“Government should have lawful access to any encrypted message or device.” - Zakaria vs Snowden

[Electric Monk]

http://www.debatesofthecentury.org/national-security/

Some people believe the recent dispute between the FBI and Apple over a locked iPhone marks the return of what privacy advocates called the”crypto wars” of the 1990s, when federal authorities tried and failed to mandate government access to most forms of electronic communication. Although the FBI managed to decrypt the iPhone at issue without the company’s help, Apple and others are racing to build devices and messaging services that no one but their owners can unlock. The legal question remains unresolved in Congress, where competing bills have been introduced, and in dozens of cases pending in state and federal courts.

Law enforcement agencies believe their vital mission requires compulsory access, under valid court order, to any device or communications stream. Leading technology companies (backed by some other U.S. government voices) say they cannot meet law enforcement demands without undermining customer security and privacy against hackers and foreign adversaries. Edward Snowden and Fareed Zakaria disagree on which course better serves society at large. Should companies be required to break into their own encrypted products, and should they be allowed to sell encryption that no one can break?

Imho Zakaria made some interesting points, and he's a pretty good debater, but Snowden made the more important ones.

[snot]

2. So,

“Government should have lawful access to any encrypted message or device.”

Sure. But what is, who defines, "lawful access"???

To me, it's access that honors the 4th amendment, which I think? has been interpreted to say, roughly, that the government can search where it has obtained a warrant by establishing "probable cause." I'm actually not sure what even that means: probable cause that a violation of criminal law has happened or is in progress, and that the search would yield evidence to that effect?

Ok, real life requires me to sign off now; but happy as I am for any opportunity for Snowden to actually be heard, the question on which this debate is premised seems incredibly poorly drafted.