NSA whistleblower and privacy advocate Edward Snowden took part in his first public debate on encryption on Tuesday night, facing off against CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, a journalist and author known for his coverage of international affairs.
Zakaria, in New York, defended the government’s right to access any and all encrypted messages and devices as long as there’s court approval. Snowden, speaking over a live video-link from Moscow, argued the security of the Internet is more important than the convenience of law enforcement. The debate was organized by NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service and the Century Foundation.
Though Zakaria started off firm in his conviction that law enforcement should be able to get hold of all digital messages with court approval, he gradually conceded that it may not be that simple. Zakaria said he himself doesn’t actively encrypt any of his communications, assuming everything will be fine — though Snowden pointed out that, since he has an iPhone, some of his data and communications are encrypted by default.
Zakaria opened the debate by posing a hypothetical: Bank of America creates an “iVault” allowing anyone to store all their financial data totally encrypted. An embezzler could take advantage of that service to hide the evidence of their misdeeds, foiling investigators. “I understand within a democracy, you have to sacrifice liberty for democracy at some point. You cannot have an absolute zone of privacy,” he said.
Snowden agreed with Zakaria that absolute zones of privacy don’t exist, and that encryption does pose real problems for law enforcement. But he disagreed that universal access is the best way to solve the problem. “For the government to unlock everything there has to be a key to everything. Every other person in the world can find that key and use it too,” he said. “It’s a fundamental problem of science.”
Instead, he suggested, police should take advantage of the many other options available to them. He cited the investigation into the founder of Silk Road, an anonymous, encrypted platform for black market drug sales. In that case, a team of investigators caught the mastermind at the library after he typed in his password.
“Encryption is not an unbreakable wall,” Snowden said. “Or if it is, it is one we can get around, if we are patient, if we are careful, if we think and plan how to go about our investigations.”
By the end of the debate, Zakaria said he did not support the legislation proposed by Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., which would mandate companies to immediately decrypt all communications when asked by a court. The bill has been heavily criticized by technologists.
And Zakaria acknowledged that if it was genuinely impossible for a company to decrypt communications, then the court should accept that — though it would be a “hard case.”
“If WhatsApp says we literally do not know how to write this code — WhatsApp could demonstrate to a court that they don’t have to do it,” Zakaria said.
He concluded by encouraging greater clarity about what kind of communications the government can and cannot access — before the next disastrous terrorist attack. “We do face real threats out there. There are people out there trying to do bad things. Once they happen, the government will be given carte blanche,” he said.
Snowden noted that former security officials now proclaiming the value of unbreakable encryption — including former NSA Director Michael Hayden — had considered those questions carefully and had fallen on the side of computer security.
Snowden is spot on. Even with encryption, law enforcement have plenty of tools in the tools box to circumvent it and still catch the bad guys. Making keys to bypass encryption defeats the purpose of encryption in the first place. The more the government persists at the path to circumvent privacy, the more lucrative the field in protecting privacy will become. Quantum Encryption is the eventual endgame and at that point law enforcement will not have the ability to bypass or have keys so long as the laws of physics hold in our universe.
The last thing our government needs is MORE power to invade our privacy.
Zakaria has nothing better to do than to discuss a hackneyed topic that has been nitpicked to death and call it his original thought.
Coming from a plagiarist such as Zakaria it’s a joke.
Waste of time for the viewers.
When Zakaria has no real subject matter to talk about he discusses hackneyed nit picked to death topics and wastes everyone’s time. The result is this useless debate between himself and Snowden.
For a person who is a known plagiarist he has the audacity to hold this debate on a subject matter long since dead and call it original.
WHAT A BORE !
Snowden’s analogy about leaving a key under the rug for the police was right on.
Double Split Experiment Notes:
“As with the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, the many-worlds interpretation is motivated by behavior that can be illustrated by the double-slit experiment. When particles of light (or anything else) are passed through the double slit, a calculation assuming wave-like behavior of light can be used to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. Yet when the particles are observed in this experiment, they appear as particles (i.e., at definite places) and not as non-localized waves.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
Not being a physicist I may be way off, but if a wave of light or an electron can be affected and changed due to OBSERVATION in double split experiments, how significantly affected and changed might be the knowledge of a human or a society as a whole to being OBSERVED.
The invasion of our privacy robs us of our unique place in the universe as an individual to be loved individually by a Creator, and for us to individually freely choose both whom we love and our place in the universe.
It’s time to try to deal with or somehow rationally get a grip of the Orwellian “terrorism game” being played on the American people by our DemPublicanCFR ruling elite and their acolytes in the MSMedia. Mr Zakaria represents both.
A measure of the self delusion and reality disconnect being promoted is best depicted by the T-rumpian soliloquy. .
. why do they (the Muslim “terrorists”) hate us so much?…why do they want to kill us?
It’s as if the roughly century old Euro-American dominance and interference in the post Ottoman Empire Muslim ruled Middle Eastern world does not exist. The pervasive MSMedia conditioning of the American White hat cowboy mentality blinds Americans to the malevolence promoted by the DemPublicanCFR ruling elite in senseless imperialistic policies from the Philippine betrayal & countless military coups, especially in Iran, to the million plus deaths in Vietnam to the sheer idiocy of the Iraq invasion . In retrospect, it would appear that the only Country that has benefited from the spread of U.S. regime change policy is Israel. Maybe… just maybe… the cause of “terrorism” might be American Policies and military actions… Aren’t drones simply a more efficient and effective means of “terror attacks” than suicide bombers or attackers? Now we have our Secret Fascist court exspanding the domestic crime use of NSA totalitarian surveillance … Perhaps if we can get a grip on what “terrorism” is all about …the pervasive willingness to obliterate the Bill of Rights might rationally subside.
As you intuit, you’re under thinking the problem.
If the only devises sold – or usable legally on certain networks – have mandated government backdoored chip design, your PGP/GnuPG or any other encryption conceivable, will be a mute point.
This was to be a reply to post below from douglas nusbaum.
Moot. Jeez.
@#*&#*($ EDIT BUTTON !(#@*#$
Hey, I grant that I am simple minded, and have only been using the internet, starting with mosaic, for about 22 years. Still, even I am aware of PGP, otherwise known as open source encryption. If people want absolute and secure privacy, it is there, and will be used.
To the best of my knowledge there is no way to hide a back door in open source encryption, and as of now there is no way to break such encryption in real time, though that may change tomorrow.
The bottom line is that those who want privacy badly enough will have it and if they are (and here is the operative word) CAREFUL, that privacy will be secure and absolute.
There is a trade-off between ability of government to protect you, and the ability to protect yourself from government. History shows that governments killed way more people than terrorists.
Encryption is just one of a very few technological aspects that benefited individuals, but Technology as a whole as vastly increased government’s surveillance abilities rather than diminish them.
Don’t consider myself a hermit but I heard/saw nothing advertised about this and I can’t find a transcript. Can anyone direct me to a video or transcript before my paranoia builds to the creepy level?
Hyperlink in the first paragraph.
http://debatesofthecentury.org/watch-now/
The video was not available on the link for five days after this article was published – not until 5/1.
Is it just me, or did anyone else feel like there was going to be so much more to the snowden files?
Yes, it was immensely important and he truly is a hero,
But it seems this site gets by off r legend of the Snowden files and really, truthfully have not done anything that other sites such as rt, vice news, or global research are not doing, if anything The Intercept feels compromised and censored.
Not a single thing posted this year that wasn’t already reported some where else.
Zakaria said… “We do face real threats out there. There are people out there trying to do bad things. Once they happen, the government will be given carte blanche,” he said.
Zakaria has his carte before the horse.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, has a long and distinguished provenance …
Anybody following this? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/child-porn-suspect-jailed-for-7-months-for-refusing-to-decrypt-hard-drives/
The reality is, legal cases are settled before the judge sits down. Apple could wise off to the FBI because they had the power not to face punishment-in-advance while the court goes on for years and years. Whereas this guy… doesn’t. Protip: apparently media coverage follows the “law”. Pretrial detention is the final judgment in American law.
This is to check if comments are verified.
Thank you Pierre Morad Omidyar, Glen and Intercept and I would like to know if you Please provide me(us) with a link as to where I(we) can watch snowden on this “”debate”” since it was not broadcasted/known/announced to the usa-domestic usa population, much less internationally, one kosher or non-kosher iota. Thank you.- Alejandro Grace Ararat.
Even if the Burr/Feinstein legislation or something similar is passed, it would not stop third party encryption apps. What would they do then, go after the developers of the third party apps and force them to build in back doors? Easier said than done since there are so many tools out there they could use to hide their identity. Encryption is here to stay and there is nothing the government can do to stop it. The sooner they give up on this issue the sooner they can start applying their efforts to doing something useful. Oh, wait, this is the government I’m talking about…
Like others, I would like to see the actual debate….can someone find and post the source?
Thanks!
What if we turn the question around?
Under what circumstances can a US citizen have a private conversation or have private data?
Shouldn’t that be, “Snowden debates encryption with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria”? O tempora, o mores!
If there is any problem decrypting then we can go straight to North Koreans or to Israelis who are both the most crooked people on this planet. All these debates are people wasting everyone’s time.
Fareed is hardly an expert on international matters, whats going in his favor is that he has an atheist with a muslim name, that’s all. i would hope that Snowdens seeks out better individuals to debate than such wannabe zelaots as Zakariyas.
Fareed Zakaria got caught for plagiarism a few years back. This fellow is Indian immigrant from Mumbai, and sort of Muslim chap. So he wants to debate Snowden and grow back his ruined reputation.
Right on…
General Hercules *Has hit the clowns nose and gets a stuffed Bear. As a prize F.Z.GPS…sadly for years I watched…..then the “”Blindsided by I.S.I.S. “””Propaganda Documentary….and a operative for numerous administration “”after further review of past videotapes of his CNN SHOW !! thank you Hercules R.L
Does anyone have a recording of the debate? The site states it will release ‘portions’ of this event. Thanks!
Spot on, come on, TI give us access to the video if it exists.
Well, it seems to have been a “closed doors event”, “‘public’ debate” (when the word “debate” already includes as one of its primary connotations being public).
What don’t you understand about that? In our “war-is-peace” times we have “secret laws” bound to “secret interpretations” by “secret courts” …
I wonder, what is the point of talking about something which people have no way of gaining an independent, firsthand opinion about?
RCL
I believe the real reason behind our problems is that we have so few Snowden’s and so many Zakaria’s. Who was that old Greek who was looking for an honest man millennia ago; he would still be looking today, there are so few and none in power. Only the sociopathic need apply for power.
I worry a lot less about terrorism than I do about texters. How is it that private corporations can create the money supply and charge us interest on the money they create from nothing—now, that IS something to worry about. A woman was shot to death yesterday by her 2 year old in the back seat; I worry about all the “nuts” packing heat. Daesh, we are told has 20/30,0000 fighters and young men by the millions flee them; what am I missing here? If we don’t blow ourselves up with the thousands of Nukes or some horror out of some Lab does not get us; catastrophic climate change will and we worry about a few NUTs; what am I missing here? We need to get rid of Nukes, severely control what comes out of the labs and start a crash rebuilding of our economies world wide to Green economies yesterday; terrorism, privacy, whatever are side shows—-we are facing existential threats and we need to recognize that and GET ON IT, NOW!
well, terrorism is part of their side shows, but, IMO, privacy isn’t
RCL
quote “I worry about all the “nuts” packing heat.”unquote
Meanwhile, cars kill a hundred thousand plus people a year. Bob doesn’t worry about that though.
get a grip…Bob.
“He concluded by encouraging greater clarity about what kind of communications the government can and cannot access — before the next disastrous terrorist attack. “We do face real threats out there. There are people out there trying to do bad things. Once they happen, the government will be given carte blanche,” he said.”
Zakaria should think a bit more deeply about this issue. A quick review of Chomsky and others would no doubt lead him to the conclusion that states by far represent the greatest threat–in terms of regional and global threats, based on the last 15 years alone, the US tops the list in terms of human casualties and property damage. With regard to giving the US government carte blanche–for all practical purposes we’re already there, notwithstanding private sector encryption. When contemplating this issue, he should avoid thinking in terms of accepting our present condition as inevitable, and educate his listeners about what elevates the individual and society based on principles of human honor and justice. Be the first Mr. Zakaria to elevate the conversation.
If anti-encryption and decryption legislation ever becomes law, and it fails to stop, or even make an appreciable dent, in terrorism (which will most certainly be the case), the question arises as to what their next move will be.
What right will they take away next in their pursuit of success against terrorism, however flimsy and fluid any given definition of “success against terrorism” could possibly be? If they can do this–gain completely legal, unfettered access to literally all content contained in any device in the U.S. (and, realistically, the world)–what can they not do?
Where and how will it all end?
Sadly, as WESTERN governments, police forces, and judiciary have shown(you know…the good guys?) have been caught out lying. I suggested that the next encryption device or software be named The Clapper, in “honor” of James Clapper.
Sorry, government and law enforcement, you’ve shown too many times that you.can.not.be.trusted.
where can I watch this?
The “Tuesday Night” link to debatesofthecentury dot org does not seem to be hosting a video, nor do I see it on YouTube. Where can we find it? (…without clicking on a bunch of unknown links via Google-Bing…)
“If WhatsApp says we literally do not know how to write this code—WhatsApp could demonstrate to a court that they don’t have to do it,” Zakaria said.
The “it” in Zakaria’s hypothetical is government-compelled speech which is unconstitutional. But thanks for playing, Zakaria.
Even if we trusted these people it would be wrong.
And, we don’t trust them.
Snowden has an argument, but misses the real point. The right to encryption is about freedom of expression. Encryption isn’t something you have to have a company do for you – people can, and have, written the code on T-shirts. In prisons, the inmates do encryption all the time, writing simple codes and steganographing them by writing one sort of “a” or another. Those who seek to ban encryption seek to put us in the position of those prisoners — that if we produce some kind of communication and the government can’t figure out what it is, it is a crime. The point being, that whenever a person puts pen to paper, the first person he is writing to is the government. Maybe someone else will read the letter, maybe he will read it himself, maybe he will throw it away – legally it can be a message to be read by many people, two, or one, but never none!
Yes, Mr. Snowden is fighting the wrong battle. The government will create a backdoor that will be mandated for all commercially available encryption systems. Why protest the inevitable?
The next step, the one Mr. Snowden did not address, is to ensure that no communications take place outside of approved electronic channels. Verbal communication should be outlawed. This sounds impractical to an older generation, but I’ve often seen kids sitting next to each other while exchanging text messages on their iPhones. So it will only enshrine in legislation what people are actually doing in practice.
This does create some difficulties relative to the obsolete rights to freedom of expression which you mention. So I would suggest a compromise that everyone can agree to, in order to avoid this becoming bogged down in endless court cases. People could be allowed to communicate verbally, providing they were carrying an electronic device which recorded their conversation and forwarded it to the NSA for analysis. I’d be interested to know if Mr. Snowden would support such a proposal. He seems quite reasonable.
Ha, ha, ha! At times, il Duce makes me laugh like a little boy, but then the true import of those kinds of sharply sarcastic and ironic inside jokes get sadly Chaplinesque and you start wondering if everyone is getting mad or something.
RCL
ICQ
so easy to duplicate
so simple to encrypt
so impossible to decrypt
so sue me
Quite interesting how the law enforcement debate seems to have gotten the better part of how why and if encryption is a good or bad thing.
Criminal behavior is a social problem not a technical! Crime is driven by social pressure (inequality, exclusion, discrimination ect.) yet the discussion suggest people commit crimes because they can get away with it.
Ask any policeman what he thinks is the cause of crime.
unemployment
Ask police, you said?
I would ask run of the mill criminal folks themselves. They all say frankly and at times with a smile when they are asked “why are you in prison?”: “… because they caught me …”
The other kind, plutocrats, commit crimes because they very well know they can get away with it, since they are the ones making the laws to begin with:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/12/the-war-on-savings-the-panama-papers-bail-ins-and-the-push-to-go-cashless/
RCL
“because they caught me?”… “committing a trespass so i could eat and pay my bills” is the YOU UNDERSTOOD in this relationship scenario.
A MAN WHO STEALS TO EAT IS NOT A THIEF
A MAN WHO STEALS TO ENRICH HIMSELF is a thief and a violater of the ten commandments.
i only speak the truth.
If I was an invisible man I could walk into anywhere I wanted unnoticed and peek at anything that aroused my curiosity.
When the cost of an investigation is higher than for the hypothetical invisible man I would have to consider the time and economic costs before investing these resources into disclosing crimes of a particular target.
Intelligence versus brute force.
I would rather be investigated by a person who was intelligently looking for something in particular rather than by an idiot who merely tries to justify his stupid brute force investigation by creating crimes out of nothing.
Zakaria, in New York, defended the government’s right to access any and all encrypted messages and devices as long as there’s court approval.
It is a fact, animals do not reporduce in captivity. Maybe that has changed in the last 50 years. I don’t go to zoos any more so i don’t know. But privacy is about sharing. You might guess everything i do; eat, sleep, read, write, travel, but the particulars are mine, they belong to me, they are owned by me. And when i am mated, then the experiences of us are owned by us.
And yet, the govt fails to realize that the DOI and the USC and the Bill of Rights were made for just that, to protect and preserve the individual as an individual – not as a colony member or gang member. Human beings were designed to grow as individuals.
It is the political institutions that promote gangs and gangsterism and the subscriber mentality. Let me repeat – political institutions promote the subscriber mentality which operating environment defies personal growth.
I understand within a democracy, you have to sacrifice liberty for democracy at some point. You cannot have an absolute zone of privacy,..
not true. Again, it is the operating environment that is the primary causational factor for the human template as an individual or gang member.
non-encryption as an issue is a joke. Would you have a city without water? It is the operation of those who thirst for power who have created the operating envirobment that condemns individuality and personal achievement and demands a hierarchal subscriber following. Proof – American jobs shipped overseas – tasks that can be replicated but for which the power seekers abandoned that sacredness of the individual as a unit worthy of life and continuity who sacrificed that environment of an environment that formatted humans as commodities to be discarded at will.
Privacy is a property of ownership of individualism.
many thanks to Jenna McLaughlin for alerting the public to the emergence of this issue in the public domain.
Forgive my tangency, but there is an interesting way some animals, I’m thinking of snakes, actually can reproduce alone, called parthenogenesis.
and a fish i recall. (red-bellied dace and a finescale dace – minnow types, looked it up) With evolution, eventually that fish comes out of water, then lungs, legs, teeth, sharp teeth, claws, skin like an aligator, speed of a fly, voracity of a grizzly, vocal chords and social skills. The human race is doomed from parthenogenic fish and we didnt see it coming.
seriously tho, i see that Chernobyl is having a rebirth of radiant species that look normal by all appearances. And they are protected as people are unwilling to venture into the area to hunt them.
But we do need to begin arresting these elected gangly subscribers for proposing laws to kill the human voice of objection.
I am running for president on this platform alone: Let Snowden back in (if he wants), and kick out Hillary, Obama, and Bush to Libya, Ukraine, and Mosul, respectively.
LOL! i would relish seeing cheney flown to syria to help out his friends wherever they happen to be. See how much of a leader he really is. Make it one of those reality TV shows.
I’d vote for that. Wait – I AM voting for that, the first part anyway. Green Party candidate Jill Stein said Snowden “should be welcomed home as a hero.” Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange as well.
http://www.greenpartywatch.org/tag/edward-snowden/