Feinstein, his new book is called the legends club. The story of an epic College Basketball rivalry. And well also talk about march madness. And mikes line is if we landed from mars instead of new york we couldnt have less of an idea how iconic dean was. And mike tells the great story about recruiting a kid in california named mark acres and realizing it wasnt going well, as will happen and finally turning to the mom who hadnt said anything the whole night and saying is there anything at all you want to foa about duke, about our academics, how mark would fit in. She said no i dont need to ask any questions. Because the only thing is important is mark going to college some place where he will be close to god. And he said if he comes to duke, god will be coaching ten miles down the road in chapel hill. Rose we conclude with a. O. Scott, the New York Times film critic with his new book, belter living through criticism, how to think about art, pleasure, beauty and truth. I try not to be not to be cruel, not to be harsh, not to be peun tiff. I think there are some things that are just bad and cynical and in a way corrupt that deserve to be sort of called out and harshly scolded. But i think a lot of the time most of the time i try to proceed from the idea that well, no one was trying to make a bad movie. Someone was trying to do something good. Rose nancy gibbs, John Feinstein and a. O. Scott when we continue. Funding for charlie rose is provided by the rose funding for charlie rose has been provided by captioning sponsored by Rose Communications studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose we turn now to the ongoing battle between apple and the fbi. One of San Bernardino shooter continues. The two sides will meet in federal court next week. Time magazine managing editor nancy gibbs and writer leave grossman recently sat down with an interview with apple c. E. O. Tim cook. Here to talk about that is nancy gins and im pleased to have her here. Here is the cover of the Time Magazine, tim cook talking about his fight with the fbi and why he wont back down. Let me just start with the obvious. What is your assessment of him and his commitment to this . That was one of the things i was most curious about and why i wanted to hear from him. Because on the face of it, why would the countrys richest, most valuable tech company pick a fight with the fbi over a terrorist cell phone. It seems strictly from a pr point of view insane. Obviously apple has a huge commercial stake, you know, in the sense privacy and secretary resee are its product. And but talking to him its with very clear that this is also something that he feels quite passionately about and that the stakes of this debate around encryption are so high that having a single judge and a single course in a single case, even an important and very emotional case like this, does not make sense. This is something that has to be debated by the american public, by the congress, should be handled with Congress Passing laws that determine when Law Enforcement should be able to break into these incredibly powerful little databases that we all now have built about ourselves and carry with us all the time. Rose sews not satisfied if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and there is a decision that the Supreme Court on this one individual case with the facts of this case, he wants to see a broader decision made in congress. Part of the problem is that he says its not just about this case. Because someone like, you know, manhattan dasy vance has 175 phones that he would like access to and Law Enforcement officials all over the country have similar cases where it would help them build their cases if they could break into iphones. So its not as though this is the only time. Rose but that says that there is no possible procedure that can be used to make this in a sense a case by case method. Because there are in our own dealings and National Security processes and courts and judges that make decisions about things like this. Thats right. And so i would say he would say, and again im not apples defense attorney am but i wanted to hear him, how he answered this. Rose that is what i want to hear. And that this is not like this phone has a key that would unlock it. And if he just turns that over to the fbi the fbi can unlock the phone, get the information from it and then youre one and done. Rose destroy the key. That key doesnt exist. That door doesnt exist. They would need to build a new operating system and install it on this phone in order to let the fbi sort of breut force into the phone by testing the 10,000 different possible pass codes. Once you build that operating system, not only will other people obviously want access to it in Law Enforcement, its like you know, liev said to the dinosaurs at injure asic park t will get out into the wild. Rose theres no way to stop it. You cant build a back door that only the good guys use. And so everyone everyones safety and privacy becomes threatened once that operating system exists. That he doesnt think it is possible to actually lock you know, engineers and investigators into you know, a sealed room and open the phone and then destroy the code, make it go away and no one else then can use it. Rose what does he say about knowing that he is in opposition to the fbi . Its not a comfortable position. Its not a comfortable position. Especially National Security and especially terrorists. He recognizes that the optics of this are terrible. And hes uncomfortable with it. He has likened this to past civil rights fights where he feels that the government in this case is overreaching. And someone has to say stop, slow down, lets talk about what is really at stake here. And let me say apple obviously has a lot at stake. As to other Technology Companies and everyone from microsoft to facebook to amazon, they all filed amicus briefs in support of app apple. But someone like Michael Hayden who is not necessarily soft on terrorism, nsa, cia head, and someone that understands the threat of cyberattack very well also has ended up coming down on apple he side. That encryption is something that is valuable and important for our national defense. Rose with no exceptions from michael haynes. This exception, of build the back door to break through this encryption, he is on apples side in this. Which i think is interesting. And people have switched sides on this. The country is very di sided. Its not a black and white case. Its a series of tradeoffs. Rose here is what he said to you. You know as well as i do sometimes the way we get somewhere, our journey is very ugly. But im a big optimist that we ultimately arrive at the right thing. And i think he thinks the right way to arrive there is to really have this debate, collectively, publicly, have congress address it. And you know you said cant there be any limits . Well, this is the problem. If its one court deciding and one domestic terrorism case that its okay to unlock the phone, another court might decide its also okay in a robbery case or divorce case or a tax fraud case. Dont we Want Congress to be the one as the elected representatives of the people who are saying these are the circumstances under which we think it is okay to to break into a phone. These are the circumstances in which it is not. I know tim cook and respect him a lot. But he recoils at the idea that this has anything to do with apples business. Yes. And i think that shall. Rose and apples marketing. It may be a false choice of is this about principle or is this about profit. Rose commerce. It may well be about both. His point is that apple didnt invent encryption and apple doesnt own encryption. Rose but it is et going more and more encrypted. It is now with the last ios its the default setting, increasingly and encryption is the norm. His point is if apple no longer was able to encrypt your data, the bad guys will still just easily go outside of the u. S its very easy for them to still be able to encrypt their communications, it would just make the rest of us more vulnerable because the average american doesnt want to be a Computer Scientist to kep their data safe. Rose there is also a controversy abouts whatapp, another case where there are issues about how terrorists are using that to protect their own communications. Let me turn to another question that comes up in this. It is that, this is what leb grossman said, it emerged that resetting the i cloud password that had been a serious tact kal error, they could have gotten the phone to make a fresh backup of itself automatically but once you change the i cloud password, it wont back itself up without the pass code. So the fbi, because the phone actually isnt, wasnt owned by the terrorist, it was owned by San Bernardino county, they thought they could get the information off of it just by resetting the password and getting into his i cloud account. They did that, and they found that the phone hadnt actually been backed up for the last few weeks. If instead of doing that, they had gone to his house, plugged it in and it would have automatically backed up, then they would have had all the information on the phone. Rose yeah. So they actually, the one door that was available to them and that apple had helped them open t turned out that they had rose who is winning the. Battle of public opinion. I think that is a moving target. I think you know, youve seen some people like Lindsey Graham who initially came out against apple who upon further conversation has now been more inclined to see the other side. Rose so apple may be winning. I done know that they are winning. But i think even to the extent that this becomes a more complex debate than just the sound bite, theyre proteching the terrorists against the fbi, to that extent apple is winning if they are able to say there is much more at stake than sort of false die cot me of privacy versus security. Rose you say sooner or later these questions will need to be put before the American People which is one reason the fbi made this fight so ferocious and public. The question of where National Security meets policy. The fact is that there is an enormous amount of information that we all have made available about ourselves, quite apart from what is encrypted on our devices. That we dont want other people to know. In a way this is the golden age of surveillance, people have said. We bugged ourselves. We make our health data and what we eat and where we are at any given time. And we have all of that available and much of it is available publicly. So what Law Enforcement is able to find out about anyone that they are interested in is vastly greater than it has ever been in history. I think part of the question is to what extent does the fbi and other Law Enforcement need to do what our National Security infrastructure has been doing of upgrading their capabilities as opposed to, you know, is this a short cut. Is this the fbi trying to take a short cut to get this information, as opposed to becoming a real 21s century law enforszment 21s century Law Enforcement agency, that is one round of Technology Critics have said, this is not the way you want to do it. You accept the idea that apple makes the point in its argument that there is no such thing as a one this say onephone case. Right. It cannot be that . Well, there are why would this one case be different than another murder case or another criminal case that involves a case involving a drug dealer which is one that apple was involved in. Where Law Enforcement says in order to build our case we need access. Who should be deciding which cases warrant this kind of intrusion and which cases dont. Rose i have had people come to this table and people from Silicon Valley and people who are very smart about understanding where we are in technology and computers and i pads and iphones and all of that. And many of them will argue or some of them, some of them will argue that the government can go to banks and get access to their bank statements. And that this is very private. But there is a process to do that. And why cant there be a process to do this. There was even legal precedent of a somebody who had a bullet embedded in his shoulder that investigators needed to make their case an could they force a doctor against the patients wishes to remove the bullet. If that is not ultimately if that worked its way up through the courtsk, ultimately the patient won. But the fact that that took multiple appeals shows you that the reachofLaw Enforcement, and this is as apple points out, this is under the allrits act which is a 200 year old rather broadly written law, the ability of Law Enforcement to have fairly unlimited access to the places they need to go to make their case is well established legal precedent. So if we think because of the technological universe we are now living in, and because of, again, these incredibly powerful databases we have created about ourselves, ill bet you, charlie, your phone has more information about you than your house does. Rose im sure it does. And so now that we have which didnt exist ten years ago. But we are living in this new world weve created. And the law needs to catch up with that. And so thats why they are feeling that this is something that congress, that needs to be decided in congress. Apple of course says well abide by the law, obviously. But that doing this on a case by case basis is puts everyones security at risk. Rose everybody knew this was coming, i think. Because Silicon Valley, people i have talked to, ash carter, the secretary of defense. Hes very, very concerned on a couple of levels about how they deal with Silicon Valley. Or wherever the course is of remarkable technological innovation. And they worry about, you know, the relationship with Silicon Valley and worry about how do they form some kind of cooperative and coop cooperative relationship. They can deal with a range of issues. I think you have put your finger on one of the most interesting questions here. Which is that a lot of these Silicon Valley companies that are involved in this case are this centurys media companies. And in the 20th sent ree, the media baron. Saltsbergers and grahams and loses and pailies of the world had huge commercial interest. They also had a public trust and a public responsibility. En do you not publisho weigh something because of National Security or when do you you go to court in order to publish the pentagon papers. That territory and those obligations were well explored. Now were in this new world where a whole new set of players now has the kind of power that those 20th century players had. What are their obligations, what are their public responsibilities whether its to the government. Rose and living in a world of connectedness. And where their operations, these are global companies. They may be based and born and based in america. But theyre global companies. And apple sells 25 of its iphones in china. And so you know, it is easy for them to say that if the United States government can tell us to open this back door, so can the iranian government, so can the chinese government. But the fact is that they are looking at this across the entire globe. And their interests and obligations everywhere tz tim cook comes out of alabama. Yes, he does tz tim cook was one of the first top c. E. O. S to announce that he was gay. Tim cook is a guy who has pictures of Martin Luther king and Robert Kennedy in his office. Hes a guy that has enormous respect for people who have been prepared to go the distance for their beliefs. That is exactly the mode that he appears to be operating in, in this case. And you could say it would be in apples interest for this all to have been handled much more quietly. Or you can argue as the Justice Department has that no apple wanted this public fight because its good for their branding. Even that is an interesting question. But my sense from him certainly is that this is something where he thinks that the stakes of this debate are exceptionally high and they go much higher than simply the stakes of finding out what might be on this one phone. Thank you, great to have you. Time magazine magazine. With 9fbi and why he wont back down, written by leb grossman, this story has been on this program a lot. It is an ongoing story and Time Magazine gives more context to understand it. Back in a moment. Stay with us. John feinstein is here. He has been called the dean of the College Basketball press. His new book explores a complex relationship and backyard rieferlries of three coaches that dominated basketball in the 19 80s and the 0s. Dean smith, dukes mike and North Carolina states jim balvono called the legend club. Hall of fame coach calls this book a mustread for all lovers of both College Basketball and the personalities who have made this game great. Welcome back. Thank you. This is a story that you said you werent born to right but you lived it. So did i, by the way. Yes, you did. I live in the middle of where all this took place. Yeah. Well, as you know, i went to college down there at duke and first met dean smith first of the three when i was in college in the North Carolina locker room as a terrified duke junior trying to interview him about Tate Armstrong