Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

A Look at the Legality of Passport Restrictions; Stopping Hot Car Deaths; Hollywood Photo Hack Mystery

Aired September 02, 2014 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Two years later, a top court exonerated him.

CERIE BULLIVANT, FORMER TERROR SUSPECT: The police would just come by, let them come in and you can't stop them. They come and search your house.

PENHAUL: As part of his new anti-terror drive, Prime Minister Cameron proposed beefing up control orders currently called terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

BULLIVANT: If somebody is dangerous to the British public, then they need to be in prison. And the only way to do that is bring charges, bring a trial in fair and open court.

PENHAUL: Bullivant fears tougher government powers may not defend against radical Islam but instead risk turning Britain into a police state.

Karl Penhaul, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Karl Penhaul, thank you.

I'm joined now by our CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. First person I thought of when I saw what the prime minister announced yesterday was you because we have this little thing called a constitution here that gives us all sorts of rights and freedoms.

How many of them actually match up with what the prime minister did in Britain? Why couldn't that happen here?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it's actually a similar situation here.

What people should know is the United States government, through the State Department, had been taking passports from people for a long time if they are suspected of being involved in terrorism.

BANFIELD: Suspected.

TOOBIN: Well, this is the standard. What the law says is you can have your passport pulled if your activities abroad are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.

So, if you're likely to cause harm to the United States, your passports can be taken. And as part of the so-called war on terror, which George W. Bush started, a lot of Americans have lost their passport. Anwar al Awlaki, who was later killed by a drone, in Yemen, he had his passport was taken first.

BANFIELD: Who is the arbiter of whether you are likely to cause problems? Is it somebody in the State Department?

TOOBIN: It's the State Department. There have been cases where individuals abroad have said I'm not involved in terrorism. You don't have the right to do that. And they've gone to court to have their passports reinstated.

Most of the time, the State Department wins. But there have been occasions reports have said your evidence is insufficient.

What makes the Cameron effort different is that he's really lowering the barrier. He's saying if you're even suspected of being involved in terrorist activities, we're going to pull your passport. That's a more permissive standard for the government than the one here.

BANFIELD: So we actually do have a standard within the State Department. And they can decide that in a boardroom, in a quiet boardroom, without ever having to make their process public.

TOOBIN: That's right. And you don't have to be convicted of a crime. You don't have to have any charges against you.

That's -- you know, the State Department has -- the law that Congress has passed says that this is up to the State Department. And they've used that power.

BANFIELD: One of the first things a lot of critics said was having a passport is a right of American citizenship. Is it more of a privilege?

TOOBIN: The law treats it as more of a privilege, that, you know, you get a pass board if you're an American citizen under certain conditions, one of which that you do not harm the foreign policy or the national security of the United States.

BANFIELD: Like you can drive under certain conditions. That you don't drink and hurt people and get into trouble.

TOOBIN: Exactly.

BANFIELD: But there's always a trial process for that as well.

Can I just ask you about other things though? Banning suspects from boarding planes, banning suspects from associating with certain people that made me think, I can't imagine that happening here.

How can you curfew someone and ban them from association? TOOBIN: I don't thing you could do that in the United States. Just in

the abstract, but planes, I mean, we know that the United States has had a no fly list for quite some time.

BANFIELD: Isn't it the airline that has to effectuate that?

TOOBIN: Well, it's through TSA. There's been a lot of controversy about it. There have been apparently some mistakes that people put on there.

The problem in all these circumstances is we all agree it's a good idea to be tough on terrorism and try to prevent attacks before they take place.

But once you expand the net of people that you're going to cover, you're going to make some mistakes.

BANFIELD: Not to suggest that you or I are going to travel to a war zone for fun any time soon, but there are a lot of people with families in war zones. There are people who travel to Syria because they have families, or perhaps even more altruistic, a humanitarian, you know, mission.

But being barred from ever being allowed to return home. Is that something that an American citizen could challenge their government over?

TOOBIN: Sure, they can go to court, but the law gives the State Department a lot of deference in terms of deciding who can return to the United States.

And in these circumstances -- I mean, look, if you go to Yemen today for better or for worse, you have to know that the United States government is going to take a hard look at why you're there, what you were doing there, to the extent they can determine it, and decide whether they're going to let you back in.

BANFIELD: As hard a look as the Brits are planning to do?

TOOBIN: Not currently, but these standards are always in flux.

BANFIELD: Absolutely fascinating. Jeffrey Toobin, thank you, appreciate it.

A grieving mother on a mission -- stop the deaths of children in hot cars -- it's because this summer, her own 15-month-old son Ben died after he was accidentally left in the car by his dad.

And, now, Kyle's mom says dozens of deaths like his happen every year, and they can be prevented with technology that already exists.

So, why isn't it in the cars? And will it be soon? She joins me next with her story.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BANFIELD: You will hear this story and, like the mom you're about to meet, you may tell yourself this will never happen to me or to anyone I love.

All it took was a change in routine to turn her life upside down. Lindsey Rogers-Seitz and her husband Kyle are featured in a brand-new "Time" magazine article.

Kyle drove to work and accidentally left their 15-month-old son Benjamin in the car for more than seven hours. Ben died on July 7th of this year. Not even two months ago.

According to child advocacy group KidsInCars.org, 44 children died of heat stroke in cars last year. More than 600 have died since 1998.

After a life shattering loss, instead of falling to pieces, Lindsey is instead lobbying for legislation to mandate some life-saving technology in cars, and she joins me now with her story.

First of all, thank you so much for coming in. This can't be easy for you, especially since this is so recent. Take me back to what happened the day Ben died.

LINDSEY ROGERS-SEITZ, MOTHER OF BEN SEITZ: The last thing I remember about Ben, my husband brought him into the bedroom that morning. I gave him a kiss. I said I love you, rubbed his arm.

My husband took him to work. It's as simple as a wrong turn. Instead of going to daycare, he went about his day. I went about my day. At about -- after 5:00 when he usually goes to day case he went and he walked in to look for Ben in the day care room and he wasn't there. He said, did somebody come pick him up? They said, no, he never came in. I think in his mind, his worse nightmare happened. He found him in the car. Accounts I've heard is they heard a scream in the parking lot and then he rushed him to the hospital.

BANFIELD: We should note that Kyle has not been charged in this case. But what's remarkable is that this is happening so often, and it spans the demographics. It spans the socioeconomic levels.

There have been -- I dare say someone with NASA. This happened to someone who is clearly very clever, very smart. It is an honest mistake among almost of the professionals who have looked at this.

So why is it that since this is happening so much, and for so long already, we don't have the technology installed in cars already?

ROGERS-SEITZ: Yes. Honestly, there's many factors in play. The easiest one is this is a divisive issue. It's very controversial. I think it's hard for the average American to understand how it happens.

It's your worst nightmare. Instead of putting yourself in our place, it's got to be easier than saying, this is a family it happened to and it's not me. Also, auto manufacturers don't have to do it yet because of that exact reason. In '01, GM issued a press release and said we know this is a serious safety concern and we're going to have devices in cars by '04. That was abandoned.

DOT, NHTSA, which is a part of DOT, they've taken a pure public awareness campaign approach, which that's obviously going to be the base to everything we do in the future.

BANFIELD: Public awareness doesn't get -- we know it's wrong. I don't think anybody doesn't know it's wrong. It's just it's an accident. Accidents happen.

Since you're an attorney, do you think the liability issue is the biggest at play here? Car manufacturers perhaps slow to put a device in a car that, god forbid, it malfunctions, they may face billions of dollars in lawsuits?

ROGERS-SEITZ: Of course. There was a segment on another news show and had a quote from Volvo, that was the reason. Auto manufacturers today have things in their car that there's liability with. And they still do it. And children are dying.

I don't think liability's a reason. That's what lawyers get paid for, honestly, that work for the auto manufacturers. When kids are lying like this, they need to find a solution.

BANFIELD: You would think the marketing alone would sell this feature. Look, my children are 7 and 8. I don't have this concern now.

I think looking now at the repetitive stories that are happening, stories like yours, absolutely heart crushing, that I would want that feature in my car. If it were offered, I'd buy that car. Why isn't the market force driving that?

ROGERS-SEITZ: Market force, capitalism, right?

Honestly, I think it's because we need families like us. We could be your neighbor, your best friend, to get out there and show how it happens, the psychology behind it, the unconscious habit-based memory.

So people can understand, go out there and say, we would buy a car like that. We're willing to tell our legislators we want them to push for this but that hasn't happened yet.

BANFIELD: There are other safety devices on cars that ultimately were an offering, an add on, and they worked so well, they became mandated. I think by 2018, all cars have to have them.

ROGERS-SEITZ: When you look at what car manufacturers have done so far you have lane departure warnings, backup cameras. Those will be in cars by 2018.

BANFIELD: Is this why car manufacturers don't want to offer this as an option? Because ultimately it will work and they're worried they'll be mandated, they'll have to do it?

ROGERS-SEITZ: Maybe. But I'm not sure that every car manufacturer would do this actually, because of the cost.

You know, what are the devices they would put in. If we want it in every car so that it will save every American and every child that could be in a back seat, it may have to be mandated.

BANFIELD: And so for a lot of people that are -- they don't understand perhaps certainly if they're over a certain age that all of this really came about because of air bags. We wanted to save more lives and by putting the air bags in that created more infant deaths who were riding in the front seat.

ROGERS-SEITZ: Right.

BANFIELD: So all of a sudden, the safety campaign told parents, put your children in the back seat. And the irony is, is that the deaths, because of hot cars, rose, specifically correlated to that action.

ROGERS-SEITZ: Specifically yes.

BANFIELD: So ultimately what is the answer here? Is this - is this the mission that you have undertaken to try to push Congress to push for legislation to push the car manufacturers? Look, price be damned, you've got to put this -- we have the technology -

ROGERS-SEITZ: Yes.

BANFIELD: We've got it, put it in the cars.

ROGERS-SEITZ: Yes. I mean if I 100 percent knew the answer, I would say it. But one thing that we do need is a balanced approach of expert panel to get together and find the solution. And if DOT won't act alone, if it's just -- if they want to take a pure public awareness approach, then maybe we do need Congress to get out there and say, this is important enough. We need to get this done and find the solution and have it implemented quickly.

BANFIELD: I am a mom like you. We're actually neighbors. We come from towns not far away. How are you managing this? I can't believe you're here with me today and you're able to stoically take on this -- this mission.

ROGERS-SEITZ: You don't see me at home behind closed doors. Part of my heart is missing. Part of my soul is gone right now. I loved him more than you could ever imagine. But we have a strong background. I love my family. We have two girls and my husband and we hold on for dear life. And if Ben's life can live on and we can save other kids, that's what we want to do.

BANFIELD: I have a colleague named Sunny Hostin who left her child -- thank God she got there in time -- she puts her shoes in the backseat and she can never get out of the car without getting her shoes. And it's a great piece of advice. And I thank you.

ROGERS-SEITZ: Thank you.

BANFIELD: Thank you for your work. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BANFIELD: And this literally just in. We're hearing that another American aid worker has tested positive for Ebola. I'm getting this at the same time as giving this to you. Apparently this is another missionary doctor. Apparently treated obstetrics patients at a hospital in Monrovia, was not treating Ebola patients apparently, but was at an isolation facility, separate from the main hospital. So we're going to continue to watch this. But again, another missionary doctor in Liberia has tested positive for Ebola. Apparently has been isolated. And we're told doing well, in good spirits. Clearly that is a very serious development though. We'll continue to watch that for you and update you as we learn more about that story.

We're also watching this story that's developed. An online story that has a lot of people pretty concerned about their own security, especially their photos, because dozens of nude photos of celebrities made it on to the Internet this weekend and it is still a pretty big mystery as to how it happened. The victims include A-list stars like Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton, Rihanna. No one knows exactly who did this or exactly how those photos were obtained, but the FBI and Apple are right now scrambling to investigate the hack as fears about digital security continue to grow.

The prevailing theory is that Apple's iCloud was hacked. The iCloud is a wireless storage service that automatically backs up Apple iPhones and laptops. And joining me now to talk about the investigation and the digital security is CNN Money tech correspondent Laurie Segall, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and CNN technology analyst Brett Larson.

All right, so, Brett, first to you with this story because a lot of people who have iPhones and iPads and even people who have Android phones and anything else are very concerned about their digital storage knowing that someone or people of this ilk can be affected.

BRETT LARSON, CNN TECHNOLOGY ANALYST: Right.

BANFIELD: Does that mean we are all at risk?

LARSON: We are all at risk. Fortunately, not all of us are high- profile targets that there are people in their mother's basements and where have you around the country trying to get at them and get access to their digital files, their personal photos and things like that. I think the average consumer should be worried about what information of their own is getting out there. Not just as in this instance where they're being posted online, but also in these cases where it's like cyber blackmail where someone says, I've got these pictures of you, I was able to access your webcam, I have you walking naked through your house, pay me money or I'm going to make these pictures public.

BANFIELD: First time I heard the term iCloud, I immediately thought, oh, that sounds hackable. And I'm an idiot, honestly.

Laurie, can you delete - I mean for people who are out there right now and they fear maybe being swept up in one of these things.

LAURIE SEGALL, CNN MONEY TECH CORRESPONDENT: Right. Sure.

BANFIELD: They may not be celebrities but they could be swept up in one of these big, you know, mass hacks. Can you delete what you have or is it out there already?

SEGALL: You can delete. But what I will say, I spoke to Michael Greg, who is a hacker who helps celebrities. He said when you - and I said, what's the number one thing you tell to celebrities? And he said, the number one thing is, don't upload your information to the cloud because often times even when you do delete that information, it takes four to six weeks to actually disappear. There are some steps you can take. You can disable photo stream on your iPhone because it automatically syncs your pictures to the cloud. You can hit edit and photo stream will delete specific photos. Also, make sure you delete your photos from your camera roll on your phone and -

BANFIELD: Really?

SEGALL: Yes.

BANFIELD: You can't even have them cycling on your phone?

SEGALL: Delete all -- in every single place. And, also, turn on two factor authentication. I know it's a pain when you're trying to sign into gmail and it basically makes it two steps. You get a text message and then you have to enter the code, but that could have potentially prevented something like this from happening.

BANFIELD: That can be certainly far more secure.

Jeffrey, I think I know the answer to this, but do these celebrities have a hope in you know what of ever getting any kind of action on whomever is responsible for this?

TOOBIN: I'd say there's an outside chance. Look, the overwhelming likelihood, it seems to me, is that we'll never know who did this, it will just sort of disappear into the hacking mist, as so many of these stories do. But since it was so specific and so targeted, you know, it wasn't, you know, 100,000 or 100 million credit card numbers. It was very much targeted towards these celebrities. There is a chance that the detectives who know this kind of work can find out who did it. But, to answer your question, I don't think anyone should hold their breath. I think people should take steps, celebrities, ordinary people, to try to avoid these problems in the first place.

BANFIELD: Don't you have that advice? Isn't that the advice I've heard you give?

LARSON: I - this is the advice I always -

BANFIELD: Go ahead. LARSON: I always -- oh, don't take pictures of yourself with your goods and your face in the same shot, for one. But also I think you bring up a very valid --

BANFIELD: Wise advice.

LARSON: Words -- I know this -

TOOBIN: Is that controversial advice or -

LARSON: I know that this is -- we've been talking about this a lot today, but I know that - well, the -- sort of the prevailing theory that we've had is, maybe don't have your head in the same shot as what's below your waist. But also I think the good news, if we can take some good news out of this, is they were high-profile people. They do have deep pockets to really chase these people down. And it's a big - it's been a big reminder and a big lesson to all of us of, these sort of default realities that have become a part of our life and how we have to pay a little bit closer attention to what we're doing and what we're sharing and where we're sharing it.

BANFIELD: All right. Well, I've got to stop it there. We do have some breaking news that the next program is going to carrying on an American doctor has been - apparently tested positive for Ebola. A missionary worker. So we're going to continue watching that. But to the three of you, thank you for that. And great advice, don't take the pictures.

Thank you, everyone, for being with us. Stay tuned. "Wolf" starts right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)