Trump calls on the nations of the world to end religious persecution

Trump went on to declare, "Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution."

"It is estimated that 11 Christians are killed every day ... for following the teachings of Christ," Trump said. "Who would even think that's possible, in this day and age, who would think it's possible?"

The president drew attention to Andrew Brunson, an Evangelical pastor who was arrested in Turkey in 2016. In diplomatic discussions with the Turkish government, the Trump administration eventually secured Brunson's release in 2018.

Brunson was present for the president's speech Monday and received a round of applause.

Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution.Tweet

 

Initial reports suggested Trump would be absent from a U.N. climate change summit Monday morning with other nations' leaders; but he made an unexpected appearance at the climate change summit prior to delivering his remarks to the religious freedom event.
At times during his presidency, Trump has been outspoken on religious liberty, both in the United States and around the world.

On the National Day of Prayer in May, announced a new rule broadening health care workers' rights to opt out of procedures at odds with their religious beliefs. On the same day, he signed an executive order intended to help religious leaders speak out more boldly on political issues without fear of losing non-profit status.

In mid-July this year, the second annual Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom took place in Washington. In connection to the event, the president hosted more than a dozen victims of religious persecution in the Oval Office for a televised meeting.

Many of those at the Oval Office meeting during July's Ministerial were also present at Monday's event. During his speech, Trump invited them to stand up for an applause.
Following Trump's remarks, Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres called religious freedom "a pressing global issue, and one which is also very close to my heart."
"The persecution of religious minorities is absolutely intolerable," he said later in his remarks.
Guterres trumpeted the controversial Abu Dhabi declaration, which was signed by Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar.

Many Catholics criticized the document, which says in part, "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings."

Later, Guterres spoke of "two new initiatives" he has started at the United Nations. He mentioned an initiative "against hate speech," as well as an initiative to protect religious sites from violence and terrorism.

Full Interview: Edward Snowden On Trump, Privacy, And Threats To Democra...

cc

so add S no w d e n a lot of people in this

00:02

country are probably curious when was

00:05

the last time you had substantive

00:07

discussions about coming home to the

00:11

United States and would this still be

00:14

your preference do you still refer to it

00:16

as home the United States will always be

00:22

my home and I'll always be willing to

00:25

come back on a single condition and I've

00:29

been quite clear about this over the

00:30

years this is that the government

00:33

guarantee that I have the right and

00:35

every whistleblower has the right to

00:37

tell the jury why they did what they did

00:40

right we can disagree about whether this

00:43

was right or wrong we can disagree about

00:44

whether this is good or bad we can

00:46

disagree about whether this is legal

00:47

early illegal that's right and proper in

00:50

a democracy but we have to agree that

00:52

the jury is supposed to be the proper

00:55

authority to ultimately decide was this

00:57

right or well and I hate to say it but

00:59

under current laws that is explicitly

01:03

forbidden under the Espionage Act which

01:06

as you know it's increasingly being used

01:08

against the sources of journalism

01:10

instead of foreign spies the law makes

01:13

no distinction between someone who tells

01:16

a secret to a journalist and someone who

01:18

tells a secret to a foreign government

01:20

and and so yeah there have nots there

01:23

has not been any movement unfortunately

01:25

on that conversation since the Obama

01:28

administration when I told that the

01:32

government that all they need to do is

01:34

give me the right of what we call a

01:36

public interest offense this is a fair

01:38

trial an open trial where the jury hears

01:40

what is happening and they decide was

01:43

this justified or not and unfortunately

01:47

a then Attorney General Eric Holder

01:49

responded and said we can't promise that

01:52

we won't promise that we will promise

01:54

not to torture you unfortunately I'd say

01:58

that's not quite enough something you've

02:01

said repeatedly is that you would expect

02:04

and you would accept a certain

02:07

punishment for your actions what if that

02:11

package of punishment

02:13

included working for the home team what

02:15

if someone said help us harden our

02:18

elections from attack using your skills

02:20

I would volunteer for that instantly you

02:26

know they wouldn't even have to pay me

02:28

for that remember I volunteered to work

02:31

for the CIA for the NSA

02:33

when I came forward to reveal mass

02:35

surveillance which we need to be clear

02:37

the courts have found was in fact

02:40

unlawful on the part of the government

02:41

and one court said likely

02:44

unconstitutional so I have no objection

02:48

to helping the government I came forward

02:51

not to burn the NSA down I came forward

02:54

to reform it to help it return to the

02:57

ideals that we're all supposed to share

02:59

so there will never be a question of

03:01

when my government is ready when my

03:03

government wants me to help I will be

03:05

there how has your opinion changed about

03:10

mr. Putin since you've been in Russia

03:15

well I don't think it really has changed

03:18

because the question might presume that

03:21

I had a positive opinion at some point I

03:24

think everyone would agree probably

03:27

including the Russian President himself

03:28

that he is an authoritarian leader I

03:31

think the Russian government broadly

03:33

does not have a good record on human

03:35

rights and that hasn't changed how odd

03:38

is it to you that while you've been

03:41

there consensus here has hardened that

03:45

they are the actors who interfered in

03:48

our last presidential election I don't

03:53

think that's especially surprising there

03:56

was a story published in The New York

03:59

Times actually reporting on a study in

04:02

February of 2018 and was also done in

04:05

the Washington Post a few months prior

04:07

to that about the record of electoral

04:10

interference and they looked at the

04:12

history of Russia and the Soviet Union

04:15

and an electoral and town interference

04:17

by intelligence agencies and they found

04:19

I think 36 different cases of electoral

04:23

interference over roughly the past 50

04:25

years

04:26

but then they also looked at the United

04:28

States intelligence services and found

04:30

that we hit enter feared in foreign

04:31

elections at 81 different times now this

04:35

is not to say one is better than the

04:37

other it's not about that it's about

04:38

budget about the about capability but we

04:41

do what we do see from this is that what

04:45

happened in 2016 actually was not

04:47

unusual from the perspective of

04:49

intelligence agencies this is what they

04:52

believe are they are hired to do what we

04:55

have to do is find out how to secure our

04:58

systems against the attacks that we know

05:01

are inevitable something you've been

05:04

asked before something you have answered

05:06

before but since this is a fresh

05:08

occasion we'll will ask it again why not

05:11

stay in this country and face the music

05:14

if you believed in the strength of your

05:17

conviction this is a great question

05:21

Brian and I'm glad you asked it when we

05:25

say face the music the question is well

05:27

what song are they playing I was

05:30

intentionally charged as every major

05:33

whistleblower in the last decades has

05:35

been with the very particular crime this

05:40

is a violation of the Espionage Act of

05:42

1917 and and this is a law that is

05:47

explicitly designed to prohibit a

05:50

meaningful defense in court this is

05:53

applied or this law is used against

05:56

people who's the only thing that they've

05:58

done and this is by the government's own

06:00

terms the only thing the government

06:02

accuses people defending themselves

06:04

against this charge I have done is that

06:08

they have told something to a journalist

06:11

that the government considers classified

06:13

that is the whole of the crime they

06:17

don't consider whether it was good or

06:18

bad they don't consider whether or not

06:20

it caused harm simply did you tell

06:22

something classified to a journalist if

06:24

you did the jury is not allowed to

06:27

consider in fact they're explicitly

06:29

forbidden from considering why you told

06:32

journalists they are explicitly

06:34

forbidden from considering did it result

06:36

in a public benefit right did it further

06:39

the

06:40

public interest instead they simply say

06:42

did you tell a journalist not the glass

06:43

pie so I am NOT if I had stayed in the

06:46

United States and my good friend Daniel

06:48

Ellsberg by the way that has told me

06:51

that I was right not to stand and wait

06:54

for an inevitable rest because the laws

06:57

and the way they're enforced today is

06:59

not the same as the 1970s when he came

07:01

forward with the Pentagon Papers I would

07:03

not have received a fair trial there

07:07

would not have been much of a trial at

07:09

all I would only have received a

07:11

sentencing and the question there is

07:15

what message does that send whether you

07:18

like me or not I could be the best

07:20

person in the world I could be the worst

07:21

what message does a conviction where you

07:24

spend the rest of your life in prison

07:25

for telling journalists things that

07:28

change the laws of the United States

07:30

that have resulted and the most

07:33

substantive reform so intelligence

07:34

authorities since the 1970s if the only

07:40

result of doing that is a life sentence

07:44

in prison the next person who sees

07:46

something criminal happening in the

07:47

United States government will be

07:49

discouraged from coming forward and I

07:51

can't be a part of that where do your

07:53

parents come down on what you did in the

07:56

book we learn a lot more than we knew

07:59

about them they were both we say this in

08:02

quotes deep Staters we learn that they

08:04

both had varying degrees of security

08:07

clearances in their lives yeah I come

08:13

from a federal family my father worked

08:16

for the military my mother works for the

08:17

courts my whole line going back has

08:21

worked in the in the government service

08:23

so I think this was difficult for them

08:26

and in fact one of the things that I

08:29

will be eternally grateful for is the

08:31

fact that they still stand by me today

08:33

and believe that I did the right thing

08:36

were they present for your wedding

08:39

you've gone and gotten married in the

08:40

years since we've last spoken there

08:45

hasn't been a wedding yet actually we

08:49

were married but it was just a paperwork

08:52

sighs in a courthouse because Lindsay

08:56

and I had been living together we had

08:58

been in love with each other we had been

09:00

in a relationship for more than ten

09:02

years there will be a wedding someday

09:05

Brian and I hope you'll be there

09:07

what do you make of Donald Trump there

09:14

are so many things that are said about

09:16

the president right now and so much

09:20

thinking and honestly I try not to think

09:22

about it there's so much chaos and there

09:25

are so many aggressive and offensive

09:28

things said I think even his supporters

09:31

would would grant that but I think he's

09:34

actually quite simple to understand

09:36

Donald Trump strikes me like nothing so

09:40

much as a man who has never really known

09:43

a love that he hasn't had to pay for and

09:46

so everything that he does is informed

09:48

by a kind of transactional ism I think

09:51

and what he is actually looking for is

09:53

simply for people to like him

09:55

unfortunately that produces a lot of

09:57

negative effects do you believe he is a

10:00

threat to national security I mean this

10:06

is the question of who defines national

10:09

security what is national security when

10:12

we used to talk about national security

10:14

we thought about public safety but now

10:16

national security really means the

10:19

security of the system itself the

10:21

institution of government and I think

10:24

he's made it his stated goal to change

10:26

the way that system works I think we

10:30

have seen tremendous harm done to civil

10:32

liberties in the United States

10:34

increasingly since September 11th and I

10:36

haven't seen any reduction in the rate

10:38

of that we have several important jobs

10:43

vacant in this country including

10:46

director of national security national

10:48

security advisor is that a threat to our

10:52

security

10:57

I think it really says something about

11:03

where we are what this point in our

11:05

history looks like when we find that

11:10

there are not enough people in the

11:11

country that are willing to serve in the

11:14

White House and qualify to serve in the

11:16

White House who all sides of the

11:19

government feel comfortable working with

11:21

and who they can back we are in a time

11:23

that is increasingly fractured and I

11:26

think that's a product of the fact that

11:27

look if you look around at the world

11:29

right now when you look at news when you

11:31

look at news coverage when you look at

11:32

every controversy that we see something

11:36

has changed and that is that it has

11:39

become increasingly popular for your

11:42

feelings to matter more than the facts

11:45

and I think that's toxic to a democracy

11:48

because if there's one thing that we

11:49

have to have to be able to have this

11:52

discussion to be able to learn to live

11:54

with people that we disagree with we

11:57

can't have a conversation about what we

12:00

should do we can't have a conversation

12:03

about where we are going if we can't

12:07

agree on where we are if we can't agree

12:08

on what is happening facts have to

12:12

matter more than the feelings you've

12:15

said your greatest fear over what you

12:18

did was that things would not change

12:21

have things changed would you do it

12:25

again today knowing what you know now

12:29

this is a significant portion of the the

12:32

final chapter of my book things have

12:37

changed and I would do it again if I

12:39

changed anything I would hope that I

12:41

could have come forward sooner it took

12:44

me so long just to understand what was

12:46

happening and it took so long enough to

12:49

realize that nobody else was going to

12:51

fix this believe me when I say I did not

12:57

want to light a match and burn my life

13:00

to the ground no one does nobody really

13:03

wants to be a whistleblower but the

13:06

results of that

13:08

have been staggering I thought this was

13:10

gonna be two days story I thought

13:12

everybody was gonna forget about this a

13:13

week after the journalist ran the first

13:17

stories in 2013 but here we are in 2019

13:20

and we're still talking about it in fact

13:22

data security surveillance the internet

13:25

manipulation and influence that's

13:28

provided or produced rather by a

13:30

corporate or governmental control of

13:33

this permanent record of all of our

13:37

private lives that's been created every

13:39

day by the devices that we have before

13:44

2013 if you said there's a system that's

13:46

watching everything you do the

13:47

government is collecting records of

13:49

every phone call in the United States

13:51

even for those people who are not

13:52

suspected of any crime it was a

13:54

conspiracy yes there were some people

13:56

who believed it was happening yes there

13:58

were academics who could say this was

13:59

technically possible yes there were

14:01

technologists who could went this is

14:04

something that could be done but what we

14:08

didn't have who is we

14:11

the world of 2013 we suspected some

14:16

suspected that this was happening the

14:19

world after 2013 we know that it's

14:22

happening and this is the critical

14:23

importance of journalism particularly in

14:24

this moment that we have today

14:26

the distance between speculation and

14:28

fact is everything in a democracy

14:32

because that's what lets us as we did

14:35

post 2013 change our laws now the very

14:38

first program that was real the

14:40

newspapers I has since been terminated

14:42

Barack Obama who criticized me so

14:44

strongly in June of 2013 by January of

14:47

2014 was proposing that this program be

14:50

ended eventually it was ended under the

14:52

USA Freedom Act the NSA argued that mass

14:57

surveillance was legal

14:59

bulk collection as they call it they

15:03

said 15 different judges authorized this

15:06

what they didn't tell us was that those

15:09

15 judges all belonged to the

15:11

rubber-stamp FISA Court that over 33

15:14

years had been asked 33 thousand nine

15:16

hundred times by the government to

15:18

approve surveillance requests

15:20

only said tow in 33 years 11 times now

15:26

this was a court that was never designed

15:27

to interpret the Constitution right it

15:31

was never designed to create novel

15:33

powers for the intelligence community

15:35

it was just designed to stamp basic

15:37

routine warrants now we know what has

15:42

changed the very first open court

15:44

outside of these secret rubber-stamp

15:46

courts that got this case in front of

15:49

them

15:49

I was judge Leon in a federal court and

15:52

then a court of appeals said that the

15:56

NSA's mass surveillance activities were

15:58

violating even the very loose standards

16:00

of the Patriot Act they broke the law he

16:02

further said these programs are likely

16:04

unconstitutional and this would not have

16:09

happened if we couldn't say this is real

16:12

this is actually happening and I just

16:14

want to make clear that's not me saying

16:17

that that's not speculation that was the

16:20

determination of the Supreme Court just

16:22

a few months before I came forward in a

16:25

famous case Amnesty versus clapper I I

16:28

believe it was in February of 2013 or

16:30

door December of 2012 all the way to the

16:36

Supreme Court these surveillance

16:37

authorities were being challenged the

16:39

plaintiff said the government has a mass

16:41

surveillance program it has impacted

16:43

this human rights organization they have

16:45

been spied on in secret by the

16:47

government the government said that may

16:50

be but if it's happening we will neither

16:53

conform confirm nor deny that it's

16:56

happening it is a state secret and

16:59

because you can't prove it the court

17:02

should be forbidden from ruling on the

17:05

constitutionality of this program and

17:06

sadly the Supreme Court of the United

17:08

States agreed they said this program

17:11

could be unconstitutional but if you

17:13

cannot prove it exists we cannot

17:16

evaluate it that's what 2013 changed on

17:20

the legal side we have now had the GDP

17:23

or we have firt had the first European

17:26

regulation

17:27

that are trying to limit the amount of

17:30

data that can be collected secretly and

17:32

used against populations broadly and we

17:34

have also seen the basic structure of

17:36

the Internet itself change in response

17:39

to this understanding that the network

17:42

path that all of our communications

17:44

cross when you request a website when

17:48

you send a text message when you read an

17:50

email for so long those communications

17:53

have been electronically naked or

17:55

unencrypted before 2013 more than half

17:59

the world's internet communications were

18:01

unencrypted now far more than half are

18:05

measured by just web traffic from one of

18:08

the world's leading browsers the Google

18:10

Chrome browser some figures showed it

18:13

more than 80 percent the entire world

18:16

has changed in the last few years it

18:20

hasn't gone far enough the problem still

18:21

exists and in some ways they've gotten

18:24

worse but we have made progress that

18:26

would not have been possible if we

18:28

didn't know what was going on related

18:30

question what today can the government

18:33

do to your phone and your laptop the

18:38

phone and laptop of any American what's

18:41

the extent of the government's reach if

18:43

they're determined to reach into your

18:46

life we could talk about this question

18:51

for hours Brian but we don't have time

18:54

so I'll try to summarize hacking has

18:58

increasingly become what governments

19:01

consider a legitimate investigative tool

19:03

they use the same methods and techniques

19:05

as criminal hackers and what this means

19:07

is they will try to remotely take over

19:09

your device once they do this by

19:13

detecting a vulnerability and in the

19:15

software that your device runs such as

19:18

Apple's iOS or Microsoft Windows they

19:21

can craft a special kind of attack code

19:23

called an exploit they then launch this

19:26

exploit at the vulnerability on your

19:28

device which allows them to take total

19:30

control of that device anything you can

19:33

do on that device the attacker in this

19:36

case the government can do they can read

19:38

your email that

19:39

collect every document they can look at

19:41

your contact book they can turn the

19:43

location services on they can see

19:45

anything that is on that phone instantly

19:48

and send it back home to the mothership

19:50

they can do the same with laptops the

19:53

other prong that we forget so frequently

19:55

is that in many cases they don't need to

19:57

hack our devices they can simply ask

20:00

Google for a copy of our email box

20:03

because Google saves a copy of that

20:05

everything that you've ever typed into

20:07

that search box Google has a copy of

20:09

every private message that you've sent

20:11

on Facebook every link that you've

20:13

clicked everything that you've liked

20:14

they keep a permanent record of and all

20:18

of these things available not just to

20:20

these companies but to our governments

20:22

as they are increasingly deputized as

20:24

sort of miniature arms of government

20:26

what about enabling your microphone

20:29

camera if you can do it they can do it

20:35

it is trivial to remotely turn on your

20:38

microphone or to activate your camera so

20:42

long as you have systems-level access if

20:44

you had hacked someone's device remotely

20:47

anything they can do you can do they can

20:50

look up your nose right they can record

20:53

what's in the room the screen may be off

20:55

as it's sitting on your desk but the

20:58

device is talking all of the time the

21:01

question we have to ask is who is it

21:03

talking to even if your phone is not

21:05

hacked right now you look at it it's

21:07

just sitting there on the charger it is

21:10

talking tens or hundreds or thousands of

21:13

times a minute to any number of

21:16

different companies who have apps

21:18

installed on your phone it looks like

21:21

it's off it looks like it's just sitting

21:23

there but it is constantly chattering

21:25

and unfortunately like pollution we have

21:28

not created the tools that are necessary

21:30

for ordinary people to be able to see

21:33

this activity and it is the invisibility

21:36

of it that makes it so popular in common

21:38

and attractive for these companies

21:40

because if you do not realize they're

21:43

collecting this data from you this very

21:45

private and personal data there's no way

21:47

you're going to object to it what about

21:50

its ability to track its own

21:53

and talk to me specifically about the

21:56

case of Jamal khashoggi so in the case

22:02

of Jamal Khashoggi

22:03

this is a Washington Post reporter and a

22:06

primary critic of the Saudi regime he

22:13

was lured into the Saudi Arabian

22:18

consulate in Istanbul in in Turkey and

22:22

while his fiance waited outside for him

22:25

to get the paperwork he needed in order

22:27

to marry her he was murdered by the

22:30

Saudi government allegedly on the orders

22:33

of the Crown Prince now we have to ask

22:39

ourselves how did the Saudi government

22:41

decide that he was worth killing how did

22:46

they decide when and how they would kill

22:48

him how did they know this opportunity

22:50

was going to arise how do they know what

22:52

his plans and intentions were that they

22:54

needed to stop from their perspective we

22:58

don't have evidence that his phone

23:01

personally was hacked unfortunately

23:03

because we do not have his phone but we

23:08

do have the phones and his friends who

23:10

were living in exile in Canada and we do

23:12

know thanks to the research of a group

23:14

called the citizen lab affiliated with

23:16

the University in Canada that their

23:18

phones were hacked which means their

23:21

conversations with Jamal khashoggi were

23:23

intercepted and this allowed the Saudi

23:26

regime to know that he was intending to

23:28

create an electronic protest movement

23:31

they didn't need to know from his

23:36

friend's phone or even from his phone

23:37

that he was travelling to the consulate

23:40

because he had to make an appointment

23:42

but it did tell them his private

23:46

intentions his hopes and dreams for a

23:48

different government for their country

23:50

and perhaps although we do not know for

23:53

sure on that basis they decided to

23:55

murder him once your phone is hacked

24:00

what is in their hands is not simply

24:03

your device it is your future

24:05

it's important also to remember how did

24:10

the government of Saudi Arabia manage to

24:12

hack these people's phones which are

24:14

modern phones well they didn't have this

24:17

capability in their government they

24:20

didn't have this level of intelligence

24:22

capability available to them directly so

24:25

they purchased it from a digital arms

24:28

broker a company called the NSO group in

24:31

Israeli company in this company the only

24:34

thing they do is manufacture digital

24:37

weapons kind of hacking tools they can

24:39

be used against the critical

24:41

infrastructure that all of us rely on

24:42

the phones and our pockets they

24:44

primarily target devices such as the

24:47

Apple iPhone and they sell this

24:50

capability to break into phones of

24:52

people around the world for millions and

24:54

millions of dollars to some of the worst

24:56

governments on earth and the only

24:58

meaningful oversight that they have

25:00

unfortunately because the export control

25:03

laws for these kind of digital weapons

25:04

are extremely weak in Israel is their

25:07

own internal ethics board this is oh it

25:11

was fine we didn't break into rooms that

25:13

has to change what about the public

25:16

attitude held by millions of everyday

25:20

Americans all I've got on a computer is

25:25

pictures of my family CCTV cameras that

25:30

are prevalent in a ton of American

25:33

cities and overseas capitals those

25:36

cameras are your friend if you're

25:38

innocent and have nothing to hide well

25:44

I'd say that's very much what the

25:46

average Chinese citizen believed or

25:49

perhaps even still to this day believes

25:51

but we see how these same technologies

25:54

are being applied to create what they

25:56

call the social credit system if any of

26:00

these family photos if any of your

26:03

activities online if your purchases if

26:05

your associations if your friends or in

26:08

any way different from what the

26:10

government or the powers-that-be of the

26:11

moment would like them to be you're no

26:14

longer able to purchase train tickets

26:16

you're no longer a

26:18

to board an airplane you may not be able

26:20

to get a passport you may not be

26:22

eligible for a job you might not be able

26:24

to work for the government all of these

26:26

things are increasingly being created

26:29

and programmed and decided by algorithms

26:32

and those algorithms are fueled by

26:34

precisely the innocent data that our

26:38

devices are creating all of the time

26:39

constantly invisibly quietly right now

26:44

our devices are casting all of these

26:50

records that we do not see being created

26:54

that in aggregate seemed very innocent

26:58

you were at Starbucks at this time you

27:01

went to the hospital afterwards you

27:04

spent a long time at the hospital after

27:06

you left the hospital you made a phone

27:08

call you made a phone call to your

27:10

mother you talked to her until the

27:12

middle of the night the hospital was an

27:14

oncology clinic even if you can't see

27:18

the content of these communications the

27:21

activity records what the government

27:23

calls metadata which they argue they do

27:25

not need a warrant to collect tells the

27:31

whole story and these activity records

27:34

are being created and shared and

27:36

collected and intercepted constantly by

27:39

companies and governments and ultimately

27:41

it means as they sell these as they

27:45

trade these as they make their

27:47

businesses on the backs of these records

27:49

what they are selling is not information

27:52

what they're selling is us they're

27:55

selling our future they're selling our

27:57

past they are selling our history our

28:00

identity and ultimately they are

28:03

stealing our power and making our

28:06

stories work for them what devices do

28:10

you use in your life now and have you

28:15

accepted the notion that you are watched

28:18

rather constantly well probably every

28:25

intelligence the world is definitely

28:26

targeting me in trouble

28:28

anything they can just as they did with

28:30

Jamal khashoggi in regards to what are

28:33

my plans and intentions I try not to

28:37

make that easy for them if I get a smart

28:40

phone and I need to use a phone I

28:42

actually open it up

28:44

before I use it I perform a kind of

28:46

surgery on it to physically desolder or

28:50

sort of melt the metal connections that

28:53

hold the microphone on the phone and I

28:56

physically take this off I remove the

28:57

camera for the phone and then I close it

28:59

back up I seal it up and then if I need

29:02

to make a phone call I will attach an

29:04

external microphone on and this is just

29:06

so if the phone is sitting there and I'm

29:09

not making a call it cannot hear me now

29:12

this is extreme most people do not need

29:15

this but for me it's about being able to

29:19

trust our technology my phone could

29:22

still be hacked my laptop could still be

29:24

hacked and just as I told you before the

29:26

same principles applied to me if it is

29:28

hacked they can do anything to the

29:30

device that I can do so my trust in

29:33

technology is limited but just because

29:36

that's how it is today doesn't mean

29:37

that's how it has to be and a large

29:40

majority of my work with the freedom of

29:42

the press foundation where I serve as

29:44

president of the board is dedicated to

29:47

trying to make technology more secure to

29:49

try to create programs and protocols by

29:52

which we can make the communications of

29:56

sources and journalists more

29:36

that's how it is today doesn't mean

29:37

that's how it has to be and a large

29:40

majority of my work with the freedom of

29:42

the press foundation where I serve as

29:44

president of the board is dedicated to

29:47

trying to make technology more secure to

29:49

try to create programs and protocols by

29:52

which we can make the communications of

29:56

sources and journalists more

30:00

confidential because if we lose the

30:02

confidentiality between sources and

30:04

journalists we lose access to those

30:05

essential facts that let us understand

30:08

what's happening in the world and

30:09

unfortunately under this White House

30:11

just like under the prior White House we

30:14

see the sources of very important

30:16

stories that have advanced the public

30:18

interest facing retaliation from a very

30:22

angry government I believe it's in the

30:25

first half of the book and I'm

30:26

paraphrasing you come out and just say

30:29

the computer guy knows everything or at

30:31

least he should

30:34

what part computer guy are you were you

30:37

and what part trained spy

30:43

well for the vast majority of my career

30:46

I was what was called a systems engineer

30:49

or a systems administrator an

30:52

administrator sort of maintains and

30:54

expands a system that they have

30:56

inherited and the systems engineer sort

31:00

of develops new projects new

31:02

capabilities for these systems roles

31:05

what this means in short was that all of

31:09

the systems the NSA and the CIA that I

31:11

was put in charge of I had total access

31:14

to and this is just what happens with

31:18

the systems administrator when you think

31:19

about a computer system who gives

31:21

someone else access well someone has to

31:24

be the original authority that has

31:26

access to everything that was me and so

31:30

I would say the computer guy knows

31:32

everything that's not a boast that's

31:35

simply the way these systems are

31:37

designed that's the way they're

31:38

structured and this is very much a

31:42

vulnerability because it means that you

31:44

have to trust this this administrator

31:47

will work to the good of the users but

31:51

what happens when the people using that

31:53

network the people constructing that

31:55

network are going against the benefit of

31:58

the broader society and this put me in a

32:01

very interesting kind of conflicted

32:03

position I could do what the NSA wanted

32:06

me to do or I could do what the

32:08

Constitution of the United States that

32:09

the public of the United States needed

32:12

me to do which was report that my agency

32:17

had broken the law do you regard

32:18

yourself as a journalist these days I'm

32:24

not I'm not I have tremendous respect

32:26

for journalists but I try to keep a

32:28

distance particularly in this moment

32:30

where so much of journalism is coming

32:32

under attack because the government has

32:34

a tremendous incentive to discredit me

32:37

to make people distrust me and so if I

32:40

hold myself out if I start reporting

32:42

stories if I start talking to sources if

32:45

I try to start advancing what the public

32:49

knows on a personal level my reputation

32:52

could could sort of

32:53

boys in the well instead I keep a

32:55

distinction what I do is I try to aid

32:57

the work of journalism but I'm not

33:00

myself journalists your book is highly

33:02

personal tell us about the price your

33:05

then girlfriend now wife paid for your

33:10

actions and how you feel she was miss

33:12

portrayed in the eyes of the world when

33:15

we got that first kind of thumbnail

33:18

sketch of who she was so in the wake of

33:25

the revelations of mass surveillance in

33:28

2013 this was suddenly the world's

33:32

biggest story in every country they were

33:34

talking about the same thing and

33:36

unfortunately that meant that everyone

33:37

who was connected to me in some way they

33:40

were also talking about because they

33:41

were trying to say who I was where I

33:45

came from and this unfortunately meant

33:49

that Lindsey my lifelong partner was

33:55

intensely investigated both by the FBI

33:58

in the United States she didn't know

34:00

what I was doing I could not tell her

34:03

what I was doing because if I had they

34:06

would have said she was an accessory to

34:07

the crime they would have said she was

34:11

part of a criminal conspiracy so long as

34:12

she didn't immediately pick up the phone

34:14

and say help help someone's talking to a

34:15

journalist and so this meant that I

34:20

couldn't tell her she learned about what

34:22

was going to happen the same way

34:24

everybody else did about what is

34:26

happening the same way everybody else

34:28

did she saw me on TV which probably

34:31

makes me the worst boyfriend in the

34:32

history of the United States but she

34:35

stuck by me and we are reunited and

34:38

together today and I will never be able

34:41

to repay her for the faith that she's

34:44

shown me but the media had a tremendous

34:50

amount of salacious reporting when they

34:53

realized that she taught pole pole

34:55

fitness classes which are quite popular

34:58

for him in these days they called her a

35:00

stripper even though she's never been

35:02

one even though she's a poet even though

35:05

she's a photographer

35:06

they sexualized her they focused on her

35:08

body they focus on her image because

35:10

that's what got attention she's a much

35:13

more complex and deep figure than the

35:15

media ever gave her credit for she is

35:17

more brave then anyone can possibly

35:22

understand and she's more political and

35:25

intelligent than any of these reporters

35:28

at the time could appreciate her

35:31

politics in fact influenced mine and I'd

35:35

like to think I learned as much from her

35:37

or perhaps even more than she ever

35:41

learned from me you paint a portrait of

35:44

what some of us knew and that was that

35:46

you were a thoroughly American kid in

35:49

your upbringing you wake up every day in

35:53

Russia you go to sleep every night in

35:56

Russia are you actively seeking to get

36:01

out are you as has been reported looking

36:04

for asylum elsewhere well this is not an

36:10

actively seeking this is not a new thing

36:12

and this is important history especially

36:15

for those people who don't like me for

36:17

those people who doubt me who have heard

36:19

terrible things about me it was never my

36:21

intention to end up in Russia I was

36:24

going to Latin America and my final

36:26

destination was hopefully going to be

36:27

Ecuador when the United States

36:29

government heard that I had left Hong

36:32

Kong where I met the journalists they

36:34

canceled my passport they gave press

36:37

conferences about it which meant I

36:38

wasn't allowed to board my ongoing

36:40

flight which was going to take me that's

36:43

a Latin America rather than applying for

36:46

Russian asylum rather than saying I'll

36:49

play ball with any Russian intelligence

36:51

service just please protect me I said no

36:53

I will not cooperate with the Russian

36:55

government or any government instead

36:58

what I did as I was trapped for 40 days

37:01

in an airport I don't know a year

37:03

longest layover is but 40 days was I was

37:06

a tough stent I applied for asylum in 27

37:09

different countries around the world

37:10

traditional US allies places like France

37:12

and Germany places like Norway that I

37:16

felt the US government

37:18

and the American public could be

37:20

comfortable that was fine for

37:22

whistleblower being and yet every time

37:24

one of these governments got close to

37:27

opening their doors the phone would ring

37:29

and they're in their Foreign Ministries

37:31

and on the other end of the line would

37:33

be a very senior American official it

37:36

was one of two people then Secretary of

37:38

State John Kerry or then Vice President

37:41

Joe Biden and they would say look we

37:43

don't care what the law is we don't care

37:45

if you can do this or not we understand

37:46

the protecting whistleblowers and

37:48

granting asylum as a matter of Human

37:50

Rights and you could do this if you want

37:51

to but if you protect this man if you

37:56

let this guy out of Russia there will be

37:59

consequences we're not gonna say what

38:01

they're what they're gonna be but there

38:04

will be a response I continue to this

38:07

day to say look if the United States

38:10

government if these countries are

38:13

willing to open the door that is not a

38:15

hostile act that is the act of the front

38:17

of a friend

38:17

if anything if the United States

38:20

government is so concerned about Russia

38:22

right shouldn't they be happy for me to

38:25

leave and yet we see they're trying so

38:27

hard to prevent me from leaving I would

38:30

ask you why is that

38:31

I'm guessing Joe Biden is not your

38:34

candidate for 2020 actually I don't take

38:39

a position on the 2020 race look it's a

38:44

difficult position being in the

38:47

executive branch it's a difficult

38:48

position being in power and you have to

38:50

make unpopular decisions I would like to

38:55

think having seen now in 2019 that all

38:58

of the allegations against me did not

39:00

come true national security was not

39:03

harmed as a result of these disclosures

39:05

but they did win the Pulitzer Prize for

39:08

public service journalism the laws were

39:12

changed as a result the courts said

39:14

these programs were unconstitutional we

39:17

live in a safer and more secure world

39:19

because the Internet is safer and more

39:22

secure as a result of understanding

39:23

these common vulnerabilities which not

39:26

just US intelligence agencies we're

39:28

exploiting but our adversaries were

39:30

exploiting one

39:31

close these holes we do not become more

39:35

vulnerable we become more secure in 2013

39:39

it's fair to say some of these officials

39:42

some of these candidates grow well the

39:44

intelligence services are saying this

39:46

guy's dangerous they're saying this is a

39:47

risk they're saying this shouldn't have

39:48

happened in 2019 we can see that no

39:52

evidence has ever been presented that

39:57

the public understanding mass

39:58

surveillance is real has caused any kind

40:01

of harm whatsoever no one has died no

40:04

terrorist attacks have succeeded because

40:06

we knew about this stuff these programs

40:09

work regardless of whether or not you

40:11

know about them but we have seen the

40:14

public benefits substantiated year after

40:18

year after year and so I'd like to think

40:20

these people would reevaluate their

40:21

position you know there are government

40:23

officials who would push back very

40:25

strong on your assertion that national

40:27

security was not harmed you do you chose

40:30

not to stop with your revelations at

40:34

what was being done to Americans and you

40:37

got into America and its allies and

40:41

perceived enemies when we're looking at

40:48

the reports that were published in 2013

40:51

it's important to understand I never

40:53

published a single story the number of

40:55

documents that I revealed is zero what I

40:59

did was I collected an archive of

41:01

material showing criminality or

41:03

unethical or unconstitutional behavior

41:05

on the part of the United States

41:07

government I provided this archive to

41:10

journalists who were required as a

41:13

condition of access to this material not

41:15

to publish any story because it's

41:18

interesting they could publish no story

41:20

simply because it's newsworthy they were

41:22

only allowed as so far as the agreement

41:25

went to publish stories that they were

41:27

willing to stand up and say we're in the

41:28

public interest to know and this is not

41:31

some crazy fly-by-night organization

41:33

these are newspapers like the Washington

41:35

Post like the New York Times like the

41:38

Guardian and in every case this process

41:42

was followed now as an extraordinary

41:44

check

41:44

on top of this in case I went too far in

41:47

case I collected a document that was too

41:50

hot or I misunderstood things or the

41:52

jernt the journalists misunderstood

41:54

things the journalists were further

41:56

required to go to the government in

41:58

advance of publication and they were

42:00

required to do this at my request and

42:03

warned the government this is the story

42:06

that we're gonna run this is what it's

42:08

about

42:08

this is what we're gonna say so the

42:10

government could argue against it to

42:12

create an adversarial check on what the

42:15

journalists and I were trying to do to

42:17

reconstruct the system of checks and

42:19

balances in the United States that hid

42:21

itself failed in the government you know

42:25

because that process was followed so

42:27

scrupulously that's why I am so

42:29

confident that no harm happened no harm

42:31

occurred now if there are those in the

42:34

government that say harm took place if

42:36

there are those in the government who

42:38

say people have died I ask you this why

42:41

haven't they proved it you know better

42:43

than anyone Brian that these government

42:46

officials are more than happy to pick up

42:48

a phone and make a leak to the New York

42:50

Times every day of the week I

42:53

if they had some evidence that somebody

42:55

was hurt if they had evidence that a

42:57

terrorist attack got through because of

42:59

this journalism it would be in the front

43:01

page of every newspaper in the world and

43:03

despite six years of history that's

43:08

never happened describe your life today

43:11

what is every day like how are you

43:15

supporting yourself and and as a simple

43:19

equation if the Russians have reached so

43:21

effectively into our lives and our

43:24

electoral systems they must be all over

43:26

your life so that was several different

43:32

questions but yeah I'm sure the Russian

43:34

government is trying to spy on me I'm

43:36

sure the United States government is

43:37

trying to spy on me everyone's trying to

43:39

spy on me

43:40

the thing is I don't cooperate with them

43:42

my allegiance is to my country my

43:45

allegiance is to my Constitution now in

43:49

my terms of my daily life it's actually

43:52

pretty ordinary Oh which is to say it's

43:54

not so interesting

43:55

I've always been something of an indoor

43:57

cat

43:57

right among nightclubs and partying my

44:00

life since I was a child has always been

44:02

mediated by a screen that's my choice so

44:05

not much actually changes in my

44:08

day-to-day whether I'm living in New

44:09

York or Berlin or Moscow in terms of my

44:13

work which a lot of people are curious

44:15

about this I think is a polite way of

44:17

people asking do you work for the

44:19

Russian government do you accept money

44:21

from the Russian government you know are

44:22

you living in Russian government housing

44:23

are you in a bunker are there guards and

44:26

of course the answer to all of these is

44:27

no no I'm not what I do for a living is

44:35

speak professionally and now I'm

44:38

actually an author I have a speaker's

44:40

bureau it's called the American program

44:42

Bureau and you can call them and you can

44:44

book a public event I speak at

44:46

universities I speak at corporate events

44:48

I speak at cybersecurity conferences to

44:51

talk to people about what is happening

44:53

on the internet what is the future of

44:56

surveillance and how can we protect

44:58

ourselves I'm very fortunate to have had

45:00

that opportunity and it's meant that

45:03

I've had a quite comfortable life and in

45:05

quite a difficult position the former

45:08

White House aide HR Haldeman left us

45:10

with an expression for the ages and when

45:14

he said you can't put the toothpaste

45:16

back in the tube for Americans who feel

45:19

that that this is just a behemoth that

45:24

they could there's no way they could

45:26

have any control over it for Americans

45:29

who long ago decided we're just going to

45:32

have to live with this surveillance how

45:35

could it possibly be receded or

45:38

rescinded or stopped we can stop a

45:45

program we can thwart an attack we can

45:51

make a device more secure but as you

45:54

imply the system is still better the

46:00

institutions and agencies and companies

46:01

that produced these attacks that are

46:03

creating new methods of spying every day

46:05

will still be there the fundamental

46:08

change

46:09

not just in the United States but around

46:11

the world that has to happen is we have

46:14

to stop thinking about the limitations

46:16

on how data is used as data protection

46:21

regulations right now when we talk about

46:24

what Google and Facebook are doing right

46:26

now when we talk about what the NSA is

46:27

doing right now when we talk about what

46:30

rival governments are doing what the

46:31

Russians are doing what the Chinese are

46:33

doing what the North Koreans and the

46:34

Iranians are doing we're constantly

46:36

thinking about all right this data has

46:38

been collected and these companies have

46:41

it how do we regulate their use

46:45

regulating the use is a mistake we

46:49

should do that but that's the wrong

46:52

focus it is the collection of data that

46:56

is a problem when you start trying to

46:58

regulate use you're going to the

47:00

collection has already happened the

47:02

collection was already legal one of the

47:04

fundamental flaws in u.s. privacy

47:07

legislation is the fact that we are one

47:09

of the only advanced democracies in the

47:11

world that does not have any basic

47:14

privacy law whatsoever we have the

47:16

Fourth Amendment of the Constitution

47:17

which is the reason that I came forward

47:19

but that restricts what the federal

47:22

government can do that restricts what

47:24

the state governments can do it doesn't

47:27

restrict what companies can do and as

47:29

you know as everybody knows these

47:32

companies are playing a bigger and

47:33

bigger part in the world today we have

47:37

to say all of these records that they're

47:39

creating about all of us all this

47:41

control that they're developing from

47:43

these surveillance programs whether

47:45

they're saying they're doing it for

47:46

targeting advertisements or whether

47:48

they're doing it for targeting killings

47:51

these records belong to the people that

47:55

they are about not to the companies and

47:59

this is a fundamental change that we

48:01

have never discussed in a meaningful way

48:03

broadly and publicly but we have to

48:06

because all of these governments have

48:09

said you know the the mass surveillance

48:11

system why do we have it why is it

48:14

useful they say because of terrorism

48:16

they say it's saving lives they save its

48:18

oppressive anting attacks but no less

48:21

than Barack Obama

48:22

and the response to the 2013 revelations

48:25

created two independent Commission's to

48:28

investigate exactly the answer to that

48:30

question were these programs effective

48:32

in stopping terrorist attacks did these

48:34

revelations cause harm to national

48:36

security it was called the privacy and

48:38

civil liberties oversight board and the

48:40

president's review group on intelligence

48:42

and communications technologies and

48:44

despite having an enormous budget

48:47

despite having complete access to

48:49

classified information despite the fact

48:51

that they interviewed the heads of the

48:52

FBI the NSA the CIA you know the full

48:55

alphabet soup they found in the

48:58

government's own words the kind of mass

49:02

surveillance that's represented by this

49:05

bulk collection program where the NSA

49:07

was secretly collecting the phone

49:09

records of every American and everybody

49:11

else around the world every day under an

49:14

authority provided by a secret court

49:15

order that nobody even knew existed that

49:19

program had never made their own words a

49:21

concrete difference in a single

49:24

counterterrorism investigation think

49:27

about that more than 10 years of

49:28

operation and secret never made a single

49:30

concrete difference these programs mass

49:34

surveillance is not about public safety

49:36

it is not about terrorism it is about

49:40

power

49:41

it is about economic espionage it is

49:44

about diplomatic manipulation and it is

49:46

about social influence it is about

49:50

understanding the actions of everyone in

49:53

the world as carefully as they can no

49:57

matter who they are no matter how

49:58

innocent their life final question has

50:02

to do with the Fourth Amendment we have

50:04

it today because mr. Adams and others

50:07

wanted to keep the British out of their

50:10

homes and their horse carriages what

50:14

would mr. Adams and the founders make of

50:17

the reach of the government in your view

50:20

into our lives given its humble

50:24

beginnings

50:28

I think if any of the founders of this

50:30

country looked around today they would

50:32

be shocked by the kind of rhetoric they

50:34

hear and they would be shocked by the

50:35

kind of activities of government they

50:37

see if you read the Bill of Rights

50:40

something that struck me when I was

50:42

writing about it and in this book was

50:46

that fully half of the first ten

50:50

amendments are explicitly making the

50:53

work of government harder they're making

50:55

life for law enforcement officials

50:58

harder and all of the founding fathers

51:01

thought that was a good idea because

51:03

they recognized the more efficient a

51:05

government is the more dangerous it is

51:09

we want a government always that is not

51:12

too efficient we want a government

51:14

always that is just efficient enough

51:17

because government holds extraordinary

51:21

power in our lives we want government

51:24

always to be using their powers in a way

51:26

that is only necessary and proportionate

51:29

to the threat presented by whoever it is

51:32

that they're investigating when the

51:34

government is getting by by the skin of

51:36

their teeth the people are free right

51:39

the government should be afraid of the

51:41

people people shouldn't be afraid of the

51:43

government one of the ironies about the

51:46

founding fathers for those who are

51:48

skeptical of me which is fair again I

51:50

don't want you to trust me I want you to

51:52

doubt me I want you to question me but I

51:54

want you to look at the facts I want you

51:57

to look beyond how you feel in the

51:58

moment how we all feel in the moment and

52:01

see what these stories said in 2013 see

52:05

that the courts of the United States

52:08

where I'm being charged as a criminal

52:10

said that the government itself was

52:12

engaged in criminal activity look at

52:15

these things and then remember the

52:17

people who founded this country were

52:21

called traitors the signing the writing

52:26

of the Declaration of Independence was

52:28

an outrageous act of treason it was

52:32

criminal but it was also right the

52:36

question whether or not I broke the law

52:38

is less difficult

52:40

and less interesting than whether you

52:42

think what I did was right or wrong what

52:45

is legal is not always the same as what

52:47

is more final prediction then we'll let

52:50

you go nightclubbing and that is do you

52:53

predict do you predict you will at some

52:57

point live out your life and die

53:00

in the United States I think I will

53:05

return when we look at the kind of

53:08

things that we're being said about me in

53:09

2013 the kind of hostility I face the

53:12

kind of accusations I faced from the

53:14

most senior officials in government and

53:16

we look at the world today yes there are

53:19

many still who don't like me but far far

53:22

fewer because we have seen that all the

53:24

harms that they alleged over the course

53:25

of these years never came to pass

53:28

they were never substantiated because

53:30

they don't exist but the benefits are

53:33

becoming more clear with each passing

53:35

year the question that I think people

53:37

have to answer whether you like me as

53:40

person or not right whether you agree

53:43

with how I did what I did whether you

53:47

agree with the work of the journalists

53:48

who decided what the public should know

53:51

in order to cast their votes today you

53:55

know the government broke the law today

53:57

you know the United States government

53:58

had broken that violated the

54:00

Constitution and the rights of people in

54:02

this country and around the world would

54:06

you rather not know thank you

54:09

as Snowden thank you very much good luck

54:12

with the book it's my pleasure Brian

54:16

thank you for having me hey there I'm

54:18

Chris Hayes from MSNBC thanks for

54:19

watching MSNBC on YouTube if you want to

54:21

keep up to date with the videos we're