Magazine, talking about his fight with the fbi and wont he why he wont back down. Let me start with the obvious, what is your assessment of him and his commitment to this . Nancy thats what i was most curious about and why i wanted to hear from him. On the face of it, why would the countries richest, most valuable tech company pick a fight with the fbi over a terrorist cell phone . It seems strictly insane from a pr point of view. Ly, apple has a huge commercial steak with privacy and secretly which are its product but talking to him, it was clear this is something he feels passionately about and the stakes of this debate around encryption are so high that having a single judge and a single court or a single case, even an important and 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 databases we now all have built about ourselves and carry with us. So hes not satisfied unless it goes all the way to the supreme court, and there is a decision on this individual case. He wants to see a broader decision made in congress . Nancy he says its not just about this case. Someone like the manhattan da has 175 phones he would like access to. Law enforcement officials all over the country have similar cases where it would help them build their cases if they could break into iphones. He says there is no possible procedure that can be used to make this a casebycase method because, in our own dealings in National Security, processes and courts and judges that make decisions about things like this. Nancy thats right, he would say i am not apples defense attorney but i wanted to hear him, how he answered. It is not back this phone has a , key that would unlock it and if he just turns that over to the fbi, the fbi can on lock the phone and get the information and then you are one and done. That key does not exist, that door does not exist. They would need to build a new operating system and install it on this phone in order to let the fbi use brute force to get into the phone by testing the 10,000 different possible passcodes. Once you build that operating system, not only will other people want access to it, it will get out into the wild. Charlie there is no way to stop it. Nancy you cannot know the back door that only the good guys use. Everyones a safety and privacy becomes threatened once that operating system exists. He does not think it is possible to actually lock out engineers and investigators into a sealed room and opened the own and then phone, make it go away, and no one else can use it. What does he say about knowing that he is in opposition to the fbi . It is not a comfortable position. Especially if it is terrorism. Nancy he recognizes that that the optics of this are terrible, and he is uncomfortable with it. He has likened this to past civil rights fights where he feels the government in this case is overreaching and someone has to say stop, slow down, lets talk about what is really at stake. Let me say that apple has a lot at stake as to whether Technology Companies and everyone from microsoft to facebook and amazon, they have filed amicus briefs in support of apple. Someone like Michael Hayden was not soft on terrorism who understands the head of the nsa and cia and understands the threat of cyber attack well, also has ended up coming down on the side of apple. That encryption is something that is valuable and important for our National Security. Charlie no exceptions from Michael Hayden . Nancy this exception of building a backdoor to break through this encryption, he is on the side of apple which i think is interesting. People have switched sides on this. Country is divided. Its not a black and white case. Its a series of tradeoffs. Charlie heres what he said to you he said the way we get somewhere our journey is very ugly. But i am an optimist that we ultimately arrive at the right thing. Thinks theink he right way to arrive there is to have this debate collectively, publicly, have congress address it. You said cant there be any , limits . If its one court deciding in one domestic terrorism case that its ok to unlock the phone, another court might decide it is ok in a robbery case or a divorce case or a tax fraud case. Dont we Want Congress to be the the ones who say these are the circumstances under which we think it is ok to break into a phone . These are the circumstances which it is not. Charlie i know tim cook and respect him but he calls up the idea that this has anything to do with apples business. Nancy yes. And it may be a false choice, about principle or is this about profits . It may well be about both. His point is that apple did not invent encryption and apple does not own encryption. Charlie but it is getting more and more encrypted. Nancy with the last ios, its the default setting. Increasingly, encryption is the norm and his point is if apple no longer was able to encrypt your data, the bad guys will still easily go outside the u. S. Its 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 does not want to have to be a Computer Scientist to keep their data say. Charlie there is also controversy about whatsapp where there are issues about how terrorists are using them to protect their own communication. Let me turn to another question. This is what lev grossman says. It emerged that resetting the password, they could have gotten the phone to make a fresh backup of itself automatically but once you change the password, it wont back itself up without the passcode. Nancy because the phone actually was not 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 oud account. His icl they did that and they found that the phone had not actually been backed up for the last few weeks. If, instead of doing that, they had gone to his house and plugged it in, it would have automatically backed up, then they would have had all the information on the phone. The one door that was available to them and apple had helped them open, it turned out they made that door less useful. Charlie who is winning the battle of Public Opinion . Nancy that is a moving target. You have seen some people like Lindsay Graham who initially came out against apple who, upon further conversation, has now been more inclined to see the other side. Charlie so apple may be winning . Nancy i dont know that they are winning but to the extent this becomes a more complex debate than just the soundbite, they are protecting the terrorists against the fbi, to that extent, apple is winning if they are able to say there is much more at stake than a false dichotomy see of privacy versus security. Charlie you say sooner or later these questions will need to be put before the American People which is a reason the fbi has made this fight so ferocious and public. The question of where National Security meets privacy. Nancy there is an enormous amount of information that we all have made available about ourselves quite apart from what is encrypted on our devices. Charlie that we dont want other people to know. Nancy in a way, this is the golden age of surveillance people have said. We have 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. 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. 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, upgrading their capabilities as opposed to is this a shortcut . Is the fbi trying to take a shortcut to get this information . As opposed to becoming a real 21st century Law Enforcement organization. Thats what one round of Technology Critics have said is that this is not the way you want to do it. Charlie do you accept the idea that apple makes the argument that there is no such thing that this is a one phone case . It cannot be that . Nancy why would this one case be different than another murder or criminal case that involves a where lawr, enforcement says in order to build our case, we need access. Warrantdes which cases intrusion and which cases do not . People come to this table from the Silicon Valley and people who are smart about understanding where we are in technology and computers and all of that. Many of them will argue or 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. Why cant there be a process to do this . There was even legal precedent, somebody who had a bullet embedded in his shoulder that investigators needed to make their case and could they force a doctor, against the patients wishes, to remove the bullet . Ultimately, if that work its way through the courts, the patient won. That that took multiple appeals shows you that the reach of Law Enforcement, as apple points out, this is under the all writs act, the ability of Law Enforcement to have fairly unlimited access to the places they need to go to make their case is wellestablished legal precedent. If we think because of the technological universe we are now living in and because of these incredibly powerful databases we have created about ourselves, i will bet you your phone has more information about you than your house does. Charlie oh, i am sure it does. Nancy now that we have which didnt exist 10 years ago but we are living in this new world we have created and the law needs , to catch up with that. That is why theyre feeling is this is something that needs to be decided in congress. Apple says we will abide by the law, obviously. But, doing this on a putsbycase basis databases and everyone at risk. Charlie everyone knew this was coming because people at talked to like ash carter, secretary of defense, he is concerned on a couple of levels about how they deal with Silicon Valley wherever the source is of remarkable technological innovation and they worry about the relationship with Silicon Valley and worry about how they form some kind of cooperative relationship that can deal with a range of issues. You put your finger on one of the most interesting issues here. A lot of the Silicon Valley companies that are involved in this case are this centurys media companies. In the 20th century, the media had huge commercial interests and they had a public trust and a public responsibility. And they would have to weigh when you not publish something because of National Security or when do you go to court to publish the pentagon papers . That territory and those obligations were well explored. Now we are in the new world world new set of players now has the kind of power those 20thcentury players had. What are their obligations, what are their public responsibilities, whether it is to the government, these are global companies. They may be born and based in america but they are global , companies. Apple sells 25 of its iphones in china. Its easy for them to say that if the United States government can tell us to open this backdoor, so can the iranian or chinese government. The fact is, they are looking at this across the entire globe. And their interests and obligations everywhere. Charlie tim cook comes out of alabama. He was one of the first top ceos to announce he was gay. Tim cook is a guy who has pictures of Martin Luther king and Robert Kennedy in his office. He is a guy that has enormous respect for people who have been prepared to go the distance for their beliefs. Nancy that is exactly the mode that he appears to be operating in in this case. You could say it would be in the interest of apple to have handled this more quietly. Or you could argue as the Justice Department has that no, apple wanted this public fight because it is good for their branding. Even that is an interesting question. My sense from him certainly was that this is something where he thinks 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. Charlie thank you, great to have you. Time, magazine cover story, apple ceo tim cook on his fight with the fbi and what he will not back down written bylev grossman. It is an ongoing story, and the magazine gives more context. Back in a moment, stay with us. Charlie John Feinstein is here and has been called the dean of the College Basketball press and his new book explores the complex relationships and backyard rivalries of three coaches who dominated College Basketball during the 1980s and 1990s, dean smith, duke coach mike krzyweski and jim valvano. Its called the legend club. Hall of fame coach jim calhoun calls his book a must read for all lovers of College Basketball and the personalities who have made this game great. Welcome back. John thank you. Charlie this is a story you said youre not born to write but you lived it. I live in the middle where all this took place. John as you know, i went to college at duke and met dean smith first of the three as a terrified duke junior. I tried to interview him about Tate Armstrong who was on his olympic team. I was 19 and scared to death by dean could not have been nicer. He had actually read something i had written in the Student Newspaper at duke because back then, they clipped every single paper in the country. I had written something, saying bill foster who was the duke coach had modeled his program after dean. He said you were fair to us in that piece especially someone from duke and that became a running theme for 35 years. I was covering the acc for the washington post, in the 1980s when dean was the icon, valvano was the rockstar and krzyweski was the little engine trying to get started in the early 80s. They were born nine days apart. And here is the irony i found out researching this book. A great player at duke in the 1960s was associate Athletic Director and yet seen krzyweski coach and brought his name to tom butters. His answer was literally, who . He had never heard of him. He was an obscure young coach at army but he became enamored after interviewing him and decided to hire him even though he had been 917 at army. The headline in the Student Newspaper at duke the next day was, this is not a typo. Krzyweski. But jim valvano wrote to tom , butters, the coach at iona in new york, and had been very successful, 295 and wrote to butters about the duke job. The letter went through the coaching search and he was so impressed with the letter, he showed it to butters who sent it to willis casey, the Athletic Director at n. C. State. Nine days later, valvano is the head coach. Charlie you regret not writing the biography . John i do. I wanted to for many years but when i finally convinced them to do it in 2009, he was already in the middle stages of dementia. Not the last stages of dementia. We had two long sessions together. Two things happened. There were moments when he was still dean and i asked him how he met his first wife and he remembered it minute by minute and i asked him about bob spear, his first friend at air force academy, and he had no idea who he was. By the end of each session, i could see him getting very tired. I talked to his wife and to his son and we agreed that we cannot go forward. He was not in good enough shape to do it. I did get some things out of those interviews i was able to use in this book and deans wife pam, jims wife were very , helpful because i could not talk to dean or jim. Charlie what was the impact of these three guys in the 1980s . John dean smith was an icon by the time krzyweski by the time and valvano came along. Mike tells a great story about recruiting a kid in california named mike akers and realizing it was not going well. Mom,nally turned to his who had not said anything and said mrs. Akers, is there anything at all you want to know about our academics at duke . She said, no, i dont need to ask questions because the only thing is important that mike go to college somewhere where hes close to god. Duke, heif it comes to will be going down the road in chapel hill. [laughter] that is what they were dealing with when they first got down there. Dean won the National Title in 1982 and then valvano won the title in 1983. We all remember him running around the court in albuquerque. They barely got in the tournament. If they had not won the acc tournament, they went to the nit and jim mightve gotten fired. Thats the way he was thinking. When they won backtoback National Titles, krzyweski was sitting there. Lost the last game of the season to virginia. That night, i was with krzyweski that night in the dennys at 2 00 in the morning when the duke sid raised his glass and said heres to forgetting tonight and krzyweski raises his glass and said heres to never blanking forgetting tonight. He beat virginia the next 16 times they played. In 1991 when they finally won the National Championship and i walked on the court, congratulated mike, the first thing he said was, we have come a long way from the bl