Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  May 2, 2014 8:00pm-10:01pm EDT

8:00 pm
the reforms at the students that need this. we feel good about the fact this is something that can be achieved. >> host: jennifer depaoli, thank you for being with us. >> tonight, the supreme court hears the arguments on the case of privacy of cellphone data. and then fcc chairman tom wheeler. and the vice president talks about the entertainment industry and chuck hagel on the military alliance. tomorrow night is the annual white house correspondents' association dinner and joel mckale of the nbc show "community" will be the entertainer. we talked to him about how he is preparing. >> you were on david letterman and he was asked to
8:01 pm
>> hoshost it. >> i have to assume it happens a lot. >> did he have any advice? >> he hasn't done it. i asked if he would join me. >> what did he say? >> no. i said i would pay him. i don't think i have come up with the right number. >> you mentioned you talk today other host? any good feedback? >> they tried to screw me. no kidding. i called many of the guy and thankfully i know them kind of. they were gracious to give me pointers on what the evening is like. and all of them kind of without speaking -- all separately they said it is the strangest most
8:02 pm
wonderful evening. it is like no other gig. it is bizarre but you are with the president and sitting with the first lady. there is no ever gig in history where before you perform, there is zero break between you and the president and before that you sitting next to the first lady for two hours. it is crazy. >> in prepping for this, have you gone back and watched what some of the guys did? >> i have seen them before and watched them. there is only so much you can do before you do it. and that is to watch it see the lay of the land and what the room looks like and see -- but, i have a definite grasp of how the night goes definitely. and prom there you better have funny, good jokes. >> you can watch the dinner live on c-span. our coverage starts at 6 p.m.
8:03 pm
with red carpet arrivals and then starts with president obama and the vice president. this week the supreme court court heard arguments in the case of riley versus company. the plaintiff was convicted based on evidence seized in a traffic stop. the supreme court is deciding what find of 4th amendment should be given to data stored on smart phones. this is an hour. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case , riley v. california. mr. fisher? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: this case involves applying the core protection of the fourth amendment to a new factual circumstance. it has always been the case that
8:04 pm
an occasion of an arrest did not give the police officers authority to search through the private papers and the drawers and bureaus and cabinets of somebody's house, and that protection should not evaporate more than years after the founding because we have the technological development of smartphones that have resulted in people carrying that information in their pockets. >> just just to test the principle for why the police ca search and seize some some objects. consider a gun. the arrestee has a gun on his person and the police take the gun. is part of the reason for that seizure to obtain evidence of the crime or is it just for the safety of the officer and the safety of the community? >> well, what this court said in robinson at page is the reason
8:05 pm
supporting the authority for a search incident to arrest are the two chimel factors, which are gathering evidence to prevent its destruction, and officer's safety. now >> what about gathering evidence in order to make the case? for instance, with the gun, could they take fingerprints? the the gun is in the police station where the arrestee is being booked. a, could they take fingerprints? b, could they copy the serial number? c, could they see how many shells were left in the chamber? they obviously have to empty it for safety purposes. all for the purpose of building the case, of of obtaining evidence? >> yes, of course that's done every day. once the gun is in the police the police department's lawful possession, i think edwards says that they can do all that. >> so so if if the proposition then, if the principle then is that some objects that are obtained from the arrestee can be examined in order to build the state's case, is that at least a beginning premise that we can accept in your case, although, obviously, there are problems of the extent and intrusiveness of the
8:06 pm
search that are are your case, but not in the gun hypothetical. >> well, justice kennedy, the court has never described that as one of the things. if you want to think about this case the way you thought about the automobile search in gant, it would be a beginning premise; but i think you're right, that even if that were a beginning premise , it would be only that, a beginning. in footnote in edwards, this court said that any search incident to arrest still has to satisfy the fourth amendment's general general reasonableness. >> i think you're right that gant is probably the best statement in support of the principle that i've i've suggested, and then you might say, well, that's limited to automobiles >> right. >> and then we're back where we started. things to understand if you want gant, because both in terms of its history and its modern application, it's dramatically different from what we have here. >> well, mr. fisher, before we do that, have you been accurate
8:07 pm
in what you said about robinson and about the court's cases? in weeks, which was quoted in robinson, the court said: "the right, always recognized under english and american law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. is that historically inaccurate? do you want us to repudiate that? >> no, your honor. what weeks said, you quoted it, fruits and instrumentalities of the crime have always been something that could be seized from a person. now, weeks, of course, as this court said in robinson itself, was dicta. and there was that historical authority to take fruits and evidence i'm sorry fruits and instrumentalities of the crime. which did it say? >> did it say instrumentalities or evidence? >> weeks used
8:08 pm
because justice alito said evidence. you you changed it to instrumentality. is one of you wrong? >>weeks uses the word "evidence, " but, justice scalia, because it was not at issue in that case, the the bishop treatise that you cited in your thornton concurrence talks about tools and instrumentalities. smartphones do present difficult problems. but let me ask you this: suppose your client were an old
8:09 pm
school guy and he didn't have he didn't have a cell phone. he had a billfold and he had photos that were important to him in the billfold. he had that at the time of arrest. do you dispute the proposition that the police could examine the photos in his billfold and use those as evidence against him? >> no. that's the rule of robinson, that any physical item itemon a arrestee can be seized and inspected and then used as evidence if it's useful evidence. we draw a line. yes. what is the difference between looking at hardcopy photos in a billfold and looking at photos that are saved in the memory of a cell in the memory of a cell phone? >> the difference is digital
8:10 pm
information versus physical items. physical items at the scene can pose a safety threat and have destruction possibilities that aren't present with digital evidence. what is more, once you get into the digital world, you have the framers' concern of general warrants and the the writs of assistance. well, how does that apply how does that apply to these hardcopy photos in the billfold? they don't present a threat to anybody. and i don't see that there's much of a difference between the government argues there's a greater risk of the destruction of digital evidence in a cell phone than than there is in the photos. so i don't quite understand how how that applies to that situation. >>welll, let me take those one thing at a time. i take it the theory of robinson , this is the theory the government itself propounded, is that any physical item, because it contained a razor blade or a pin or anything, needs to be inspected to be sure.
8:11 pm
and so you have a categorical rule because of the ad hoc nature of arrests that police don't have to distinguish physical items one from the other. >> well, but the but in the wallet we'll just stick with justice alito's hypothetical they find a business card or something which shows a car rental service can they turn the they're not looking for a pin or an explosive. the can they do that? i think they can, if nothing else, under plain view once it's kennedy. but i really don't want to fight >> no, they turn they turn the card over. now, when you have digital evidence, the categorical rule, we submit, cuts exactly in the
8:12 pm
opposite direction. because digital information even the notion of flipping through photos in a smartphone implicates vast amounts of information, not just the photos themselves, but the gps locational data that's linked in with it, all kinds of other information that is intrinsically intertwined in smartphones. like facebook or a twitter account? there's no real there's no any privacy interest in a facebook account is at least diminished because the point is you want these things to be public and seen widely. >> well, mr. chief justice >> so i guess my question would be: could you have a rule that the police are entitled to search those apps that, in fact, don't have an air of privacy about them? >> i think that would be extraordinarily difficult to administer that rule. and let me tell you why. because most of the information on
8:13 pm
smartphones is private. much of it is just, like the on somebody's phone and not shared with anybody. even a facebook account is a limited universe of people who have access to it. you're right that i mean, you know, maybe it's people; maybe it's a hundred people. but it's certainly not private in the sense that many of the other applications are. >> think it's fair to say you have a sliding scale and there's some stuff on a phone that might be posted on the internet, for example. the ifficulty with that case, if you wanted to address it in a future case, would be the intertwined nature of information on a phone.
8:14 pm
>> well, then, the evidence that is seizable under the warrant is reasonable and justice pointed out that the fact is reasonable. >> let me talk a bit about. this court said the fact the police could have gotten a warrant but didn't doesn't excuse a 4th amendment violation. >> it knows to the fact that this is searchable under 4th amendment standards. >> with a warrant justeice
8:15 pm
kennedy. a warrant triggers the 4th amendment particularly requirements so the magistrate says this is what you can look at and didn't. in this case, the prosecution introduced photos but he said we looked at a lot of stuff thon phone and that is what caught this eye. >> how does it work for the magistrate? a warrant can be obtained. but a warrant for what? what would the police have to show. let's take your very case. they have seized which is probably. seized the phone. they secured it. now they want to search it. so what would the warrant have
8:16 pm
to say? >> we give an example of a warrant in the footnote of the brief. i believe it is footnote three. and many more are available on the web from states that require warrants. what they do is say the police officer testifies, perhaps somewhat like at the suppression hearing, i suspect this fellow is in a gang and i believe gang members keep things on the phone and these files are likely to obtain evidence and the warrants say this is what you can look at, here is what can't. >> you told us -- that is hard to figure out what you can and what you can't. it is easy for a magistrate but impossible for an arresting officer? >> i think it is much easier for a magistrate that is removed than an officer under the stresses in the field.
8:17 pm
i agree it isn't going to be perfect. so let's look at what happens -- >> on the same lines, the point you make else where is the cellphone or smartpone has the person's whole life. what part of the smartphone isn't likely to have evidence? pictures, videos, and calls -- i guess it is similar to what other issues. i don't know what a magistrate puts in the warrant? >> i would say his banking app. >> you don't think it will say he deposited $10,000 in the account and that coincides with
8:18 pm
a drug deal. >> what the government says is let the officer look and have a backend hearing which they suppress the stuff he wasn't supposed to look at. under our rule, once the officer has the warrant, leon kicks in and you don't have to have hearing because once the officer does the proper search you don't have too a suppression hearing. and there is another thing in the warrant, it isn't just what can be looked at but it is how it can be kept. and this raises 4th amendment concern. for some crimes, not just downloading the information for the crime of arrest but they are keeping the information in growing databases. >> what if you have a device that doesn't have the
8:19 pm
information but like a fit bit that tells you how many steps you take and the defendant says i have been in my house all afternoon and he wants to check to see if he walked four miles. is that something they can look at? >> i think probably not. and this is the categorical rule in robinson where it sweeps in the categorical rules in one direction and i think one for digital' information would sweep in. the fit bit, and this is true moreso of smart phones, tells you the information the court was concerned about in kilo. modern smartphones work the inside of people's house and monitor inside of people's body. >> what if the phone was an old fashion flipphone with the capacity to take pictures but a
8:20 pm
more limited memory. would that be a different case? >> that would be part of the conversation in the next case perhaps. i think the easy way to decide the case in 2014 is saying digital evidence kept on modern cellphones are different than physical items. i don't think it is worth going back in time -- >> when if the person had on a compact disc -- >> that might be the same cases you have now. remember the phone in this case had a removable memory card as many still do. we were going to talk about destruction of evidence. that is one answer to the problem. it could not have came up because it was on a removable memory card that could not
8:21 pm
erased or password protected. we have examples to the governments wiping not standing up. >> you were describing a difference between the downloading by police into databases that they keep forever. what happens with materials that are returned pursuing to a search warrant -- are they precluded from doing that? >> i take it the ordinary rule is if the police lawfully seizes evidence in the physical world if might have to be returned to the owner but a photo copy or photograph remains in police photos and it is information they can use indefinitely. you have problems when they apply that rule.
8:22 pm
the federal government acknowledges it is keeping in a evergrowing federal database some of the information seized from smartphones. >> i don't know if you answered me. can they do the same thing once a search warrant is issued? >> not necessarily. it can delinate rules of how long you are allowed to keep the information and who can look at it or not >> i don't ever remember a prosecutor coming to me with that kind of delination. >> i think that is what is happening in the digital world. >> would there be exitancy that would allow police to look at cell phones and what would they be. >> absolutely. there would be times at the
8:23 pm
scene where it would be allowed about and hypothetic bomb or ambush as represented in chadwick. the concern about remote wiping and as the experts describes by many others we don't think it would ever arise to the degree of legit concern. >> i don't know understand your first circumstances. when there is a bomb but you don't know till you look in the phone. whether his associates are on the way to kill the officer. you don't know until you reach into the phone. how can that be an exiting circumstances? >> in footnote nine of with a
8:24 pm
suitcase is similar. there is a hypothetical example of how the circumstances might apply >> it seems to me you would never be able to say surrounding situations give me reason to suspect a bomb is on the phone or confederates are on the way. >> i am saying if you had that you would not need a warrant. >> there is not much if the lawyer is arrested and you want to read the briefcase or the diary and you site i think page seven in the 1916 case. is that about the best discussion you can find?
8:25 pm
>> we have briefcases with the diary and there is not many instances of it >> it is important if we formulate standards that limit the extent of the search. that is one of the problems in the case. if say, we rule for the government in its case, if we rule for the government in its case, and worry for the federal case, is there some standard where we could draw the line which would result in a judgment in your favor? maybe that is not a fair question. >> in my case, we have an
8:26 pm
exploring case where the state isn't equivalent to what it gets. can i say something? >> i am going to say something first. if the phone rings can the police answer it? >> there are cases on that. all of the cases we found were where the police had a warrant in hand and they have been held to yes, the police officers can answer. unquestioni unquestioningly -- >> a warrant for what? >> for somebody's arrest. >> how does that extend to the ability to answer the phone? >> no, i think an arrest and search of the area is what they need. certainly you could look at the caller id coming through because that is in plain view. but the question about the diary, if there a couple aspects i hope to draw out.
8:27 pm
people don't carry diaries with them. and it would be an unusual circumstance where someone did. you might have a hard case. this is the opposite world. the modern reality of smart phones and there is an item for a professional and anything. you cannot leave the house without it and consider yourself to be responsible and safe. so to take the world where the police might try to say week get the stray diary -- we can -- because of the rule under robinson and apply that to a world where everyone has everything with them. >> including the criminals who are more dangerous and elusive with cellphones. that is the other side of this. >> the 4th amendment has a
8:28 pm
balance looked in. we are not saying cannot look at dijgital information. we are saying they can seize it, freeze it and get a warrant to look at it. >> is it significant this information wasn't protected by a password? that doesn't effect the expectation of the priacy? >> if the othside was saying th wasn't is search -- but i think that would agree password protected doesn't matter. >> i know they argue it doesn't matter but i am wondering if your position is weakened by the fact the individual didn't seek
8:29 pm
the greater protection of a passwo password. >> i don't think so. >> there is no dispute they could look and see if they contained evidence of crime. the shift to digital format.
8:30 pm
-- >> one decision where a series of justice noted that many rules are based on practical consideration. practically speaking a person can only carry so much on their person. that is difference because carrying a bill fold of photographs is anywhere from 1-5 and not much more. now we are talking about potentially thousands. people take endless photos for digital camera and it spans their entire life. you don't see a difference between the two things? what has now become impractical. a gps can follow people in a way that prior following by police officers and cars didn't permit.
8:31 pm
>> we certainly see the possibility that there could be a constitutional difference. we don't so the facts on this case like that. and there is a constitutional difference from those fun phenomenon. the theory is the photographs are likely to be personal and private so i am not sure the expansion increases the invasion of privacy. >> on your argument and the principle argument, too, a person can be arrested for anything. a person can be arrested for driving without a seatbelt. and the police could take that phone and look at every single e-mail that person has written including work emails, including emails to family members and
8:32 pm
very intimate information and could look at their calendar, their gps and find out every place they had been because that person was arrested for driving without a seatbelt. that strikes me as a different kind of world than the kind of world you are describing where somebody has pictures of a family in a bill fold. doesn't it strike you that way? >> i think you can think of marginal cases where this would be of concern. >> i don't know why this is marginal. your argument applies to any arrest and everything on a cellphone. people have their entire lives on cellphone. that is not a marginal case. that is the world we live in. >> he hear that repeatedly. the facts of this case are not
8:33 pm
entire lives on a cellphone. there were a handful of contacts. 250 contacts, 59 photos and there were perhaps 42 videos that range from 45 seconds. >> but the rule is for this category of case and this is, as pointed out, is taking on offense like failing to buckle up and driving under the influence, not gang crimes which is what we have in this case, it is your rule then that the cellphone is fair game no matter what the crime and no matter now unimportant the crime is.
8:34 pm
all misdemeanors and that opens the world world to the police. >> it is true they will draw categorical lines and that is what the court said in robinson was happening and it is said the lines are based on the generality of the case. >> what i am trying to suggest to you is that you call it marginal but in fact most people now do carry their lives on cellphones and that will only grow as young people take over the world. that is not a marginal case. that is what their computers -- they have as much computing capacity as a laptop did five years ago. and everybody under the age of 40 has everything on them. >> i think you need to look at
8:35 pm
the generality of cases. it will not be minor crimes, it will be serious crimes and you are dealing with police doing their job. > >> are you saying we are waiting on the discreation ary of the officer? >> we trying to draw lines applied by the officer in the field because there is not time for the warrant because they need to know the information no -- >> let's leave these circumstances out. that is an easy case. you are not arguing for that kind of circumstances here. >> i would say our argument is that the same things that mr. fischer conceived, the same interest concedes the seizure of the phone and the search of the people. that is need to protect officer's safety and preserve
8:36 pm
evidence. you don't know with a phone whether there is a safety concern or evidence concern. >> is there any bases for the generality there is a safety concern? do you have a case where the phone exploded or was used to trigger a device or anything like that? >> we don't have a specific case. >> a general case? >> here is a case from california. it isn't sited in the briefs. there is one where there is a late night arrest starting with a speeding ticket. off the highway late at night. it develops maybe more is going on. the person looks to be under the influence. he is taking out of the car, there might be a gun. the first thing the officer sees when he turns the cellphone on is a picture of the driver standing with two assault rifles. i would say that changes the situational awareness of the officer in that situation and provides valuable information
8:37 pm
that was necessary at the time and couldn't have gotten later >> what does that have to do with my question about the a bomb? >> i was saying it had to do with safety. i cannot say there was a case where they stopped and looked at a phone with bomb making. >> i would assume you need to operate the phone to set off the bomb. >> that is true but it is true of all of the objects in the prior cases. once in robinson they secured the cigarette pack. >> we are talking about smartphones, which are miney computers, your theory would apply to i-pads or anything
8:38 pm
sitting next to someone in a car or at their desk if arrest said in their car. if they are carrying it in your hand because you see people with a tablet in their hands. your theory permits a search of all of those things. the court has drawn the line on that. >> suppose it is in the car in a holder or suppose it is in the passenger seat. are you saying that you don't want to express an opinion about that? you only want to talk about what is in somebody's pocket? >> i will say the court has drawn different rules from a that. if it is on the car seat and the person has been removed from the car, under gant, if there is evidence to think there is
8:39 pm
evidence of the crime on the phone they can search it, if not they can't. >> suppose i have my laptop on my back. >> and if your laptop is in your backpack yes that would apply. there is the volume connection and connectivity question. we don't have the volume question here. but it could be in other cases. they seem to be concerned if you have enough information and the police spend time looking at it they could build a portrait some of the justice alluded to in jones; that it would be equalitative difference. there are differences where one was government surveillance and
8:40 pm
then this is someone choosing to cheap the information on their phone. but there is a possibility you could get to that search but it is miles away >> what is the rules? three possibility one: sma smartphone. no, get a warrant. possibility two, yes, it is just like a piece of paper defined in his pocket. or possibility three, sometimes yes, sometimes no. all right. which of those three are yours? >> our position is that the core information like this that is contact -- >> no, of my three choices. call the first one never. also. you don't need a warrant. or three somewhere in between. which of the three choices? >> in between. >> in between. then i get to my follow-up question and that is please tell me what your in between rule is.
8:41 pm
>> right. and my in between rule with explanation is that for information of the same sort that police have always been able to seize from the person and that is diaries, letters, all other kinds of evidence, photographs, address books -- for evidence of that same sort the same rules should apply. >> i don't know that. >> i would leave for a different day but the last explanation is i would leave for another case. >> i don't know understand that. you said if it could be -- everybody could be reduced to a piece of paper. all of your bank records could be on you, all of your medical records you could just happen to have them on you. that would be absolutely everything. >> the bank records the police gets from the bank with a subpoena not with a search
8:42 pm
warrant. >> right the notion you could get them legally in some other way has never justified an illegal search otherwise. >> no, but it goes to the question of how sensitive is this information we are being told -- >> your rule is sometimes. so i say sometimes. what is that and you say if it is the kind of thing the police could have searched for it it wasn't on the computer then they can search for it on the computer. since they can search for everything in your pockets when it isn't the computer why isn't yours everything? by the way, they don't know whether a call is or isn't going to turn out to be evidence when it is in your trash box or whenever you put it. i guess you are saying i thought it was category two, but really is it is category three, always.
8:43 pm
why am i wrong? >> i think he inverted two and three. [laughing] >> that gives you time to think. >> the address book, the contacts, and the phone -- >> that is just the concession on your part isn't it? because the smartphones carry a lot of information that the police couldn't look at before. gps tracking information. are you saying that is protected? >> i am saying it raise as different set of issues. >> it seems to me that in order to try to give answers to
8:44 pm
justice kegan's concern is maybe sears -- serious and non-serious? >> i think the court did deny to draw that line >> gps information -- my wife might put a little note in my pocket. steven remember to turn right at the third stoplight. of course you could have looked at information that showed where you had been and where you were going as long as it was on paper. now it is in a gps so how does your rule help? the gps sees if he didn't turn right or went somewhere else. we can conceive of information in which the amount of information and the kind of search would lead to a different result.
8:45 pm
>> you can amend your answer. and the answers are for you not for us. but you could amend your answer to say not just anything that somebody could have had. a person could have had a diary that records every place the person has every gone in the last year. it is possible. but you could say something that has a realistic analog in the pre-digital era. we have a problem that is similar to the problem of the jones gps case. you have a rule of law before the digital era and now to apply it to the digital era. but if there is an analog that might be a different story. >> we think that covers the issues here with the video and
8:46 pm
paragraphs. >> you are not willing to limit your position to searches that either are in order to protect the officer or in order to preserve evidence or number three in order to find evidence of a crime of arrest. you would say whatever is on the person you can search? >> we think of the available limits. that is by far the most historically based. the old cases you point out -- >> that gets you into the arrest for not wearing a seatbelt. it seems absurd you should be able to search that person's i-phone and you can avoid that if you say the vast majority of
8:47 pm
cases this isn't going to be a problem unless the officer is looking for evidence of the crime of arrest. that would cover the bad cases and not the seatbelt rule. >> we think that could be good rule. it has to be objective and shouldn't depend on what was written on the booking sheet. it should be was there probably cause to arrest or what crime was there probably crimes to arrest for. and it also should include a plain view concept. >> there is an analog with photos. the arrested person has photos. pre-digital age of course you can look at them. on the phone, there are photos, absolutely analogous except there are 10,000 and his entire life history. on your rule, can the policeman look at the photos by analog or not because there are 10,000?
8:48 pm
what is the answer? >> in theory yes. i think there are very few things you cannot find in analog, too in pre-digital age searches and the problem in almost all instances is quantity and how far a field you are likey to be going. >> the fundamental rational base of the robinson rule, i think, is that the fact of the arrest, this is what justice powell said -- the fact of the arrest necessarily and legitimately abates the privacy interest of the individual and anything she has chosen to kercarry on the
8:49 pm
person. the reasonable expectation is that the police searches the person and -- >> are you saying essentially that no body has expectation of privacy or somebody has a reduced expectation of privacy in anything the person wants to keep on them. in other words, one has to keep a cellphone at home to have an expectation of privacy in it? >> we are not saying that. but people make choices and they have consciouss and the consequences of carrying it on your personal the police has always been able to use it as crime. >> thank you, councilor. >> i think it maybe helpful to the court before exploring possible alternatives to a ro n
8:50 pm
robinsrobi robinson rule is to understand why there is a categorical robsrobi robinson rule. it responds to the fact when a person is carrying something them their expectation of prives privacy is reduced. and the government has compelling interest that is vindicated during the time of arrest. it protects the officer and protects evidence relevant to the prosecution. >> the understanding was when there is time get a warrant. here you can seize the phone and
8:51 pm
secure there phone. you could go to a magistrate and within an hour get permission to search. but what is the reason for cutting out the magistrate here? it isn't the instrument that is going to be danger because the police have taken it. and they disabled it. so i don't understand why we cut the warrant out of the picture. >> several answers to that. you could say the same thing about everything that is seized under robinson and edwards. once it is in the police's hands they could throw it in the back of the car and get a warrant. but the balance is struck at the moment of arrest to allow the officer to fufill the compelling interest in the matters i described. the second and critical thing about cellphones is they do differ in the amount of
8:52 pm
information you can put on the and the revelation about your life. but they contain evidence, and they are subject to destruction in a way that ordinary physical items are not. even though an officer has a cellphone in his hand he cannot guarantee unless discunenonnecd there is not a remote wipe case where it is wiped from the phone. >> do you have cases of that? >> i have an dotal reports from the fbi that happened. they are looked into the extent of what extent can you protect the phone. if you throw a phone into a bag that will block network signals. when you open it, it has to be shielded or pick up the phone from a cell tour and wipe the phone. the fda tried to build a room similar to this in a building
8:53 pm
where they discovered verizon put out a cell tower and it put up enough signal where it was wi wip wiped. >> there is a rule in michigan and vermont where you cannot search and are there instances from that case where this happened? >> i cannot speak to that. >> you don't know. isn't this a problem that might be postponed because we have worrying technology. and you are saying we should allow searches of all cell phones because there maybe a technology that hasn't yet in fact been used in any of the states that have this rule. that sounds a little hypothetic and i am not sure how to handle it. >> there is clearly the technology available and growing technology to wipe phones remotely. but the other critical problem
8:54 pm
that comes about getting the warrant is encryption technology is being deployed in cellphones. that is on the rise. if a phone is turned off or the lock kicked in and the phone is encrypt it can be impossible -- >> let me stop. i have three related questions. why can't you put the phone on airpla airplane mode? >> it not always possible to mind the mode on the 500-600 phones. the officer has a lot to do when he arrest five suspects and say they have three phones. >> if you haven't searched on the scene then the wipe is going to happen. if you had enough time at the
8:55 pm
prestinct to put on airplane mode. either you do it at the scene or the station and you have enough time to get the warrant by putting it on that mode. >> well you don't necessarily have enough time to get the warrant if you do it at the scene. >> i don't disagree. put it on airplane mode. >> the assumption that the court should craft a rule around airplane modes assuming that airlanes will be able to used that the plane and they will make the button. >> i don't disagree with you. but you are asking for a constitutional principle based on technology that might or might not do something in one or more cases. >> i think what i am trying to suggest is the traditional
8:56 pm
search and arrest include the search of destruction of evidence. that is very real. we are asking for the application of the robinson rule and if the court isn't willing to apply the robinson rule than i think the best rule to apply -- >> that is not quite accurate. what would you do under the robins robinson's rule with an attorney's brief case. >> it would present problems -- >> and doesn't that present the problem every cellphone has. >> i was referring to the privilege rule. the lower courts that have looked at the question that say if a person is arrested hold in a briefcase they can go through and look for evidence that is relevant for criminal activity. they do that in a way that is
8:57 pm
minimumal minimumally invasive. >> some cell phonphones have th record and you have the tax record of the jaywalker. >> if the court is looking for a rule that limits the ability to search cellphones because they are different from paper items, in some respect, but not all, that the most reasonable rule to apply would be one that says when there is reason to believe there is evidence of the crime of arrest on the phone the officers can look for that. when there is not, they can't. >> can i ask you a question about that? given the variety of things these cell phones have in them, it seems as though that is, you know, it sounds good as a limiting principle, but it ends up -- you can imagine in other case, that the police could look
8:58 pm
at everything. i will give you an example. somebody is arrested for a gun crime. and now we are going to look at all of the various things related to a gun crime. whether he has bought guns, done searches for gun stores, his emails might say something about gun possession or purchase, he might have photographs of him with a gun -- you know? the whole range of things could relate to that crime, couldn't it? >> justice kagan, i would acknowledge your reasoning is correct. it would not be the case of a jaywalking crime or a bar fight or minor crimes like seatbelt violations that are on the other side of the equation for respondants or petitioner's n
8:59 pm
narrow response to cellphone searches. in a serious offense like a firearm case or in in this case a drug offense case, if the police got a warrant they would look at the same thing. the only way to execute the warrant on the phone is engaging in a search on the phone >> well they would be looking at the same thing but the whole idea of a warrant is the magistrate says you can look and has a way to limit it in whatever way they feel is appropriate and that is a protection. >> i would not go sure to say the magistrate with narrow the warrant. they say it isn't appropriate for the magistrate to prescribe the manner of the search. there is a different balance at the moment of the arrest. at that moment's society's interest are in locating
9:00 pm
evidence to the crime and arresting suspects and the suspect has a highly reduced privacy interest. >> four minutes mr. fischer. >> thank you. i think i heard 4-5 proposed rules i would like to go through. the state talked about the fundamentally different rule and i think the justice figured out that would sweep in everything on the phone. ... ...
9:01 pm
also a discussion about the exigency at the scene of an arrest, needing to prevent a password from kicking in. the first thing to make sure you understand is those arguments can apply only at the scene. they don't apply in this case where an officer take thursday phone back to the police station and two hours later searches through it at his leisure. so, all the arguments about, at the scene, and what the officer needs to be able to do at the scene is left for another case. and justice breyer is exactly right, at the very best the government has shown tightly --
9:02 pm
a quick thing on the password, pages 12 to 14 of our reply brief we outline how highly unusual at a factual matter it would be for a smartphone to be seized while it's still unlocked and for an officer not to be able to address concern at the scene it might lock later and it's also worth noting in a footnote the government is arguing arguing in lower cowers that even if it does log the fifth amendment does nose give the person the opportunity to refuse to divulge the password. justice kennedy suggested the possible of distinguishing between serious and nonserious offenses. with all due respect this court's decisions in robinson and atwater preclude that kind of determination for all the reasons the government argued in those cases. finely, justice scalia, you mentioned a couple of times the
9:03 pm
gant principle. evidence that you think you might find on the phone. there's two profound problems with that. the first is, as the court recognized in kilo you need to be sure to protect the privacy people at the founding, and is a said in my opening the fact that somebody might incidentally have an item on his person, even in the rare case, diary or address book, are leagues away from the kind of information that people have that were stored in the home and were sack -- sack crow sanctity in an arrest. and justice kagan, the government might be able to identify a crime that would be difficult to make an argument, but lots of mine you're crimes -- minor crimes, like speeding, dui, littering, a person can milwaukee a convincing argument that evidence on the phone would be
9:04 pm
relevant to that crime. so i think that brings me where i want to end, which is understanding what the rule the government propounds would do in terms of ordinary police work. this case starts with a traffic stop for expired license plate. it is everyday police work that traffic stops are the beginning of criminal investigations some a leverage point into searches. if you adopt the rule that says, even a gant rule, that says if you can make an argument that evidence on the phone would be relevant to the crime of arrest, take the suspended license. you may have on i'm from the dmv telling you to renew. if that opens up every american's life to the police department, not just at the scene but the station house and downloaded into their computer forever, you'll have fundamentally change the privacy that we have enjoined since the founding. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> here's what is scheduled in congress nest week.
9:05 pm
when the house returns on tuesday, they'll work on a research and development tax credit and vote on contempt of congress charges against lois lerner. life coverage begins at noon. the senate returns on monday to debate bills dealing with energy efficiency in buildings, and approval of theodicean xl pipeline, at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. for more on next week's congressional agenda, we talked to bob cusack of the hill newspaper. >> house speaker john boehner announces that he intended for the house to vote to create a select committee to look into the september 11, 2012 benghazi attack. in fact he tweeted about it, saying that americans deserve the truth about benghazi terrorist attacks that killed our ambassador and three more. bob cusack is here. what this point of forming this
9:06 pm
committee? >> guest: well, the point is basically to give more power and more political pressure for republicans to address this issue. now, john boehner had previously not jumped on this legislation. legislation that was called for by frank wolfe, republican premier virginia, who said we need to have a select committee, a bipartisan committee to look into this. boehner deferred to the committee chairman, but the e-mails that have come out this week have changed the dynamic, putting more pressure on boehner, 189 republicans already signed on to the legislation. and now today boehner indicated, yep, we're going to go forward and we're going to move the select committee. details we're still getting the makeup of it and that stuff still to be determined. but boehner is going forward with this. >> host: likely that the house will vote on that in the coming week? >> guest: yes. has to go has to go to the house
9:07 pm
floor. i national it will be mostly party line votes. a few democrats might vote for it but most democrats say republicans have politicized benghazi and will vote know. >> host: almost parallel to that the oversight committee, darryl issa, intended secretary of state john kerry to testify on the benghazi investigations. he's not testified before them before? >> guest: darryl issa wants to know why the documented had to be obtain by a lawsuit brought by a judicial watch conservative group and were not given to congress. one reason was they were classified, and they were not really related to benghazi specifically. so, issa wants to get answers from john kerry, who was not leading the state department at but has been involved in documents delivered to congress.
9:08 pm
so that's going to happen later this month. that i imagine will be quite a combative hearing. >> host: another combative issue, the contempt of citation against low -- lois lerner. it comes to a vote next week. what's that look like? >> guest: that's another party line vote. republicans have been frustrated. there hasn't been a lot of new news in the irs investigation. we're approaching the one-year anniversary, and the rope is lois lerner is a key figure and is not talking. she has not been granted immunity so the republicans want to get more answers and they think there's a lot more to this story. so they're going to have this vote. it will pass. and that members it will be referred to the justice department to seek criminal charms. that doesn't mean it's necessarily going to happen but puts more pressure on the doj to at least look at this.
9:09 pm
>> host: let's look at the senate. interestingly, there's word that the senate may take up the keystone xl pipeline, and call for the opening of the pipeline, at least overruling what the administration wants to do. how did this come about? what is expected? >> guest: fascinating politics with this issue. a lot of the red state democrats up for re-election in six months support the approval of keystone. but most democrats, certainly democratic leaders, don't. but this could give them mitt cal cover. the question is will this be binding or nonbinding. it's a bipartisan coalition that is saying, okay, we're going to move forward onsteen. one thing to watch is that the house already passed asteen bill, and the senate will have the votes but they're not going to have a veto proof majority. this could give senate democrats some cover but at the same time it's not going to overrule the president, who has not decided, and repeatedly delayed the decision on keystone.
9:10 pm
looks like it will happen after the election. from the democratic standpoint this could be a good thing, gives them political cover. for republicans it advances the ball. that's why there's a potential compromise here but not a done deal yet. >> bob cusack. managing editor of "the hill." thank you for update. >> in the house a biggest challenge a republican will face is somebody more conservative than he or she is in almost every district. they're worried about being challenged from the right. so how is it their political interests to reach across and make tough compromises. we have gotten a system we designed as a country. i'm not sure the people who fully created these districts
9:11 pm
realize exactly how profound the implications would be, bum i add that some democrats, particularly minority democrats, have been in on this, too. there have been in some states african-americans who want to be sure that they have reliably african-american district, so they can be sure they have representation in congress. >> this weekend, on c-span, from the antidefinition league, changing demographics, redistricting, and the republican party. saturday morning, just after 11:00 eastern. later on c-span, the white house correspondents dinner. president obama and joel mchale of nbc's community, headline the event. before celebrities, journalists, and the white house press corps. that's live at 6:00. and live sunday on book tv, former gang member, community activist and political candidate, luis j. rodriguez
9:12 pm
will take your calls and comments in department at noon on chance c-span. and on american history tv, a history of hawai'i and the sugar industry. sunday night at 9:35 on c-span3. >> federal communications commission chairman tom wheeler spoke at this year's cable show, hosted this week by the national cable and telecommunication association in los angeles. he talk about fcc regulation of the internet and net neutrality. this is 40 minutes. >> clarion call for a new american revolution, a seasoned and visionary chairman has taken the reins. he has energized his agency, charged the public policy environment, and stimulated a wide ranging debate over how best to bring the opportunities of the digital era to all americans. but for some of you in the audience today, the jolt of activity at the commission is no surprise. because you may have known this
9:13 pm
fcc chairman when he was little veteranned, a little less seasoned and one of the wild cats helping bust open the market place for companies like yours and mine 40 years ago. tom wheeler runs the agency with argue whether i more telecom related experience under his belt than any chairman of the era. he is a poly expert, an advocate, a businessman and entrepreneur for more than decades. former president and ceo of our association, and he served in the same role at the wireless association, ctia. his efforts in beth of those jobs earned him a unique status as the only person to be selected so beg the cable hall of fame and the wireless hall of fame. tom also has served as managing director adventure capital firm,
9:14 pm
copartners and work as ceo at? internet was being invet expected was a public sir haven't even before his fcc tenure, leading the telecom transition team for president obama and management of the dtv transition, tom is also an author, historian, pundit, and a commentator. please join me in welcoming back to this podium, back to ncta, and back to the cable show, the chairman of the federal communications commission, the honorable tom wheeler. [applause] >> thank you, rob. it's great to be here. i also want to, right at the outset, indicate i'm not here alone; that joining us at this gathering are all of the members of the fcc, and you'll be
9:15 pm
hearing from commissioner clyburn, commissioner pi and commissioner o'reilly at other events and i'm sure that the thoughts they have to share with you will be both insayingful and helpful. because i sure am grateful to work with them. i had intended to open this session with some light banter about being back here on the stage at ncta. but there's a serious issue that i want to address right away, and that's the future of the internet. i want to specifically direct these remarks at you, the principle program providers of the -- principal provider of the
9:16 pm
nation's broadband connectivity. we have circulated a notice of proposed rulemaking to my fellow commissioners, that would protect and promote the open internet. but two things that it's important to understand. first, this is a notice which asks a number of questions and seeks input on the best ways to protect and promote the open internet. second, all options are on the table. our goal is to put in place real protections for consumers, real protections for innovators and
9:17 pm
entrepreneurs, that resolve what has until now been only a matter of debate and litigation. i believe that this process will put us on track to quickly get to legally enforceable open internet rules. i'm interested in results. the commission has been trying to do something for almost a decade. it's time to get the job finished. we have been waiting long enough. because cable has become a principal provider of broadband, this is an appropriate forum to discuss our intentions. now, if you read the press
9:18 pm
conditions of what we propose to do, those who oppose the idea of nut neutrality might feel like a celebration is in order. reports that we're gutting the open internet are incorrect. i'm here to say to you, wait a minute, put away the party hats, the open internet rules will be tough, will be enforceable, and with the concurrence of my colleagues, will be in effect with dispatch. for all of the millions of americans who access the internet, and to you who provide
9:19 pm
broadband connectivity, it's only fair to spell out some of the expectations that will inform the proposed open internet rules on which we are about to seek public comment. the d.c. circuit in the verizon v. fcc decision upheld the commission's judgment that, quote, absent such rules such as those set forking forking in the openber net order, broadband providers are a threat to internet openness and would act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment. >> i believe that innovation is fragile, and that as we said in
9:20 pm
our 2010 order brand providers have incentive to interfere with competing edge providers, and the d.c. circuit wrote, have, quote, powerful incentives to accept fees from edge providers, either in return for excluding their competitors, or for granting them prioritized access to end users. our proposed course of action builds on the court's strong legal justification for regulation that guarantees every user the ability to effectively use the internet. we are beyond the question of
9:21 pm
the scope of the fcc's authority. the court has decided that. knowing that authority, we must now move expeditiously to make it manifest. there's been a great deal of talk about how our following the court's instructions to use a commercially reasonable test, could result in a so-called fast lane, an internet have and have-nots. this misses the point. that any new rule will assure an open pathway that is sufficiently robust to enable consumers to access the content, services, and applications they
9:22 pm
demand and innovators and edge providers will have the able to offer new products and services. put another way, the proposed -- the focus of this proposal, on which i remind you we are seeking comment, is on maintaining a broadly available, fast, and robust internet, as a platform for economic growth, innovation, competition, free expression, and broadband investment and deployment. our goal is rules that will encourage broadband providers to continually upgrade service for all.
9:23 pm
we will follow the court's blueprint for achieving this. i must warn you that we will look skeptically upon special exceptions. you know-as rob said, it's been 30 years since i last stood on this stage. during that period i have built new technology-based companies as an entrepreneur, and helped other companies grow as a venture capitalist. i know in my bones how hard it is to start a company with innovative idea. now as chairman of the fcc i do not intend to allow innovation to be strangled but the
9:24 pm
manipulation of the most important network of our time, the internet. as an entrepreneur and an investor, understand the importance of supplying businesses with certainty. that's another reason why the sooner we can get enforceable rules in place, the better off everyone will be. internet entrepreneurs and those who support them, need the certain knowledge that their ability to get to market will not be degraded by manipulation of the internet. let me be clear. if someone acts to divide the internet between haves and have-nots, we will use every
9:25 pm
power at our disposal to stop it. and i consider that includes title ii. just because it's my strong belief that following the court's road map will produce similar protections more quickly, does not mean that i will hesitate to use title ii if warranted. and in our notice, we're asking for input as to whether this approach should be used. now, since we're in los angeles, let me ya a highway traffic metaphor. prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of the traffic on to a congested lane, won't be permitted under any proposed
9:26 pm
open internet rule. he will not allow -- we will not allow some companies to force internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges have superior service. consumers have rightfully come to expect quality access to all points on the internet. blocking access to lawful content and services would be inconsistent with the transaction that made them you're subscribers. the bottom line on the proposed open internet rules is that the internet will remain an open pathway. if users can't effectively use the pathway, then the conduct
9:27 pm
will be a violation of the open internet rules. now, i do not expect that the debate will end here today. and i don't want it to. we're moving quickly to tee up the issues, and to invite discussion and debate. but we are moving the process forward. so, now that i've addressed the topic on the front of everyone's mind, let me revert to my favorite activity, historical reflection. and to the theme that encapsulates my perspective on your industry. namely, from those to whom much is given, much is expected. in my professional lifetime, this industry has gone from
9:28 pm
cable 1.0 to cable 2.0. cable 1.0 was at video. the industry, along with dbs, enabled an enormous expansion in the quantity and quality of video content. the record provides substantial reason for industry pride, although any celebration should be tempered by continuing criticisms involving both price and service. today's cable 2.0 industry is different in two significant ways. first, it is now the incumbent. when i was here, cable was the insurgent. second, as we have been discussing, it has transform from video to broadband. the move from cable 1.0 to cable 2.0 was accompanied by an almost
9:29 pm
unimaginable change in cable's regulatory circumstance. it has again from regulatory constraints that were breathtakingly inhibiting, to regulatory constraints that are barely discernible. in my present line of work i encounter people who believe that the fcc's broadband deregulation was equivalent to the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel. and others who believe it was the equivalent of original sin. i don't propose to join that debate today, nor attempt to sort out whether deregulation and levels of cable investment in broadband are causal or coincidental. but i do want to point out that
9:30 pm
for all of it importance, cable today confronts relatively little regulation in its principal business which has become and will continue to be broadband. but as we have been discussing with regard to the open internet, that does not put the industry in a zone free of obligation and oversight. i have written and spoken about what i call the network compact. the essential relationship between those who build and operate networks and those who use them. the networks compact has five components: access, interconnection, public safety, consumer protection, and national security. especially in connection with
9:31 pm
broadband. both you and we at the fcc have important responsibilities to the american people with regard to these five values. it is not too much to say that our nation's prosperity, security, and values, are affected in in fundmental ways by your broadband networks. our prosperity is a function among other things of the quality of our broadband networks, and, therefore, the investments you make in their construction, operation, and maintenance, our security is the function among other things of the reliable of our broadband networks and, therefore, the effectiveness of the measures you undertake to protect them. our values are implicated among other things by our ability to transmit and receive facts,
9:32 pm
ideas, and opinions, and, therefore, the practices that you adopt with respect to the openness of our broadband networks. as a result of the importance of our broadband networks, our society has the right to demand highly responsible performance from those who operate those networks. and the fcc has the responsibility to oversee such performance and to intervene should it fall short. at the fcc, our focus is on the availability, security, and openness of your broadband networks. let me address each of those for a moment. on availability, we believe that the private sector must play the leading role in extending
9:33 pm
broadband networks to every american. that's why we're committed to removing barriers to investment and to lowering the cost of broadband's buildout. but we're also interested because in section 706, among other parted of the communications act, congress has placed broadband deployment and infrastructure investment very high among our priorities. we also recognize that there are some areas where it doesn't make sense for you to build. that's why the commission modernized our universal service fund to focus on broadband, establishing the connect america fund. already the connect america fund has made investments that will make broadband available to 1.6 million unserved americans. and just a matter of days ago, my colleagues and i voted to move forward with phase two of the connect america fund. as part of our universal service
9:34 pm
reforeigns we're making a major effort to recast the erate program to assist schools and libraries in securing broadband services at advantageous prices. here is the place where you can and should apply the expertise that you have developed in supplying broadband services to small and medium-size businesses. if you can configure good service and good deals to smes, you can and should do it for schools and libraries. the security of broadband networks is a matter of utmost significance and urgency is hardly news. we are at a critical juncture. the more we learn about the challenges of cyber security, and the costs of failure, the
9:35 pm
more apparent the importance of addressing this challenge with best efforts, including yours. we know that these are nontrivial issues. we also know that the best solutions come from when we work together to identify solutions and to get them implemented throughout the industry. this must be done in a deliberate, responsible, and transparent fashion, that balances security, privacy, and innovation. cable is already working with the fcc to do just that within our communications security reliability and interoperability council. we expect the outcome of their work to be an stray led effort to pro-actively assess cyberreadiness within your companies. community indicate your risk assessments with your boardrooms
9:36 pm
and share relevant portions of the assessment between partners in the larger ecosystem, and we expect this to be done in such a way that those charged with oversight across the regulatory tapestry will recognize and understand the cyberrisk. the work group is leveraging the nist cybersecurity framework as a starting opinion for this. over the course of the year, we will need to see this translate into actual implementation. we're intending this to be a new regulatory paradigm. and we're giving you the opportunity to write it. i urge you to step in so that we won't have to.
9:37 pm
in addition to ensuring the volleyball and security of our broadband networks, we have to assure the openness of the networks and the internet for all lawful uses. i've said plenty about that today. and you can be assured that i will raise it every time that i have the privilege of being invited to address an ncta gathering. but shy add one more point today. one of the most effective tools for ensuring internet openness, is competition. i developed a great deal of my regulatory philosophy in the days when cable was fighting to be allowed to compete. as you probably have heard, the mantra today at the fcc is, competition, competition,
9:38 pm
competition. competition promotes efficient pricing, promotes technical progressiveness, consumer protections, and, yes, private investment. case in point. at&t just announced plans to expand their fiber networks that can deliver one gig abet per second service to up to 100 communes. i applaud randall stevenson for this initiative. and see this as a challenge to the cable industry that is not dissimilar to the advent of dbs. i hope you respond in a similar manner as you did back then. i am heartened by the announcement of cox cable's intention to upgrade its facilities to be able to offer
9:39 pm
one gig service. you stand where you are today in large part as a result of how you expanded your networks to meet competition from the sky. i'm hopeful that you'll respond competitively once again. if you do, this new competition will provide ever-improving performance by all concerned to the benefit of the public. now, the latest news does not change the historical fact that for many parts of the communications sector, there hasn't been as much competition as consumers and innovation deserve. given the high fixed costs and consequent scale of economy, this isn't surprising but that makes it all the more important that we knock down public and
9:40 pm
private barriers to competition and avoid erecting new ones. it is equally important that we encourage competition wherever it is possible. one place that may be possible is in the municipally owned or authorized broadband systems. i understand the experience with community broadband is mixed, there have been both successes and failures. but if the municipal governments, the same ones that granted cable franchises, want to pursue it, they shouldn't be inhibited by state laws. i have said before that i believe the fcc has the power, and i intend to exercise that
9:41 pm
power, to pre-empt state laws that ban competition from community broadband. now, throughout this discussion on how to promote the availability, security, and openness of world class broadband networks, you'll note that in every instance, i spoke not only of the fccs responsibilities but also of your industry's. as i said at the beginning, when it comes to broadband, the cable industry has important technical advantages, a leading market position, and very limited regulation. it is to engage in understatement, an unusual situation. the only way to maintain this
9:42 pm
situation is to uphold your responsibilities. if you do, it will benefit not only your industry but also will contribute to the prosperity, security, and value of our nation. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president and ceo of ncta, michael powell. ♪ >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. how are you? >> i love that exchange of chairman pleasant tries. we have spoken like this many times before. >> i'm known tom for 20 years and proud of you taking over the commission. we have a limited amount of time and you speech was so rich we content. first of all, i'd offer our deep
9:43 pm
appreciation for your willingness to come here to the show and share your candid thoughts with us. one observation which i think is worth noting, i thought your remarks were very forceful about your commitment to an open internet and i didn't find them surprising. anyone who has followed your career and followed your testimony in becoming chairman and the comments you made, i think quite traps parentally over the last few months, knows you're a strong and forceful defender of that important principle. the think the cable industry probably might disagree that we're an impending threat to network. i think they've come to believe that open internet is a critical part of the broadly available, reliable services you mentioned, an industry that strongly supported the last set of rules-didn't challenge them, and i would only say that we look forward to work with you constructively as you look for finding that right balance that
9:44 pm
serves the public interests. so, you can count on us as a constructive partner as wow york through that. >> that's agreed. i had no doubt about that. as you know, this is a notice. we're asking for questionwe're we're asking for people to par tis and it and i have no doubt you will. >> we'll participate. we have a great team for that. so thank you for that. i want too change subjects. you mentioned a lot of great things in your speech, one thing you mentioned you have been exceptional leaders on and that's why identify. ...
9:45 pm
i have been involved long enough to see wi-fi evolve from a stepchild to a full player. that is why just a few weeks ago we opened up 100 megahertz in the five gigahertz band that is going to allow for one gigabit speed wi-fi. that's going to be transformational. the kinds of things that i hear your industry is talking about doing in regard to taking advantage of that just reinforces why we needed to have done that why we needed to have been a quickly. because i don't know whether you have noticed, we are procompetition and wi-fi offers new opportunities for
9:46 pm
competition in broadband, both in terms of the delivery of high-speed data as well as voice services. we are procompetition. >> eight think is really important point because i think not only it does the additional value-added to our service something from you get -- we get from the subscription. it really does provide some competition in the wireless face. i wondered whether he would share your thoughts. some treat wireless as if it doesn't or shouldn't be counted among the competitive elements of broadband and what i see is a stunning evolution of that service as an expert in wireless technology what is your thought on that? do you believe wireless is a meaningful and powerful broadband platform? >> i think the great thing about the whole telecoms space in what's going on in the i.t. world is that it's a moving picture. it's a motion picture.
9:47 pm
you can just take a snapshot and say oh this is what it is today and this is what it's going to be forever. you have to look at it in the fullness of where that motion pictures headed. i truly am excited by the potential that high-speed mobile is offering to become a full competitor in that space. again i don't know if you have noticed that we are pro- competition. >> yeah, i thought i heard that. he just said something if i could pick up on it that i found powerful and the point that often seems ignored when you read stories about broadband. people today seem to take a snapshot snapshot of wherever he are intended this to declare a problem. it's a really nascent world and somebody could say broadband is a decade old fastest applying technology in world history. this seems to me there is the path going toward dramatically
9:48 pm
more speeds. you mentioned the cox effort which is a great one. the show we been announcing something called giga sphere which really captures the suite of products that will put us in the next generation of speed what we used to call docsis 3.0 is better named giga sphere as well as her wi-fi products. so the notion of moving picture i think is a powerful one. yesterday in my speech i took a different tact and i talked a lot about community. i know you were kind enough to to -- and how particularly in the context of the e-rate program that you mentioned. what do networks mean for community building and problem solving? >> throughout history we have been defined by the networks that connect us. we are as we connect.
9:49 pm
therefore one of the challenges that we all face is and this new old ip high-speed world how do we make sure that those networks are delivering the kinds of things that assure access for everyone and assure that the networks, what those networks enable our significant. for instance, if we stick with connecting our schools and libraries by 20th century needs and don't leapfrog to high-speed connection not just to the school but to every student at every desk, shame on us. that's why i was saying one of the great opportunities i think for this industry is you have got bigger speed coming out and
9:50 pm
you have got bigger services you are providing to the sma's and providing those kinds of services to schools and libraries at reasonable prices is an incredible contribution to the community you are talking about and a very important community at dignity. >> yeah a lot of compelling evidence in the role of educational outcomes which is something our country still tackles i think with a sense of national shame. i hope we have made more progress on it. you know here's a funny question i was there like you at the dawn of the internet and i remember sitting in law school playing with a 9.6 modem to access lexisnexis and still thought it was the most fascinating fascinating thing i've ever seen in my life and i was giddy when it went to four-point or, 14.6 and 56. i remember when used to buy computers. i just got a pentium pentium one
9:51 pm
and thick pentium ii came out. do you think speed is relative? is there ever enough? one of the problems his policy is we are is chasing said it seems to be an endless. >> this is why you go back to the moving picture concept. we have been driven by moore's law that says roughly every 24 months computer speeds double and that means that the phone in your pocket is today more powerful than a computer was the took the bold building and cost millions and millions of dollars. stop and think where moore's law is taking us because of things double every two years, in 20 years the chip will be over a thousand times more powerful than it is today. and you are going to be racing to keep up with that. we want to make sure that we have policies that incentivize
9:52 pm
broadband providers to do that racing and we want to make sure that we have policies that make sure that in that race there is open access so that everybody can take advantage of that incredible miracle that we happen to be living in the middle of. >> i would agree and i think you recognize this too but that raises very capital-intensive. one of the things i think we have gotten right in american policy and i think we still need to tender to is how do we keep such a massive influx of capital to keep that doubling and tripling going and if history is any guide consumers or the benefit of moore's law because it also passes price over time. >> is an investor i would not hesitate to observe that your margins on broadband are greater than your margins on video and there is an upside here that is
9:53 pm
promising for you and promising for the american people so long as we have speed and access. >> i would agree. i'm going to ask you one last question. i have read your books and i love them. i think it's very interesting that you are a big student of lincoln. if there had been one thing about lincoln that informed your leadership style? >> in the middle of the civil war he said it was not just about -- what we do is not just about today. it is also about tomorrow. i think that's a great challenge for guys like you and me and for the people in this audience. thanks for asking. >> we look forward to going into it with you and we appreciate your leadership. thank you for being here. >> thanks mike. [applause]
9:54 pm
[inaudible conversations] speak and we talk to you? can we get both of you in there? >> it's a great feeling. we have a situation where she is by far more successful. i'm really proud of her. it's fantastic. almost three and a half.
9:55 pm
>> you has survived longer than many of your predecessors. >> this is the greatest time you go possibly have. >> you don't see the light at the end of the tunnel? and knott. >> you should see his home life. his work is fun. we have two kids. >> it's really every day. i pinch myself because it's the best place to work. see how about this weekend? [inaudible] >> tony baldwin and his wife, super nice people and it was really fun. i didn't know who else was coming but that was fun. [inaudible]
9:56 pm
we are going to run. nice to see you. >> this is a fun weekend because we obviously -- i used to be a reporter and the way should work in a democracy back and forth and asking questions and getting answers. this was a weekend where we could have fun and the speeches are going to be fun. >> also everybody looks a lot better in washington. it's very glamorous. thanks very much. take care. >> i wanted to ask you about benghazi.
9:57 pm
9:58 pm
>> i'm not going to have a long introduction but some people have come to the issue fairly recently and we welcome that on the innovation creativity and intellectual property right issues. the vice president of the united states has been so committed to this issue going back to the ears we serve together when he was chairman of the judiciary committee serving for bob goodlatte as the cochair dealing with the caucus between a the house and the senate on these issues. has been tireless since then in his efforts. when we saw the changes that occurred in a relationship on the potus those that follow the issue with china they went from 20 to 34. there were a lot of people that contributed to that. absolutely no one made as much
9:59 pm
of a difference in the outcome of that negotiation than the vice president of united the united states. so today the fact as i mentioned a moment ago that their 15 screens being built today in china consuming greater and greater quantities and content the ability now for coproductions without any quotas and raising from 20 to 34 as well as box office receipts in no small measure is in no small effort to the leadership in china. for those reasons we are deeply honored that he is here with us today. i point out to people that both of us left the senate at roughly the same time. one of us got involved in enterprises where there are cost overruns, outrageous personal behavior and supersize egos. i in turn went to hollywood. would you give a warm welcome to the vice president of the united
10:00 pm
states, my great friends joe biden. [applause]


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on