Dustin boltz. Lets begin with you. Is this issue we are currently discussing about the iphone and terrorism a classic case of security versus privacy . It is more a case of security versus security. Concerned about this issue of privacy on the device thats when that will come back and bite apple users. I see it on the mentally as a challenge to that proper balance because there is a tool at play and the tool is a device that was intentionally designed to be impenetrable. We believe it threatens the way that our search and seizure laws were designed to operate. Reasonable searches under lawful warrant can obtain access to evidence. We do view it as a threat to the fulcrum that the balance of security sits on. Tim cook writes about this issue. The government suggests it would only be used once on one phone. That is not true. It could be used over and over again on any number of devices. It would be the equivalent of a master key capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks him. I think there is a lot of hyperbole in that letter. Becauseke that analogy when you look at the physical world, all sorts of private information exists. And businessds records. Stored,ose records are Law Enforcement can access that will stop that. Comply with warrants. Asking for, with the access tos order their own device. These are technical means they admitted they have at their disposal already. The do not have a key in their position. They actively create a way to access their device and make it less secure. It doesnt entitle you to get something. Its different than saying, i am actually going to make you build a vulnerability that can be illicitly accessed by a hacker. One of those things the doj is saying is that this is not a product attempt to break encryption. Its having this debate and saying they want to disable nonencryption barriers. Tailoredre narrowly request. How do you push back when you say it is a onetime thing for one phone. Its just about getting this action. It is true that we are not breaking encryption. The policy debate has just got a little bit broader than encryption versus nonencryption. The reality is there are already 12 cases outstanding with the fbis asking them to do these other cases. If we set this precedent now we are going to be setting a precedent where whether you want to give it to me or not to turn your device into something that can be accessed by the government or a listening device. The government is able to force people to turn the devices we rely on into spies. Significanthat is a overstatement of the riskier. What we are describing is the normal operation of the Fourth Amendment for hundreds of years which is that even the most private areas and locations can be accessed with a warrant. Not talking about mass surveillance. We are talking about Court Supervised warrants and the ability to access evidence. These devices have been intentionally designed to be accessible by the normal legal process. That itnot the way operates. Its a choice that apple makes. Hes correct there is both an individual instance dealing with the phone used by the San Bernardino terrorist and a larger question of whether they should be in some massmarket technology intentionally designed to frustrate the legal process. To be clear its not designed to frustrate the Law Enforcement process it is designed to be safe and secure for users. Your phone is the most personal information about you. Thats all contained. All of your emails they are designing it to be safe and impenetrable. Not from Law Enforcement but everyone so that we stay secure in the digital world. Is this different than looking at somebodys emails going to jordan . That is a different set of laws, i do think it is a different angle on the policy debate. I do think that it is important to note that these companies were able to, and did work with Law Enforcement for years in responding to legal process. To say it was not intentionally designed is misleading. The ruling this is the experience our agents had outreach to these entities. Discussions on these topics were met with the claim that from apple was met with silence were at this because we were forced to be here by these companies. You talk what legal process, is there any concern that the statues of laws the government is relying on goes back to our founding, that it is centuriesold and thats the legal rationale they are currently using . I dont think so. Procedureeaks to the to enforce a warrant and has been applied to modernized Technology Matter to many times. And is not the first time has been used with technology that did not exist at the time. Its been applied to security video, credit card records. Its a pretty wideranging change. Clearly we have applied the act in the past. This is make no mistake a policy dispute. If we decide to allow access, a Magistrate Court were essentially be saying there is little or no argument to keep china from doing this exact same thing. X there is little or no discussion of who else might be to access this. The security applications of treating a backdoor that might be misused by hackers. This goes far beyond what a magistrate can grapple with in the course of interpreting the all writs act a sea change around all of our privacy. To 1789 statute that essentially says that you must give assistance to Law Enforcement when they come to you with a warrant, producing information. It is not that the landlord opens a door uses his key, it is wholehe landlord drills a in the safe, its that the safe company is required to put a backdoor lock on their safe that Law Enforcement can use to open it. The pursuit of the warrant to rebuild it. We do need to ask the question what the alternative is. There are a variety of mechanisms that exist. However, right now, what is true is that these devices are for Law Enforcement and apple is refusing to comply with this and other warrants and as a result, those funds act as active safe havens for people who want to conduct criminal activity. The personal phones of one of the perpetrators of the San Bernardino attack were destroyed. They dropped some of their other like tronics in the lake and did go to Great Lengths to cover their tracks elsewhere. Do you believe this would be that important investigators . A believe that is why we have a Fourth AmendmentFirst Amendment process. We do not force people to enter that question before you have seen the evidence. Your probable cause you obtain a warrant. The only push we dont know whats on that phone. That knowledge that we should not see what is on that phone turns the warrant system on its head. Heres worth technology its fine to say we should have this debate. The reality is that there is vastly more Information Available now than 20 years ago. Vastly more. We are committed kidding in text, all of this information is out there much that is acceptable. In the cloud and other devices. We said we need information to build the criminal case, Location Information is available routinely. The reality is that we have a ton of information. But we are saying is in a narrow case, another security interests are at stake, we may not have universal access to all information because we are potentially harming the security of everyone who holds a phone. Chris, do you have a problem with mr. Farooks cloud information . I think there is a very interesting Legal Standard. That there is right now the Legal Standard for accessing information in the cloud. They would update that. By civilng held up agencies and Law Enforcement historys. We have a question but with the right standard is. Im glad that you brought up that law because as it is, the fbi really has rights to all of that content even though it is not required. The use warrants for all of that content. We have serious concerns but other aspect of that law. If you do not think the all ,rits act is the proper tool that there are broader waste access this information, even cyber criminals in a world of accessible information, we think that debate should be joined to congress in that session will provide ample opportunity to have that very discussion. Know, doon what you you believe they made a mistake in resetting the apple id password . The made another attempt at backing up that data . I am far removed from being someone who understands every detail. I cannot get rid of that u2 album from itunes. But it is a separate question. From the one presented here. Which is, should apple comply with that order question mark i think there is no question that they made a mistake but to be fair, every investigation will be not be conducted perfectly. The reality is, if we have a device that is likely not going to contain useful information, it probably couldve been accessed is this really the hill that we want to create a huge new precedent allowing Law Enforcement to essentially force the building of weaknesses and backdoors into devices . I think it is not. Its a discussion that should go to congress. Monday. Il came out a pew poll cannot monday. Americans sided with the fbi. 38 sided with apple. This is a very public fight. Perhaps i am a sunny optimist, fact that theres a terrorism investigation that their ravenous he is so at stake that they are willing to say that even in this most extreme of circumstances of a highprofile shooting we still do not want to see that phone access, i think that number speaks to Something Different which is, if you take into account the massive resources that these Large Companies have put into inlic relations and lobbying 51 ofe of all of that, the people, many of whom are loyal apple customers, including choices. Ill have ever unlocked phones before . Sure, but we would all agree that the newer operating system presents a different technological issue in the past ones. They certainly have cooperated scores of times in the past with technology. To my mind, that only underscores the seriousness of how they view this incursion. You just said it. There are billions of people buying iphones. If they thought that there was a risk of alienating their customers, the smart money would have said, i am not going to pick this fight. I think they recognize that this is a sea change. This is companies being forced to turn devices on their users and if we go down that road, no one will trust these devices and that will have a bigger impact. I continue to think there is a bigger question we have about whether we turn over constitutional search and seizure process which is exactly these are choices we made for Business Decisions that we are now being told override the procedures we used to strike the balance between privacy and security. There has been a legislative and balance for years now. There have been some proposals floated but we really have not got any momentum. Can congress ultimately deal with this and how do you see been requiredward to open up computers for Law Enforcement . There are a lot of ways it could go forward. Congressty is that needs to grapple with whether we are better off with strong secure systems. If we have a device that is secure that does not have a backdoor that is protecting the interest of human , that advocates in china may have a greater benefit than a marginal effect on Law Enforcement. Thats a legitimate position to be in think we dont want to close the discussion in any way. We agree but this discussion should of occurred before these companies have the products on the market. The locations for Law Enforcement are already being felt. Our local Law Enforcement brethren report multiple investigations on things ranging from local crimes to childhood of duction. Discussion, but there needs to be action. Certainly Law Enforcement learned about it at the beginning and somehow convincing people that their information is we need to deal with this. They should deal with it. It is a difficult issue. A lot of lawmakers are hesitant to get involved in what has often made for complicated Technological Innovations and sometimes it takes a moment to clarify a topic and there is the question of being faced with looking at it cell phone that was used by terrorists knowing this information we dont know what it is we cant get it because of choices made by these companies is a clarified issue for a lot of people. This litigation regardless of the outcome at the District Court level, it should be a policy discussion that occurs. We are really just beginning to explore the legal issues. We havent even talked about the thatspeech applications requires apple to certify a device as a secure when they know it is not. Forcing the company to Say Something to its user that this device or update is secure is an update you can trust when they know thats not the case. The idea of the government preapproving technological changes is terrifying. We should worry about that and worry about saying, i cannot rollout our full devices to have a signoff from the fbi. Its an interesting concept. It was not one that barred apple from running syria souk protocols from the chinese government. Rightsoncern about human the idea these companies are acting akin to their desires. I dont think its true. No precedent of an American Company being forced to expose for years, cryptology and National Security experts are weakening encryption. There is a precedent of forcing families to access privately information that was private. The all writs act would make the same claim that there was no precedent until that precedent was set of requiring those companies to turn over financial information. If you read what it actually requires, software is being asked to essentially it is a boobytrap built into the phone that would destroy the password. That will be held by the company the same way the expertise to create that software is already held by the company. At least as an initial matter, i will send the device itself to apple. And apple would essentially create software which would trick this device into changing its operator to say you can trust this download. Thats fine that it is held in apples dance today but once that precedent is set, i will have a precedent that updates may be falsified. If you took five Security Experts around the room, the greatest innovations and most important changes in Cyber Security is the universal update. We are auto updating devices so that when there are security vulnerabilities they get hacked. If we break that product incident and say do not update devices because you dont know whats in there because you cannot trust the company to tell you whats in there that this is a secure up eight, or worse, this process could be subverted hugehacker, we have broken things and that is why it is something that congress should be considering. Week seems like every Silicon Valley in congress are not getting along. Having this debate now, this is what apple and other companies have decided not to go too far. I cannot speak to their motivations in terms of snowden. Unfair they could not do anything about. Right now there is something called the privacy shield. Requiring companies to comply with that surveillance. So that put thousands of companies into disarray. There is nothing they can do. They are complying with legal orders. Its hard to look at them and say, you must continue to comply with these legal orders even though it is likely to cause you more financial harm. At minimum, the fbi and other Law Enforcement need to recognize what they are doing. Very Successful Companies we are proposing a solution that to solve dangerous crimes, it may not be fully consistent with their investor goals. The truth is that nobody is more sensitive to cybercrime than the 13,000 agents of the you of the fbi. Comey often. Ays, cybercrime is crime our people are very sensitive to these issues, but they also note in the midst of it that the constitutional system should set the rules for how you access information. This was about 24 million federal employees who had their most personal information personal background checks. Their Mental Health history, whether they have a drinking problem everything in their backrub check. I cannot think of in their background check. I cannot think of anything more secure than that. If we cannot keep that secure, do we think we can keep whatever technique we develop as part of this process secure . That is kind of the point. That information is packable. Able. Ck uprooting recent system, we didnt have problems before and you are creeping a tool for those very hackers that will make our agents job substantially more difficult to investigate and prosecute those kinds of people. Profit tofor criminals around the world. Chris, how does the center for democracy and Technology Want to see this player. Out . At the end of the day, we do not want to see apple forced to build malware. I do not want to see apple doing a cyber criminals job for them, forcing them to build a product that will hack their device. To me that is a terrible outcome. We would like to see us stop selling malware. The promise of security it is already vulnerable. It is really a tool that frustrates and is inconsistent with our constitutional search and seizure. Calabrese, the Vice President for the center of democracy and technology in several years of counsel at aclu and dustin, for reuters, thank you. Thank you. Cspan, created by americas Cable Company 35 years ago and broug