We continue this afternoon with portfolio questions, and just before we begin, I would remind members that questions 4, 6 and 8 will be grouped together. Question 1 has been withdrawn, so we begin with question 2, Liam Kerr. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it will bring forward measures to improve the input that victims and their families have into the temporary release process. As outlined in a previous written answer to Liam Kerr on 1 March 2019, we are committed to improving the information and the support available to victims and families when prisoners are released. The Scottish Government has established a victims task force, which is considering how victims can receive more timely information and have a stronger voice in decisions that affect them. That includes work by the Scottish Prison Service and Victim Support Scotland, which, from 1 May this year, enables victims of life sentence offenders to make representations in person to a member of the Scottish Prison Service. On the first occasion, the prisoner is considered for temporary release. Prior to that, representations were only able to be made in writing. It has now been over eight months, 36 weeks to the day, in fact, since the justice secretary promised concrete action on temporary release during my member's debate on Michelle's law. In that time, there has been zero action. Indeed, I have a copy of the letter that the Stewart family has written to the justice secretary, saying that, despite his promises, they have had no updates and they are still encountering confusion and miscommunication. Minister, information and support are not enough. I ask the minister when will the cabinet secretary honour his promise to Michelle Stewart's family and deliver a specific requirement for the prison service to take victim welfare into account, publish reasons for release decisions, representations in person for victims and families and more use of exclusion zones. Minister. I thank the member for raising that. I believe that the letter that he has referred to was dated, was it this week, was it the 15th of May, something like that. Obviously, the cabinet secretary will respond to that letter in a timely fashion when he returns from his paternity leave. In terms of the asks that were set out in the Michelle's law campaign, the Government is undertaking a range of actions about improving the support for victims and a number of the things that the member has mentioned. Specifically, on welfare of victims, the parole consultation, which we published on 19 December, focused on proposals to improve the openness and transparency of parole and how to strengthen victims' voices in the parole process. That is in line with the commitment that we made in our programme for government. I also move on to the point that the member made about exclusion zones. As he will no doubt be aware, the management of offenders bill, which has just concluded stage 2 in Parliament, will improve the electronic monitoring capabilities that are available in Scotland. The introduction of GPS tagging will mean that exclusion zones for people being monitored on particular licences and orders will then be able to be monitored in new ways. The Scottish Government has made clear its intention to work very closely with a number of justice partners. That includes the third sector and victims' groups, both in developing these pilots in technology and in improving things such as exclusion zones and welfare of victims, in the case that the member has raised. In the situation that she has outlined and indeed in other situations, can the minister outline what the Scottish Government is doing to support victims of crime over the longer term? The Scottish Government has a positive record in strengthening the rights of victims and witnesses and the support that is available to them. In 2019-20, we are providing £18 million to support victims of crime, including to third sector organisations who provide practical and emotional support to victims and their families. That includes £4.6 million to Victim Support Scotland, which is part of a three-year funding package totaling £13.8 million over the period 2018-21. Victim Support Scotland community-based victim services help people affected by crime to access information, practical help, emotional support and guidance as they go through the criminal justice system. They also provide support to enable victims and witnesses to cope better in the aftermath of a crime and to find the strength to move on with their lives. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that community payback orders are fully completed. Delivering community payback orders and ensuring completion of those orders is the responsibility of the relevant local authority. Seventy per cent of orders are successfully completed as reported in criminal justice social work statistics for 2017-18, and individuals will have cases reviewed in court if the progress is not satisfactory. Around 7 million hours of unpaid work have been carried out since community payback orders were introduced, delivering real benefits for communities. Updated CPO practice guidance was published in January, and that supports effective practice and reiterates the importance of successful completion. The Scottish Government is working with national and local partners, including Community Justice Scotland, to help to ensure that orders are implemented as effectively as possible. Funding of more than £100 million for justice social work supports effective delivery of community sentences, which have helped to achieve a 19-year low in reconviction rates. The latest facts show that a shocking three-in-ten community payback orders go ignored. Those are real offenders who have committed serious crimes going unpunished in the Scottish National Party's watch. How can the Scottish National Party Government justify its plans to take thousands more criminals on to these orders when they are currently failing to deliver? Community payback orders are not just abandoned. Seventy per cent of orders are successfully completed, and individuals will have cases reviewed in court if progress is not satisfactory. The court will determine the most appropriate next action, including a custodial disposal or another order. We expect local authorities, who are responsible for compliance, to prioritise their completion. Cpo's are a robust option, focused on paying back to communities, and we know that they work. Individuals who are released from a custodial sentence of 12 months or less are reconvicted almost twice as often as those who are given a Cpo. I would say to the member that we know that the Conservatives, at least, are looking to Scotland at our smart justice model, specifically in terms of the fact that short-term sentences are not effective and community payback orders are smart justice evidence-led alternative to custody. Can I ask members not to have conversations while either other members are asking questions or the minister is responding? Keith Brown? The Scottish Tories claim that Scottish Government prison reforms will mean 10,000 serious criminals are back on the street. I don't know if that came from the Tory minister for a number of say or somebody else, but it's not only a ludicrous false statement being greater than the entire prison population across Scotland. It's at odds with the position of their colleagues in Westminster, so does the minister think that it's important to point out that the justice secretary, David Gawke, is on record supporting our smart justice approach of extending a presumption against ineffective short sentences? I do. I want a smarter justice system that reduces repeat crime by providing robust community alternatives to ineffective short prison sentences supporting offenders to turn away from crime for good. Not my words, but the words of the Conservative justice secretary, David Gawke, which he said in Today's Guardian. Extending their presumption against short sentences in Scotland will help to ensure that prison is only used where the judiciary decided it is necessary, having considered the alternatives available to them. The presumption that we were discussing earlier is not a ban, but it is part of a broader, preventative approach to reducing victimisation, which has contributed to a 19-year low in reconviction rates. To ask the Scottish Government how many divisional police officers there are. The Scottish Government does not publish statistics on the number of divisional police officers in Scotland, but the latest figures published by Police Scotland show that there were 1,495 officers providing national support, 3,157 officers deployed across the three policing regions, and 12,599 officers in our local divisions. Those resources ensure that Police Scotland has a core complement of officers who are always dedicated locally to community and response policing. They can then additionally draw on specialist expertise and resources to support local policing, providing the right people in the right place at the right time to keep people safe and meet the needs of our communities. The latest police officer quarterly strength statistics were published on 7 May, and they show that there are 17,251 police officers in Scotland, and that was on 31 March this year. I thank the minister for her response. The latest figures show that Nicola Sturgeon's Government is continuing to dismantle front-line local policing. Divisional officers, who are the ones patrolling our streets and responding to our calls, have dropped by over 400 since the SNP created Police Scotland. Isn't it time that local policing was restored, rather than the more SNP centralisation? The operational deployment of police officers is a matter for the chief constable and the deputy chief constable, Will Kerr, who leads on local policing, reported to the Scottish Police Authority on 6 May that the 360 police officers in the Brexit national reserve would return to normal duties—I believe that that is the officer that the member is referring to—that they would return to their normal duties, including local policing, by 10 May. That should already have occurred. DCC Kerr highlighted that, in addition to policing Brexit-related events, the national reserve officers had shown significant personal flexibility in assisting with a range of events across our communities, including missing person cases, high-profile football matches and merger inquiries. On the wider point of police numbers, it is quite unbelievable that a Conservative member should come to this chamber and try to score points about police numbers. Since 2007, police numbers have fallen by almost 20,000 in England and Wales, where, of course, the Conservatives are in power. If police numbers in Scotland had been cut at the same rate that the Conservatives have cut police numbers down south, we would have just 14,000 police officers in Scotland. That is 3,000 fewer police officers, 3,000 police officers on our streets and 3,000 police officers in our communities. The SNP Government is investing in police numbers, be that nationally or locally. To ask the Scottish Government how much police numbers have risen over the last year. The Scottish Government has been clear that quarterly strength statistics published on 7 May show that there was an increase to 17,251 police officers in Scotland, and that was of the 30th of March, which is an increase of 81 police officers in the last year. I used to be. Police numbers are up. Crime is at record low. There is a remarkable achievement considering the substantial Tory cuts to the Holyrood's budget. In contrast, police numbers have been slashed in England by the Tories. Will the cabinet secretary join with me in calling for the UK Government to fund fully any policing costs associated with its Brexit omnishambles, particularly fallen reports that up to 400 police officers could be deployed to help to handle the aftermath of crashing out of the EU without a deal? I would. The Scottish Government has been clear that the costs relating to EU exit should not have a detrimental impact on Scotland's public finances. We have written to the Chancellor outlining that any additional costs related to the policing of Brexit should fall to the UK Government. Where additional policing costs have been incurred, wholly due to EU exit-related preparations, we have committed to ensuring that those costs are met. In parallel, we will continue to pursue the costs of EU exit with the UK Government. If I take any supplementaries, they will be after all three questions that are grouped together. To ask the Scottish Government how many police officers are currently deployed in Ayrshire and how that compares with May 2007. The Scottish Government do not publish statistics on the number of police officers deployed in Ayrshire, but the latest figures published by Police Scotland show that there were 826 officers in the Ayrshire division. Supported by 1,512 officers deployed across the west region and 1,495 officers providing support nationally. Those resources ensure that Police Scotland has a core complement of officers who are always dedicated locally to community and response policing, and they can then additionally draw on specialist expertise and resources to support local policing, providing the right people in the right place at the right time to keep people safe and meet the needs of our communities. The latest police officer quarterly strength statistics were published on 7 May, and they show that there are 17,251 police officers in Scotland. I thank the minister for that answer, and it is quite clear that Ayrshire has benefited from the additional police numbers provided by this Government, as opposed to the situation that we have in England, where there are thousands and thousands of fewer police officers. Can the minister say what the impact of the additional officers has been on crime levels in Ayrshire? Between 2008-09 and 2017-18, the volume of crimes recorded by the police in Ayrshire fell by 39 per cent, from 25,641 to 15,696 crimes. That compares with an equivalent fall of 35 per cent across Scotland as a whole during the same period. Focusing on Scotland, as we are supposed to do, local front-line divisional officers are down by more than 400 since last year. Those are Police Scotland's figures. Does she accept that fact? Yes or no? As I explained in a previous answer to one of the member's colleagues, there are 360, or at that point when that information was provided. There were 360 police officers that had been taken from local policing and moved into a national reserve for Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, which the Conservative Government is imposing on Scotland against our will. In order to be prepared, that had happened. At the point that Brexit preparedness has been stepped down a level, because we are not imminently facing a no-deal scenario, those police officers would then be moved back into their normal rotation, which takes a number of weeks, and that will follow through. Overall, the police numbers in Scotland are up. They are up 81 over the last year. They are the highest number and much and higher than any time during the previous administration, even prior to 2007. Question 5, Richard Lyle. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review how children's interests are best served by family courts. The Scottish Government consulted last year on a review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. That is the key legislation in relation to parental responsibilities and rights and contact and residence. The programme for government announced that there will be a family law bill. One of the aims of the family law bill will be to ensure that the child's best interests are at the centre of family court cases. Richard Lyle. I welcome the comments made by the cabinet secretary and thank him for that answer. Having to go to family court can be stressful for all. Family courts should try and look at the bigger picture and try to ensure that children's needs are met. Too often, it is lawyer against lawyer with the family in the middle, with legal bills mounting, one party blaming the other. How can we improve that system to make sure that it is less stressful and, most of all, ensure that family contact centres are also regulated? I recognise the seriousness of the issues that Mr Lyle raises and the importance in our response to the type of information that he has raised that we put the child at the centre of all decision making in how those matters are handled. That fits with the wider agenda to put the child at the centre of all of our decision making, whether it is around education, whether it is around the justice system, whether it is around the health and well-being of young people and children into the bargain. I am very much aware of the research that demonstrates that court action in relation to contact and residence can be a stressful experience for children and families. As part of the family justice modernisation strategy, the Minister for Community Safety will look specifically to improve guidance for parties attending court. One of the key aims of the forthcoming family law bill is to ensure that the best interests of the child are always put at the centre of that legislation. We sought views on the regulation of child contact centres as part of the consultation on the review of the Children's Scotland Act 1995. Consultation responses were strongly in favour of regulation, and we will take those views on board when considering the areas that will be included in the forthcoming family law bill. To ask the Scottish Government how its new victim support service will help the families of victims of crime and the families of people involved in fatal accidents and sudden deaths. Victim support Scotland's new service is providing dedicated and continuous support for families bereaved by murder or culpable homicide. We recognise that other victims might benefit from that type of support, and so we are going to work with partners to ensure that lessons learned from the development of the new service will inform any future changes to its scope. In 2019-20, we are providing £18 million to help victims, including to third sector organisations who provide practical, emotional and financial assistance. The victims task force is also considering ways to improve end-to-end support throughout the criminal justice process and beyond. Willie Coffey I thank the minister for that answer. Over the years, I have had many local cases where families have lost a loved one and have said that the level of support provided to them was limited or did not happen at all. Can she give me an assurance that the immediate families who do lose a loved one know exactly what help is available locally, that they can access that support for as long as they might need it and, in so doing, help them in their own journey of recovery? We are taking a range of actions to ensure that victims are at the centre of our justice system, and through our investment, Victim Support Scotland provided free and confidential support to more than 50,000 victims of crime in 2017-18. The new service for families, bereaved by murder and culpable homicide, builds on that support to provide a designated key worker to help the family with a range of issues such as understanding the prosecution process, attending court and so on. I would say to the member that if he has any specific cases that he would like to follow up, either I or the Cabinet Secretary for Justice would be happy to meet him and to take those up with him at that point. Thank you very much, and at that point we will conclude portfolio questions. We will move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on the impact of Brexit on Scotland's food and drink, but we will just take a few moments for the minister and members and others to change seats.


Okay let's take a look at sprouts. Amazing thing sprouts. I mean you know one of the big considerations with them is they take up so little space and provide such an abundance of nutrients and they are actually incredibly easy to do yourself. Granted some things seeds grain sprout more readily than others but it is an easily achievable thing to do. So let's take a look at some of their virtues. Firstly what are sprouts? They are seeds that have germinated and put out shoots so they are in that very early stage of growth and you can sprout seeds grains and legumes quite a range of them. Why they are so beneficial is because at this stage of growth they have got a really high concentration of nutrients so vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, enzymes and you know if you look at that little table there there is an abundance of things that you can consider sprouting. Okay before we look at the energetics and composition of the sprouts I just want to draw your attention to the little text box up the top of the slide and there is a link there that you can follow to the website of the Sproutman. In fact you will probably have to copy and paste that link into your browser. The Sproutman which you would imagine by the name is a chap who is very involved in all things sprouting so there is some really interesting and helpful information on the website and the Sproutman you know started up his sprouting business back in the 70s and has continued. He very sadly died in a car accident a few years ago but his sons have carried on his sprouting legacy and there really is some very interesting information on there. So if you want to get into sprouting it is a good go-to place. So looking at the energetics not surprisingly the cooling you know we have got a kind of watery quite high concentration water food and along with things like the wheat grass etc has the cooling energetics. Now different sprouts have varied nutritional profiles but in general sprouts tend to be high in protein and really quite you know given the smallness of the sprout really quite significant amounts of protein magnesium phosphorus manganese various vitamins including vitamin C vitamin K chlorophyll is that green component there antioxidants and fiber. So remember that sprouting increases protein concentration so in particular the essential amino acids and this is where you can consider you can look at a sprout and think oh it looks quite insignificant but you can sprout grains like wheat for example use a good organic wheat grain and sprout it and make a seed bread out of it which is a lovely kind of moist bread-like texture really delicious doesn't even need anything on it you can eat it as it is or you can toast it and yet it's it's simply made from sprouted grain it's amazing stuff so there's all sorts of recipes available. Sprouting also sort of bypasses some of the naturally occurring don't really like the term but we call them anti-nutrients such as phytates and and tannins so when you're sprouting you know grains and legumes and nuts typically contain you know reasonable levels of phytates at least not so much tannins now why I said I don't like calling them anti-nutrients is because it makes them sound like they're really bad and they're not. Phytates actually have some beneficial properties in their own right they're they're antioxidants likewise tannins antioxidant they can help improve if there's leaky gut problems help with because they help to bind proteins help with that mucus membrane linking so you know they can have some real health benefits the why they're referred to as anti-nutrients is that because they really like binding to things they tend to bind to minerals like calcium and iron and food so they can decrease the absorption of those minerals now the point to that is that you you don't not ever eat foods that contain phytates and tannins it's just that you think well I'll have a mix of foods and I won't necessarily include them at every meal also in some of your other lectures you'll find out about specific ways to prepare grains and etc to reduce that phytate content in the meantime sprouts are naturally reduced and so what that means is that the other nutrients in the sprout can be more readily utilized if you enjoyed this video please give it a like and subscribe below so you don't miss any future content to learn more about CNM or its courses head to www.naturopathy-uk.com


Welcome back to our look at the Supreme Court's 1999-2000 term. In this second part of the program, we'll turn to criminal law and procedure, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment cases, cases involving elements of the offense, cases involving trial rights, and sentencing. Lori Levinson of Loyola University Law School and Erwin Chimerinsky of the University of Southern California Law School are back to discuss cases under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Erwin, let's start with Dickerson V.U.S., which involved this long dormant, or I guess never used as a matter of fact, 1968 federal statute passed two years after Miranda that said the confessions in federal court were admissible if they were voluntary. Now, this got a lot of press, but the question is, does it really change things for federal judges? Nothing changes federal judges because the Supreme Court reaffirmed Miranda versus Arizona. The law is the same as it's been for the last 34 years. As you pointed out, it involves a man by the name of Dickerson who was indicted for bank robbery, made incriminating statements to an FBI agent. Dickerson's lawyer made a suppression motion saying that Miranda warnings weren't properly given, and the district court agreed and excluded the confession. The United States government appealed solely on the issue of whether or not the Miranda warnings were properly given. But a conservative public interest group filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit, which had argued that this non-used federal statute, part of the Honors Crime Control Act of 1968, 18 United States Code 3501, provides the confession should be admitted so long as they're voluntary. The Fourth Circuit accepted an invitation, applied the law, and admitted the confession. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision reversed the Fourth Circuit. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the court. Chief Justice Rehnquist said, Miranda is a constitutional rule, so Congress cannot overrule it. The Supreme Court then went on and said that it was reaffirming Miranda v. Arizona. Chief Justice Rehnquist said, Miranda is deeply embedded in police procedure and the popular culture, and the Supreme Court would not overrule it. That was not the view of Justice Scalia, who wrote a very, really bitter dissent. Explain what the issue was as far as he saw it. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent. He disagreed that Miranda is a constitutional rule. In fact, he said virtually every member of the court in some prior decision had said that Miranda is not a constitutional rule. In the court, this term said it is a constitutional rule, so that's settled. Thanks very much. Laurie, we've had in the last two programs cases come to us, come to the court that we've discussed that have risen under the independent counsel statute. And so to this year, the court heard USV Hubble, which grew out of a use immunity. I gather that the independent counsel can start granted to Webster Hubble, and then they proceeded to try him on some of the information that he had provided. This is going to have a big effect on prosecutors anyway. Explain the case for us. I think it will have a significant impact, at least in that white collar crime area, because what happened here is that the independent counsel issued these very broad subpoenas to Hubble for 11 categories of documents and said, you tell us what fits these categories. What he said is I'm not going to tell you without some Fifth Amendment protection, and he went to the grand jury, asserted the Fifth Amendment, and then they went to the court and got statutory immunity. Once he had that statutory immunity, he turned over over 13,000 documents, and that's what the independent prosecutor used to build his case. What the Supreme Court said is those documents and the use of them was immunized, because the aspect of sorting out what complied with the subpoena was testimonial. Moreover, the documents themselves had derivative use immunity, and that's the new addition by the court, something I think that will change the practices of federal prosecutors, at least in the area of white collar crime. What do you see as the impact of this for prosecutors, and also how are the courts going to see the impact? Well, for the federal prosecutors, I think right now they really have to narrow their subpoenas, you know, those subpoenas for the grand jury. For the courts, it's most likely they're going to see more requests for statutory immunity, as well as a possibility of more search warrants in federal cases, in white collar cases. Okay, thanks a lot. Let's go from a complicated case to a fairly simple one. This is the other Purcurium, Flippo v. West Virginia, and here the court basically just reasserted fairly well-established law. Right, I mean, this was really a straightforward case. The question here is whether there was a general crime scene exception for searches, or whether you needed a warrant. And in this situation, the police were called out. There was a woman who had been killed, her husband had been injured, they did a lengthy investigation, and during the investigation they found a briefcase right on the table. They went ahead without a warrant and opened the briefcase and found some incriminating photos against the husband. What the court said is, you can't do that. There's no general crime scene exception to the warrant requirement, even for murder crime scenes. And if the police could fit into one of the standard exceptions, like plain view or exigent circumstances, that's fine, but there's no general exception. And nothing new here really in this decision? Not really. Let's go from a nine to nothing Purcurium to a five to four decision. It was rather closely watched. This case arose out of an incident in western part of Chicago when Sam Wardlaw, seeing the police patrolling the streets in this high crime area, took off running. And the police spotted an opaque bag which turned out to contain a firearm. A gun. Now, now, amici on both sides of this issue sought a per se rule that running always justified a terry stop or running never justified a terry stop. But the court didn't adopt a per se rule in either case. What did it say? What the court said is what it's been saying. Let's go back to the totality of the circumstances rule. And the court rejected the idea that whenever you had unprovoked flight, that would be enough to do a terry stop. And also rejected that it's never enough. What the court said is, let's give the discretion to the experienced police officer to put that into the mix of factors. The court said it was okay to do the terry stop when you had a high crime area plus unprovoked flight. But the court didn't necessarily say whether the frisk itself was okay. Here what you've got is high crime area and flight. I wonder about the next case. Imagine it's flight in a wealthy area, say a predominantly white suburb. The dissent here said the neighborhood was predominantly African-American. If that difference matters, is the court opening the door to allowing racial profiling? What might this case even mean for racial profiling that whole debate? You know, we really don't know. As the dissent pointed out in this case where you have a high crime area, you're likely to have a high poverty area and a high minority area. So if the court does not allow these searches in very affluent areas, it really would open the door to the racial profiling. Okay, thanks very much, Lori. Irwin, another case that started with the terry stop involved the sufficiency of a tip. This is the case from Florida involving a minor labeled JL in the style of the case. There was a tip that a certain individual would be at a certain place and would have a gun and turn out to be true. But none of nothing in the court said that's enough basis for a search. This did involve the Miami police receiving an anonymous tip over the phone that an African-American teenage male wearing a plaid shirt was at a bus stop and had a concealed weapon. Based on that, the police went and did a stop and frisk and found the weapon. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the anonymous tip was not sufficient to create reasonable suspicion. Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the court. She emphasized that there was no corroboration here beyond just the physical description. She said it's too easy for anybody to call the police, give a physical description of somebody else and say that person has a weapon and for the police then to harass that individual. An anonymous tip by itself without corroboration just isn't enough. And the concurrence plays out various hypotheticals that might justify the tip but this tip, this tip was not enough. That's right. Let's go on and move from stops to luggage. This is a federal case. Sam Bond was on an interstate bus and the Border Patrol stopped it as a cross from one state to the other. And evidently went through a practice that's fairly common and that has split the circuits. They walked down the aisles of the bus and felt the luggage above all the passengers and when they got to Bond's seat, they found a bag and they could feel something heavy. Asked a search, it turned out to be drugs. And the question was, is that good enough to let this evidence in? The court 7-2 said no, it wasn't. Chief Justice Rank was wrote for the court. Chief Justice Rank said, when we travel, we expect that our luggage would be handled. We don't expect that our luggage will be manipulated or probed by law enforcement officials. The Supreme Court said, such tactile probing, such manipulation of luggage, is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Erwin, is it really all that straightforward though? I mean, what's the difference between the touch, which the court says is okay, and the manipulation that's not okay? I mean, do federal judges now have to be sort of squeeze experts? Justice Breyer, in his sense, that this case is going to lead to a jurisprudence of squeezing. And I'm sure we'll be talking about the jurisprudence of squeezing in other cases. Well, thanks very much, Erwin. Thank you, Lori. Lori and I will be back in a moment. Now cases about offense elements and sentencing, trial rights, and supervisory lease. Lori, you're the whole show for this next section. Let's start out with a couple of cases involving the elements of the offense. The first one is Carter v. U.S. This is a five to four decision implicating, I guess, a fairly common occurrence in federal courts where Carter was indicted under the bank robbery statute, but he asked for a jury instruction under the bank larceny. And the court said no, he couldn't have that instruction. That's right. What the court said is the bank robbery statute 2113A does not necessarily have as a lesser included crime bank larceny under the B section. And the reason Justice Thomas said that is look at the elements of the crime. Bank larceny, in fact, has three additional elements that bank robbery doesn't have, things like the intent to steal and the amount of the value that is taken. And just looking at the language of the statute, the court said you don't get the instruction because it's not a lesser included crime. Well, would you comment on the dissent because Justice Ginsburg's dissent, I think, brings out these two methods of analysis, the one the court accepted and the one it rejected. That's right. But what the dissent says is, look, we know how we got these different statutes. It comes from the common law and that common law, bank larceny, was a lesser included of the bank robbery. But the court rejects that the majority, they say, no, we're not going to look at this history. What we're going to look at is the text of the statute. So, now the situations, read the statute, don't worry about how it got to be that way. That's what the court's doing. Now, another elements case, which is similar to ones we've been seeing in the last couple of terms, is this case of Castile versus the United States, which grew out of the Branch Davidian incident in Waco. Castile was charged with murder, but under the same statute, firearms, a prong, he was also indicted for possession of a firearm. The statute, though, allowed for sentencing enhancements, in his case, 30 years for a machine gun versus five years simply for possession of a firearm. The court didn't have too much trouble with that, nine to nothing. No, the court didn't. What the court said is, really, this is just an enhancement, this is a separate crime. When you're increasing the penalty for five years to 30 years, really what you have is a separate crime. And the court started out by looking at the language of the statute. That wasn't all that helpful, but really what the court said is, this is the type of factual finding we want and can have jurors make, which was a machine gun use. And also, the increase in the sentence, I think, made a great deal of difference to the court. So instead of this now being from five to 30, now instead of a judge after the conviction in a preponderance of the evidence sentencing determination, whether this is a machine gun, you're going to give it to the jury, charge it, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. What's going to be the practical impact of this decision in federal courts now? I think the practical impact is that when you see these large sentence enhancements, the defendants are going to be saying that these, in fact, are separate crimes that have to be pled to the jury and prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's talk about a state case that involved the same basic question. This is this case of Apprendi v. New Jersey wherein Apprendi pled guilty to a firearms violation. But then the prosecutor came in after the plea and said he also violated the hate crime statute in New Jersey. He'd shot into the home of a neighbor who was an African-American. And the judge agreed but the Supreme Court, and this was a lot closer, the Supreme Court said no. Yeah, this case could have significant impact. Justice Stevens tries to couch his holding in very narrow terms by saying whenever you have an enhancement that does not include the use of prior convictions that involve taking the crime above the statutory maximum, that something has to be pled and proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But really what this opens up is the question of whenever you have mandatory minimums or other types of sentencing enhancements, do we now have to charge those and prove them? And the impact is going to be, you think, on federal and state schemes? Well, certainly on state schemes where you don't already have to charge them and prove them, or where the state schemes don't have very high maximums where the judge is just exercising discretion within the maximum. For the federal sentencing guidelines, we're a bit up in the air. The Justice Department right now is looking at this issue to see which types of enhancements it might impact. I don't know that it'll have that much impact in the white collar area but in the drug area it very well could be. And in terms of the types of enhancements, we're not quite sure yet. Which ones go to the characteristics of the crime and which ones are just enhancements, such as the level of participation in the crime, the amount of drug that's used, all of those might be coming back to the federal courts. For one thing, this might turn out to be retroactive and we really could see a flood of habeas petitions to the court. Well let's make it clear though, this decision by itself is not retroactive. We don't know yet. This decision doesn't determine whether it's retroactive. All this decision says is when you have an enhancement and it takes you over the statutory maximum, the judge does not decide that by a preponderance it's an issue for the jury. And so we'll wait to see, I guess, the Department of Justice's instructions to its prosecutors and that will clarify things a bit. And then we'll wait to see if the court declares this decision to be retroactive and applies it to earlier cases. Right, I think we'll see some litigation coming down the pike on this one. Well we'll watch for it. Let's turn from elements of the offense to what I guess someone called trial strategy. We'll talk about the judicial aspects of various kinds of trial strategy and start with this case of Maria Oler who was indicted for bringing drugs in from Mexico. The government sought in an inluminy motion to admit evidence of her past convictions. She objected, she lost. And so then I guess her lawyer said well let's just let's just bring it out in direct examination and maybe we'll take the sting out of it. But then she sought to appeal the the the decision on the motion to let the evidence in in the first place. And the court said you couldn't do that. No the court said look she had a tough strategy call to make. Once the court said that it did a trial court that the prosecutors could use this evidence she could take the stand and introduce it ahead of time. But if she did that she waived the right to appeal the issue. And that's really what it came down to. I think it's a bit of an extension of the loose decision. That there are tough tactical decisions that offense has to make. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. Well there's another tough decision that that the lawyers make all the time of course in selecting jurors. And that comes up in our next case, this case involving Abel Martini's Salizar. He objected to he asked the trial judge to excuse a juror for cause. Trial judge did not do so. Government later conceded that was error. But as far as the lawyers for Martini Salizar were concerned they had to get rid of this person they thought. So they use one of their peremptories. But then they said an appeal that he was denied due process because he had to use one of his peremptories he shouldn't have had to have used. But Justice Ginsburg for the court a unanimous court said no. No the court said it's not a due process violation. It's not a rule 24 violation. It's another strategy called by the defense. They could take their chances not to excuse that juror and then wait and see if they went on appeal. But if they want to use their peremptory to cure what they saw as an error by the trial judges ruling on a challenge for cause then basically they waive the issue on appeal. So they have a choice to make. Justice Ginsburg said a hard choice is not the same as no choice and that's what was involved here. Yes. Let's talk about this case of Portuandu Portuandu versus Agard. Here Agard objected this is a case that came to the court on habeas. Agard objected because the prosecutor in summing up at the end of this criminal trial commented on the obvious fact that he'd been there throughout the trial and was able if you wish to to tailor his testimony. The the defense objected that this basically deprived him or limited burdened his his fifth and sixth amendment rights. But the court did not agree. No the court rejected that. Basically what the court did is say look this is not the same as a griffin error. That's what the defense tried to argue. Under griffin the prosecution is not allowed to use against the defendant the exercise of the right not to testify in a trial. The defense argued here they're using against me my right to be at the trial in fact under the state law the obligation to be at the trial. And the court said that's not true. All that the prosecution doing is accommodating on the obvious that you sat through this testimony and could tailor your testimony and that it was not a violation of the rights. What's going to be the practical effect on this one? Well I think you're going to see a little bit of what's good for the goose is good for the gander that the defense counsel in turn are going to comment on the fact that case agents sit with the prosecutor throughout the trial and that you can't believe their testimony either. And likewise I think that defense counsel in closing arguments will try to explain it's my client's right to be here during the trial and even ask for some jury instructions on it. Ask the judge to clarify the issue for the jury. We'll watch all that develop. Let's turn to this case of Ramdas versus Angeloni. This was a came to the court on habeas and it indicates how the court regards the state court decision interpreting one of its precedents in this case Simmons versus South Carolina. Now Ramdas was convicted of a capital case and he asked the judge to instruct the capital jury that he was parole and eligible. But the Virginia Supreme Court said that one of his prior convictions that would have kicked in that three strikes law was not final. The jury had convicted him but the judge hadn't entered judgment. So here we have the the court assessing whether or not the Virginia Supreme Court's decision was reasonable. What did it say? It said that it was and it was interesting because as we'll see it applied the new habeas standard it's clarified in another case. Bottom line here is what the court said is the prosecutors could use in arguing during the penalty phase that this person was a future danger based upon these other convictions but because they were not final the defense was not entitled to that Simmons instruction that he was in ineligible for parole. And in this situation there might have been a better argument that in fact that's the case because there were mechanisms he could still file a motion for a new trial. On the other hand Justice O'Connor notes that if all it is is the ministerial act of saying that the judgment is final then really the Simmons instruction should be given. Although Justice O'Connor concurred here Justice Stevens dissented called it grossly unfair. That's right just because of the practical impact and don't forget this is a capital case and the question is when a jury may be confused in the penalty phase what instruction do you give? That's why I think it's important that the court looked to whether the state court had been unreasonable in its interpretation and application of Simmons and it said it had not. And when we get to the habeas part of the program we'll explore a little more what this standard is all about. One final case I want to mention real briefly is US versus Johnson there were two US versus Johnson this one involved supervised release and here Johnson had served a period of incarceration and then part of that sentence was vacated so the practical effect was he'd served more time than his proper sentence so he went to the trial judge and said well why don't you knock that off my supervised release sentence and the trial judge refused to do so court of appeals reversed but the supreme court agreed with the trial court based partly on his reading of the statute just the supervised release statute and its words but also because supervised release is its own sentence with its own purpose the court said it was not to be tampered with just because of this overage that the Johnson had served. Right I think we're going to see more supervised release coming before the court because you have many people who've been sentenced to that and they're now coming under those supervised release provisions. So this will become a part of our our staple of cases. Thanks very much Laurie. For additional thoughts on how some of the cases we've been reviewing will affect the work of federal judges let's go to a discussion I had recently with Judge Fern Smith. Judge Smith was appointed United States district judge for the northern district of California in 1988 and came to Washington in 1999 as director of the federal judicial center. Judge Smith thanks for coming by to talk for a while about these criminal procedure cases this term. My pleasure. Let's start with some search and seizure cases okay every term has them this term was no exception and again there's a dearth of per se rules no per se rules and that we see that in the first case Illinois v ward law where the police sustained a search incident to a Terry stop of an individual who was in a high crime area and when he saw the police he ran the chief justice went to great pains to say we had to rely on the officer's common sense about what gave rise to reasonable suspicion that there were no empirical studies here to evaluate behavior with that being the case where does it leave the trial judge attempting to figure out what factors are enough to justify a search well I think it leaves the trial judges pretty much where they were before I think it's appropriate that there's no per se rule the supreme court did uphold the trial court's finding that it was a high crime area and found that that's a factor worth considering on the other hand they were pretty clear that that in and of itself is not enough to sustain a stop in this case there were two additional factors one that the defendant had been nervous and evasive when the police approached and then had run which they found indicative of suspicious behavior and those three things together were sufficient to justify it I would also add that I think the dissent didn't really disagree with the principle simply found the record insufficient in this particular case and in either in either case uh you said there were three factors here but there's no rule the three factors are the number of factors you need no there's no numerical rule and there's no way to tell what factor is weighted in what particular order or what particular degree well then assessing the behavior of the police and the reliability of the decisions they made what's the obligation of the trial judge to establish a very good record I think and make clear that the court of appeals understands how the trial court got to where it got and I think even to the point of getting involved in the questioning of witnesses directly if the record isn't complete enough in the judge's mind there's no jury there so there's no reason the judge shouldn't take an assertive stand in getting involved and making a record right let's turn to another case this one was in florida this involved a tip and the tip was that tip to the police said you will find a young black man wearing a certain kind of shirt standing in front of a certain store and he will have a gun which turned out to be the case but the court was not willing to sustain that search just as genberg said it lacked the minor indicia of reliability necessary to sustain a search based on a tip uh what does that leave the judge well again I think here you had one factor and one only an anonymous tip justice kennedy made the point that it wouldn't have taken too much to change the balance and specifically mentioned for example if the person making the tip had indicated some predictive behavior which then the young man had followed or if the voice of the person making the tip were familiar those factors might have been enough then to change that balance that appears to be quite delicate what if uh what if the young man had run when he saw the police well again I think you put that in the war law situation then um and that is obviously now an acceptable factor to consider with those two have been enough maybe in any case make a record absolutely let's turn from searches of persons to searches of luggage in this federal case a bond the bond case bond was traveling on a bus and he had his luggage in the rack above his seat the bus stopped for a border patrol search and the border patrol agents as I guess fairly typical went down the aisle and felt felt each piece of luggage and in bonds luggage they felt enough to just to make them want to investigate further and found drugs just as bryer descended this was a seven to two case chief justice writing the pretty and just as bryer said we're going to invite in a jurisprudence of squeezes and he argued against that so where does again where does this leave the court do you think he's right about that well he may well be in any event it's a very catchy phrase but i'm not sure that that's all bad i think anytime the trial court has a great deal of discretion it's because there are a number of unanswered questions and a number of equations that can change the balance i think some of the questions raised here will shake out over time is checked luggage different than carry on luggage is hard sided luggage different than soft sided transparent different than opaque the court mentioned several times that this luggage was right above the owner what happens if you get on a bus and the rack above you is full so you put your luggage seven rows back does that change your expectation of privacy i think only time and the jurisprudence of the different circuits will give us the answers to those questions well we'll just watch how this evolves and of course the jurisprudence of the circuits is pretty important in this case it is i think in any of these cases involving judicial discretion you do get more play among the circuits and we'll just have to watch and see what happens we'll do that and see how many we talk about next time at next year at this time let's turn to trial process all right one case point of wonder versus agar where agar the defendant complained that his fifth and sixth amendment rights to be president to confront his witnesses and his 14th amendment to process rights were violated because the prosecutor called the jury's attention to the fact that agar had sat through the entire trial listened to the testimony of other witnesses and if he wanted to could change his testimony to comport with that the court said true enough but this did not rise to any level of constitutional violation what obligation is that put on trial judges assuming other prosecutors do this i don't know that it puts an obligation on trial judges the court having said that this is not improper on the other hand i think as just as stevens pointed out there's nothing that would prohibit a trial judge from instructing the jury either at the beginning of the case or at the end of the case that the defendant does have a constitutional right to be in the courtroom and explaining why that is and and going from there anything at the end of the trial well i think if he hasn't or she hasn't instructed the beginning that you could wait and see if the prosecutor raises this issue and if so give a curative instruction at that time or simply give it as part of your closing instruction what about telling the prosecutor before trial in the pre-trial conference the prosecutor's not to do this well again just as stevens mentioned that as a possibility i think a lot of trial judges would be reluctant to give that in the face of the supreme court having found that this is not improper and that probably an instruction simply on the defendant's right is a wiser approach okay good enough thanks very much for coming by judge i enjoyed it that concludes the second part of this program we'll take a five minute break and return with part three


Good morning everyone. How's everybody doing this morning? My name is Frank Hanoi. I'm an infrastructure architect for Adobe. I plan on talking a little bit about multi-cloud projects we've been doing at Adobe to get users running in multiple clouds. I'd like just to start by saying thank you to the Linux Foundation for hosting this event. It's great to be here. Great to be able to share this with you guys. Second is thanks to Adobe for actually letting me come.  See the sites, but most importantly, present to you guys. Thank you. Also, I want to say thank you to you. Thanks you guys for being here, being interested in the technology, being wanting to learn more about it. I'm excited to present this to you. I hope that you get some value out of it. Quickly, just want to go through the agenda here. First off, I'm going to talk a little bit about what we were trying to solve as far as the problem goes. Often as technologists, we go out and we see a cool technology out there. We run and start implementing it because it's cool, but we fail to actually understand the problem we wanted to solve. For me as an architect, it's actually pretty critical that I understand that problem. Because not just do I have to understand the technology, I also have to relay to the managers and everybody outside for me why we're doing this, right? And if I tell them, oh, we're using Mezos because it's cool, that just doesn't go very far. So we need to have a reason why we're doing it. So we're going to talk about that. After that, we're going to talk about how ECOS actually helps us in solving this problem. And yes, not Mezos, but ECOS. The fact that some of the pieces that we use out of there. Third, we're going to kind of dive into the actual multi-cloud design, how we actually design this and we're running this on multi-clouds. We'll go piece by piece and kind of work through all of the pieces in there. And then kind of talk about what else I should know. And what this is is really just providing you guys the resources you need to be able to go and read this about yourself. Everything we've done here, there's nothing proprietary, there's nothing secret, it's just everything's out there and open and available to you. So I want to share this with you and you can do a much better job than we ever did. So first of all, kind of talk about what is the problem we wanted to solve. So Adobe is a software company, because I'm sure some of you know, and we have a lot of engineers who create software. Part of that is, you know, the challenge of creating software at a large scale distributed system is actually quite challenging. And so trying to do this right across environments has been a challenge. So when we hire an engineer, usually fresh from school or university, this is how they look at the world, right? They have some idea, they're going to enhance the service, they're going to build a service, they're going to do something cool that's going to be great for the company. They go to their laptop, they write the code, the use of woman pieces in there, open source most probably. And then we start making money, right? So in their mind, this is really what's happening, is I go in, I do my idea, I write on my laptop and I deploy it and we start making money. Closer, is that better? Sorry you guys. So, however, an engineer soon finds out that reality looks like this. He has his idea, right? He's going to implement this and the process happens. There's just a lot of things that he has to go through to get that code out in production. He has to understand what the QE system looks like. He has to understand what the infrastructure looks like. On top of that, add something else, which is multi-cloud and now he has to understand the different services in the different clouds, right? With AWS, with Azure, all of these come from different services. With the data scenario, it functions very differently. There's a lot of nuances. An engineer that never wanted to understand or do this now has to understand to get that code out there. And by the time he finally gets the code out there, it's gone the way of the typewriter, right? This code is really not relevant anymore. He's done all this work. He's gotten excited about this. But he had to go through so much process that by the time he got it out, it was just not relevant. So this is the fundamental problem of what we wanted to solve. So this is the technologies, one of the core technologies that we use is actually Mezos. And we did it on multiple clouds. So how does DCOS help our case here? How does DCOS or Mezos, which is a sub-component as Aaron was talking about earlier, of Mezos is a sub-component of DCOS. How does this all help us? Okay, so we created what we call the Adobe multi-cloud stack. This is a team that we're working on and we figured this is the problem we wanted to solve and this is how we're going to solve it. Once again, we have our developer and he's writing code. But instead of being concerned with all the nuances of clouds and everything else, he only should be concerned with the tools he knows best. So Git to be able to source control his code, Jenkins to be able to build his code, and a spec file. So these are all standard things that he just has to worry about and that's all he needs to worry about to get his code all the way out in production.  That's not something standard, I don't know anything about that. Well, the engineer just has to tell us, hey, I'm writing some software, I want this much resources and I want to run it over here. And instead of submitting a juror ticket to do that or calling somebody or working or having multiple meetings to do that, you can now just put it in a file that actually gets wrapped in the build system. Once that happens, this amazing thing that we can now do using the build system is wrap that code in a container. So the cool thing about this is that with container technology we're able now to take code from a laptop from something else written on an engineer's own workstation and deploy that and move it across different systems. In the past, that used to be very difficult. You were dealing with the engineer writes it on his laptop, it moves to QE and it doesn't work in QE for some reason. Libraries are out of sync in different versions. It moves from QE to production, it doesn't work in production for some reason, same reasons, right? You have to maintain all of these systems and it has to be static systems that is very, very standardized. Very hard to do. Along with container technology, it kind of changed that for us. We're now able to run a container and no matter what system it runs on, it always runs the same. So the excuse of, hey, it worked on my machine, no longer is relevant. Hey, so there we have the platform, right? So we now have a system that was built, code that was built, it was wrapped in a container, a spec file was put around it, and then deployed into a platform. That platform's running BCOS and all of these systems you can guys can see there, there's a Dev cluster, a QE cluster, and a production cluster, all were run that same container. The container will just be promoted through the system. Okay? So it hits Dev, it checks through it, it's promoted to QE, it checks through its production. Well, now that container runs there and you register a shell for something like self-history component. In BCOS, there's actually a good component you can use called MarathonLV. For our system, we use the Ingenit, that's what really matters. Some kind of load balancing component where you can update the configuration automatically services that we say, hey, I have a container ready, I'm ready to access, and I'm ready for the consumer to come into me. This is great, if you look at this, this is actually really awesome. It's very simple, it's very standardized, it enables the developer to build code on his own machine, to deploy that code to the development, QE and production, and then have consumers be able to access that without anyone being involved. There are circuits, there's snow, people coming in saying I have to, BC Ops coming in saying I have to plug this in before you can have your machine and so forth. This is all the way through. So we went up and discussed this and said, okay, this is what we propose building. And everybody was excited and managed and said, yes, go, go build this, this is exactly what we need. Cool, do it. Docker is awesome, MISR is awesome, BCOS is awesome, go do this. And so we went to Ops, our operations component and said, go build this, architects are shade to Ops, let's build this and Ops said, that's great. What about the infrastructure? And we're like, hey, what about the infrastructure? We went to management and they're like, no, no, this is the cloud, you're going to run this in the cloud, there's no infrastructure, just runs, right, it's just the cloud. Nope, the cloud is just somebody else's machine, right, so there's still infrastructure, there's still infrastructure to be concerned about. So we had to think about how are we going to run these clusters abstracted, but with multiple clouds. And as you can see, we're running it on AWS, we're running on Azure, we're running in private. Now I'll skip between pulling in private cloud or data center, same thing for us there. One main component here, operating system is the same, right, running core OS. So as you look right there, you saw we're running it all with these clouds and I thought, but why are you doing that? Why are you running this thing with multiple clouds? Why not just run this in the data center? Or why not just run this in AWS or Azure? Just make up your mind, run it in there and pull it good and be done with it. Why introduce this complexity of multiple clouds? And this is actually a question that a lot of people have been debating over, including us internally, and operations and engineering has an interesting way of doing it. If you ask an engineer why he's doing it in AWS, he's going to tell you it's agile, I don't have to create tickets and I have infrastructure codes. I can actually pull the infrastructure programmatically and build it. That's what I like, I want to do it that way. If you go as OS, why the data center are going to say it's secure, it's cheaper and we have more control. So what ended up happening is very much like this, right? It's very much like this fencing thing, where OPS goes up a little bit in the fences and says, hey, if you do this in the data center, it's going to be more secure and cheaper and engineering comes along and says, hey, if you do it in AWS, it's going to be faster or in Azure or whatever public cloud the flavor of the day is. And so sometimes OPC wins and the service goes out to the private data center, sometimes engineering wins and the service goes out to the public cloud. But never a consistent way of deploying infrastructure to each cloud. You just don't have that story right. You can see how little up there that's the past. Because thanks to Nezos, thanks to BCOS, we can make that story a lot easier now, right? If we run clusters that's abstracted out of the infrastructure like I showed, nobody really cares about the infrastructure except if you're an operator. Then suddenly all you care about is where do I need to run my stuff to run most effectively. And the two main things that comes up is latency and data governance. So if you're thinking about where do I need to run my stuff? Where do I need to run my container as an engineer? In my spec file I can say it's very late and sensitive. I need to be in a location over in Europe. Because of that operations now can take that requirement and run that in the appropriate cloud. There's no more of this fencing, there's no more of this debate going on. This is very standardized questions. Operations and engineering doesn't battle, engineering doesn't care because they know their container is going to go and run where it needs to run most. So that's why multiple clouds make sense. We don't have data centers in every location so we need to use public cloud to get that latency required and data governance required. What I mean by data governance is certain countries wants the data to stay in that country. We also don't always have those requirements on the application. The application can run anywhere and so data center is actually a good choice. Data center is cheaper. We can do a lot more of data center so run it in the data center we can scale it out to the cloud of public cloud if we need to. So at this point it really becomes our ops's way or infrastructure's way or engineering's way. It's all about where latency and data governance is at and we can establish those pieces in there very fast. Now to dig in a little bit. We've kind of just talked about what is the problem that we're trying to solve. We've talked a little bit about this multi-cloud approach and why we've taken a multi-cloud approach. So now we're talking about some of the stuff we can actually do in DCOS in multiple clouds. So as we started our journey and started building this platform that we wanted to do in multiple clouds we actually started looking towards DCOS immediately. So we already were running numerous business clusters we were already very familiar with it but we were only running on a very specific location. We were looking at providing more of a service to the internal company. And so we were looking at DCOS simply because it's very easy to install as Erin mentioned here before. And it's pretty standardized. And the nice thing about DCOS is if you download it it actually comes with pre-cloud installer. It comes with cloud formation template for AWS. So you can actually just go run the template in AWS and it will be able to single node cluster for developer. Or it will build out a multi node cluster for production. It also comes with a ARM template so you can actually go spin it out in Azure as well. Same way. However as we started digging in one of the key tenants that we've had is being able to be standardized and being able to be simple. And DCOS is still a very young project there's still things that needs to be worked on and we're trying to contribute to that as well. However for what we wanted to do there's just a couple of things that we couldn't do with the templates that provided us. So for example on AWS they spin up clusters using CoroAs. On Azure they spin up clusters using Ubuntu. That difference gets away from our standardization rule for infrastructure and so now we have to go make a change and move the Azure one to CoroAs. A couple of the other things that we need to do as well is we would like to for production inject security rules in your security policy. Our own IDM solution and authentication pieces and it makes it very hard to actually do that in here because what you're getting is JSON files you're actually getting those of two JSON files in the back that actually was run and I don't know about you guys but I'm not too fond about writing or modifying JSON files two or three thousand lines of code and mucking around with it for days and trying to figure out why if I go to space somewhere or something like that. So we decide to actually look through and build out what we call multi-cloud design. How are we going to approach the clouds the multiple clouds and have these thin and pieces in place simplicity to be able to do it very simple and being able to do it very standard standardized. So this is what the logical the logical design looks like. First off we have something we call input data. So input data is just simply the data we need to hand to the system that's going to build the cloud the cluster in the cloud. This data can either be it can be as simple as a file so it can just be a text file if you want and you don't have much or it can be as complex as the CMDB. In our case we're actually using a CMDB. We're able to get dynamic data out of there generate the file automatically and then be able to submit it up to be able to be built out but what this is it's just standard data that needs to go in so the cloud knows or the cluster knows how to set itself up this is data like instance size what kind of system am I going to use it's also data like where I need to run my infrastructure things like that second part is the infrastructure data what we mean here is what kind of data do we need to build out that's specific to the infrastructure this is where it becomes really interesting because I've been hammering on standardization and saying we want a standard but here's the one place we actually didn't keep to a standard between clouds that's actually an important point to make there's between clouds and there's inner cloud and so the requirement we set for this was between clouds the tools does not have to be the same however in a single cloud the tool has to be the same the method of deployment has to be the same so the example here the tool we used to deploy in AWS has to be the same when we deploy to any AWS region or any AWS account however that's not the same tool we use for Azure or for the data same and why is this why didn't we go down this way and not stay standard well it's actually a very difficult problem to solve so there's a lot of companies trying to solve it today that says get this one tool, install it run it and it's going to deploy to all the clouds it worked great to start with but it's really hard to update it's really hard to keep up to the cloud specific when cloud providers changes the tool doesn't work any longer and so you have all of these problems with this tool so instead we decided to make that rule because it just worked better and it was just a lot simpler so at this point we go out, we have our input data and we run some kind of tool and we get IAS so infrastructure as a service this is brain except that this is not what we quite want we have infrastructure now that means we actually have instances running with OROAs on it or with your operating system in there for us it was OROAs but they don't do anything it's just IAS, it's nothing more than instances so it's a very important part the cluster data so once we have input data we know how to generate the infrastructure we generate the infrastructure then somehow we have to go lay on the data so that a cluster can actually come installed DCOS has done a great job as far as how they install their clusters and pull that out so the mesos cluster, the zookeeper master all of it actually can be installed using packages from DCOS so we've incorporated that and how they did it is actually within the user data section we won't dig into that here in a second but that's the three important parts that we actually broke out that we said this is how we build multiple clouds with input, with infrastructure and with cluster data so here's a little bit more about digging into the tools so for AWS how can you build stuff in AWS you can go clickity click you can go deploy some instances install stuff, get it done it doesn't really work for us it doesn't meet any of our requirements you can also do cloud formation talk a little bit about that's actually what DCOS provides is a cloud formation template but that is JSON there's turbo sphere this is actually a great tool you can actually write up infrastructure in it and compile it into a JSON file compiles it into cloud formation template so instead of dealing with cloud formation you can use turbo sphere to build the code and then run it to be able to generate the cloud formation template and lastly there's terraform I don't know how many of you are familiar with it but this is an awesome tool it's by HashiCorp it's actually able to build out cloud infrastructure and keep state on the infrastructure that you build out so if you run your terraform it'll actually know what your state is in the cloud and if it's missing that state it'll replace those states and so forth what about azure what about azure we have the portal you can go sign into the portal and go click click click again not for us we have ARM templates pretty much the same as cloud formation templates they are JSON and then this actually came out only Microsoft actually open sourced this only two weeks ago I didn't even have this before when I originally submitted this talk but now it's available and it's pretty valuable it's called the azure container service engine and what azure did here is actually open source and provide to the community the tool they use to build their own clusters or systems within azure so if you go grab the azure the azure container service engine what you'll get is an engine ARM templates that they use to spin up the clouds or spin up the clusters in the clouds so this is actually great because now you're able to use a tool to build infrastructure that generates a file and finally Terraform again the great thing about Terraform is it is actually a multi-cloud tool you can actually use it between clouds and then there's the data center this guy said a little bit harder right it's not can't just go run an ARM template in the data center don't know how many of you have a familiar soul but we use it pretty heavily you can work with any configuration management system in here puppet, ship, and the list keeps going the idea here is to use configuration management to actually build up the infrastructure in the data center there's another project called rack HD this is an open source project by EMC and I like to call it a light light provisioner what it does is actually does for your physical infrastructure that's the firmware management because now we're back in the data center we have to do all these things again that's your firmware management lays down the base OS and hands it over perfect to what we want in this case and then lastly there's open stack probably most of you are familiar with that project I'm going to quote a very good friend of mine and he's pretty well known in the industry he always tells me whenever we start talking about open stack so I'm going to change a little bit of that quote and say open stack is not a thing unless you're a service provider or you have network segmentation needs open stacks complains it's not easy to stand up it's not easy to operate, it's day 2 operations are very heavy and so to build open stack, to build a pass doesn't make sense, you're not building an IAS then to only build a pass on top of that why not just build a pass in the first place but it is a tool you can use it also had another requirement that we set in place that we should call the output requirements we wanted to generate something that actually has a file type format too why is this? why do we care about generating like a file type format for the clouds well, the idea here isn't just that infrastructure should be spun up by a massive team of SREs but that engineers should be able to go spin up that same infrastructure it should be simple, standard so if we can give just a file and get then we really want a big battle because now anyone can go spin up that infrastructure so here's our solution of tools once again, the output is a file that's going to be stored again for AWS we're using Troposphere because it generates a cloud formation template that we can store and get anyone can go grab it and do it they don't have to know Troposphere and go build that they can just use the output if they so want to if they want to modify it they can go in Troposphere and do that for Azure, the Azure container service engine that I mentioned earlier generates an ARM table for us and for the RAID, for the data center we're using RackHD, same idea once again restoring the stuff in Git we're able to put a developer spin around this where operations can go get the files, spin up the infrastructure okay so if you think about where we're at right now we started up with giving input data input data went to infrastructure data infrastructure is now stood up using some kind of file that we wrote and in that we gave a prescriptive design of saying this is how many log balancers if I want them there, this is how many data or how many instances I want in there this is the VPC, so forth, so forth so forth, what ended up there is we have a full set of infrastructure pulled up, ready to go core OS running on these systems but nothing yet, there's no intelligence in this system yet, it's not a cluster it's just a bunch of hosts running core OS we have to get the cluster data on there right now what you're seeing right there is actually an example of the cloud config component in the user data that DCOS uses to stand up its part cloud config user data is for the clouds azure and AWS, you can use the user data to run on first boot and you can actually run cloud config if you're using a bounty you can run cloud init what these are going to do is pull down the packages it just runs a set of commands excuse me we can actually dig into this and go in much deeper because it's actually a very interesting topic we don't know how to see how they build out their cluster using cloud init or cloud core config we can also use solstack however that defeats another purpose we use solstack, we have to have solkmasters we have to have complexity and then a developer can't go do it no developer is going to stand up a solkmaster and then run solstates to install a cluster and take hours to get it done it just wants to run it and work so we need to meet that cloud init or cloud config actually work really good we really like what DCOS did here we actually pulled a lot of that off and started working with it either those that hasn't ever worked with cloud config from core OS knows that it has limitations there's some issues with it it's missing some functionality and so they have a new tool that they're using ignite econition so econition that meets a lot of those requirements so we're actually moving all our cloud config or our user data into econition right now so what's the inverse old what do we get when this is all done do you think once again through that story we had input input went into infrastructure infrastructure stood up a cluster and now we have this and what you're looking at there is DCOS and this looks the same for Azure for AWS or the data scene and it came up in pretty much the same time so we were able to provision those clusters in multiple clouds in a standard way in multiple and get the same output in result which is a cluster an endpoint or a platform that we can now deploy code to it so at this point you're like well that's cute so you can stand up clusters really fast that's awesome but if there's any operators in here you're like our own operators which I respect very much comes to me you guys in architecture always worry about standing stuff up so you're like go ahead and build this out and then just forget about data operations operators worry about data operations once this clusters up how does it look in day 2 how does it look in day 100 how do I operate this thing how do I scale it down how do I maintain infrastructure how do I troubleshoot this well the good thing here is all of this has been defined and abstracted into code so whatever we need to do we can do in software when we need to add instances if it's an agent we're adding or a mesoslave or a cluster if we need to upgrade a cluster we drain the workflow off of the cluster we stand up a new work we stand up a new cluster using software and direct that workflow to the new cluster and kill the old cluster right if there's a hardware machine if there's a physical machine in the data center giving us a lot of issues no more SSHing in and looking at driver issues and all of this other junk just kill the machine, shoot it in the head and bring in a new one and put a system around cattle meaning they do operations if it comes very much a software driven component okay so with that we now have the ability to spin up multiple clusters in multiple clouds and you're thinking well that's fine but how do you actually you're saying that you can kill a cluster and stand up another one right how does that actually work across multiple clouds how can you do this and they're not so one of the main projects that our networking team has been working on for the last years called MCT multi-cloud transport and this is a huge, it's been a huge effort and also some awesome work done by that team to be able to unify all these clouds so there's actually an under way we introduce all the clouds when I say all the clouds Azure, AWS and the data center to be able to talk seamlessly to each other from a networking component's perspective so if you have an instance in AWS or a container and running in AWS and that container needs to have access to the data center the traffic is actually going to go through private through private network and we'll go over private item space and be able to talk seamlessly so this is a big step for us because that really with this component we can now spin up clusters we can write down a cluster and say there's not enough hardware in the data center to do that we have to upgrade a cluster we're saying well just spin up another cluster and there's just not enough hardware we can go out and spin up another cluster in AWS or Azure for the time being upgrade the hardware stack in the data center and then move the traffic back because we have seamless network network traffic ability so that pretty much tells you the story of what multi-cloud is and it's very effective one thing I want to do a little bit is dive a little bit deeper into private cloud or the data center I kind of skipped over it earlier by just saying oh we just use rack HD and it finds devices and from those devices the cloud gets built and it's all wonderful and everything works however the data center is more difficult anyone's worked in a physical data center worked with the teams working at scale it's complex and it's hard infrastructure is code it's really hard to achieve like I mentioned earlier it's not easy just to go run open stack however one of the things about the data center is because it has so much complexity it also provides a lot of flexibility we can make a lot more choices in the data center than we can in AWS or Azure yes we can go choose our CPUs that is tuned for this workload we can go to create network that works a lot better for the workload than in a public cloud also because there's no because of what the software provides as here from resiliency and a availability component those components have now been abstracted into Mezos in the higher layers above we don't have to worry about machines as much as we did in the past network storage and compute drastically changes in the data center because of this new world another important lesson we learned power and cooling is pretty important in the initial design if there's anything you're doing when you're standing up to data centers thinking about those two things more than anything else because if there's anything you want a few future proof is those you want to go and say hey I'm standard we were only building out the data center we only had 7.5 kW per rack and then it ends up saying whoa but that was the old VMware environment and that's not what we're doing anymore I'm running now, I'm rolling in a rack and there's 41 used in there and I need 17.5 kW per rack and data center all just looks at you and they're like no, it's not going to happen and so being able to make sure that your future proofing power and cooling for the future these are the hardest pieces to change when you design data centers and then new designs for new data centers Mezos has introduced a piece to us that simplifies hardware and abstracts all of those pieces out what we can now do with the underlying hardware is fundamentally different and because of that we need to think about moving away from old designs and moving into new designs some of my favorite reading that I do is the work that the Facebook guys are doing in their data center they've done an amazing job of making that transition into new data center architecture so part of our multi-cloud strategy is redesigning how we run in the data center we call this project Greenfield and what it is is we re-evaluate it compute, re-evaluate it storage and network and set based on containerized workflows, how do we run our run in the data center compute fundamentally changes we can now run white box machines we don't need to go run expensive machines with two power supplies and a rate controller and a bunch of sensors that needs to be booted and takes 10 or 15 minutes to boot up the machine because it's checking making sure that machine is 100% right none of that is the priority anymore because that machine now is a cow not a pig it makes it simple we have simple more simple infrastructure storage storage now is abstracted into the software we can run HDFS we can run something like ScaleIO and we are able to aggregate and move the storage into software and it's not concerned about the hardware and because of that now the hardware itself can just be those same machines this is great because what it enables us to do is collapse our models collapse our infrastructure now instead of running a storage array over here with sand fabric over here network here with servers all trying to tie it all together and having blade chassis switches dealing with all of that complexity and just throw all of that away and say at one node it's a storage node to compute node it does all of the things it does storage and compute and the network actually one of these pictures you see right here is the close architecture from Facebook but network can go to close needs to have a good close architecture east-west becomes very important being able to traverse traffic between machines critical if you're saying the storage now is between all of these machines some of the other stuff pulling in a layer 3 BGP down to the host instead of running it running layer 2 stuff in the network using projects like FiliCo to provide security and compliance from a container level and this is one of my favorite topics to debate about is running Linux on the switch because we can now but should we, right and the answer is yes because Linux is an awesome operating system especially on a switch we're able to get years and years of maturity on monitoring, provisioning we can pull it into the data center that's the most lacking component now the switches become cattle and not beds no longer does a network engineer need to log into a switch anymore and be able to do work on that switch in fact that should be a sin a network engineer should be submitting code up to the repo that then updates the switches repos update the switches not engineer so that tells you a little bit about the whole story there I threw this one in this is not something we're doing today but I did want to do a call out for it because I thought it was a really awesome project as I was digging down to the center design one of the problems we came up with is if we move to this new one compute model layer so everything runs one type of compute model that compute model that's awesome except for the mesos masters we have a big problem mesos masters just doesn't require much to run we're giving quite an expensive machine relative right here much cheaper than your normal machines but expensive to the mesos masters to use for no apparent no parent other to be standardized yes services on there too they're running ncd, they're running dns they're running snap route which is a 4 layer layer 3 4 so the toporex switch is actually a router as well but most importantly you can see they're running mesos masters this is looking at the future and the data center this is why the data center is still relevant this is why the data center is still important we can modify we can customize the data center a lot more than we can in any of the other clouds so time for a demo let me just go over the demo quickly and explain what you're seeing if I actually showed you what we do in the data center or what we do it against the clouds all you would see is one command line and then the end of the cluster just the dcoa screen that doesn't make for a very interesting demo it makes for interesting system not for a demo so what I did is I actually took the generated json file from troposphere that we actually have the input data from our cmdb and loaded that into cloud formation in aws so the file I'm going to load in has been generated using troposphere and cmdb data and now it's going to stand up a cluster and I'll kind of walk you through it as I go ok so you can see I know the resolution is terrible here but what's going on is I'm going out and creating a stack so I'm going to grab that file now I could have been a developer or I could have been production sre I grabbed that file and this is actually the input components right so usually this is generated and grabbed from cmdb automatically but I'm just trying to show how those input components look it's kind of like what is the stack's name this is Hds right what is the what's the what is the number of slays and what's the number of masters you want in here all of that input data that's the data coming in telling the cluster how to build these are just some specifics to cloud formation and we're going to go pick it off cloud formation is going to start it's going to say go ahead and build my cluster usually build a cluster like this in the data center it would take a good day, 3 months we're done, cluster is completed cluster is up I'm going to go ahead and grab the output data now which is just a URL to DCOS that's DCOS CLI coming or DCOS GUI coming up I'm going to go ahead and authenticate and there you go that could have been Azure, that could have been the data center it doesn't matter, looks the same everywhere functions the same everywhere what I'm showing you here nodes are still coming up cloud config data is loading in the nodes configuring some of the agent nodes hasn't been configured yet so they're in an unhealthy state and cluster itself is still in an unhealthy state and they're done, they're finished up too so these nodes have a fully made provision they're available, they're being used you can see all services are running cluster is healthy to go the presentation before talked a lot about the universe something that I absolutely love about DCOS is the universe, I think it's a great component with those packages in there you can also go ahead and create your own private universe I actually pulled down here and I'm installing Jenkins grabbing a package and then showing Jenkins onto the universe from the universe onto the cluster and you can see it launching in DCOS it's going to spike the resources and then Jenkins is not going to start running it looks like this might be where it's at anyway ok, what else should I know these aren't just a bunch of resources if there's anything interesting you found from today from Troposphere you want to know more about that if you want to know more about the ACS engine there's the GitHub for SNAPRA for RACHD all of these, this is all open source projects everybody's been there's been a lot of people contributing to it awesome work done by everybody else on providing these tools so we can actually build multiple clouds for Adobe and I think we have some time here for Q&A and I understand it's lunch and you guys are probably pretty hungry we've been sitting in here for about two hours now so thank you I appreciate it, if there's Q&A please go ahead otherwise, thank you guys I appreciate the opportunity for being here and thanks for having me