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."

Comments

Freedom Comes with a Price Tag

[npslider]

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.

Re:Freedom Comes with a Price Tag

[squiggleslash]

Plus, you should probably mention the importance of encryption to DRM. I think everyone on Slashdot can get behind the idea that without strong, well encrypted, digital rights management systems, the studios would find their movies being quite literally stolen from them by people we can only describe as digital terrorists, their revenues and profits destroyed as unpaying freeloaders enjoy the fruits of the studios hard, expensive, work without paying a cent.

(You need to know what arguments to use if you want to persuade the government to knock it off...)

(Oh f---, have I just persuaded most of Slashdot to oppose encryption?)

Re:Freedom Comes with a Price Tag

[tlhIngan]

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.

Freedom also means eternal vigilance. There are people who are jealous of people who have freedom and will do anything in their power to destroy it. (We normally call these people "terrorists").

Having freedom means we don't try to oppress our freedoms to get rid of these bad people, but we live with them - it's the price of living in a free world.

We can use encryption, and so can they. Our law enforcement agencies need to take that into account and use more traditional forms of detective work to get at the bad guys. In fact, the NSA's data collection system is completely useless because they collect so much data, not only are they looking for needles in haystacks, but with all the data collection, the haystacks have ballooned in size, while the number of needles stayed the same. More data isn't better. In fact, the other terrorists have been caught by good old traditional detective work.

That's what's really needed - more boots on the ground.

Plus, you should probably mention the importance of encryption to DRM. I think everyone on Slashdot can get behind the idea that without strong, well encrypted, digital rights management systems, the studios would find their movies being quite literally stolen from them by people we can only describe as digital terrorists, their revenues and profits destroyed as unpaying freeloaders enjoy the fruits of the studios hard, expensive, work without paying a cent.

DRM? That's small potatoes.

Encryption is widely used for commerce. You tell people they can't use encryption, and all e-commerce stops hard. People don't want to hand over their details unencrypted ready for the stealing. So they're not going to shop at eBay or Amazon or Alibaba or any other online store anymore. Given how much online commerce is done, this is a rather big problem.

Likewise, no one will want to bank online as well, so they'll either hoard cash, or line up at the bank. What took minutes before will take days, and the slower the cash moves, the slower the economy moves. I'm sure it's a lot easier and quicker to click "Add to Cart" than it is to call up a merchant and order stuff by phone.

Re:Freedom Comes with a Price Tag

[KGIII]

Or zealots.

However, I'd like to take a minute to remind everyone that the word you're probably looking for is liberty. Even if they outlaw encryption, you're still free to use it. They'll just punish you. But, freedom is taken by force and with restraint and monitored. You are free. Cages take freedom, more or less. Rights and liberties are taken away much more readily.

An example of someone using the words properly? Give me liberty or give me death. You'll note, he didn't say give me freedom or give me death. One can even be not free and still retain some liberties.

I prefer to explain it this way: You're free to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I try to kill you then you have the right to kill me. They're all intertwined but they're not necessarily interchangeable. Ideally, communication is clear so I try to make sure to use the more accurate words - with a bit more attention paid to that depending on the gravity of the situation.

Re:Snowden opines on something

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:True but irrelevant

[CrimsonAvenger]

The things he talks about can mostly be done even if the government has a master key.

No, they can't. "Three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead".

The fundamental assumption that the government can have a backdoor into all encryption that NOONE ELSE CAN EVER DISCOVER is ludicrous.

Hell, it's ludicrous to suppose that none of the government types who have access to the backdoor will EVER misuse it.

Of course intel would say that

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> 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.

Re:Exaggerate Much?

[rsborg]

A little OTT me thinks

Explain to me how the digital economy works if encryption is broken wide open so that even a script kiddie can break public key encryption?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

From wikipedia:

Currently used popular public-key encryption and signature schemes (e.g., RSA and ElGamal) can be broken by quantum adversaries.

Re:Snowden opines on something

[Pseudonymous Powers]

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...

I am not a technolgist...

[wjcofkc]

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.

Re:Snowden opines on something

[Maxo-Texas]

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).

Re:I wish I could say 'No fucking shit!' but...

[dejitaru]

gigs of unconstitutional secret shit

Re: I wish I could say 'No fucking shit!' but...

[UnknownSoldier]

> 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 ??

Missed Irony

[laing]

Ed Snowden himself has demonstrated the problem with government secrets. (Unfortunately) All that it takes is one determined individual to unravel the whole deal.