The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

There was an internal process inside the administration about whether or not the administration and the White House would go to Congress and ask for new laws to deal with the new encryption capabilities.

The administration decided not to.

Then we have San Bernardino.

Now we have an investigation which is an important investigation.

But we don't have simply one little part of the investigation.

We all of a sudden have an enormous public controversy created by the FBI.

So I think that the question of whether or not there's anything really useful or necessary on that phone does go to what is the FBI trying to do here.

I'm Benjamin Whittes and this is the LawFair podcast March 4th, 2016.

Apple, FBI, the Wilson Center in Washington took on the controversy this week in a panel entitled Will They Or Won't They Understanding the Encryption Debate.

Congressman Ted Lu of California discusses the encryption challenge with LawFair's own Susan Hennessey and Kate Martin of the Center for American Progress.

Politico's Dave Parara moderates the discussion as a tale of three iPhones.

The first is the iPhone had issue in a New York drug prosecution.

The second iPhone is the one at the center of the California controversy regarding the provision of assistance to the FBI in the San Bernardino case.

And then there's iPhone number three, the iPhone of the future.

A theoretical phone with security features so robust there is no conceivable way to provide any kind of assistance or law enforcement access whatsoever.

It's the LawFair podcast episode 160, Apple, the FBI at the Wilson Center.

...