tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg February 22, 2016 7:00pm-8:01pm EST
charlie: privacy, technology, and national security collided this week when a federal judge ordered apple to create software that would disable security features on an iphone used by the san bernardino shooters that would allow the fbi to access the encrypted data which they believed might include helpful information in the fight against terrorism. otheri says there is no way to get the information from the phone. apple says it does not have a
way to do that and creating one would pose a security risk to every phone that it sold. tim cook talked about this issue in an interview last fall for 60 minutes and this show. >> on your iphone there is likely health information, there is financial information. there are intimate conversations with your family or coworkers. there are business secrets from the work that you are doing. there are also tracks of what you searched on, information about what you're looking at and writing. maybe you are a journalist so even your sources. all of this stuff is incredibly personal and we believe incredibly private and you should have the ability to protect it. the only way that we know how to do that is to encrypt it. because if there is a way to get
in, then somebody will find a .ay in there have been people who suggest we should have a backdoor, but the reality is that if you put a backdoor in that is for everybody, good guys and bad guys. we don't know the way nor do i know of anybody else who came up with a way to safeguard your information unless we encrypt it. charlie: does the government have a point where they say we have good reason to believe that in that information there is evidence of criminal conduct or national security behavior. charlie: -- >> if the government lays a proper warrant on us today, and it has been to the courts and so specific will give the information that is requested. encryptede of communication we do not have it to give. like your eye messages are
encrypted, we do not have access to those. charlie: help me understand how you get to the government dilemma. saying -- i do not believe the trade-off is privacy versus national security. i think that is an overly simplistic view. we are america and we should have both. we should not give up national security for privacy and we should not give up our security for privacy. i believe we can have both. charlie: we turn to two men who have been tangling with apple encryption issues. the district attorney for the county of new york. john commit -- john miller is the nypd deputy for counterterrorism. i am pleased to have you on this program. how important of an issue is this?
>> it is a very important issue for law enforcement at the state and local level as well as the level.l since apple changed its operating system in the fall of 2014 to reengineer it so that phones could not be accessed valid warrant, there have an 170 five cases using the new operating system that we are not able to get into to look at phones which need to be analyzed to build criminal cases and indeed to make sure we are prosecuting the right person. those cases range from homicide to sex abuse to cybercrime. at the state and local level where 95% of the cases are handled, our inability to access data on cell phones which are being used by criminals to commit a kate and store data is a problem. isrlie: you or send this
important for you more than just a case of the san bernardino phone? >> that case presents one example of a case involving the federalere government believes critical evidence may be on that phone. there are tens of thousands of other cases around the country relating totions homicide and sex abuse were data is going to be on smart phones that they need to access with a court order to work to do the right thing and get the right result. charlie: so if somehow the government can get the company to give them away into the phone, you want the same kind of right to get access to phones involved in cases under your jurisdiction? >> we have asked apple to do something very straightforward. until the end of september 2014, apple maintained its own k --
key. they could unlock a phone when we presented them with a court order. neutral judge saying there is evidence on this phone that relates to this person. we ought to be able to look at that data. i am asking apple to return to september 14 -- september 2014, at a time when apple made no complaints that the operating system it was using was insecure. would like to read to you from apple's own statements about ios 7 which is the software immediately preceding iowa's eight. apple described its software as technology that ensures iowa's devices can be used with confidence in any personal or corporate environment and went on to say that it provides solid protection against viruses, malware and other exploits that compromise the security of other software. so my question is, has the iowa
state engineering to prevent government accessing these phones -- is it an issue of the receipt or an issue of marketing? because i'll doping apple has made the specific case giving us examples. charlie: are you questioning the motives of the ceo? not calling anyone's motors into question. i'm making the factual point that in september, apple was able to respond to court-ordered search warrants and was never a complaint that ios 7 was an operating system that was in secure or that my data was at risk of being stolen. i don't know what changed twins october 30 and october 1 when introduced i await. they made ahat decision consciously to engineer
out of their phones the ability to open them and i think that apple is a great company, a phenomenal company, but no company is above the law and we have relied upon fourth amendment pencils where reasonable searches were permitted if judges concluded that there was probable cause. charlie: i assumed the reason they did that is they did not want the responsibility of wanting a backdoor and they said the best way for us to protect the data within a phone that we is not even to get us to encrypt it so well that we do not have access to it. >> that may be the best way to protect the data, but it is not an answer for government to be able to access that data to protect private citizens and to find a path toward justice for
victims whether it is a case of terrorism or state crimes. >> i think that it raises a series of interesting questions. is something that technically everybody believes that apple can do and they've elected not to do it. herehey would make a stand raises a couple of questions. their core principle is that they have to protect the privacy of their customers. in the case of this phone, those customers were -- are dead. people they protecting who have no right to privacy or who are confirmed terrorists. one question is, why are they making a moral stand on a case where they are not on the side of the angels.
bad for apple and probably good for the fbi. when you question is talk about this in the way i find offensive is when the government once a backdoor, they go to a judge to make a showing of probable cause to show a crime has been committed and the good search warrant signed by the judge in the hand that paper over, that is not a backdoor. that's a front door. that's how we work at a democracy. that's how we protect other people from other crimes. >> having said that, you are suggesting that apple can access this particular phone if they want to? >> i believe there to's are remarkable when it is their desire. couple years ago, the manhattan da, the san francisco da and the police commissioner
of new york began to go after apple because the rise of violent crimes connected to people having their phones stolen -- people were being beaten and attacked. we approached apple and said isn't there a way that you can zap that phone remotely and make it useless. if people cannot resell that phone they won't steal it. apple was telling them all the reasons that was impossible until the publicity got too hot. until they felt that it looked bad and then they fixed it in five minutes. when you hear a story from the technical geniuses of the computer and software world but suddenly they cannot do something, what are they asking? they're asking them to go into the information program and disable the key that says after 10 failed password guesses it
will erase the data. the fbi is also asking them to give them an automated process to try combinations of password since we are confident they will not be able to get it with nine guesses to access that phone. what is so important? we do not know. we know that they destroy their hard drives in computers and other phones in this surviving device may contain information that matters to me. as the head of counterterrorism in new york city, i want to know, did somebody order them to do that? are there communications or notes in that phone, and if so, is that person identifiable? did they talk to someone in new york? tim cook's approach is that he is doing this for the protection of apple's customers. i get that on a privacy level but how that translates into
ignoring an order from the court with her other customers -- charlie, how many people killed in the theater in paris or san bernardino died with iphones in their pockets? they are apple customers, too. charlie: so what are you asking for. what do you want apple to do? i think the events put it perfectly which is a parallel universe just a year ago, they had a key that could open any phone pursuant to proper legal .rocess try what you want them to go back to that? >> yes.
that's how we deal with banks and financial institutions and other holders of records. there isn't a safe deposit box or anything else that you cannot show up with an order from a state or federal judge. charlie: my point is this is about more than the onethat's hs and financial institutions and other holders of records. phone that belonged to one of the terrorists in san bernardino. you're going to use this as a way to expand the access of law enforcement to the phones of people you believe have committed or are associated with criminal actions? >> it is and it isn't. let the fbi is saying is apple figure out their way into this phone and then throw that key away. but you do raise a point. let me put it this way. if an executive at apple had a member of their family kidnapped, all of this high horse stuff would end quickly. they would have their engineers opened that phone and it would be done in a short time. if we grab someone at the ransom
drop and said the clue to that kid is in this device, they would figure that out. charlie: and they are not now. >> they are not because they have chosen to make this stand on this case. charlie: they believe it will be a precedent. that's the point that tim cook continues to make. >> i want to quote apple. let me tell you what they said about ios 7. strongescribe this encryption and told the public they could maintain the ability to help with police investigating robberies and other crimes, searching for missing children, trying to locate a patient with alzheimer's disease or hope helping to prevent suicide. apple felt ios 7 was secure and recognized they had a responsibility to help police and the public.
suddenly overnight they changed their tune. i happen to believe it is a reflection of market forces that they need to address. charlie: what market forces? to say that our phones are more secure than any other phone and anyone who would like to hack them cannot because we have an encryption process? >> that is exactly right. our worde, don't take for it. take the bad guy's word for it. ask district attorney vance but the tape he has were a prisoner is describing to his colleagues on the street how important it is that they get iowa's eight to avoid scrutiny from os 8 toorcement -- i avoid scrutiny from law-enforcement. >> if our phones are running ios phonere, the can open the
-- they cannot open the phone. that may be a gift from god. i don't think we should be giving them gifts from god. charlie: you want access to all of those phones that you think are crucial in a criminal proceeding? >> absolutely right. what we are asking for is what i think that the circuit -- fourth amendment permits us to do. we cannot conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. when the judge issues that order, what is the definition of reasonableness, we are doing something that is necessary and reasonable in order for us to fulfill our mission to the public. >> why has cooled -- google and these other companies come to support apple's decision?
>> i think there are a couple of things going on here. snowdenost edward world, a report came just this week saying his claims about government collection of americans and internet committee kitchen for wildly overstated. snowden world, companies like apple and verizon threatenedall felt that their customers may have thought the betrayed them because of some of the overreaching reporting. as the district attorney says, a bit of this is a marketing game, of the day, it will probably not be the fbi against apple with the court as an arbiter that tells the bigger question that you keep raising that it is not just about this one phone. ben franklin is the person who said that he who trades liberty for security is a fool who
deserves neither. charlie: are you asking them to trade liberty for security? >> not at all. we don't trade privacy for security or liberty for security as a government. the way that works as a government is the people decide where to set those tolerances. they do it based on the current conditions, how much is the need to, what are the threats in the security world? they go to their lawmakers and tell them what they expect. at the end of the day, the ultimate fix will probably be based on legislation driven by the people. >> we have seen throughout our history the phenomena where businesses have a product that becomes ubiquitous that everyone uses that they have a corporate responsibility to address how to protect victims of crime from the very product that the
business is selling and is being used. not enthusiastic to file currency transaction reports which is a document of more than 10,000 when cash is moved. we understood that criminals were using money and banks had to recognize that they had a responsibility. and the money-laundering rules that apply to banks. the preservation of documents and the like. it's expensive for the banks but they have a responsibility to do that, even in the leah with the government said that telephone companies had to provide an access point for wiretaps to maintain a link to the line understoodall criminals were using telephones and the phone companies had a responsibility to protect their customers and the community. apple and google have said -- charlie: most of silicon valley is supporting apple. >> most people who are
supporting apple have let apple and google on their own drug line where security and privacy should be balanced. they have done it independently and they have drawn it all the way over here which happens to coincide with their economic self-interest. charlie: what with allegedly -- what with the legislation you would like to see say? >> i would like to see it reflected the khalil law. if you have a laptop to communicate on, needs to be away with lawful orders. charlie: procedures that provide new course and all that? >> and consider privacy and the constitution and everything else. to be a to get into those things and provide for stopping criminal actions, bringing cases, saving lives and as the da says, you cannot just little -- unilaterally aside that you will put yourself above the law. i think that's what the legislation is.
with callia, it -- it was about telephones. they do so much more than that so it does not apply to them. we lost our way. the bad guys have figured this out and terrorists have figured this out. we have seen this in real life. it's just that the business has not figured out this is about more than them and the customers. charlie: i am perplexed as to why this issue, this debate between security and privacy, freedom and security, everybody talked about. finding the balance. we have not found the balance. >> i believe that it is our legislators in the public were not aware enough of this issue when we
should've been so we could've addressed it at an early point in time. apple and google made an independent decision. they on the companies and changed the phones so they reset the rules. i want privacy. at the same time, if you put it so far over public safety what you're going to get is a world with lots of privacy and a lot of crime. they can use them to communicate
with each other without fear of ever leaving evidence. i don't think that's the world america wants to live in. america was to live in a world that balances privacy in public safety? i think that apple and google will come to this voluntarily. charlie: you used to work at the fbi. comey has beens having talks with these people in silicon valley. why have they failed? what is the essential breakdown point? these are patriotic americans who run these companies. >> many patriotic americans through the annals of history have been swayed by making lots of money. charlie: are you really saying that you think these executives are simply doing this encryption policy because they want to make a lot of money? >> there are smart people at samsung who are not doing the
same thing. when you have a competitive marketplace, the thing that separates your product from another is the advantage you can give that the other guy doesn't. apple has identified this as that advantage. comey has been the most reasonable voice in this discussion. he says these are good people. guys but theyad have a business model. we work for the fbi and have the american public to be concerned with. we have to serve both of these. that conversation took a term when apple was handed a court order with something that seemed within their capabilities and send this is where we are making our stand, we are saying no.
not because we don't think it can be done bit -- but because we do not feel like it. charlie: do you believe that apple wanted to make a case here , that this is where they chose to defend their definition of privacy? brooklynis a case in involving a truck dealer when they said we could do it, but we won't and that case is tangled there now. high-profileh more case. i don't think anybody cares what happens to that drug dealer in brooklyn but when you have 14 people killed and others wounded in a terrible attack broadcasting across the world on live television, i think that is the kind of case where if you want your stand to be in the spotlight, it will be there. ini would say that charlie, cases of terrorism, what you want from your government and law enforcement is to find a way to prevent the attacks.
we all want to prevent the commission of serious and violent crime. apple's software makes that much more difficult. i am hoping frankly that congress takes this up, studies it, and comes out with a sensible law. if not that i hope that we can convene a group of experts on a short timeframe to go into a room like labor negotiations and come out with a compromise that moves us closer to the balance we had before. charlie: i don't understand what that hasn't happened. >> perhaps there has not been a galvanizing individual. this is an opportunity for the american public to be educated and when the american public understands that prosecutors and police officers are only accessing phones for warrants signed by judges, that should
give people a level of confidence that this is not an irrational or unregulated step. i also think that if people that the phones that they themselves rely on may be inaccessible, they may be victims themselves, that will push us forward. >> thank you for bringing this discussion here. charlie: stay with us.
charlie: alan gilbert is here. he served as the new york director of philharmonic since 2009. he announced he would step down in 2017. antemporary music has been focus of his tenure. omasini wrote, more than any of his predecessors since leonard orenstein he has try to expand the template for what a major orchestra can be. here is a look. ♪
i am please to have alan gilbert at this table. use this as a chance to do a valedictory conversation about your time here at the philharmonic. >> it cracks me up to see that video because even now after we a number ofat and other projects that have been out of the box, in a way that has hopefully made it a bigger box -- it is sort of what we do. it is still amazing to me that we did that. those are the musicians of the new york philharmonic. they are inhabiting the roles of the ballet. that of thisote outdoor fair, winter russia. you saw my silk jacket. i played the part of the magician 10 years ago and even 10 years ago -- i know the orchestra well and have for a long time, i could not have
imagined that the new york philharmonic would present something like this. i announce that i am leaving and thinking about the future -- i am allowing myself to be proud. the orchestrath at used to be and since the idea at the end of the day is to bring the great music to life as this of -- vividly as possible, this was a production that really told the story. it broke down barriers and musicians were able to get out of their traditional role that they inhabit front of the audience. forgive me, but i thought that was pretty cool. charlie: i did, too. is that part of what you intended to do? >> the short answer is, yes. charlie: change the new york philharmonic's? in what way? >> it sounds really cheeky think
about changing a paradigm that has been in existence and successful and iconic for all of these years. >> not just the new york philharmonic but orchestras with a o. needs toat something change and there are a number of reasons for that. the place that music and the arts and habits today -- in today is different than it was 30 years ago. priori, ie, a wanted to keep it fresh. i could not talk about it when i started in the way that i can now because we have a track record. at the beginning if i said,
throw out the paradigm. it will all be different. people understandably and rightfully would have said, what is he talking about? how do you improve something that is virtually perfect already? orchestrass that need to keep musical life. -- alive. so much has been made of the programming and the contemporary music. i have not done more contemporary music and my predecessors. slipve tried not to anything by. we present it with full confidence and with this full support of the entire institution. the mixed message orchestras give today when they engage in the bolero effect.
little put an interesting new piece and then say, you do not have to worry about that, this will send you home happy. the unspoken message is that we do not quite believe in that. i think that means there is a kind of tokenism going on. we have done a lot of different repertoire. everything that we have done we have tried to fit into the big picture. the context so that when we play music the audiences can feel we are behind. i want the new york philharmonic to be in the center of the cultural dialogue. charlie: here is what you said about music in an important conversation at the royal philharmonic society talking about orchestras in the toy first century. -- 21st century.
toic defines what it means be human and orchestras will continue doing what we have always done playing thought-provoking music. worldallenges in today's and the way that musicians can touch people's lives on all levels, emotionally and spiritually, but also socially and psychologically. music has an internal power to move us. musicsingly, schools and groups are embracing the new role that musicians can fill. it is not a new idea. you not claim to be crating something that has not existed before. my friend said, you have been
director of the new york philharmonic, now think about what you can do to use music in the platform that you and other musicians occupy to make the world a better place. he has actively pushed me to think about these things. it goes straight to the heart. today, a shared humanity and some language that can show we are connected is more important than ever before. charlie: because of conflict around the global world? >> because of this idea of us and them with the refugee crisis.
there are so many divisions being arbitrarily written and and music canand truly cross these boundaries. it is amazing. a frienden speaking to of mine, the deputy secretary-general at you when and he is using words all the time for diplomatic ends. interestingly, we are talking about a project that will bring music into the diplomatic realm. reinforcing the message of communication and harmony with music. the peaceful version of the peacekeeping forces.
i will continue conducting music, but consciously thinking about ways we can bring musicians together from disparate backgrounds were you wouldn't expect them to come from. charlie: from what podium? >> hopefully it will not only be in response to crisis. when something great happens like the climate accord that we can show we achieved something together as people. i hope from a crisis standpoint there won't be many opportunities to play. message.a very strong we've talked about going outside the concert hall in new york city. if we think on a global scale and get physicians to play on what was a battlefield or a place where a bomb had gone off
i think taking musicians out of the concert hall and putting .hem in real life charlie: you mean bringing a particular orchestra to a place or bringing a new orchestra from diversity around the world and making them part of an event? andhat is my lofty ambition i would love to see musicians coming together. conduct orchestras around the world, i start talking about this and to say there is interest would be understating it enormously. there is this thing among my colleagues of wanting to feel it and we are not sure how to do it. charlie: so what comes out of this is an indication of where
you want to be for the next five years? continue myike to life as a conductor but in a focused and directed way. use the connections that cloud the platform that i have to rally musicians from around the world. not only from the classical world to be able to come together and spread a message of peace and harmony. my favorite cartoon about the refugee crisis is this little cartoon, the sky and the boat and he says where are you from? and he says earth. charlie: it is finally -- don't worry about composing or not composing, you should always strive to do things that look difficult and challenging or -- but climbing everest,
charlie: after growing tired of ridding books about white boys -- of reading books about white boys and their dogs, this one started to take action. she created the movement "1000 black girl books to make a change." you really did realize that all the books were about white boys and their dogs. and you wanted to see? >> black girls being the main character and not the sidekick. charlie: what did you do? >> i told my mom and she said what are you going to do about it? we started a book drive where black girls are the main characters in the book and we give them to the school that i went to and a school in newark and philadelphia. charlie: what do your classmates say? >> they are proud of me. i try to separate the difference
of marley on tv from marley at home so i do not get selfish or make anyone feel jealous. charlie: and you are not getting big headed? you do not walk around saying, hey i am marley. >> my babysitter didn't know i was on tv because i didn't tell her. i told her i did not want to become selfish or big headed. i want to be humble about what i do. charlie: do you have any flaws? >> i get anxious a lot and i am impatient. i hate waiting. charlie: what are your favorite subjects in school? >> language arts. i am in honors which arts and honors social studies. i plan on being in honors like which arts next -- language arts next year. charlie: would you like to be a writer? >> i would like to be a magazine editor for my own magazine.
that's one of my big goals because i love reading and writing and being the boss. oprah mean todoes you? >> i think she is cool because she is an entrepreneur. charlie: if i said the name gayle king? >> she is oprah's best friend. charlie: she is my coanchor. >> i know, she is really cool. charlie: our other coanchor is nora o'donnell. she is terrific. would you like your own television show? >> that would be awesome. i would not push someone to make that happen for me but i think that would be awesome. charlie: you are not very far from manhattan? >> no, about an hour. charlie: if i wanted you to cohost this show, you could do that. >> yes, 100%. charlie: we will do it. are your best friends boys or girls? >> i have one who is a boy and
two that are girls. the boy is named kai. hi. charlie: hi, kai. might other best friends are girls and together we are bam, which is an organization to start social action programs in the community. program lastsney year which was a big step for bam. i had a book sale last year and a book festival this year. charlie: do you know what the word precocious means? it is about you. it is someone who is so surprisingly wise for their age. you have this wonderful presence. you're not embarrassed or afraid to walk right on here. to be as natural as you are as if he were talking to your mother. >> it is easier to be yourself
and something you are not. charlie: are you learning instruments? >> i don't play the guitar, but i used to. i got sick and stopped coming to the lessons. i was tired all the time. so i did not want to get my teacher sick and i got tired of it. like, became better i was i don't remember anything. charlie: it would be nice to learn to play the guitar or the piano. >> i would be excited to learn that. charlie: horsing. >> -- or sing. >> i rap. charlie: how are we doing in school? >> all a's. charlie: that's good. >> i am a conscientious student. charlie: what about college? >> berkeley, not the music school. charlie: how did you come up with that idea? >> i don't like the cold. charlie: but you could go to
stanford. >> my mom would like me to go to oxford. charlie: you could be a rhodes scholar. >> i don't know what that is. charlie: you become a rhodes scholar and you get to go to -- >> what is a rhodes scholarship? >> it's a scholarship to give to the best and the brightest and they go to oxford for two years and they get a degree. it is often based on a wide variety of the qualities that you have. it is revisited by grades and intelligence and has to do with other things that you have done like your project here to make looks available for young girls. and it has to do with special skills that you might have. your mother has already thought about this, she will tell you about this. >> she is lightly pushing me every time we talk about it. charlie: what influence has your mother had on you? >> she has a foundation for women and girls called the
grassroots community foundation. they have a camp every year for girls of african descent. so my friends go. that is where we learned about leadership and how to start these projects. each super camp, that's what we call it, kai goes as well. charlie: your mother has had a huge influence. >> she teaches me how to do that. it doesn't feel like a chore to me. at first it was boring because i did not know how people were allowing me to show up my best self in front of me being selfish. charlie: is she your hero? >> yeah. charlie: one of them? people,e attributes of because everybody messes up. it is better to take an attribute than a specific person. charlie: what about your father? what does he have? >> creativity.
charlie: have they lead you to believe that everything is possible? >> yes. charlie: that whatever marley wants, she can achieve. >> yes. 100%. charlie: he said you can express your emotions when you read. >> when you read a book from a person with a lot of words, you will learn to say those things if you feel the same way they did. charlie: when you write, do you write well? >> i think i am a very good writer. charlie: so how about acting? do you like it? >> i told my mom that i wanted to become an actress. i still do, but not full-time. charlie: you will act on the side. [laughter] signed actress and a signed model for an actinga g agency.
charlie: you are a model? what about sports? >> i am into sports but not as much now because my life blew up. in the spring i hope to continue running. charlie: what is the best advice you have ever received? >> be yourself. charlie: from your mom and dad? >> everyone tells me to be myself because they like myself. charlie: and you like yourself. what do you like most? >> that i like myself. charlie: [laughter] what is your favorite bob marley song? know this but not my favorite is "i shot the sheriff." my mom's favorite is "war." my dad's is "three little birds." he likes to pretend he is a bird by doing this. charlie: [laughter] thank you for