Speaking of the applause energy, again, because ultimately we reduced the overall evenings, speaking of the applause were going to do bits of production in front of you. You will see me say things like i am john dobbin john nvan and i will be right back but i wont leave. And i might ask for your applause when nothing is happening, just for atmospherics. I wanted to let you know ahead of time. We dont have an applause sign. But lets start the evening with one more round of applause. Thank you. [applause] in a time when Companies Like amazon and google and facebook are piling up mountains of data about us, the one place left in our digital lives where true privacy can be found exist oddly enough on our smartphones, which are designed so when you put the phone on lock, no one can get past its encryption, not even apple with the iphone or google with its pixel. Which is great, right . But not if you are in Law Enforcement and you have reason to believe a bad persons phone contains secrets that can solve crimes and stop terrorist attacks. In that case, should apple or google help the fence bust the encryption . Patriotic . Our is this sort of privacy that encryption represents something sacrosanct, and not to mention, something fragile . You put a backdoor into it, who knows who might come through it later . This sounds like the makings of a debate, so lets have it. Yes or no to this statement. Tech companies should be required to help Law Enforcement executed search warrants to access Customer Data . Thats our debate. We are at the San Francisco im sorry, the sf just center in San Francisco. Thats our debate. We are in San Francisco in partnership with the National Constitution center with four superbly qualified debaters who will argue for and against the motion. The debate is in three rounds. The audience here votes to choose the winner and only one side wins. We would like to have you felt your opinion as you come off the street to tell us where you stand on this motion. Take a look at the language. Its a lot of words. Tech companies should be required to help Law Enforcement executed search warrants to access Customer Data. Go to the key bed keypad under your seat. Ress number one if you agree push number two if you disagree with the motion. This teams position. Push number three if you are undecided, which is a perfectly reasonable position to be in as the debate starts. I will make i will just wait a moment for full i contact from everyone. Ok. We are going to move on. You have a few more seconds to finish up. I will move on. We are debating the responsibility of Tech Companies when the government comes asking for data, ashley encrypted data. We have one team arguing is in support of the idea. The first invader for the motion, these welcome stuart baker. Stuart, you have served in government and important positions. You served under president george w. Bush on the department of Homeland Security is the First Assistant secretary for policy. You have long argued that people who oppose government access to the kind of data we will be talking about tonight under appreciate how access to that data can enhance our security. Where did that appreciation come from . What do you know that they dont . Not what i know, its who i know. I have seen the people who are at the fbi, and nsa, at the age as were trying to protect us. More than half of them joined after 9 11 because of 9 11. Underre absolutely resourced, overwhelmed. They need our help. Without our help, they will not succeed. Thats why i believe that everyone owes them a duty of providing assistance when they can. John and is why you are on the side. Can you tell us who your partner is . Mr. Baker he is my debating partner for the second time. John yoo, he is a pleasure. John ladies and gentlemen, john yoo. [applause] law at professor of berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise institute. Following september 11, he worked on National Security at the department of justice and wrote controversial memos, which will be in your obituary. [laughter] with time you have debated us. The last time we actually did it in philadelphia, your hometown. Your mother was in the audience. You told us then that there was no way you could lose with her sitting there. Well, shes not here tonight. What does that do to your game . [laughter] you keep inviting me, i keep losing, so you are the ones with the problem. [laughter] mom probably works at nsa now, so shes probably an audience listening anyway. John ladies and gentlemen, the team arguing for this motion. [applause] now lets meet the team arguing against third welcome Michael Chertoff. [applause] michael, you have debated with us a number of times before. You are the cofounder of the chertoff group. You are the second secretary of Homeland Security under george w. Bush. Before that, you work at the head of the department of justices criminal division. Way back, you were a young prosecutor and helped to put quite a few mob figures behind bars. In those days, there was no digital data they today. Today, would it have made your job easier . Mr. Chertoff let me just say im delighted to be here, and john and stewart were colleagues when i was in government. We did it the oldfashioned way. Guys used to be wiretapped bar they would have electronic surveillance. They would leave the room, walk around the block, turn up the radio. We meet our cases with witnesses, photographs, circumstantial evidence, and we were successful. Of guys away for 100 years of peace. John tell us your partner is. Mr. Chertoff Catherine Crump is my partner. She is a professor at berkeley. I have not had the pleasure of debating with her, but im looking forward to it. John ladies and gentlemen, Catherine Crump. [applause] as michael said, you are a professor of law also at berkeley and acting director of the samuelson law, technology, and Public Policy clinic. You were a staff attorney for the aclu. You have been sounding alarms about the Staggering Amount of data that Law Enforcement can and does collect on peoples actual movements by tracing their cell phones, photographing license plates. Daytoday, what steps do you take to make yourself less digitally visible, or is it not even possible anymore . Ms. Crump today its pretty tough. Online, you have tools to help you maintain privacy, but in the physical space, it is hard to do much but smile for the cameras. [laughter] john thank you. The team arguing against the motion. [applause] now we move onto round one. Round one will be Opening Statements by each debater in turn. They will be six minutes each. Speaking first for the motion, Tech Companies should be required to help Law Enforcement execute search warrants to access Customer Data. Here is Stewart Baker, former general counsel for the National Security agency. Ladies and gentlemen, stuart baker. [applause] thank you. The way we have divided it, we the argument. Ide i will be talking about the obligations to help Law Enforcement when necessary, which i believe leads to the obligation of Tech Companies to provide assistance. John will be talking about why particularly today we need help with Law Enforcement from Technology Companies. Let me start. I would like to start with the question, which is whether Tech Companies should be required to help Law Enforcement execute search warrants to gain Customer Data. I want to stress what that question doesnt require you to support in order to come out in the affirmative. We would love it if you concluded that the government can require companies to put backdoors in their products or break their crypto. If you believe that, you are obviously going to support this motion. But that is not what the proposition says. It says they should be required to help Law Enforcement. To my mind, that does not mean they are always required, but they are sometimes required to help Law Enforcement. Thats not really a surprise, because everybody is required to help Law Enforcement in the right circumstances. If you have a unique ability to law Law Enforcement, and enforcement cant solve the problem on its own, you have an obligation to assist Law Enforcement. This has been true for hundreds of years well before the u. S. Was founded. There was a commonlaw obligation to assist Law Enforcement upon request, particularly when only you could provide that assistance. Then actually, we all understand it. If you are witness to a crime, if you have evidence in a file cabinet behind your desk of a crime, you are going to get a subpoena from the government, and you have an obligation to assist the government by providing them with the evidence you already have. This is the rule for all of us. re going to get the subpoenas, search warrants, requests for that data. If you are a landlord and your tenant is suspected of engaging in drug selling are some other crime, the government will come with a search word and ask for your help. They dont want to knock down the door, they want you to use the master key. That will allow us to get in without the subject knowing he is being investigated, and that may turn out to be important. You have an obligation as a landlord to provide that assistance. This is a requirement for all of us. Different for Tech Companies. Theres no Silicon Valley exceptionalism policy that applies. The Supreme Court has said. Xactly that in a case against the United States, asking for help from new york telephone, now verizon, saying we would like you to assist us in carrying out an intercept of Communications Data verizon the company that is now verizon said, no, we dont feel like it. Why dont you do it . And the government said, you are in a unique position to assist us in a way that will not be obvious to the criminal, and therefore you have an obligation to provide that assistance. The Supreme Court said it was right. Theres no special exception for phone companies or Tech Companies. You need to provide that because its a part of your obligation as a citizen. Guess i shouldnt sit down without mentioning the elephant in the room, which of course is. Pple against the fbi i want to make clear that while im pretty skeptical about apples arguments in that case, you dont have to be entirely skeptical to vote in the affirmative in this case. Theres no one who is arguing here that the obligation to help Law Enforcement is without boundary. If you can show it is too burdensome, that the government can do this without your help, that it is going to cost too much, hurt your customers, if you can make a persuasive argument under current law, you dont have to provide the assistance. But if you cant, you are required to provide that assistance. Difference the one place where i think apple made a statement, made an argument that is inconsistent with voting for this proposition, is when they said, we can help, we just dont want to. That is exactly a defiance of the obligation that every other citizen has to provide assistance to the government. There is no exception that says just because youre the worlds wealthiest company, you dont have to do this. If you agree with that aoposition that there isnt Silicon Valley exception from the obligations of citizenship, then you want to vote in support of this motion. Thank you. John thank you, Stewart Baker. [applause] the motion is Tech Companies should be required to help companies the government search Customer Data. Thatext argument against motion is Catherine Crump, former staff attorney for the aclu and current professor at uc berkeley. Catherine crump. [applause] ms. Crump you dont need to believe that there is a Silicon Valley exception to the obligation to help in order to a prose a post this regulation. This is not about whether Tech Companies should hand over evidence they are capable of accessing in response to a properly obtained werent. Of warrant. Of course they should. This is a case of the government controlling through the use of taking control of iphones less securely to facilitate access to data. The answer to that question should know in this era of profound cyber insecurity. The governments role should be to encourage companies to design devices more secure. Im going to talk about the importance of encryption and supporting free speech and commerce online. My partner will talk about why encryption, the widespread availability, of encryption enhances National Security rather than to tax from it. We rely on the internet for everything. We use it to communicate with friends and loved ones, understand medical diagnoses, and engage in banking. Corporations store there must valuable proprietary information online, and the government also best troops of data digitally, including Law Enforcement and National Security information. As a result, the security of the internet is critical. Yet, the systems we rely on to store all of this data are radically insecure. Year, pew research reported over half of americans have personally experienced a major data breach. The issue is urgent. Having the contact as your email on your email account dumped on line can be devastating. Just ask Hillary Clinton campaign manager, could not only found that personally embarrassing, but well could have affected the course of a president ial election. Our data is leaking all the time in large volumes. Companies have repeatedly failed to protect it. People increasingly relies their data is vulnerable. If we want the internet to continue to be a place where speech and commerce flourished, we need to have people be able to share their thoughts and credit card numbers over the the internet. Strong encryption is the best dissent available against cyber attacks. One strong encryption is deployed, users hold the keys to their own data. Data escapesat from prying eyes, including the eyes of Tech Companies. We ought to that build a backdoor in order to allow Law Enforcement access to data. The problem is you cannot build works only for the u. S. Government, good guys, or other people with good motives. If you build it for them, foryption will be weakened everyone. No one should be altogether and back door. Not Tech Companies, not the government, not anyone. Recent outcome of the wannacry ran some ransomeware. Securing theser types of secrets to the extent it is to exist is no longer present today. The closer you look at the issue of the feasibility of creating a backdoor, the more impractical such a solution becomes. Just think about this. What phones would it apply to . What it apply to older phones, would they be grandfathered in . What about phones built overseas . When a german traveler comes to the u. S. And their phone is not compliant, will they have to surrender the phone at the border custome . If so, that is a massive inconvenience. If not, that is a huge loophole. Who should be able to recover data . If the answer is tech company should be able to recover data, they wont be just pressured by the government to make data available, but by every government around the world no matter how does what it. The spot kick. Despotic. To me, the issue is not about protecting us from the government. We have the rule of law, the Fourth Amendment, due process, and a culture of compliance to help us. The issue is protecting us from the bad guys. There are a lot more bad guys than Law Enforcement agents. If we create an opportunity for government agents to use a backdoor, that is going to be taken advantage of many times over by criminals. Unconstrained eye laws and norms and dont get warrants. If they know theres a key or another way to access data, they will do everything they can to obtain it, and that he will with the distributed structure of the internet was designed to prevent. This day and age, we would be better off if Companies Increase security for user data rather than make them weaker. John thank you, Catherine Crump. [applause] we are halfway through the opening round of this debate. We have four debaters, two teams of two. We are debating the motion a tech company should be required to help Law Enforcement