"The Privacy vs. Security battle, reignited" PBS NewsHour 2/24/2016
I will say again, and again, NO ONE has the right to Obstruct Justice by refusing a legally obtained warrant, nor use the excuse of 'privacy' to hid criminal activity.
SUMMARY: As Apple’s standoff with federal courts reignites the debate over privacy versus security, some may wonder just how much American intelligence policies have changed since Sept. 11. Hari Sreenivasan talks with former CIA Director Michael Hayden about the constitutional cost of national security, the efficacy of drone strikes and the human element within the Central Intelligence Agency.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): We move now from defense to intelligence, and how the country has changed since the attacks of September 11.
The privacy vs. security debate has surfaced again in the wake of the FBI’s appeal to tech giant Apple to unlock an iPhone that belonged to one of the San Bernardino shootings. And there is renewed campaign debate over torture.
Hari Sreenivasan has our conversation with one man who was at the center of U.S. intelligence policy.
HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour): Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden is the only person to ever serve as both the director of the CIA and the head of the National Security Agency. His tenure at both agencies came during a critical period, as the U.S. launched and prosecuted the global war on terror.
He’s just written a book about his time in government called “Playing to the Edge.”
He joins me now.
Thanks for joining us.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN (RET.), Author, “Playing to the Edge”: Thank you, Hari.
HARI SREENIVASAN: The other big story right now is obviously this tension between Apple and the government. In this conversation, you have said that you come down on the side of Apple more often than not. In this specific case, with this specific device, you are on the side of the government in trying to open it up. This is the phone, of course, that was used by the attacker in San Bernardino.
You know, one of Apple’s arguments has been, listen, this will set a precedent, it will create a back door. And, sure enough, there’s at least nine or 10 other cases where Apple is being asked to open up that phone.
GEN. MICHAEL HAYDEN: Absolutely.
And the U.S. attorney in Manhattan says he has got 175 of these instruments sitting in a room that he wants to be reopened. So, in this particular case, the original ask from the FBI, going back months now, was some sort of universal back door that would allow them to get into Apple and other companies’ encrypted devices.
Frankly, Hari, I think American safety, American security — put the privacy argument aside, which is quite powerful. But I’m a security guy. I think American security is better served with end-to-end unbreakable encryption.
And I recognize that makes the life of the FBI more difficult, may even make the life of my old agency more difficult.