Slashdot Mirror
Without Encryption, Everything Stops, Says Snowden (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader writes about Snowden's appearance on a debate with CNN's Fareed Zakaria: Edward Snowden defended the importance of encryption, calling it the "backbone of computer security." He said, "Encryption saves lives. Encryption protects property. Without it, our economy stops. Our government stops. Everything stops. Our intelligence agencies say computer security is a bigger problem than terrorism, than crime, than anything else," he noted. "[...] Lawful access to any device or communication cannot be provided to anybody without fatally compromising the security of everybody."
The normies think that is perfectly acceptable.
Maybe it is time to allow them to and everybody will half a brain just emigrates from the US so it can finally crumble under its own hubris.
A little OTT me thinks
Freedom means the right to privacy. Solid encryption offers that privacy. It also gives criminals a way to hide their data from law enforcement. Long before the digital age, that has been going on in dark alleys and secret underground bunkers.
The government sees a way to gain unprecedented power and will stop at nothing to get it.
I find the trade off acceptable. I'd rather see a few more terrorists escape, than face a government that labels all who choose to encrypt a potential criminal, or worse.
No one (to my knowledge) really, truly objects to 'encryption'.
But a lot of governments object to encryption that they don't personally have a master key for.
The things he talks about can mostly be done even if the government has a master key.
The war is not between encryption and no encryption, it is between a government master key and no government master key.
Now, I totally hate the idea of a master key for most thing. (I can see it for special cases, mainly around money - I want the government to be able to undo thefts from large banks). Government has repeatedly proven that it CAN NOT be trusted with this kind of information. The minimal security risks caused by government not having master access to EVERYTHING is insane.
But claiming that the internet depends on the government not having a master key is silly
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Websec developing when i could no longer securely ssh vpn to my vps. The system suxzzzzzzzz
I'm not making any more online purchases.
Without fire, everything stops. If we couldn't have fire, much of the world's economy and infrastructure would grind to a halt. So what if arsonists like to burn things down, or fire is part of what makes a firearm work when a criminal is killing someone he's just raped.
What? This is a silly pronouncement that lacks any sort of context or meaningful nuance and anybody who's even a little informed will understand that there's more to this than "Fire, good!"? Yeah. No kidding. Not that that would ever persuade Snowden to introduce a little bit of real-world context into his periodic Look At Me postings.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
As soon as you're done thrashing that straw man, how about addressing how completely lacking was this publicity post from Snowden in any sort of contextual nuance. No? Not fun? OK then, go back to talking to yourself and whichever handful of low-information people you're trying to reach with your ... what was your point, exactly? Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
>> Our intelligence agencies say computer security is a bigger problem than terrorism, than crime, than anything else
If course they would say that. Their primary concern is informing and sustaining the government. The rest of us are just interchangeable, disposable meatsacks.
He just seems sort of dumb. His use of analogies is shockingly inaccurate given his supposed level of knowledge.
The things he talks about can mostly be done even if the government has a master key.
This is a fallacy. Evidence is that the government tried this before, and failed hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If Key-Escrow were to actually work and be scalable - don't you think the Great Firewall of China would be using it everywhere?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
As soon as you're done thrashing that straw man, how about addressing how completely lacking was this publicity post from Snowden in any sort of contextual nuance.
Contextual nuance? In a few minutes of airtime on CNN?
You're absolutely right. Nothing/nobody should be listened to unless it/they completely addresses every facet of the subject at hand. No abbreviations, no summaries, no abstractions can be permitted. No one in the audience can be expected to have anything else going on in their lives. Nothing but perpetual laserlike monomaniacal focus is acceptable. No one in the audience can be expected to have done any research on this matter beforehand, nor can they be expected to do any afterward.
Now, then, let's do this right. In the beginning, the primal monobloc exploded into space and time... but perhaps we should back up a bit...
No.
Do not share the keys to your encrypted files, encryption routines, etc. NO BACK DOORS! No master keys....
If they want our trust, they really need to trust us just a wee bit.
Like, maybe, allowing us to keep our secrets, and if they want to know, ask politely.
And expect a large percentage of 'NO' answers.
How about this: "Encryption is a vitally important tool. But the topic is far more complicated than can be addressed in a short interview, which makes discussing the reality of its wide-spread use by well organized criminals and terrorists impossible in this setting."
In other words, making proclamations about it in the way Snowden did servces no educational purpose, but does keep his own name in the news, which is the only reason he did it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
How about this: "Encryption is a vitally important tool. But the topic is far more complicated than can be addressed in a short interview, which makes discussing the reality of its wide-spread use by well organized criminals and terrorists impossible in this setting."
So, basically: "My opponent makes some good points. Some really good points, actually. And my own points, which seem kind of dumb by comparison, would take too long to explain. I don't know why I even agreed to show up. I just like to hear myself talk. But not anymore. Whatever, I'm going home."
Wow, after the high-school debate team I didn't think things could get any more lame and depressing.
In other words, making proclamations about it in the way Snowden did serves no educational purpose, but does keep his own name in the news, which is the only reason he did it.
It serves a small educational purpose. Perhaps someone's aunt will now ask their nephew about these issues the next time he shows up to fix their computer. It's not much, but it's something.
And perhaps what he wants to keep going is the dialogue we're now having about these ideas? Aren't you and I doing the same thing right now? Nobody's going to base their Master's dissertation on a three-sentence Slashdot post, but that doesn't mean that post isn't saying anything at all. Just because people like to post our opinions on the internet doesn't mean they don't sincerely hold those opinions, or want to convince others of their validity.
Funny, I thought Snowden's expertise was primarily in terms of law, since he single-handedly determined that what the NSA was doing was illegal. Don't we normally hear from Bruce Schneier whenever we need an expert opinion on technical matters involving encryption?
I'm not saying Snowden is necessarily wrong, just that being a whistleblower doesn't make him an authority on All Matters. For example, if he ever tells me that I need my gall bladder removed, I'm likely to ask Beyonce or Bruce Schneier for a second opinion. (waitaminute...)
(posting as AC to conserve Karma while expressing my Slashdot-politically-incorrect honest opinion)
So says Fareed, who also says Snowden is not a "technologist". Fareed keeps mentioning Bill Gates as some sort of all knowing technology god. Bill Gates is a business man with a background in technology. I am more than willing to wager that Snowden has far more expertise in these matters the Bill Gates. Otherwise he would not be in the sanctuary or Russia. I actually sat through the whole debate, and Fareed is so far out of his depth I am left wondering how he was selected at all for his side of the debate. It was so awkward I cringed at times.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Making proclamations about it the way Snowden did is the way you get people emotionally engaged.
Then you go watch John Oliver for something deeper with more analysis.
Then you contact your representatives and give them hell about it and you donate to pro-privacy groups because you are emotionally engaged.
Your position is that he should keep his mouth shut and say nothing of substance. That's not going to be very productive at getting people engaged to address the problem (government and corporations stripping away our privacy).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Nice to see the NSA shills like YOU, posting about this.
I know that you were just trying to be cute, but it backfired on you because your post merely shows that you don't understand the distinction between DRM and encryption.
DRM isn't encryption. DRM is just one use of encryption, in the same way that getaway cars for bank robbers is just one use of cars. And just because a thing happens to have an evil and anti-social use doesn't mean that it has to be banned, because it may have overwhelmingly good uses as well.
If we banned things because they can do harm, we wouldn't have cars, telephones, kitchen knives, or even water, because they all have evil and anti-social uses. Unbreakable encryption has a vast number of overwhelmingly good uses that greatly benefit society, so just because DRM is stupid and counterproductive does not create a valid argument for banning unbreakable encryption.
Go back to diddling little boys, bitch.
They want desperately to get access to all of your information any way they can. If they can't decrypt your encrypted data they'll try to find other ingenious ways to access your information. Look at the iPhone issue with the San Bernadino terrorist. They were extremely lucky to find someone with a hack that allowed them access and they know they don't have that capability with newer iPhones. So they are now trying to see if they can use your fingerprints to bypass the biometric security feature of a phone to unlock it. Your encrypted data is safe, but if there are weaknesses in terms of the means of authenticating you (like biometric scanning) they will exploit it.
well organized criminals and terrorists
Oh dear! Talk about your straw man! And dead horse... not that it will stop the flogging. And "complicated"?* Please. You're such a silly goose... I hope the Emperor's trinkets truly keep you happy.
*No, it is not. I see no reason to grant the state any advantage. In fact, the schadenfreude is great with the small dispersion of power, and in seeing you fret over it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sherry Glied's introduction to the debate provides the context for the debate.
Don't listen to that foreigner, we execute traitors by firing squad in this country!
Oh dear! Talk about your straw man!
You seem to be having some trouble understanding what a rhetorical straw man actually is. Because organized criminals, for example, DO use encrypted communication and storage to hinder law enforcement, mentioning that isn't a case of trotting out a straw man. It's referring to the facts.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes, and people are stabbed with pencils. You are so hysterical, like a bad 50s TV series... hinder law enforcement.. You're a real Walter Winchell there...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It doesn't stop; its just that encryption gets reinvented over and over again. Things like where I send 3 separate communcations with every 3rd word in each of the 3. Or pen and paper encryption. Or software that mathematically scrambles communications but somehow isn't labeled encryption software. Or compression software that happens to have passwords.
Or if encryption is really well banned and the monitoring is really good, then couriers who physically carry the data, and potentially in a form that erases if improperly opened. It just wasn't encrypted in its special storage.
The most likely outcome of banning encryption is to just make even more of us criminals than entertainment downloading already had.
So you're saying that the economy did not function during that time frame? You're saying that "everything stopped" during the time of the Clipper Chip?
'Cause, I was there - I seem to remember it working.
Do not, of course, think that I'm suggesting we do so again. No, to do so again would be idiotic. I entirely agree that the government are the last people I'd trust with a master key.
I'm just not sure why you'd point to that and say it was a logical fallacy. 'Cause, well... Umm... I was there. The Clipper Chip was there. The economy still functioned and nothing really stopped. It was less than ideal, sure. But, it certainly wasn't stopped. I'm not actually sure why you'd point to it and indicate that it was. It wasn't that long ago. My memory's kind of bad (I do smoke some weed, after all). But, I don't remember everything stopping. I don't remember the economy stopping. I'd probably remember that.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Ed Snowden himself has demonstrated the problem with government secrets. (Unfortunately) All that it takes is one determined individual to unravel the whole deal.
Now, then, let's do this right. In the beginning, the primal monobloc exploded into space and time... but perhaps we should back up a bit...
Where did this "primal monobloc" come from? What caused the explosion? Yes, I think we should back up a bit more.
You must have a good imagination. Clipper chip never actually happened. It was still born.
That doesn't mean it's better for society to mandate backdoor keys or methods into crypto with the force of law. If anything, snowden's leaks helped show that the US state is among the biggest criminals of all. Are they subject to these backdoors? Of course not. It would violate 'national security'.
I really don't think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what self-entitled theocrats and oligarchs and warlords and just plain kleptocrats want him to talk about. I think his value to humanity consists of him spending his airtime talking about what they _don't_ want him to talk about, because he's one of the few people who actually know that stuff first-hand.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the Sodomites. You'll think you've been fucked by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
While he may be right with regards to things that are actually important, I'm really tired of being told that the video of my son taking his first steps needs to be encrypted. I would much rather have the ability to externally mount and recover my data than prevent some shadowy organisation from seeing it. All of these software companies are gleefully encrypting everything on my device, not because they give a shit, but because it's an extra reason for me to use their cloud backup services.
It's like putting an indestructible pad lock on your wallet. If you ever forgot the code the entire contents of your wallet are lost forever. To solve this, your wallet manufacturer (let's say Levis) agrees to hold a copy of all of your important information at their warehouse! All this so some mystical nosy neighbor can't see pictures of my kids.
Encryption had been around for decades and there's a simple reason it has never been on by default: in 99.99999% of cases it causes problems and doesn't really solve any. So please world, start pressuring manufactures to stop turning this on by default. They aren't helping you like you think.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
When/why/how did Snowden become the the prophet of everything security??? It's hiring a serial killer to run a branch of the military...
Fuck you, we don't use shills, that's the fucking CIA, you dumb shit.
People will continue to use the internet, how else will they see aunt Sally's vacation pictures..
LMAO, you think John Oliver has deep analysis. Joke of the day.
Compared to most news media outlets these days, with pieces literally produced by corporate media departments, he's Edward Fucking R. Murrow.
His pieces have cast light on some dark shadows and resulted in change. Civil Forfeiture for example.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Ask the military to operate without encryption. If they don't die of laughter they probably tuned you out entirely.
How exactly do we protect online shopping carts without encryption?
Or is it OK to protect those things and just not OK to protect person to person communication?
I refuse to sign
Governments should fear their people, not the other way around.
In fact, what Canada wants are educated law abiding liberal or progressive people who come here to become a part of our multicultural non-racist society. We have a huge emigrant programme and take in gigantic numbers of new future citizens as a well as refugees such as the 26000 Syrians recently brought over and more to come. I have little doubt that a qualified American who wishes to come here to make a new life will have time to wait but if they were to make the cut in terms of requirements to emigrate which is all spelled out clearly online by the way, they are likely to be able to come here. It might take a few years but well worth it if you want to live in an egalitarian progressive non-violent democratic country, that is. Leave your handguns and NRA attitudes,and politics behind and the attitude of rugged individualist and the "me first"attitude so commonplace in the US as we tend more towards a Scandanavian sensibility, social conscience and the like.
Nice encryption here: distrowatch.com
pass on Ubuntu and Redhat/Fedora
Global Mother Fucking Spyware here" microsoft.com
Play your freebie video card games on it maybe, and maybe leave it for Firefox Portable. Maybe just format the shit when you buy a new pre-built.
Gay porn backstage pass here: www.apple.com
Sorry, have to boycott for bad judgement and proprietary dickhead principles. CEO with a dick in the mouth wouldn't be a good logo would it.
FreeBSD is still awesome.
Please cite this change lol. If you want to add the criteria of change, Oliver's been dismal.
I think you have some rose-tinted glasses there, bud.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
And a large amount of brainwashing too.