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."
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
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.
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.
> and he should be in prison for it.
So jail the whistleblower ... and do what again with the other government officials that broke the law ??