apple said whatever the court decision is, they will abide by. in the meantime, this gives us the opportunity to get the discussion. these issues will be decided in congress. the patriot act, how that gets involved. you don't want to just take the minute after a terrorist event and sing in that direction, nor do you want to sing away from government access when you get abuse team reviewed. you want to strike that balance that the united states leads in setting examples. john: it is in the same stage now as environmentalism was when you were younger, one of the issues that people come to work at microsoft, apple, and it is becoming fundamental to them and how it was greener to a previous generation. bill: everybody wants to feel informati

i think it's more -- and then, because the whole history with the fbi and j edgar hoover calling us the number one threat to security in america, we were then what isis is considered now. we were not going around bombing people, we were just try to assert ourselves and build world. because they were chauvinistic, they just thought it was coming from men. they arrested a whole lot of the guys. and the women went unnoticed in a lot of ways. they didn't see us with any complexity. i was arrested, don't get me wrong. [laughter] ms. french: but they saw as a black male thing. i think that's a repeating pattern ever since african-americans have been in this country. whether with slaves or during the great migration, or the contemporary times that black men, within the imagination of mainstream american culture are seen as a threat. in which is pretty curious, i a think it says more about them that it does about us. ms. tillet: i listened to a conversation that you did a few years ago, when you talked about the panther party being the most progressive place to be as a woman, in the late 1960's

edgar hoover. stuart: he's softening a little bit. >> he's saying there should be a balance.lege professor says he's a conservative, he's a capitalist. here's a surprise. he likes some of bernie sanders' ideas. you'll never guess who this professor is. stuart: ah, developments on the price of oil, and that means trouble for all the markets. oil down bigtime, stocks down bigtime. what happened? i'll tell you. iran calling a proposal to freeze oil output ridiculous. in other words, they're not going to go along with it. they're probably going to increase the supply of oil on the world market, and down it goes. by the way, the saudis, they've said they are not going to cut production. period. that too affecting the market. oil, way down, 5% drop there. >>> and now i've got news on mars, the candy maker, okay? recalling candy bars in 55 countries. this is a big recall. what's the story? >> it is, it's interesting. it actually came out of berlin, germany, a spokeswoman in germany saying that one of its products contained plastic. it was this particular candy bar made in the nether

i respect privacy but there has been no real sense of privacy in this country since j edgar hoover. who has nothing to be afraid of should have no reason that lawful law enforcement should be able to access their e-mail, their telephones or because if you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide. host: do you think that the measure should be based -- you mentioned that nowadays a lot more information about people is available. do you think the changes in that technology is the reason why privacy expectations should be reduced? caller: i believe that. technology is fluid. it continues to grow and change. since the invention of the so-called cloud nothing is impossible for anybody to break at this point. but with the threat of american lives on the line i think that law enforcement, the fbi, should have easy access to follow up on leads, to find out if there is an organization, to find out who these people talk to. whether they will be a real threat. this is just the tip of the iceberg. there will be other terrorist things. the fbi needs these tools to be able to follow t

edgar hoover was very troubled by him, because he was such a powerful speaker.000 people into the old, old madison square garden. and hoover was just afraid of a man whose vocal power was so great that it could rise such emotions among, you know, people like african-americans. and as hoover knew, you couldn't trust people like that. so he had garvey very carefully watched. eventually, charged him with embezzlement and other crimes. it is not clear to this day whether garvey was innocent. the best guess would be he wasn't, that it was hoover being hoover. and, eventually, he was deported, and his scheme to have his own fleet of ships that would carry african-americans out of this country to liberia failed. >> host: text message, craig in sacramento. with the avalanche of data for historians now, how do you see them coping with processing it all in coming up with coherent histories? is there more data now today than there was? >> guest: more historical data? i don't know. i know that it's more easily accessible. it used to be when i first started writing history,

edgar hoover, you know. so it's a tough question. hard to know where to cut it in the middle. >> okay. >> i think -- my guess is tim cook -- i mean, you know, he cares about the same things as every american cares about in terms of the safety of the country, and he also cares about not letting people get into a product he sold unless they've got a very, very good reason for it. >> okay. warren buffett, we'll come back to you in just a couple minutes. stay tuned for more questions, some of which have been submitted by you, the viewers. we'll get to those shortly. >>> look at the price of crude. we were talking about oil with warren earlier. wti crude at $32.90. squawk returns with warren buffett in a moment. actions speak louder. something we'll show you. through small things. big things. and spur of the moment things. sheraton. ♪ >>> volatility in hey how's it going, hotcakes? hotcakes. this place has hotcakes. so why aren't they selling like hotcakes? with comcast business internet and wifi pro, they could be. just add a customized