+Jan-David Jansen For the most part that was probably his lack of knowledge of the technology aspect of the debate.. Even holding up Gates as the authority on encryption was a joke. The other thing which caught my eye about Zakaria was the various points in which he played the emotions card ..often used in the media as a propaganda tool. Something I'm sure many caught on to..
That is misquoting Ben Franklin tho if you said paraphrasing I would have given you a pass. This is the actual quote: "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." For the context you should knowhe was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns. Interestingly, the context actually makes this quotation relevant to this discussion of liberty and security but not in the way you probably think it is. The legislature Ben Franklin was writing about was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. Ben Franklin was against the Penn family for refusing to pay the tax with a veto. His quote then defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective community security. What does this mean? Well during this time there was a real emergency going on. The frontier lands were constantly under raid attacks. He regarded the ability of a community to defend itself as the 'essential liberty' he mentioned in his quote. But what about the mention of 'purchase a little temporary safety'? Well, the Penn family were trying to get around the tax by doing what many crony capitalist do these days. Pay off politicians. More specifically paying off the General Assembly to say it didn't have the authority to tax. Hence why the mentioning of 'purchase a little temporary safey'. All of this means that his quote is actually more closely related to Fareed Zakaria motion for than for Edward Snowden's motion against. Making its use here fair, but misplaced if you think its favors Snowden's claims.
This debate is almost between two different generations, and their mentalities, between the young and technologically knowledgeable, and the old and technologically illiterate.
He's correct though. The definition of encryption requires that there exist some method to reverse the encryption, or unencrypt, the given data. When something is encoded using a one way transformation (so it can be stored securely but not reversed), that is called hashing. It's a shame that so many people think Zacharia was getting away with saying falsities about how technology works, because he was just as accurate as Snowden was. Snowden wasn't "correcting" him on these points because he knew he was correct. Snowden even acknowledges Zacharia's strong performance in the debate for such reasons.
Its unfortunate that the poll turned a bit into the direction I wasn't expecting it to turn. I think Ed was too easy on Fareed and should've pointed out the flaws in his arguments more vociferously. Fareed was always playing the fear card and being hypocritical in this entire debate and it was eerily similar to the "mushroom cloud" sold to the American public after 9-11 to go to war with Iraq especially when he talked about the Brussels attacks. It's almost as though the impression was given that everything a terrorist does is over the phone. No it is not; terrorists still move around the world, they still are human beings who interact with other human beings. Intelligence gathering through other human beings will always remain the most vital source of information among others. Even in the case of Brussels terrorists apparently the family had informed the intelligence agencies that one of those guys had gone to Syria way back in 2013. But leaving all of that aside, this debate wasn't supposed to be about smoking guns but about data security and encryption, which Fareed himself said that in government hands is not secure or he said he couldn't trust the government. Just like there is no such thing as a "little torture", there is no such thing as case by case decryption; once the tap is opened then it will get out of hands.
The way most encryption works is that unless you have the specific key, you cannot access the data. Under the 5th amendment, you cannot be forced to provide it. Try to mandate weak encryption, and those who need strong encryption find a way to re-enable same with foreign software.
Blogo Pogo I have nothing against the Moldovan nation, it was just an odd comment to make given that Moldova is not one of those places mentioned much but then to comment with it "a teenager in a basement". It's just fairly odd to think that in one sentence which makes it amusing. Snowden thinks in a bizarre way, like my sister.
Fareed Zakaria is not good at debates. He keeps spouting Bill Gates in every point he makes. I feel his acceptance to debate opposite a tech expert on matters of technology was ill advised. He seems completely out of depth here.
+Sayak Das On his show, this past sunday, he pretended to have won the debate. Not very fair of him to redo the debate, alone and with the larger audience of CNN.
Sayak Das agree. Normal people are not Bill Gates who can afford the means and options to defend oneself if his privacy is intruder upon. And we know and have seen what it means by lawful access in the US, no means the clear and ethical lawful we imagine because in practice they violate too many individual civil liberties. Personally, my opinion is the end does not justify the means, you may preserve peace but it then you lose what you essentially wanted to preserve - liberty and equality in society.
+peoplerstrange49 The 4th amendment of the constitution allows for searches and seizures of your house and personal information provided a court search warrant has been issued.
+ForrestSCS I don't understand where you read an exception for the Iphone, in the search and seizure clause of the 4th amendment. If you want to make the Iphone off limits to search warrants, you have to amend the Constitution.
+ForrestSCS So why should Madoff's Iphone be off limits to a search warrant while his house is not? I keep more secrets in my house that on my Iphone. Or are you arguing that peoples homes should also be off limits to search warrants? I see your point that Apple allowing access to the government to a Iphone, given a search warrant, will weaken encryption and make us all less safe. I'm willing to believe that, but the 4th amendment doesn't make an exception for and Iphone or anything else based on public safety. Perhaps it should, but for that you would have to amend the constitution.
+ForrestSCS You were making a good point when arguing that building a back door into the Iphone could hamper the nations's security. But comparing the Iphone to the brain, and the USA legal system to a Banana Republic, you are stepping into Alex Jones conspiracy land. I will ignore your most recent comments and keep on with the security as you might know more than I do on this. For security's sake alone ... I have seen several startups in the SF Bay Area set up to work on hacking into Iphones to sell their services to the FBI and police. Would it not be more secure if Apple had given access to the FBI than having a industry with several firms soon able to hack into Iphones?
It's annoying to see Zakaria argument citing Bill gates and then questioning Snowden's references from ex CIA and govt and alleging that those people may now have vested interests. As if Bill Gates would never have any. Further mentioning Nixon's case is also out of context because it was an executive body involved in a case whereas here the matter is related to individual freedom.
+0cards0 Weak encryption would almost definitely lead to bad consequences of a massive scale. Therefore, strong encryption could be considered essential. Strong encryption, however, can still be circumvented by the FBI in special cases, which are very rare and do not warrant a reduction in security, as Snowden has argued.
+b1odome i guess we need more data on this topic to form a valid conclusion, like data on how much phones were hacked before this encryption tech, & how many crimes would not be solved with this tech
" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin.
I'm kind of confused on this issue, couldn't apple just unencrypt the contents of whoever's phone, send a copy to the FBI or police without handing over the actual device or showing them the key? Also I think Ed enjoys getting the opportunity to debate someone
What I'll add to this comment sections is that Fareed is obviously a mouthpiece. He was, as he himself pointed out, no clear understanding of encryption and was merely invited because of his status. We had at the end of the day one side discussing a narrative, the official narrative, by way of rhetoric. Snowden rightly pointed out that his last statement did not address the debatable issue. On the other hand he debated around scientific thesis and hypothesis with his honest opinion. My first thought was that is was actually going to go like this =/
also gotta mention- Barton Gellman the moderator was one of the first journalists to participate in publishing Snowden revelations. so........... just full disclosure.
I will personally seek the strongest security possible to protect my privacy and rights. If the government wants access to my data, I want them to spend lots of money and time and have to consult experts to do it (given that they've obtained a warrant first). Manufacturers should never be forced to break their own security, in doing so, they're breaking their customers' trust. If vulnerabilities are found in the software people use, the manufacturer should know about it and each version of software released in our world should be more effective and more secure that its predecessor - need I mention Sony or Target? If there's a chance that bad guys/gals will have black boxes that can never be opened, investigators will just have to find alternative means of apprehending them. Like Snowden mentioned, the Silk Road was brought down by distracting its operator at a public library after he logged in. Let's not open Pandora's Box!
The debate is meaningful because we've already seen the Senate trying to legislate poor-encryption for USA citizens. The two Senators sponsoring the bill just don't understand. Education is important.
Loading malware on devices and/or using a national security letters to force Apple and Google to provide compromised applications to devices used by the targets is probably the best way for the government to proceed.
so the basic take away is "if there's a lock, there's a key" … Snowden and Zakaria both dance around this but it does seem to be the underlying basis of the internet of everything … personally, I believe we gave up the rights to privacy when we blindly clicked the "I Agree" button on almost everything important we do online (iTunes, Google, Facebook, etc) and ever digital service we sign on for (cell service, Gmail, RUclips, LinkedIn, etc) …they're both saying the same thing from two different points of view …
Does Fareed have any idea about what it was exactly that he showed up there to talk about? I'm afraid these two individuals do not belong to the same discourse community. Basically, I'm not sure this Fareed guy has the capacity to understand what this conversation is about frankly.
Until everyone is allowed to have lawful access to any encrypted message or device, only giving government thugs that permission is morally hypocritical. Its like letting government goons take money from us at gunpoint but then attack anyone else that does the same thing. "Rules for thee but not for me"
Farid Zakaria is an ignorant statist, as anyone who has watched his TV show could tell you. But even though Snowden clearly outclassed him in this debate, no one got to the essential point: governments are organized to protect individual rights, not routinely violate them. Blackstone once said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as the fundamental principle behind our legal system's checks and balances. The statists among us including Zakaria seem to forget this. "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy," said the philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand. Almost perfect privacy is now possible due to strong encryption. We should be celebrating this as a tremendous achievement, not as a flaw, even if some evidence of crimes is not recoverable. We must remember that when it comes to oppression and murder of individuals, no criminal gang, no terrorist, no street thug can match the record of the world's governments, which have outright murdered over a quarter of a billion people over the last hundred years and caused the death of another quarter billion in unnecessary wars. Giving the government more power over our private lives is not a "solution" to the real problem of crime, which is 98% a problem of government-sponsored oppression.
I can't believe I made it to 36:00 without closing it. Fareed is awful. This debate was not set up well. Find a "technologist" that actually disagrees with encryption and debate Snowden. This looks poor the whole way around. It's like Bill O'Reilly acting like an expert on something he knows about from headlines.
1:11:18 hahaha Edward Snowden lowkey warning everyone about the fluoride in our toothpaste and water. Google harvard fluoride, and also CDC fluoride "Top 10 public health achievments"
Unchecked power does what it wants; codified and adjudicated or not. As TPTB have, for all intents and purposes, monopoly on the use of force and violence, it is unchecked power. Have a nice day.
Snowden didn't answer the main question. Given a court issued search warrant, Bank Of America has to give the FBI access to your bank account even if it is encrypted. I don't see the difference between your bank account and your Iphone. I don't want the FBI to be peeking into peoples information without a court issued search warrant. But given a search warrant, there is no difference between searching your home or bank accounts (which the FBI can do) or your Iphone. I think Farred won.
The issue at hand isn't about iPhones or terrible banking institutions. It's about the security of sensitive information and how we define those terms and who will have ultimate authoritative dominion over such.
+Christopher Long If your are arguing that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies should not have "ultimate authoritative dominion" over encrypted data, we agree 100%. But given a court issued search warrant, the police can search your home, bank accounts, and anus. I'm just saying that encrypted data should fall under the same restriction as home searches.
So you're saying it's okay to sell off people and human beings like a commodity animal you sold out their files you're so author identities you sold off the backgrounds trading places with those so that others could work that have bad backgrounds and you knew this you hit the reality of what you're not saying that's why you're walking all over Ed it's to keep the tree from being known making yourself right perfect judgment there is another word your actions speak louder than words and every word that's coming out of your mouth describes you to the max it is not about Ed it's about you describing the fears you hide he has not done nothing wrong but to stand up and be the sweetest girl you could ever meet or even justifying to tell the truth you have condemned him and your statement by your actions and commitments your job holds so much more that you have the feeling and the rights to violate every constitutional right there is by obstruction of justice in this conduct of greed and out of control judgments by misuse of power violating its rights and all others you're violating his parents and all citizens by your laws you act like a bunch of Scrooge's who don't give a darn about whether people live or die all you care about is the greedy money the embezzling tax invasion corruption of Justice playing on the innocence of children's minds and souls feeling and robbing the cradle assault murders killings throughout every state and county there is violating the police department's rights violating misconduct and putting criminals into the system to violate more this makes you all in the right trafficking children off and you're all a part of what's going on Ed has nothing to do with it he did not make you do the things you guys already have done mistakenly thinking that it's okay for you to sit there and walk all over the justice system of civil rights telling them when to squat and when to get back up how would you feel if he switched places with you and made you feel the same way you make others feel you're justifications are your judgments your actions against the rights of others by being racist and violating the constitutional rights and custodial interference of parents including messing with the innocence of their children the misconduct of your actions speak louder than words that you have injured our children mentally and physically I am very appalled that you would lie to yourself and all others by blaming head for something he did not do on your misconduct of your actions and judgments about yourself you have only ran from the truth how much longer are you going to keep running and hiding before you get caught
+mediumcomputer I think Obama was against that, wasn't he? Or maybe I don't recall correctly. Either way, perhaps the next president could do it? Although it would likely result in public outcry from those who consider Snowden as a criminal.
Snowden is not as much of a technologist as Bill Gates, and we can unwrite code..... Why are they even having this debate? The two people are on such different levels. Talk about talking about things you don't know/understand.
up to 35:24 ufff, I feel bad for fareed. He shoulda just gave up. The moderator totally turned on him. granted, he's still on the stupid side of this. infrastructure analyst probably knows something about the technological scale of . . things. Bill Gates. sheesh.
I see a lot of hatred coming from all of you shows that it is a hate crime against a whistleblower which is not acceptable behavior that you have something to hide by doing this if you cannot respect someone who's helping you then you have no respect for yourself or others basically I'm asking you why are you showing hate crimes against this gentleman and talking badly I would like to see some changes go on that the public has the right to know the truth and if you cannot take the time misconduct of these actions and judgments against others is about your judgment and who you are and what you say is not about the person who you're putting up front it's about you justifying your guilt your crimes and hate towards others for even standing up to fight for the rights of others to protecting and the safety of our human rights stop being racist towards whistleblowers for being straight up and honest I thought you were more human than that but you have violated every civil right there is in the government by hiding the truth and blaming all the public for your mistakes he has done nothing wrong but be a hero to speaking the truth to all who needs to hear the truth instead you violate to racially violate his rates as a human being as well as the civil rights of humans out of control misconduct of obstruction of justice just for being a human being for speaking out and bringing the truth forth do you not believe in the Lord or do you believe in a man who misleads everyone to thinking he's God this man has brought nothing but good to all he is a hero and I see him as a perfect gentleman who has brought the truth forth to all of you to see for yourself he's not there to hurt you as you're trying to put him out of the picture making him a prisoner of war that what goes on is not about him it's about the truth nothing but the truth to help me God on a solid oath of Bibles I believe you could do much better than violate somebody who's never violated you the proof shows that you have all violated the rights of human Rights obstruction of justice and the misconduct of being out of control with greed he had nothing to do with this he did not make any of you do what you did you all took us upon yourself to violate his civil rights his family as well as others you have scrutinized the civil Rights and violated every right there is in the government the truth and the judgment lies before your feet you can't judge others that you have judged yourself by your own actions and behaviors justifies that you have totally hid the truth and lied to others as well as lying to yourselves taxpayers money has been taken and more so than ever how do you explain that you bribe people to keep their mouth shut and stay in silence about the truth
You live in Fair and you're biased towards egg stop being that way and start listening he's not there to tell you how to do your jobs he's giving you advice that's all it is he's not going to be on the point you are acting on the defensive side of your judgments and actions shows that you are you are violating Ed because he's trying to help you he's not there to tell you how to do your jobs you're asking him questions he's giving you straight up answers and you are being racist towards him because of this and you are getting angry showing fear and anger does not help it just shows that you have been judged by your own judgment and your actions of being racist towards him for even speaking out as a whistleblower is only trying to be a big help to all of you stop getting angry with him stop showing fear of guilt your mistakes are your own judgments stop judging somebody for trying to be there for you stop acting like wild kids you're showing no responsibility or respect and reality you're showing dishonesty by getting angry and upset with him Ed is doing what he thinks is right in the best interest of all civil rights if you can't do your job correctly that's your fault that is not Ed's if you cannot stop acting like immature kids and grow up and show respect towards others then the respect you have no respect whatsoever towards anyone but yourself and your own events what do you have to hide why are you running in fear against the gentleman who's being straight and honest with all civil rights human beings you have a lot to hide in deceit you are being dishonest to the public's eyes and you are using every technique to shut him down by being hostile towards him show responsibility and respect because you're showing no respect for Ed whatsoever you are showing dishonesty and the only whistleblowers there is is those who show no responsibility and your actions tell on you I hope you understand this stop disrespecting everyone else he's never disrespected you if you were sitting his spot he was sitting in yours how would you feel put yourself in Ed's shoes he's putting his butt on the line for all of you he's already made the statement to his dad that whatever happens I love you and I'll always be there as much as I can but not for long because my life I'm giving it up because they expect me to be gone dad don't worry I know I'm not going to be here very much longer Ed is a good man his parents were government officials he shows so much gratitude and responsibility for the civil rights of all others as well as yours if you have to be racial towards him and dishonest then you aren't be honest person that you state you are you run in fear and you hide from the truth what is wrong with all of you are you for real when you can sit there and deny the truth you will live in denial for the rest of your life by your own judgments in actions in fear you run because you're scared of the truth he's not there to control your jobs or how you work only your actions will tell the truth nothing but the truth so help me God p stop judging all because you don't know the civil rights of others do you you do not understand but to violate files violate their constitutional rights obstruction of justice misconduct and your civil rights as being a criminal makes you right start showing respect for those who voted for all who are in office should be impeached for lying about the truth nothing but the truth so help me God may God bring so much out to the open light of all doors that you have blamed all civil rights people who put you into office in the government hoping and praying that you would do the right thing then obstruct to justice of all civil rights stop pushing people around and stop being the bullies you are and cold-blooded murders and killers it goes to show you're out of control with greed greeds more important than doing your job
Who is this Fareed Zakaria, and how does he manages to sound like such an idiot? Can he do anything else besides diminishing himself and citing others?
The moderator has a vested interest in the positive public image of Snowden. Did I miss the disclosure of the relationship between Gellman and Snowden? Every time Fareed makes a good point Gellman speaks over Snowden and changes the subject. If the access being sought is lawful, then the denial of that access is unlawful. Snowden engages every fallacy he would've learned in a freshman logic class, had he went to college. The big one is the false dillema he set up between unbreakable encryption or information can no longer be secured. Lawful access = insecurity. It will make us less free? Baloney. The FBI gained access to the phone in question without the help of Apple and the encryption sky didn't fall Snowden Little. So, why couldn't Apple assist the FBI? Apple's action just gave non-stakeholders incentive to develop bypasses for their security systems. Apple's action made your information less secure. This debate was a farce and Edward Snowden is a spy who stole information regarding lawful activity by the US government and then provided that information to our adversaries and resides with our main global adversary to this day making hundreds of thousands of dollars performing and giving speeches at American Universities like NYU.
Ed was at a disadvantage here because he constrained himself to making truthful statements about the reality of technology, unlike his opponent.
+Jan-David Jansen For the most part that was probably his lack of knowledge of the technology aspect of the debate.. Even holding up Gates as the authority on encryption was a joke. The other thing which caught my eye about Zakaria was the various points in which he played the emotions card ..often used in the media as a propaganda tool. Something I'm sure many caught on to..
"Sacrafice liberty for security"
No thanks Mr Zakaria.
If there is no security, there is no Liberty.
"those who would give up liberty in exchange for safety will have neither" - Ben Franklin
That is misquoting Ben Franklin tho if you said paraphrasing I would have given you a pass. This is the actual quote:
"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
For the context you should knowhe was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns. Interestingly, the context actually makes this quotation relevant to this discussion of liberty and security but not in the way you probably think it is. The legislature Ben Franklin was writing about was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. Ben Franklin was against the Penn family for refusing to pay the tax with a veto. His quote then defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective community security. What does this mean? Well during this time there was a real emergency going on. The frontier lands were constantly under raid attacks. He regarded the ability of a community to defend itself as the 'essential liberty' he mentioned in his quote. But what about the mention of 'purchase a little temporary safety'? Well, the Penn family were trying to get around the tax by doing what many crony capitalist do these days. Pay off politicians. More specifically paying off the General Assembly to say it didn't have the authority to tax. Hence why the mentioning of 'purchase a little temporary safey'. All of this means that his quote is actually more closely related to Fareed Zakaria motion for than for Edward Snowden's motion against. Making its use here fair, but misplaced if you think its favors Snowden's claims.
@@joyal876 Lol, tell that to the founding fathers and those who rose up against the empire 😄
This debate is almost between two different generations, and their mentalities, between the young and technologically knowledgeable, and the old and technologically illiterate.
And your are from 7 th century
L99999999999i
Two people well worth listening to debating a most important topic.
Zacharia: "If you encrypt something, you can un-encrypt it". After that statement he should have been escorted out.
:)
He's correct though. The definition of encryption requires that there exist some method to reverse the encryption, or unencrypt, the given data. When something is encoded using a one way transformation (so it can be stored securely but not reversed), that is called hashing.
It's a shame that so many people think Zacharia was getting away with saying falsities about how technology works, because he was just as accurate as Snowden was. Snowden wasn't "correcting" him on these points because he knew he was correct. Snowden even acknowledges Zacharia's strong performance in the debate for such reasons.
I haven't even watched the debate, but I know Fareed is about to make a fool of himself
+great America make again I take that back. He made some valid points.
Its unfortunate that the poll turned a bit into the direction I wasn't expecting it to turn. I think Ed was too easy on Fareed and should've pointed out the flaws in his arguments more vociferously. Fareed was always playing the fear card and being hypocritical in this entire debate and it was eerily similar to the "mushroom cloud" sold to the American public after 9-11 to go to war with Iraq especially when he talked about the Brussels attacks. It's almost as though the impression was given that everything a terrorist does is over the phone. No it is not; terrorists still move around the world, they still are human beings who interact with other human beings. Intelligence gathering through other human beings will always remain the most vital source of information among others. Even in the case of Brussels terrorists apparently the family had informed the intelligence agencies that one of those guys had gone to Syria way back in 2013. But leaving all of that aside, this debate wasn't supposed to be about smoking guns but about data security and encryption, which Fareed himself said that in government hands is not secure or he said he couldn't trust the government. Just like there is no such thing as a "little torture", there is no such thing as case by case decryption; once the tap is opened then it will get out of hands.
Thank you!
The way most encryption works is that unless you have the specific key, you cannot access the data. Under the 5th amendment, you cannot be forced to provide it. Try to mandate weak encryption, and those who need strong encryption find a way to re-enable same with foreign software.
The 5th amendment does not protect you from providing a key for decryption. There are several court cases that address this.
"A teenager in a basement in Moldova" lol! "He is a master debater". Must say Edward Snowden has a fun way with words.
+Emil Phoryew Moldova even stopped voting for communists for us; that's mean!
Blogo Pogo I have nothing against the Moldovan nation, it was just an odd comment to make given that Moldova is not one of those places mentioned much but then to comment with it "a teenager in a basement". It's just fairly odd to think that in one sentence which makes it amusing. Snowden thinks in a bizarre way, like my sister.
Fareed Zakaria is not good at debates. He keeps spouting Bill Gates in every point he makes. I feel his acceptance to debate opposite a tech expert on matters of technology was ill advised. He seems completely out of depth here.
+Sayak Das On his show, this past sunday, he pretended to have won the debate. Not very fair of him to redo the debate, alone and with the larger audience of CNN.
Thomas Favre
That's what "newsmen" in the media usually do.
Sayak Das agree. Normal people are not Bill Gates who can afford the means and options to defend oneself if his privacy is intruder upon. And we know and have seen what it means by lawful access in the US, no means the clear and ethical lawful we imagine because in practice they violate too many individual civil liberties. Personally, my opinion is the end does not justify the means, you may preserve peace but it then you lose what you essentially wanted to preserve - liberty and equality in society.
The US needs new privacy laws for the modern age.
wtf fareed brings up the constitution for his argument perhaps he should read it
+peoplerstrange49 The 4th amendment of the constitution allows for searches and seizures of your house and personal information provided a court search warrant has been issued.
+ForrestSCS I don't understand where you read an exception for the Iphone, in the search and seizure clause of the 4th amendment. If you want to make the Iphone off limits to search warrants, you have to amend the Constitution.
+ForrestSCS So why should Madoff's Iphone be off limits to a search warrant while his house is not? I keep more secrets in my house that on my Iphone. Or are you arguing that peoples homes should also be off limits to search warrants?
I see your point that Apple allowing access to the government to a Iphone, given a search warrant, will weaken encryption and make us all less safe. I'm willing to believe that, but the 4th amendment doesn't make an exception for and Iphone or anything else based on public safety. Perhaps it should, but for that you would have to amend the constitution.
+ForrestSCS You were making a good point when arguing that building a back door into the Iphone could hamper the nations's security. But comparing the Iphone to the brain, and the USA legal system to a Banana Republic, you are stepping into Alex Jones conspiracy land.
I will ignore your most recent comments and keep on with the security as you might know more than I do on this.
For security's sake alone ... I have seen several startups in the SF Bay Area set up to work on hacking into Iphones to sell their services to the FBI and police. Would it not be more secure if Apple had given access to the FBI than having a industry with several firms soon able to hack into Iphones?
Damn..Fareed doesn't really know what he's talking about.
"The difference is I don't have a boss telling me what to say." Hm.
:)
It's annoying to see Zakaria argument citing Bill gates and then questioning Snowden's references from ex CIA and govt and alleging that those people may now have vested interests. As if Bill Gates would never have any. Further mentioning Nixon's case is also out of context because it was an executive body involved in a case whereas here the matter is related to individual freedom.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
+adroitcode
we dont give up essential liberty
I'd say strong encryption is an essential liberty
+adroitcode
not if the bad consequences are on a mass scale
+0cards0 Weak encryption would almost definitely lead to bad consequences of a massive scale. Therefore, strong encryption could be considered essential. Strong encryption, however, can still be circumvented by the FBI in special cases, which are very rare and do not warrant a reduction in security, as Snowden has argued.
+b1odome
i guess we need more data on this topic to form a valid conclusion, like data on how much phones were hacked before this encryption tech, & how many crimes would not be solved with this tech
" They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." - Benjamin Franklin.
Fareed and Ed are talking past eachother. Ed is technical and Fareed is all talk.
I'm kind of confused on this issue, couldn't apple just unencrypt the contents of whoever's phone, send a copy to the FBI or police without handing over the actual device or showing them the key?
Also I think Ed enjoys getting the opportunity to debate someone
What I'll add to this comment sections is that Fareed is obviously a mouthpiece. He was, as he himself pointed out, no clear understanding of encryption and was merely invited because of his status. We had at the end of the day one side discussing a narrative, the official narrative, by way of rhetoric. Snowden rightly pointed out that his last statement did not address the debatable issue. On the other hand he debated around scientific thesis and hypothesis with his honest opinion. My first thought was that is was actually going to go like this =/
also gotta mention- Barton Gellman the moderator was one of the first journalists to participate in publishing Snowden revelations. so........... just full disclosure.
I will personally seek the strongest security possible to protect my privacy and rights. If the government wants access to my data, I want them to spend lots of money and time and have to consult experts to do it (given that they've obtained a warrant first). Manufacturers should never be forced to break their own security, in doing so, they're breaking their customers' trust. If vulnerabilities are found in the software people use, the manufacturer should know about it and each version of software released in our world should be more effective and more secure that its predecessor - need I mention Sony or Target? If there's a chance that bad guys/gals will have black boxes that can never be opened, investigators will just have to find alternative means of apprehending them. Like Snowden mentioned, the Silk Road was brought down by distracting its operator at a public library after he logged in. Let's not open Pandora's Box!
Bill Gates != Expert Technologist in 2016
Starts @ around 12:00
LONG LIVE Edward Snowden
The debate is meaningful because we've already seen the Senate trying to legislate poor-encryption for USA citizens. The two Senators sponsoring the bill just don't understand. Education is important.
Starts at 13:03
Loading malware on devices and/or using a national security letters to force Apple and Google to provide compromised applications to devices used by the targets is probably the best way for the government to proceed.
so the basic take away is "if there's a lock, there's a key" … Snowden and Zakaria both dance around this but it does seem to be the underlying basis of the internet of everything … personally, I believe we gave up the rights to privacy when we blindly clicked the "I Agree" button on almost everything important we do online (iTunes, Google, Facebook, etc) and ever digital service we sign on for (cell service, Gmail, RUclips, LinkedIn, etc) …they're both saying the same thing from two different points of view …
“Anyone who voted yes, go ahead and stand up to cement your opinion that privacy doesn’t matter”
Does Fareed have any idea about what it was exactly that he showed up there to talk about? I'm afraid these two individuals do not belong to the same discourse community. Basically, I'm not sure this Fareed guy has the capacity to understand what this conversation is about frankly.
Until everyone is allowed to have lawful access to any encrypted message or device, only giving government thugs that permission is morally hypocritical. Its like letting government goons take money from us at gunpoint but then attack anyone else that does the same thing.
"Rules for thee but not for me"
Video starts at 13:03. For ron look left.
Farid Zakaria is an ignorant statist, as anyone who has watched his TV show could tell you. But even though Snowden clearly outclassed him in this debate, no one got to the essential point: governments are organized to protect individual rights, not routinely violate them. Blackstone once said, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as the fundamental principle behind our legal system's checks and balances. The statists among us including Zakaria seem to forget this. "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy," said the philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand. Almost perfect privacy is now possible due to strong encryption. We should be celebrating this as a tremendous achievement, not as a flaw, even if some evidence of crimes is not recoverable. We must remember that when it comes to oppression and murder of individuals, no criminal gang, no terrorist, no street thug can match the record of the world's governments, which have outright murdered over a quarter of a billion people over the last hundred years and caused the death of another quarter billion in unnecessary wars. Giving the government more power over our private lives is not a "solution" to the real problem of crime, which is 98% a problem of government-sponsored oppression.
I like fareed zakaria. but I have no idea wtf he's talking about here leading up to 19:51
Fareed is either trying to make poor points or he has no clue what he is talking about.
It's simple. Snowden knows a little bit more then Fareed about this subject.
Vastly more.
debate starts at 11:28
leading up to 36:44 uggghh he really doesn't get it
Long live the new flesh
damn at 31:20
Fareed is the only Indian who doesn't understand how Encryption works
Humiliating performance by Fareed!
I can't believe I made it to 36:00 without closing it. Fareed is awful. This debate was not set up well. Find a "technologist" that actually disagrees with encryption and debate Snowden. This looks poor the whole way around. It's like Bill O'Reilly acting like an expert on something he knows about from headlines.
1:11:18 hahaha Edward Snowden lowkey warning everyone about the fluoride in our toothpaste and water. Google harvard fluoride, and also CDC fluoride "Top 10 public health achievments"
the new arms race is which country's got the best decrypters & encrypters
did he just joke about 9/11??
Unchecked power does what it wants; codified and adjudicated or not. As TPTB have, for all intents and purposes, monopoly on the use of force and violence, it is unchecked power. Have a nice day.
Fareed Zakaria made me cringe hard
Snowden speaks at 20:27
Thanks mate!
Snowden didn't answer the main question. Given a court issued search warrant, Bank Of America has to give the FBI access to your bank account even if it is encrypted. I don't see the difference between your bank account and your Iphone. I don't want the FBI to be peeking into peoples information without a court issued search warrant. But given a search warrant, there is no difference between searching your home or bank accounts (which the FBI can do) or your Iphone.
I think Farred won.
The issue at hand isn't about iPhones or terrible banking institutions. It's about the security of sensitive information and how we define those terms and who will have ultimate authoritative dominion over such.
+Christopher Long If your are arguing that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies should not have "ultimate authoritative dominion" over encrypted data, we agree 100%. But given a court issued search warrant, the police can search your home, bank accounts, and anus. I'm just saying that encrypted data should fall under the same restriction as home searches.
So you're saying it's okay to sell off people and human beings like a commodity animal you sold out their files you're so author identities you sold off the backgrounds trading places with those so that others could work that have bad backgrounds and you knew this you hit the reality of what you're not saying that's why you're walking all over Ed it's to keep the tree from being known making yourself right perfect judgment there is another word your actions speak louder than words and every word that's coming out of your mouth describes you to the max it is not about Ed it's about you describing the fears you hide he has not done nothing wrong but to stand up and be the sweetest girl you could ever meet or even justifying to tell the truth you have condemned him and your statement by your actions and commitments your job holds so much more that you have the feeling and the rights to violate every constitutional right there is by obstruction of justice in this conduct of greed and out of control judgments by misuse of power violating its rights and all others you're violating his parents and all citizens by your laws you act like a bunch of Scrooge's who don't give a darn about whether people live or die all you care about is the greedy money the embezzling tax invasion corruption of Justice playing on the innocence of children's minds and souls feeling and robbing the cradle assault murders killings throughout every state and county there is violating the police department's rights violating misconduct and putting criminals into the system to violate more this makes you all in the right trafficking children off and you're all a part of what's going on Ed has nothing to do with it he did not make you do the things you guys already have done mistakenly thinking that it's okay for you to sit there and walk all over the justice system of civil rights telling them when to squat and when to get back up how would you feel if he switched places with you and made you feel the same way you make others feel you're justifications are your judgments your actions against the rights of others by being racist and violating the constitutional rights and custodial interference of parents including messing with the innocence of their children the misconduct of your actions speak louder than words that you have injured our children mentally and physically I am very appalled that you would lie to yourself and all others by blaming head for something he did not do on your misconduct of your actions and judgments about yourself you have only ran from the truth how much longer are you going to keep running and hiding before you get caught
They should let this guy back into the US. Snowden was justified and deserves a pardon. I hope Obama gives him one on his way out.
+mediumcomputer I think Obama was against that, wasn't he? Or maybe I don't recall correctly. Either way, perhaps the next president could do it? Although it would likely result in public outcry from those who consider Snowden as a criminal.
Snowden is not as much of a technologist as Bill Gates, and we can unwrite code.....
Why are they even having this debate? The two people are on such different levels. Talk about talking about things you don't know/understand.
How would you 'unwrite' code, short of hacking into every device on which it exists and deleting it?
up to 35:24 ufff, I feel bad for fareed. He shoulda just gave up. The moderator totally turned on him. granted, he's still on the stupid side of this. infrastructure analyst probably knows something about the technological scale of . . things. Bill Gates. sheesh.
I see a lot of hatred coming from all of you shows that it is a hate crime against a whistleblower which is not acceptable behavior that you have something to hide by doing this if you cannot respect someone who's helping you then you have no respect for yourself or others basically I'm asking you why are you showing hate crimes against this gentleman and talking badly I would like to see some changes go on that the public has the right to know the truth and if you cannot take the time misconduct of these actions and judgments against others is about your judgment and who you are and what you say is not about the person who you're putting up front it's about you justifying your guilt your crimes and hate towards others for even standing up to fight for the rights of others to protecting and the safety of our human rights stop being racist towards whistleblowers for being straight up and honest I thought you were more human than that but you have violated every civil right there is in the government by hiding the truth and blaming all the public for your mistakes he has done nothing wrong but be a hero to speaking the truth to all who needs to hear the truth instead you violate to racially violate his rates as a human being as well as the civil rights of humans out of control misconduct of obstruction of justice just for being a human being for speaking out and bringing the truth forth do you not believe in the Lord or do you believe in a man who misleads everyone to thinking he's God this man has brought nothing but good to all he is a hero and I see him as a perfect gentleman who has brought the truth forth to all of you to see for yourself he's not there to hurt you as you're trying to put him out of the picture making him a prisoner of war that what goes on is not about him it's about the truth nothing but the truth to help me God on a solid oath of Bibles I believe you could do much better than violate somebody who's never violated you the proof shows that you have all violated the rights of human Rights obstruction of justice and the misconduct of being out of control with greed he had nothing to do with this he did not make any of you do what you did you all took us upon yourself to violate his civil rights his family as well as others you have scrutinized the civil Rights and violated every right there is in the government the truth and the judgment lies before your feet you can't judge others that you have judged yourself by your own actions and behaviors justifies that you have totally hid the truth and lied to others as well as lying to yourselves taxpayers money has been taken and more so than ever how do you explain that you bribe people to keep their mouth shut and stay in silence about the truth
Blah blah blah blah snork beyort tort oh diddy dot scrubbel shnotz❗️Right❓
Is nyu "WAG-NER" the right pronunciation? it makes me cringe every time
You live in Fair and you're biased towards egg stop being that way and start listening he's not there to tell you how to do your jobs he's giving you advice that's all it is he's not going to be on the point you are acting on the defensive side of your judgments and actions shows that you are you are violating Ed because he's trying to help you he's not there to tell you how to do your jobs you're asking him questions he's giving you straight up answers and you are being racist towards him because of this and you are getting angry showing fear and anger does not help it just shows that you have been judged by your own judgment and your actions of being racist towards him for even speaking out as a whistleblower is only trying to be a big help to all of you stop getting angry with him stop showing fear of guilt your mistakes are your own judgments stop judging somebody for trying to be there for you stop acting like wild kids you're showing no responsibility or respect and reality you're showing dishonesty by getting angry and upset with him Ed is doing what he thinks is right in the best interest of all civil rights if you can't do your job correctly that's your fault that is not Ed's if you cannot stop acting like immature kids and grow up and show respect towards others then the respect you have no respect whatsoever towards anyone but yourself and your own events what do you have to hide why are you running in fear against the gentleman who's being straight and honest with all civil rights human beings you have a lot to hide in deceit you are being dishonest to the public's eyes and you are using every technique to shut him down by being hostile towards him show responsibility and respect because you're showing no respect for Ed whatsoever you are showing dishonesty and the only whistleblowers there is is those who show no responsibility and your actions tell on you I hope you understand this stop disrespecting everyone else he's never disrespected you if you were sitting his spot he was sitting in yours how would you feel put yourself in Ed's shoes he's putting his butt on the line for all of you he's already made the statement to his dad that whatever happens I love you and I'll always be there as much as I can but not for long because my life I'm giving it up because they expect me to be gone dad don't worry I know I'm not going to be here very much longer Ed is a good man his parents were government officials he shows so much gratitude and responsibility for the civil rights of all others as well as yours if you have to be racial towards him and dishonest then you aren't be honest person that you state you are you run in fear and you hide from the truth what is wrong with all of you are you for real when you can sit there and deny the truth you will live in denial for the rest of your life by your own judgments in actions in fear you run because you're scared of the truth he's not there to control your jobs or how you work only your actions will tell the truth nothing but the truth so help me God p stop judging all because you don't know the civil rights of others do you you do not understand but to violate files violate their constitutional rights obstruction of justice misconduct and your civil rights as being a criminal makes you right start showing respect for those who voted for all who are in office should be impeached for lying about the truth nothing but the truth so help me God may God bring so much out to the open light of all doors that you have blamed all civil rights people who put you into office in the government hoping and praying that you would do the right thing then obstruct to justice of all civil rights stop pushing people around and stop being the bullies you are and cold-blooded murders and killers it goes to show you're out of control with greed greeds more important than doing your job
Fareed's reference to Haiti and Somalia though. Very racist nd appalling
Farid Zakaria is full of shit. He knows nothing. All he do every Sunday ask questions? He has offered nothing, but bullshit.
Who is this Fareed Zakaria, and how does he manages to sound like such an idiot? Can he do anything else besides diminishing himself and citing others?
The moderator has a vested interest in the positive public image of Snowden. Did I miss the disclosure of the relationship between Gellman and Snowden?
Every time Fareed makes a good point Gellman speaks over Snowden and changes the subject. If the access being sought is lawful, then the denial of that access is unlawful. Snowden engages every fallacy he would've learned in a freshman logic class, had he went to college. The big one is the false dillema he set up between unbreakable encryption or information can no longer be secured. Lawful access = insecurity. It will make us less free? Baloney. The FBI gained access to the phone in question without the help of Apple and the encryption sky didn't fall Snowden Little. So, why couldn't Apple assist the FBI? Apple's action just gave non-stakeholders incentive to develop bypasses for their security systems. Apple's action made your information less secure. This debate was a farce and Edward Snowden is a spy who stole information regarding lawful activity by the US government and then provided that information to our adversaries and resides with our main global adversary to this day making hundreds of thousands of dollars performing and giving speeches at American Universities like NYU.