Live on Bloomberg TV

00:00TONY EASTLEY Let him gentlemen please welcome to the stage from Bloomberg News Emily Chang Madam Attorney General thank you so much for having me here today for this conversation on a very busy day for you. What's been a very busy couple of weeks so I appreciate. Happy to be here. Thank you. So on that note you've had a lot going on recently with a little company called Apple. Why did you make coming to RSA a priority today. Well I was actually fortunate enough to have received this invitation some months ago and we thought gee what can we do to make it interesting. Actually no I think it was just a confluence of time and events but I think that the fact that this issue has arisen while you all are having this conference just shows how important these issues are how timely they are and how they can come up really without anyone predicting them. We live in such a digital age now that these issues have to be dealt with and have to be addressed and so I think it's a great conversation to have. You have less than a year left as attorney general. What do you want to accomplish. What are your priorities. So I have been looking at the landscape obviously since before I took this chair and certainly now that I'm in it we're focusing obviously on national security and terrorism as I mentioned earlier the threat has changed it has morphed but the fact that America remains a target has not. And we are in fact seeing new ways of targeting American interests here and overseas all the time . Protection of vulnerable people particularly those who have been caught up in human trafficking is a priority of mine working to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities we serve has been a longstanding priority of mine as U.S. attorney and now as attorney general. And also cyber security is one of my top priorities. When you think about the threats that we face to our intellectual property to our infrastructure as well as to the personal safety and identity of every American. These are huge issues that people in this audience are building these technologies. Given what is going on between Apple and the FBI do you believe that technology is outpacing the law. You know I think that the law has a wonderful elastic quality to cover the issues that develop and that's what those of us who work in the field try and do. We try and advance it in a way that keeps it current keeps it relevant and that as we have these discussions applies to the current legal issues. I think technology is a wonderful thing . The growth of technology frankly is the growth of this country . And I would do nothing to stop that but they can co-exist and they do co-exist all the time. But technology is also making your job more difficult especially in this particular case . What is the risk if Apple or any company built a device or a product that the government could not infiltrate. No I think there's there's two risks. There's a very specific issue of a specific matter in which we find ourselves in now where we know whether we're well we don't know what's on the particular device an issue in the case but we know that devices are more and more the repository of all types of information and they are so essential to investigating and solving serious crimes. Having the inability to actually obtain evidence that could save lives is a real risk. The other issue that we have to face is how are we going to decide these issues and essentially how are we going to determine the scope of what law enforcement can and can't do . And those are other risks that I think are happy part of the national discussion. Encryption is supposed to make us safer by asking Apple to unlock this phone or circumvent encryption . Isn't that making us less safe. Will that be making us I think encryption does make us safer. I think that certainly I know that I and I support encryption and have been someone who's very very focused on that. I think it does make us safer but I think we can have both and in fact up until recently Apple maintained the ability to provide information to the government without any loss of safety or security of the data that they stored on their devices. But I think we one risk we run is making this all about Apple when in reality it's about all of us and it's about how all of technology how all of commerce manages and protects our data and the reality is American industry is very good at encryption and using every method that we have to protect our information while also maintaining the ability to use that information for security purposes for marketing purposes and also to be responsive two court orders. It happens all the time every day of the week all across America. This is a very different decision by Apple to not participate in that national directive. This is about one phone. The government has said but there are 12 other cases involving 14 other phones. And I wonder when you ask for Apple and the FBI to find a common ground. Where is that middle ground. Give me some specifics on a middle ground that is not a slippery slope. You know I will tell you that I always think for me the middle ground is to devolve to what the law requires. You know this is not about me telling Apple to do something. You know I don't get to do that . I have to go to court and ask for permission to go into anything whether it's a device whether it's a box of documents in someone's house. And if there were a box of documents in someone's house that I could show a court may have evidence of a crime and the lock on the door was such that I needed help to get in and I needed someone to help me essentially so that I could try and get in without those documents self destructing . That's what we're asking Apple to do. Don't run in and get it for us. Don't take that risk. Don't pull them out yourself . But in this instance do what you did for years until about a year ago and essentially help us with this particular matter . But Apple is saying if they make a case for this one particular door they're making a case to all of our doors and we're all at risk. Hundreds of millions of people. You know I think that again I think that Apple's a great company. All of our tech companies are fantastic and they do an excellent job of protecting encrypted data unencrypted data our most private information that we've entrusted them to while also maintaining the ability to comply with court orders and also to use that data for their own purposes. This has been going on for years and we have not had the parade of horribles that Apple is now asserting. You know what we're asking them to do is to help us with this one particular device but not give it to us device . But not but not to give it the technology to us. They could keep it. They could destroy it. They could essentially essentially be done with it and it would let us try and get into the phone wouldn't even want them to be the ones to get into it right. It's not just this particular phone though. There are other phones that across the country the government wants access to and in in Brooklyn just yesterday a judge said that Apple didn't have to do that when it came to a drug dealer. Does that undermine your argument here. You know we did receive that decision yesterday obviously disappointed in it. We'll be resubmitting it to the court with with our views on that. I would know that that was the case in which Apple had had actually promised to help us as an older version of the phone doesn't involve encryption at all. One of the many cases in which they and other companies have provided assistance over the years and their position didn't change until the judge's request for for their opinion became public. So I think that it's clear that that's an issue where it doesn't even involve encryption . It's Will you do what you've always done which is as every American citizen and company do comply with the law and and respond to a request for the government from assistance. I think your point about other phones being involved shows how ubiquitous the phone is a collection of information. Is this is where data does reside. And that's why certainly in my view and the view that I hold for the Department of Justice our ability to go into devices has to be limited has to be focused has to be specific to what we need to find. Now this is not a request to rummage around and hope that we find something. As with everything when we go into a home and search it or an office and search it that request has to be and should always be limited to the specific issues that we think may be there. And when it comes to electronic data whether it's on a phone or a computer which we handle all the time we want to set up safeguards so that we don't go further than that. That's our obligation and I'm committed to making sure that that's how we handle ourselves in the law enforcement area. But I do think that there are other obligations as well in the sense that you know we're all here in this great country participating in this great democracy and with the ability to live in this wonderful country and create these beautiful things come responsibilities part of the social compact that we've all agreed to is it we're going to work under this framework of laws again not what I say. You know I don't get to call it Apple and say I'd like you to give me something. It's has to be approved by a neutral third party a judge who says OK under the existing law this is what you can get and no further. So speaking of law Apple says that this request violates not just their first amendment rights but their Fifth Amendment rights. Why don't you buy that argument. Well you know the Fifth Amendment protects people from self incrimination and anyone who's watched episodes of Law and Order you know the drill. You know you've got the right to remain silent if you give up that right anything you say can and will be used against you. You know Apple is not a target in this matter. We're not alleging that they have done anything wrong . If we were they would certainly have rights and we wouldn't actually under current law not be allowed to ask them to give us evidence that could harm them or incriminate them through a third party in this. You know I think it's important to know that the customer in this and I know that Apple's customers very important to it as as they should be. The customer has asked for their help. The customer has said help me obtain access to this password. So the government can then see what information is on this phone. So there are a third party in this. And so there's no self incrimination issues involved. What about the First Amendment right. You know it's an issue. I think that that's a very important topic for discussion. I think that's a very important topic for discussion because it has ramifications far beyond this case as to whether or not someone should write code to help it comply with a legal process as most Americans have agreed to do. But as to whether or not it has the commercial aspects compared with free speech aspects as well. I mean one question would be you know how is what is the intersection of commercial speech and free speech when you're talking about code. Those are fascinating issues but they aren't the issues that drive this case. And frankly they aren't the issues that are going to drive how we and law enforcement work with the tech industry to resolve all of these issues . We're relying upon time tested time honored values of law . Values of equity there. And frankly our obligation is to protect the American people. You've talked about the going dark problem the inability to track terrorists when their communications are encrypted. We are living in a world where there is more data and information out there than ever. So why focus on this little bit of information that you don't have when you have more information than ever before. You know I get that response a lot from people who say we live in an age of information. Everyone out there has a cell phone. Is all this data out there. And then when I say to them. So what of those data sets are responsive to law enforcement's needs to find out what a terrorist is planning to blow up next. There's not really a response to that and I'm not saying that the average citizen should be an FBI agent and should know the answer to that question. But what I am saying is that that question is something that highlights the fact that all this information out there is not the responsive information that focuses on individuals who are trying to harm Americans and our interests . Some of it is. But if you are saying if we if we wanted to side as a society that what we want to do is to say to all of our law enforcement agencies you know what. We're not going to let you investigate anymore you're going to have to wait until somebody happens to come by with a cell phone and record something. And that's the only way you're going to gather data. We can say that as a country and a community. But we have to be very clear that that's what we're saying. And of the ramifications there of and I don't think that's what the American people really want law enforcement to do and they want us to do what we have always done which is investigate crimes they want us to do it within the law and that's what they should expect. They want us to do it in appropriate ways and appropriate measures and they want us to essentially go to court and get orders so that we can in limited situations gather information. Now Tim Cook has said repeatedly that it's not going to be a limited situation if this key was made it's like cancer for iPhones. How do you respond to that analogy. Well I don't think that the older versions of iPhones had cancer. I think they were great. I think they worked but I go back to Iowa seven. I don't think you have to go back to it. But I think what I find interesting about that argument and again I think Tim's a great guy. He's a great Southerner as a mom and and as a great company. I just am curious as to why their view might be you know what we're going to innovate we're going to create we're gonna move forward but in this one area we're done. I just find that surprising and I'm not sure that that's really the best response to this issue. So then from a technical perspective do you buy the argument that there is no other technical way to do this. Well other technical way to go this other than to build this off you know I think that's what they're looking at now but I think that there are always ways to look at these issues that we have found to be very productive and in talks that we've had with Apple and other companies. And I'm just again surprised that the choice would be we're not even going to think about this anymore. We're done thinking on this issue. That's just not what I expect from one of our great American companies. More from a technical perspective what they can do this they can do what's been asked of them. They've made the choice that it's not you know what they think is the appropriate thing to do. And again I respect their positions . I respect Tim Cook a great deal and his views will be heard in court and they'll be decided in court. I think we have to decide also as a country in this conversation do we let one company no matter how great the company no matter how beautiful their devices do we let one company decide this issue for all of us do let one company say this is how investigations are gonna be conducted and no other way. We don't do that in any other area . On that note I was speaking with the head of Android at Google and I said What if this was an android phone and not an iPhone and I wonder do law enforcement agencies have Android phones that they cannot unlock or is there a fundamental difference between Apple and Android when it comes to encryption. Well what I'll say about that is that this this case presents a specific issue with Apple now. And I think other companies again are going to look at it to see how they want to respond . But we have always found our tech companies and by the way I put Apple in that category as being helpful cooperated in so many areas. I don't want to call any one company out or highlight an issue with them because by and large really our our cooperation and collaboration with them has been very very positive. And as I said I put Apple in that category also. They do great work with us in the discussion on how do we counter violent extremism for example. Well we do have a disagreement in this fundamental area. So there's a question of the implications that this could set for other governments if Apple does this for the United States government. Does that give license for the Chinese government and the Russian government to make the same requests . Doesn't doesn't that put us more at risk and undermine the competitiveness of our own company. You know again I think that the the issue that we are facing now is how do we as an American law enforcement agency fully investigate the worst terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Those issues are very important and they should be part of the discussion. Those issues meaning how do we also interact with other countries and other countries. As I noted in my comments the international world is becoming so much more part of what American business has to think about also. And I think we can have those discussions and we can talk about ways to manage those problems . Also I would note however that you know it didn't seem to be an issue 14 months ago when Apple would've been able to respond to the government's request and the same situations existed throughout the world. So I think that we can have both. We could have strong encryption. We could have great devices that protect our data and our privacy which everyone wants and needs . But we can also have the ability to conduct law enforcement investigations in the way in which we always have which is with the assistance of the courts in a limited focused way. Now today you're announcing that the U.S. and the U.K. have begun negotiations that will allow the British government to subpoena U.S. companies for data relevant to investigations in the United Kingdom. How is that beneficial. Well they already do subpoena U.S. companies and by the way this would be U.S. companies who have a presence in the U.K. and therefore would be subject to U.K. law so that if they were operating there they would receive it there and they have they would be subject to penalties if they don't comply. But because the data is often stored here American law basically now says to U.S. tech companies you can't send that data overseas even in response to a law enforcement request. So this has put American industry in a bind. You know they're doing business in the U.K. they could be subject to penalties for not complying but they could be subject to penalties here if they do comply. And these are companies who are saying look this is we're not trying to stand in the way of law enforcement. We understand the important interests here and we've all sat down and had this discussion about what can we do here. The proposal would simply allow a U.K. company to subpoena an American tech company for data held here on their U.K. citizens. This is not about accessing data on American citizens. And in fact it would not cover activity within the U.S.. So we're talking about a crime committed in Great Britain against a Great Britain citizen and they want to get information to help solve it. In those circumstances if again if the U.K. framework of laws is such that it would protect the privacy of even that data we would work out an agreement whereby the companies could comply and not be in violation of U.S. law . This would require congressional action but we're hopeful that we can make that case before Congress as well because it would benefit American companies who have found themselves facing this conflict wanting to cooperate obviously they have a court order but obviously not wanting to put themselves in legal jeopardy . A company might say why is it our responsibility to police locally or internationally. Isn't that the government's job . Well I think the government relies upon the cooperation of citizens and companies as we carry out all of our functions whether it's law enforcement whether it's administrative whether it's regulatory. I mean the reality is we are all in this together. You know the government's job should be the protection of its citizens I certainly view my job as attorney general and my role within the Department of Justice as the protection of the American people. And that requires cooperation. So we have this system of laws both here and in other countries. And what we have said as a society are that if we're operating in that framework of laws people can safely comply with them provide information and not themselves generate a legal problem. Now as I understand it the government has been and you've been part of these conversations for a long time now trying to rebuild the bridges between Washington and Silicon Valley especially in light of Edward Snowden and that the government was trying to work out a long term agreement with U.S. tech companies around encryption specifically in that those talks had made progress until the apple situation blew up. How much progress has been made. Does it feel that any progress has been undone. I tell you I always feel like this progress if people will sit down and talk to me. I think that when you can have those conversations you will always be able to move forward and you'll always be able to find a solution. The solutions that we're talking about though at least in the law enforcement arena are very case specific. And that's why we also have to have the broader nationwide discussion as well about how do we want to decide these issues and who decides these issues. So what I found is in my discussions with tech companies again as I noted in my in my speeches these are not individuals or people who are supporting criminal activity or terrorism. And so I regret sometimes when I listen to the tone outside you know in the in the debates about how well you know aren't they trying to protect terrorists. That's not what people are trying to do . And I don't view it that way. You know people have very sincerely strongly held beliefs. We have sincere strong held obligations and we're all talking and talking together about how do we ensure that we can do both. So I think that whenever there's what's called sort of a flashpoint incident if this case might be considered one it might be but the benefit is we're all talking about this issue and I think my hope is always that after we talk at each other we'll talk with each other and really focus on these issues. So give us some specifics about what you ways that Washington and Silicon Valley can work together. You know one of the really most successful ways in which I think we're starting to work together and I think is one in which Silicon Valley is uniquely equipped to provide assistance in in a in a much better way than government is again . When we look at the use of technology by criminals particularly terrorist activity how do we handle that. Now we know that a number of communications companies already have terms of service that prohibit certain types of inflammatory materials particularly terrorist activities the videos beheading videos for example and under their own terms what they've decided is in terms of their being responsible corporate citizens they do not promulgate them. So they'll take it down. And that's something that I think is a corporate decision and I think has been a positive one. But as we also look at these issues we look at a situation particularly here in the U.S. where the nature of the threat has shifted to the homegrown extremist. These are people of all from all walks of life. It's not what is often portrayed in them in the media as there's one recognizable type of person they're from a particular place they look a particular way. No . What we are seeing are individuals who for a variety of reasons come to violent extremism from a source a place of vulnerability a place of disaffection and they absorb this rhetoric often online and they then go out and commit terrible activities. So how do we while we also protect the First Amendment and protect freedom of expression how do we give these individuals something else to consider. How do we give them something else to think about how do we give them the tools to evaluate what they're seeing online. This is something that obviously is of great interest to us. But I think it's frankly a great interest to many companies who who create wonderful content in other areas all the time. And it's been an area that has great promise and we greatly appreciate their contribution to this field. So we have an audience filled with people focused on cybersecurity. How will your policies affect them . Our policies of collaboration and cooperation have already affected people hopefully I think in a positive way in that we are looking to provide information about cyber threats to the industry more quickly every day. I think if you compare the information we were able to push out for two years ago a year ago and now what I hope is that you will see is that you get information from us but what we see and what we learn faster than before. That's how we're trying to help you. We also are working together to identify the people behind attacks cyber intrusions and sharing that information as well. One of the benefits that we have most recently is congressional activity . Yes believe it or not congressional activity that will help . That essentially says that if private companies do report intrusions and do provide information to the government about certain types of cyber intrusions it limits their liability in those areas as well. Because we often have situations where companies would want to give us information but we're concerned about the attendant civil liability there that we felt should not have been a factor because they're trying essentially to protect everyone. So there's a host of ways in which we hope that we're helping industry. We are always looking for the tech entry to tell us what they need to see us do better faster more efficiently. But what do you want them to help you with the people in this audience have the capability of building technology that can make your job easier but also more difficult . So you know parting words for the people that are making the technology that you know somebody believes that is going beyond the law. You know I don't know if that's the intent of people as they as they build that I view it as this is one of the one of the greatest parts of the American economy. And one of the things that I'm most proud of as an American is our tech industry and what we have been able to do. And so my only parting words would be continue to innovate continue to create continue to collaborate and think and design. But as you do continue to have the conversations about all of the issues that come about with technology none of us really have the luxury of living in an isolated world anymore I know that this group knows that and though this group doesn't live there but the connections that you were forging with your technology and devices and systems are also important to think about as we think about the connections to the obligations that we all have for safety and security. So my parting words are I continue to create continue to innovate and continue to talk and work with us because we very much want to talk and work with you . Attorney General Loretta Lynch thank you so much .

No schedule data available.

Loretta Lynch: Do We Let Apple Decide This Issue for All?

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch discusses the Apple iPhone case and other technology and security issues with Bloomberg's Emily Chang at the RSA conference in San Francisco on March 1. (Source: Bloomberg)

More From Bloomberg Technology
All episodes and clips