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: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.

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.

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: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 ??