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
No comments:
Post a Comment