"Debate Housekeeping" (07:17)
Moderator John Donvan frames the debate on whether tech companies should be required to help law enforcement execute search warrants to access customer data. He instructs the audience to vote and introduces panel members.
Opening Statement For: Stewart Baker (06:21)
Attorney and former Assistant Secretary for Policy at Department of Homeland Security, Baker states that everyone is required to help law enforcement in the right circumstances, but the obligation to help law enforcement is not without boundary. Apple's argument was in defiance of an obligation that other citizens are required to provide.
Opening Statement Against: Catherine Crump (06:27)
Samuelson Law Acting Director of Technology and Public Policy Clinic and Berkley Law Professor, Crump says the debate is about whether the government can mandate companies, like Apple, to design devices that are less secure to facilitate the government's access to data. Encryption is important to preserving free speech and commerce online. Over half of Americans have experience a major data breach.
Opening Statement For: John Yoo (06:23)
Law Professor and former attorney for the Justice Department, Yoo states that the Constitution does not mention encryption; he cites the Fourth Amendment. What is reasonable is the standard; consider the balance between privacy and protection from terrorists.
Opening Statement Against: Michael Chertoff (06:21)
The Chertoff Group Executive Chairman and former Secretary of Homeland Security, Chertoff states that the capabilities tech companies can provide to the U.S. government for help in detection and prevention of terrorism is greater than it has ever been and the information is available with a warrant or subpoena. Many applications do not give the service provider the ability to access data. Protecting data falls on the individual.
Debate Summary (02:24)
Donvan summarizes the opening statements for and against the proposition on whether tech companies should be required to help law enforcement execute search warrants to access customer data.
Obligation to Help (05:19)
Crump states that companies have an obligation, but it is not unlimited; Chertoff cites Apple's argument. Baker shares a story from an attorney about Apple's defiance of obligation. Yoo considers encryption versus hacking.
Phone Security (03:48)
Chertoff argues that once a tech vulnerability is created, it will be in constant demand and cannot be guaranteed secure. Baker counters that the government asked Apple to use a backdoor it had already created.
Privacy vs. National Security? (07:51)
Crump argues that strong encryption secures data privacy and improves security. Yoo counters that Americans should decide the reasonable balance, not tech companies. Chertoff, Baker, and Crump debate "backdoors."
Loss of Privacy (06:03)
Yoo states there is no formula for reasonableness other than balancing security and privacy; he cites the San Bernardino attack. Crump argues that overriding user control of data creates a security problem. Baker states that technology is transforming crime the same way it is transforming crime busting.
Q/A: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (02:00)
The Supreme Court does not say that the Fourth Amendment places those rights above all other; balance security and privacy.
Q/A: Encryption Key (04:40)
Some enterprises have a duplicate key. Chertoff argues that tech companies should not have to configure systems that always allows for a duplicate key. Baker and Yoo consider trusting privacy and security to tech companies; Crump counters with market incentives.
Q/A: Balancing Lives (04:39)
Baker states that Apple built technology that allows them to modify phones and has successfully protected it. Chertoff argues security value in encryption.
Q/A: Burden on Tech Companies or Law Enforcement? (03:03)
Yoo states a choice between government access and vulnerability is not true. Crump counters that while encryption may be the best tool available, it is not perfect.
Q/A: Congress and Nuclear Threats (04:04)
Chertoff considers the prevention of tech companies from organizing in a way that they do not have access to information and compares it apps with temporary messaging. Technology has tipped the balance in favor of security. Yoo worries about the atmosphere that tech companies will refuse to help the government,
Q/A: Backdoor and Genetic Information (02:53)
Yoo cites DNA testing as a choice already made about privacy and genetic data. Crump agrees and stipulates that if a company has access to data, it should comply with court orders.
Closing Statement For: Baker (02:00)
Baker cites the murder of Brittney Mills who kept a diary on her iPhone; Apple is not prepared to provide assistance in accessing the information. Companies can be required to help law enforcement.
Closing Statement Against: Crump (01:06)
Crump asks, "where is the greater good?" Backdoors create vulnerability and can be abused.
Closing Statement For: Yoo (02:13)
Yoo asks himself, what would Hamilton do? The purpose of government is to protect the community from attacks. We must balance the needs of the government with privacy rights.
Closing Statement Against: Chertoff (02:17)
Chertoff does not think it is wise to require anyone to do whatever is possible to make things accessible to law enforcement. He cites examples of data breaches.
Time to Vote (03:05)
Donvan instructs the audience to vote. He thanks participants and supporters, cites ways to watch Intelligence Squared, and introduces the next debate.
Results of Audience Vote (00:60)
Pre-Debate - For: 26% - Against: 47% - Undecided: 27%. Post-Debate - For: 36% - Against: 58% - Undecided: 6%
Credits: Debating the Constitution: Technology and Privacy (00:05)
Credits: Debating the Constitution: Technology and Privacy
For additional digital leasing and purchase options contact a media consultant at 800-257-5126
(press option 3) or firstname.lastname@example.org.