Create a free account to continue

Snowden versus Zakaria on Encryption and National Security; A Homeless State of Emergency; Should America Build Walls or Break Them



Homeless State of Emergency; Should America Build Walls or Break Them

Down?; Interview with Imran Khan; Netherlands Collected Urine on

King's Day. Aired 10-11a ET - Part 1>

[10:00:08] FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

We'll start today's show with Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee turned whistleblower and fugitive from American justice. Snowden and I had a spirited debate this week about whether or not the government should have lawful access to encrypted devices like the San Bernardino iPhone.

I say yes, he of course says no.


EDWARD SNOWDEN: Encryption saves lives. Without it our economy stops. Our government stops. Everything stops.


ZAKARIA: And Donald Trump says Mexico will pay to build a wall on its border with the U.S.


DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We will build a wall and you know who is going to pay for the wall, Mexico.


ZAKARIA: But the author Parag Khanna says the next president should do the opposite -- break down borders and boundaries between north and south and form an all-powerful North American union. He'll make his case.

Also, Islamic radicalism in Pakistan has always been worrying because of that country's nuclear arsenal. While Pakistan's charismatic politician Imran Khan tries to explain the anger against America in the Muslim world and why he says it's actually lessened in Pakistan in recent years.

But first here's my take. After Donald Trump's foreign policy address this week, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Bob Corker, announced that he was very impressed, extolling the broadness, the vision of the speech. The "Wall Street Journal" said it was serious. The "National Interest's" Jacob Heilbrunn opined that the candidate was more restrained.

Clearly we now consider it a wonder of sorts that Donald Trump can spend 40 minutes in front of cameras during which he avoids vulgarity, refrains from bigotry and reads from a teleprompter.

The speech was in fact an embarrassment, a meandering collection of slogans that were mostly pablum.


TRUMP: We must make America strong again. Our goal is peace and prosperity. Not war and destruction.


ZAKARIA: It did not contain his most absurd and unworkable suggestions -- building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, stopping people from sending their own money to relatives in Mexico, banning all Muslims from entering the United States, and a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods. So in that sense it was an improvement, I suppose.

The most striking aspect of the speech was its repeated contradictions.

"We will spend what we need to rebuild our military," he promised, though Washington already spends more than the next seven countries put together. But almost in the same breath he talked about pinching pennies because of the crippling national debt.

Trump is against humanitarian interventions but he implied that we should have intervened to help embattled Christians in the Middle East. Which is it?

Trump put America's closest allies on notice that if they didn't pay their fair share on defense, a complaint by the way Washington has made for at least four decades, he would end America's security guarantees to them. We have no choice, he exclaimed. Then he assured them that he would be a close and reliable ally.

Trump promised to be consistent and yet unpredictable.

Is your head spinning yet? Mostly Trump's speech was populist pandering masquerading as a strategy. But one theme emerged. Donald trump is a Jacksonian.

In his book "Special Providence," Walter Russell Meade explains that Andrew Jackson represents a distinctly populous style of American thinking that is quite different from the country's other major ideological traditions. It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist, in foreign policy largely isolationist but if and when engaged abroad militaristic and unilateral.

In trade it is protectionist and on all matters deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions.

Jacksonians are exasperated not so much by enemies but by our allies. They want to abandon the world or utterly dominate it. What is exasperating, in fact, intolerable for them is engaging with the world, working with other countries to achieve incremental progress, manage conflicts and thus solve problems. Unfortunately, that happens to be what the bulk of foreign policy actually looks like.

If we want to defeat ISIS, for example, what is going to make that possible is a complicated series of military and diplomatic moves, but Trump has a better idea.

[10:05:03] A secret plan he says that will zap the group into oblivion. He won't tell them or us what it is or when it will happen.

In 1993 the scholar Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote an essay entitled "Defining Deviancy Down." In it he explained that American society was quietly accepting as normal behavior that would be considered abnormal by any earlier standard."

Welcome to the Trump campaign of which his speech on foreign policy was only the most recent example.

For more go to and read my "Washington Post" column this next. And let's get started.

I've taken part in several debates in my life but none quite like the one I'm about to show you. My opponent was Edward Snowden, traitor to some, hero to others. He joined remotely from Moscow where he has been given refuge from American authorities.

This was Edward Snowden's first ever debate. The topic was one that is near and dear to the former CIA employee, encryption, more specifically, should the government have lawful access to any encrypted message or device?

It's a subject that reared its head of course after the San Bernardino attacks. One of the attackers, Syed Farook had an iPhone that the FBI wanted access to. The agency believed that the phone could hold valuable investigative information and asked Apple to help them break into it. Apple refused.

Listen in and tweet us using the hashtag #FZGPS to let us know which side you come out on. Journalist Barton Gellman who's writing a book about Snowden was the moderator.


ZAKARIA: Imagine tomorrow that Bank of America announced that it had a new product. Let's call it an iVault and Bank of America said this is a vault, a virtual vault, in which you can put all your bank information, any financial information you have, any other kind of information you want. Remember, all information is now digital so it could be your tax receipts, it could be your will, it could be receipts for travel, it could be whatever it is you want to keep secure and safe. Now imagine that there was a guy, let's call him Bernie Madoff, who embezzled billions of dollars from poor workers' pension funds and it turned out he had one of these iVaults and the government is trying to figure out exactly the extent and the scale of the crime, they need evidence for it, they need to find out what else he might have embezzled. And they go to a court and ask for a search warrant. The court provides it, but Bank of America says, no, this is encrypted digital information. In fact, our whole sales pitch to our customers is this is encrypted so you can't have access to it.

How would you get around that problem? Because after all if Apple says you cannot have access to the information in an iPhone because it is encrypted, why does Bank of America not have the same right? Why does any institution, frankly, any company in the United States not have the right to encrypt the information it has? This is relatively routine software at this point, and then argue that it has in a sense created a zone of immunity in which no laws can reach, no courts can reach, no government can reach.

That's really it seems to me the heart of the question here. Now I know what you're thinking, you don't want people to see what's on your iPhone. Neither do I. But I understand that within a democracy, if you have rules or laws, you have to sacrifice liberty for security at some point. This is not an absolutist position, I believe in strong protections for those liberties. I do not want the government abusing its authority, I believe it has, but you cannot have an absolute zone of privacy.

Now you're going to hear a lot or you probably have already heard a lot about the dangers technologically that this now produces, that it might mean a master key that unlocks all information everywhere, that it endangers all kind of encryption everywhere. I'm not a technology guy, but I thought it would be worth listening to what a technology guy has to say about this, somebody who ran the largest technology company specializing in software for two decades, Bill Gates.

So here is what Bill Gates says about Apple's request -- the federal government's request of Apple that it unlock an iPhone.

Bill Gates, "Apple has access to this information. They're just refusing to provide the access, and the courts will tell them whether to provide the access or not.

[10:10:05] You shouldn't call the access some special thing. It's no different than asking the phone company to get information or bank records. There is no difference between this information. The government comes asking for a specific set of information, and the bank can say it's tied a ribbon around the disc drive and says don't make me cut this ribbon because if I cut it this one time I will have to cut it many times," unquote.

As I said, I worry a great deal about what the government might do with all this information, which is why I believe you need laws that clearly demarcate when the government may have access to information, when it may not, what it can do with that information, but you cannot have liberty in the absence of law. That is the rule of the jungle. That's welcome to Haiti, welcome to Somalia. If you want to live in a democratic society that has rules, the laws, the authorities has to have some recourse to lawful court orders.

Look, I love this phone. It is the coolest thing that I have, but there's something even cooler. The United States Constitution and it has to be possible for a government of laws to operate in a way that legal authority has the ability to access this kind of information. No one in America can withhold evidence that is relevant to a court. Not the president, not the world's most powerful company, not any individual, not even the most shining and alluring product, not even the iPhone is above the law.




SNOWDEN: Let's start with what tonight is not about. Fundamentally, tonight is not about politics nor is it really it's about the law. It's about science. And for that reason it doesn't really matter whether you're for or against surveillance because by the end of this debate we'll have established that the proposition is not really a choice between privacy and security. It's rather about more security or less security.

Here's the problem. We're in the midst of the greatest crisis in computer security in history. One of my greatest critics personally, director of National Intelligence, General James Clapper, said just months ago a lot of people find this surprising in our post 9/11 world, but computer security bumped terrorism out of the top spot on our list of national security threats.

Now let me underline that. Our intelligence agencies say computer security is a bigger problem than terrorism, than crime, than anything else. The backbone of computer security today is encryption. Encryption is the thing that keeps your money in your bank account rather than in a criminal's. Encryption saves lives. Encryption protects property. Without it our economy stops. Our government stops. Everything stops.

Now my opponent hopes that somebody could perhaps find a way to make encryption work only for the good guys, but encryption is a field of mathematics and no matter how much we might hope otherwise, math is math. It works the same for Mother Teresa as it does for Osama bin Laden. And the scientific consensus on this next point is absolute -- lawful access to any device or communication cannot be provided to anybody without fatally compromising the security of everybody.

And that's not my opinion either. That's the formal conclusion from gathering of the world's top computer scientists and security experts at MIT to study precisely this issue. Now the fundamental problem of the science in this space is that for the government to unlock everything there has to be a key to everything.

Now we can pass a law to require a key under every doormat in order to make things easier for police, but the problem is that every other person in the world can find that key, too. And they can use it. You might be saying, oh, well, that's all well and good but what about national security? This is a legitimate interest.

The former director of National Intelligence, two directors of central -- the CIA, the director of the National Security Agency, the nation's former top counterterrorism official, have all said that despite their sympathy for the FBI., our nation's computer security is simply more important than yet another surveillance tool.

In fact, that NSA director former that I just cited, Michael Hayden, said this, the FBI director, Jim Comey, is wrong. America is simply more secure, America is safer with unbreakable end-to-end encryption.

[10:15:07] I look forward to exploring the details of all of this tonight with you and Mr. Zakaria, but I can promise you, ladies and gentlemen, one thing. If I am standing shoulder to shoulder with a director of the National Security Agency on something, there's a damn good reason for that. Thank you very much.



ZAKARIA: You just heard our opening arguments. You will hear our closing arguments when we come back. We'll also tell you how you can see the entire debate. Back in a moment.


[10:20:06] ZAKARIA: More now of the highlights of my debate with Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee and NSA contractor who has settled in Moscow after fleeing Hawaii just under three years ago. He joined us remotely from Russia. The topic was about what's important, should the government have lawful access to encrypted messages and devices like the now famous iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooter. Listen in.


ZAKARIA: This week as the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. That accident spewed more radiation into its region than all the radiation that emanated from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two bombs that the United States dropped on Japan. The reason I bring this up is because this is the kind of problem we might face in the future. It is not a hypothetical speculative point I'm making, there is now ample evidence that the perpetrators of the Brussels terrorist attacks were initially or at some point planning to try to explode or to cause an explosion at a Brussels nuclear -- at a Belgian nuclear power plant.

If they had done that you would have had an absolutely catastrophic fallout both in terms of the radiation, of course, to thousands and thousands of lives lost, tens of thousands of people displaced but also politically. There would have been a dramatic shift in the attitude of publics a in the Western world everywhere toward this whole debate that we're having. And I think that's the point I really feel is important to understand.

We do face real threats out there. This is not the figment of somebody's imagination. There are people out there trying to do bad things. It is much better that we figure out what the government is allowed to do, what it is not allowed to do, what information it can have access to, what information it cannot have access to before you face one of these terrible events because once they happen the public will react with fury, the government will be given carte blanche and they will be able to do many, many more things than Mr. Snowden or I would want governments to do.

GELLMAN: Thank you, Fareed.


GELLMAN: Ed, your three-minute closing, please.

SNOWDEN: First off I'd like to say, you know, those are important thoughts, but more generally those thoughts, important, though, they were, did not address the proposition, which is not should we consider the powers that government could have, but what powers should the government have? Should the government have access, lawful access, to any communications or device even though we know it would cause fatal harm to the actual security that we had?

Now the FBI director spoke on this saying things very similar to what Mr. Zakaria said, unbreakable encryption will allowed drug lords, spies, terrorists, even violent gangs to communicate about their crimes and conspiracies with impunity. We will lose one of the few remaining vulnerabilities of the worst criminals and terrorists upon law enforcement -- upon which law enforcement depends to successfully investigate and often prevent the worst crimes.

The FBI also said if we didn't get the kind of lawful access we're discussing right now, in three years wire taps worked by the FBI would be useless. Only 40 percent would provide anything and then a few years later they would provide nothing at all. The problem is that's not from 2016. That's not from 2015. Those numbers are from 1992 and the laws did not provide an encryption backdoor, despite the fact that in 1992 we did not change our laws nor in '95 to compromise fatally the security of every American product and device, law enforcement is in a better place today than they have ever been before for means of investigation.

The NSA's own classified documents what they don't say in public say that we are in the golden age of surveillance and they are right. Computer security is a real threat and I must thank Mr. Zakaria for joining me in this very important conversation tonight and I want to thank you all for spending the evening with us. I hope that we learned or I hope that he learned from me as I learned from him. He is a master debater and this was first. So it was very helpful.


SNOWDEN: But I would say let's remember ultimately that saying the government should have lawful access to any encrypted communication is identical to saying that the government should mandate weak security for all of us. Mandatory insecurity might be convenient for investigators here or there, no argument, and let's not forget also China, but the cost of doing so would be fatal. Thank you very much.



[10:25:07] ZAKARIA: Again, those were just the highlights. You can watch the entire debate. Go to, Thanks to Bart Gellman for moderating, to NYU Wagner and the Century Foundation for hosting.

Next on GPS how in the world do you help homeless people? Well, you could give them homes. It actually works. When we come back.


ZAKARIA: Now for our "What in the World" segment. Despite a healthy economy overall, many American cities are seeing a disturbing rise in homelessness. In New York the number of people sleeping in city shelters has shot up 92 percent in the last decade. Homelessness has reached its highest level since the Great Depression in the big apple according to the Coalition for the Homeless.

Seattle, Portland, and the entire state of Hawaii declared a state of emergency last year because their unsheltered populations were so high. Los Angeles has considered the same measure. But there is some good news.

[10:30:01] A bipartisan consensus has landed on a solution for this problem, to simply give homeless people homes with few or no strings attached. You see, if you can get someone off the streets immediately, the idea goes, it becomes easier to address the problems that make a person homeless in the first place. Drug addiction, mental illness, unemployment.

Sounds crazy? Consider the experience of Utah. This reddest of red states was the first place to adopt the so-called housing first approach statewide in 2005 according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The effort was led by a conservative who had worked for the Mormon church, Lloyd Pendleton, no fan of free government handouts.

Utah's chronically homeless, the most serious long-term cases, were given homes but also held accountable, overseen by caseworkers and required to pay part of their rent, Pendleton told us. After a successful small scale pilot program the state pledged to effectively chronic homelessness by 2015. Utah nearly met that goal, housing 91 percent of the chronically homeless since 2005, the state says.

Part of that dramatic decline was due to changes in how the homeless were counted, Pendleton says, but the state's efforts were still impressive. What's more, Utah's housing first approach actually saved taxpayers money, according to Pendleton. The old way of addressing homelessness, providing only temporary shelter for those living on the streets, leads to more instability for the homeless with more trips to the emergency rooms and to jails. But giving the homeless a more permanent home helped break that cycle, saving between 25 percent and 40 percent per person per year, Pendleton estimates.

Studies of similar efforts elsewhere also show big savings. It's no wonder that many other conservatives have supported this policy, including most prominently the George W. Bush administration which encouraged other places to adopt it.

Nationwide permanent supportive housing units have grown 69 percent since 2007 according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness and since 2010 homelessness has dropped by merely 12 percent, a decrease the alliance credits in part to the housing first approach.

There's still much work to do, nearly one-third of today's homeless don't even have access to a shelter at night. And combating homelessness in Salt Lake City is different from fighting it in New York City. But if we are willing to be innovative, to embrace solutions that work, these are problems that can be solved in the world's richest country.

Next on GPS, Donald Trump doesn't like globalism but my next guest says like it or not it is growing every day and he has the maps to prove it when we come back.


[10:37:08] ZAKARIA: On Wednesday the Republican frontrunner and self- titled presumptive nominee Donald Trump laid out for the very first time his foreign policy vision. He touched on China, the Middle East, Europe and more. But one favorite Trump target was conspicuously absent from the speech -- Mexico.

Who can forget Trump's initial claims that a wall would be put up between the United States and Mexico and Mexicans would pay for it? Well, the author Parag Khanna argues exactly the opposite in his new book, "Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization." He says the United States needs to break down its borders, especially with Mexico. Listen in.


ZAKARIA: Great to have you on, Parag.


ZAKARIA: So Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump agree on one thing which is that all these free trade deals have been bad, they are all calling for them to be reviewed, rejected and the whole idea is that globalization has gone too far.

KHANNA: Right. ZAKARIA: Almost the founding premise of this book of yours is you ain't seen nothing yet,

KHANNA: Right.


KHANNA: It's very, very true and it's because of the global connectivity network that we are building, think of the energy corridors, the transportation, the high speed railways, the Internet cables, the electricity grids. We are just beginning a new phase of history where we spend trillions of dollars a year, more than double or triple what we spend on defense and military, we are now spending on all of this infrastructure.

It is connecting every society, every city in the world across borders. So it makes trade, commerce, the flows of people, of capital, technology easier rather than harder. You can't just unwind that just by saying I'm not in favor of NAFTA or I'm not in favor of that. And of course what they get wrong is that America as a whole ultimately benefits from these trade agreements. It's not hurt by them.

ZAKARIA: You say if you look at a map of North America what you see is actually, again, far from slowing down. You're going to see a massive acceleration of the movement of goods and services and people back and forth.

KHANNA: Does the 49th parallel between the United States and Canada really define the relationship? Of course not. Do you know how many freight rail, we have dozens of freight railways. And we have the oil pipe lines. We have electric grids that are powering the northeastern United States increasingly by electricity and hydro power from Quebec, for example.

Then the U.S.-Mexico border. The American energy companies and banks are investing in the new pipeline infrastructure and the gas industry and the automobile industry, all of these things across the U.S.- Mexico border. Why would you want to close yourself off from what economists all over the world consider to be one of the hot emerging markets, Mexico? Right? We are lucky.

ZAKARIA: And people say that this North American union is actually in many ways getting more integrated, more productive than even the European Union.

KHANNA: Yes. It is because it's only three countries, first of all. There's all the historical sort of, you know, similarities and integration that's already taken place, the demographic flows between the three.

[10:40:02] This is how you build a geopolitical superpower in the 21st century, not just by your own America which is large enough as it is, but imagine uniting the resources and the demographics of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It is a continental super power on an unrivaled scale. ZAKARIA: You have this one very striking chart where you talk about the countries that have the major trading relationship with the United States versus the countries that have the major trading relationship with China.

KHANNA: Right.

ZAKARIA: And what's striking to me at least was there was many more with China.


ZAKARIA: The number one trading partner for many more countries is China.

KHANNA: Right.

ZAKARIA: Is the message that China is more connected and therefore more competitive than the United States going forward?

KHANNA: Connectedness is an extremely important way of measuring the leverage that a country can have. How can you influence something that you're not connected to, whether you have a military base there or you're trading with them? But connectedness is also a form of dependency. Right? So China has twice as many countries for which it is the number one trading partner than America does. That also means it's dependent on importing raw materials and things from them. So it doesn't necessarily mean that it is therefore more influential than America is.