Rather than asking a specific question, let me ask you a broader question. Let me ask a broader question. Weve seen this coming . Tell me more. Consider the fbi director comey has advocated for essentially backdooring Encryption Software that is built into apple and other systems. That is easy. But that is a terrible idea. There are simple things to it, bad guys do not abide by our laws, good guys will weaken encryption which bad guys will take advantage of. Good guys will have weak systems and bad guys will use the strongest thing they can get their hands on. Off, it will be better off. They will be better off. Charlie bad guys can be criminals and nationstates. Anyone. Anyone out to hurt us will have knowledge that we have weakened our systems and enacted laws to make sure everyone uses those. You can make the argument that will be safeguarded with legal protections, but we have seen what happened with the breakins from target to the government breakins in the last couple years. Weakening security is a fundamentally terrible idea. Security is either there or it is not. Even if slightly weakened, it does not exist. This particular case is not exactly the same thing. This is a subtle, and different thing. Here, the government has asked apple not just hand over data that they happen to have. They are saying we know you do not have this data, we want you to build software that opens the phone and gives data to us. Because we want to investigate a known terrorist to is obviously very bad guy. Terrorist who was obviously a very bad guy. Charlie they say it is one time only and we are not trying to open the back door. We have a problem with how people interpret keywords. Back door. Onetimeonly. Precedent. Max unfortunately, the reality is that this is a complex issue. People very often do not understand the subtleties and conflate the two issues. This is a precedent and legal issue that apple and fbi are now duking out. Charlie why is that true . Max the software can be built. Apple does not have it, they can sit down and held it. It will be complex, it may be a burden, but they can do it. Tim cook is saying, if the fbi can compel me to build software that basically opens up the phones of my customers, they will not stop. Charlie so apple says, we can build the software to open the phone. The fbi says, ok, open it but then destroy the software. We are not asking you to do anything else with it. We just want access to this one phone. I am keeping here for a moment the idea that someone else may come and say, i know that you destroyed that, but do it for us. We have a mass murderer. If we can get inside it will tell a stuff about what he did. Max right. The more scary wrinkle is they dont say open up the phone. They said we have a case with probable cause and a scary thing going on. We need to turn on cameras on every laptop or every phone. Charlie are they saying that . Max no, but apple is saying if there is precedent for a Government Organization can say, build software to allow us to spy on their citizens, who is to say it will not happen again . They say you can compel us to do this but it has to be in the open. There has to be a law. To say, here is what goes down. Charlie this is the perfect case to decide a Supreme Court decision or a congressional law. Max right. There is one more thing. It is worth considering and understanding here. Beyond legal precedent which apple is not saying, we build this tool and this exists. For a brief moment in time. It is a company with several hundred thousand employees. There will be people involved. This tool is pretty terrifying and it will exist. Not forever, but it will exist. Who is to say as the world knows this tool is being built that you do not have every imaginable bad actor saying we will do what it takes to get our hands on the tool. As soon as we do, some other agent grabbing this tool while it is in existence, using for their own purposes. I think apple wants a legal hearing that says it must exist under the following framework of the law and that is how usage of this tool can and cannot happen. Charlie apple does not want the responsibility without somebody having said these are the rules and this is the way will do this . And this is the guideline and everybody understands that. Max i believe that is the purpose. I am obviously not authorized to speak on behalf of anyone. Charlie i brought you here because you know and understand it very well and understand Computer Science very well. You spent your life there. A very different place than me. Curiosity thats got me here. So then, back to this one phone. Do we wait until it works its way through the court . That may take a year. Do we wait for the National Debate . We may or may not have congressional legislation. What happens in the meantime to the phone that has information because we know where these people were and what they were doing and it might have information to information that might lead to other plots against america . Max this is where my emotional parent, husband, family person self and Civil Liberties self conflict. I ultimately hope that this propels its way to the Supreme Court quickly. That the Supreme Court tells apple, you are compelled to open the phone. I personally what to see this inn front of the of ei with every biti of evidence to have access to what they need. That is fundamentally important to me. On the other hand, its critical that the Supreme Court say for this one phone you are compelled to open it and we have a 44 court which means that it does not set precedent. So if this ruling happens, this is a particularly curious time. Apple to can compel open this one phone, but it still goes in front of congress and we will still have a public debate. Bad guys phone opened by the Supreme Court . It is a little bit burdensome but that would ensure Civil Liberties. Charlie look at apple doing this. It has been reported that they are developing devices, iphones and future iphones that will even be harder to crack. Max yes. Charlie net will make it more difficult. Max yes. Charlie they say almost impossible. You would know more about that than i would. What happens in the future to the need of Law Enforcement to have access to Critical Data . The Civil Liberties cases have often to do with an individuals right to privacy. It was raised after edward snowden. People who may not have known their phones were collecting metadata or what have you. Law enforcement has a legitimate purpose in america. Now, there are constitutional restrictions on that. It has to do with due process. The 14th amendment and everything like that. But, Law Enforcement has the responsibility to do as much as it could. Shouldnt there be a way for society to develop laws that will say, yes, we know long to see, but they have to check off your and here and here. And say under no circumstances can they do it because we can develop ways to can never do it. Max i think apple plans to build something that is effectively unbreakable is actually the right ring to do. I think it is most certainly the case that people trying to safeguard themselves have access berry, anyft, black , someone who is keen on protecting data knows how to do so and will do so. The fbi and the cia have used exploitations and bugs in that practice will remain. That is not something we need to worry about. That is the spy craft of the agencies. The notion of compelling the company to do something that fundamentally puts them into a conflicted situation that apple sees himself in right now is conveniently sidestepped by not allowing this weakness to happen. Charlie apple does not want this decision. Max correct. They do not want to have to access the privacy they give their users. I think what is really important is this point that if you weaken the system the bad guys will not be affected and the good guys will be weaker. Apple says the same strength applies to everyone. And here we are, exactly telling you what it is it is generally a better outcome. Everyone was beating the drum saying we will not read the bad guys mail. It appears that we have not been t much weaker, even though sorry, i think the clipper chip is a debate im referring to. The clipper chip was this notion of a backdoor chip and all the computers that the nsa would have access to. Eventually, its got blown out because Civil Liberties folks were protesting it. Our civilhat about liberties when the fbi goes to a bank and says we have a court order to look at the financial records of this person and have gone through appropriate procedure to get it. Here is the search warrant. Show it to us. In the past they have done it. Theres also this problem that they may not have control of it. Max i think that is unlikely to change. I think that is both lawful and good. Certainly, during the paypal years, we had Government Agencies who said, we need to see records of certain transactions because they say during the paypal situation, there were agencies who said, we need to see records of certain because there is real risk here. If apple can be told, you need to do that charlie thats the problem of being asked to build something. To create something. Max or hand over what they have. If apple was in possession of a bunch of data, there are plenty of precedents where a court order is given to an agency in the data must be handed over. Apple has worked with Law Enforcement agencies plenty in the past. This is very new. This is a fundamentally new way of doing this. Charlie james comey said yesterday, the code the judge has directed apple to write works only on this one phone so the idea of it getting to the wild the experts tell me is not a real thing. That was james comey. The director of the fbi. Max with all due respect to the director of the fbi, between him and the judge, there are probably many layers of indirection or explanation of how the code actually works. It is certainly possible to write code that works on one phone. Is it closer to writing code that works on any phone . Yes. It is fundamentally a check in the code that says, is this the right phone . Work here. Charlie there are a lot of smart hackers in the world. Could the smartest hacker in the world break into this phone without damaging the data . Max the kneejerk reaction is no. But it might not be so. It is plausible there is a bug that to even apple does not know about that a smart hacker might already know about. They could do this by passing apples involvement. The straightforward is, we build a new version of ios and eliminate the need for the key apple could do this. But apple which has all kinds of resources and abilities, they could eliminate the temper protections from the chip, but that doesnt require anybodys help. They could get in and get the key. Charlie it says something to me that almost everybody in the Major Companies and players are supportive of apple to one degree or another. Max i think all of tim cook peers charlie were talking google, the ceo of microsoft and others. Max these are companies that deal in data. What they are fundamentally saying it is that this is a hugely important matter. It is uncharted legal territory. We support tim cook in asking congress to create a law that draws a clear line in the sand. This is how the data is discoverable. Sopletely out in the public it is clear to American People when they are subscribing and buying their service what will and up or not end up in the hands of the government. I think everyone is on the right side of this debate and what is important as private citizens, but they understand the longterm implications are very profound and we know it to charlie there is not question that the iphone 6, i assume the iphone seven is around the corner. [laughter] max probably. Charlie tim cook makes the point that if there is a precedent here, a lot of people trusted apple, believing they were buying an encrypted phone. And in fact, it goes to the heart of apples credibility if they are not getting a phone free of encryption or encrypt it . Do they have a point . Especially in china, which has become their big market. Max right. A piece ofrtainly this that is very relevant internationally, china in particular. Where there is an entirely different type of due process and Legal Framework applies. Apple has to be an international company, the have to cater to everyone in the world. They need clear standards. I suspect that plays into it. My guess is that in this case tim cook is fundamentally concerned with the u. S. Side, but it cannot escape their attention it will have repercussions worldwide. Charlie you said you believe there is a way to not have a master key, and do this one time. And you supported that enforcement, but you have changed your mind. Was there one particular thing . The cause you to change her mind . That caused you to change your mind . Was it tim cooks argument, that precedent was involved here and it would do damage to the idea of privacy . Max there was a thing that he said in the interview which set off my mind on a path from black and white, bad guys phones need to be open, to my view today. He mentioned congress. This notion of checks and balances. This notion of accountability in Law Enforcement is something our congress is in charge of. Not having them involved is what made me think, this is fundamental. This is something where a brandnew level, a brandnew type of access is being discussed and we have no law, no framework. We have no law around. That got me thinking about. Charlie ted olson made the point. We need a dialogue and the conversation. We need decisionmaking. This is one of those issues where maybe all the amount of Law Enforcement and the fbi working with apple would not have got to a solution. You really needed congress to come to grips with it representing the people, and you need the Supreme Court representing another branch of government to do it. This help or idea because they have been talking about encryption. The conversation has been going on for several years between apple and the government. Especially when apple announced how successfully their encrypted devices were. Finally, in terms of technology and where we are going, and what is taking place in the marketplace, from your sense as a computer scientist, what is next . I mean, we have seen the dominance of mobile devices. We have seen the prevalence of the cloud. Max it is certainly going to get a lot more interesting. Madeis an easily statement. I think that we are going to have lots of debates. I think this is certainly not the last fight. Charlie in terms of the role of society . Max the role of law in the newly changed software infrastructure. But it very specifically, it just means your data lives not on the computer that you currently have. There is a copy on a server. A more complete copy exists on a server in somebody elses hands. What used to be the link between you, Law Enforcement, and your data there is now a third party. That is unprecedented. We are going to find out exactly what it means. Charlie here is what is interesting. Those servers are owned by amazon, microsoft, apple. Other Major Companies. That is where the cloud is. Max exactly. Charlie my impression is, tim cook would have no problem if they accessed the cloud to get this information. Max right, because the data would already be there. Clearly ad be very precedent which everyone in this country is already comfortable with. Theres a copy that exists. It does not need to be broken. There is an item that apple has in their possession and they have been compelled by court order to hand it over. That would not be difficult. The difficulty in this case it is the government compelling apple to build software that can be used for good today, but tomorrow can be used for all kinds of surveillance that does not need to be announced or debated if the president is established that it is doable. If the precedent is established that it is just doable. They are asking to establish the precedent, tell us what it means. Can we be forced to write software that is used to spy on our citizens by our government and other governments . By third parties . I think that is fundamentally what this is about. Charlie it ought to be said that this country has survived and prevailed in the kind of nation it has been because of its respect. For constitutional principles. Max precisely. There is a great factoid. Jackson and adams in the days of the Founding Fathers communicated with each other after the u. S. Was established, in encrypted form, because they were afraid of the postmaster general reading it and using it to blackmail them. So that is a great precedent for being concerned about the governments role. Charlie thank you for coming. Back in a moment. Levchin with us. Terry mcauliffe is the 72nd governor of the great commonwealth of virginia. A former National Party chair and prodigious fundraiser. No one is closer in politics to bill and Hillary Clinton than terry mcauliffe. We will talk about virginia in a minute, but lets start with national politics. Handicap the berniehillary race. What is it so tight . Gov. Mcauliffe he is promising a lot of things that cannot happen. He is promising everybody free college education. As governor of virginia, would love to give everybody a free education. There is zero chance it will be put into law. You cant afford it. It will never happen. Hes talking about even taking the hard work that president obama did and promising everybody free health care. For a lot of folks, they hear that and it sounds great. But the reality is, you and i al young people like barack obama am a they like bill clinton, and they love Bernie Sanders. They dont like Hillary Clinton. They voted overwhelmingly for Bernie Sanders. You have five kids. Why are young people turned off by hillary . Gov. Mcauliffe i dont know if it is turned off by hillary as much as Bernie Sanders promising free college education. That is exciting. If you go back to 2004, we had governor