YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Edward Snowden Live From Russia

Edward Snowden Live From Russia — Transcript

by UChicago Institute of Politics · 13,027 words · 1,904 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:13morning or
0:14afternoon
0:16um one of the critical missions of The
0:19Institute of politics is to provide a
0:21forum for uh the discussion of pressing
0:25issues of the day and uh this certainly
0:28qualifies whatever you uh think about
0:32Edward Snowden and his actions and the
0:36you know the adjectives range from
0:38traitor to Hero uh he is
0:41indisputably uh triggered a uh really
0:45vital public debate about how we strike
0:48a balance between civil liberties and
0:51security and um so we're looking forward
0:54to this discussion today and there's no
0:56one better uh to lead it than our own uh
0:59professor Jeff Stone who has spent a lot
1:02of time thinking and writing about these
1:05issues and served on the president's
1:07panel uh after uh the revelations of
1:11Edward Snowden to Think Through uh next
1:14steps and how to deal with the questions
1:16uh that were raised uh another uh
1:20pressing issue today as it was 50 years
1:23ago is the issue of civil rights uh in
1:26our country and uh this year marks the
1:2850th anniversary of Dr Martin Luther
1:31King's campaign in
1:33Chicago uh and we are going to have an
1:36event on May 19th with some of those who
1:39participated in that event with Dr King
1:42and some civil rights leaders of this
1:44day uh to talk about what happened then
1:47and uh and to assess where we are today
1:50so we urge you to attend that I don't
1:53let's see oh that's going to be at the
1:55Chicago Theological Seminary right
1:57Chicago Theological Seminary and now uh
1:59it is my pleasure to introduce uh the
2:03introducer uh Brock heer a fourth year
2:06student and a stalard of the uh
2:08Institute of politics so we appreciate
2:10him a lot
2:19bra the documents leaked by Edward
2:21Snowden in 2013 exposed a massive
2:24National Security Agency program
2:26Gathering vast troves of call records
2:28and internet data both internationally
2:30and Among Us citizens since these re
2:33Revelations there have been few
2:35individuals more discussed and debated
2:38praised by some pillared by others
2:41though accused of Espionage by the US
2:43government and labeled a traitor by us
2:46intelligence officials Mr Snowden has
2:48also been praised as a patriot and
2:50whistleblower finishing as runner up in
2:52times 2013 person of the year award
2:56through his actions Edward Snowden
2:58forced a conversation about the
3:00relationship between privacy and
3:02security not only within the upper
3:04echelons of US Government but also on
3:07online comment boards day-to-day
3:09conversations and on college campuses
3:12like the University of Chicago indeed
3:14this was snowden's ultimate goal
3:16claiming in an interview with the
3:18Washington Post Barton Gman quote I
3:20didn't want to change society I wanted
3:22to give Society a chance to determine if
3:25it should change itself already the
3:27subject of an academy award-winning
3:29documentary citizen 4 his story will
3:31receive the Cinematic treatment in
3:33Oliver Stone's upcoming film Snowden
3:36leading this discussion is Jeffree Stone
3:38the Edward H Levy distinguished service
3:41Professor here at the law school
3:43Professor Stone served on President
3:44Obama's review group on intelligence and
3:46Communications Technologies he also
3:49chaired the University of Chicago's
3:51committee on freedom of expression
3:54please join me in welcoming Edward
3:55Snowden and Jeffree Stone
4:10hello
4:13Chicago so welcome to the University of
4:16Chicago uh it's good to see you again um
4:19I should tell members of the audience
4:20that we will have time for questions so
4:22you should be thinking of questions um
4:24as we proceed in our
4:26conversation um so to begin with maybe a
4:29bit of of biographical background would
4:31be useful um how did you get involved in
4:35the National Security realm what is it
4:37that led you to be interested in this um
4:40and uh how did you how did you find this
4:43to be something that was was a passion
4:44of
4:46yours so I grew up uh for most of my
4:49Adolescence in the uh sorry there's a
4:52little challenge with the audio uh it
4:54doesn't appear to be gated so we're
4:56getting feedback through some mic and
4:57I'm hearing myself uh but I'll do my
5:00best to talk through it
5:02um I come from sort of a federal family
5:05uh my father worked 30 years in the
5:07military uh my grandfather retired as an
5:09admiral uh my mother worked for the
5:12federal courts still does in fact a
5:14point of irony that I have not
5:17overlooked um and when I moved to
5:21Maryland uh about say the end of
5:24elementary school middle school I was in
5:26the suburb surrounding Fort me
5:29uh so like everyone else who eventually
5:31starts going through high school and
5:32college and looking at you know what are
5:34they going to do uh I I saw that this
5:37was just the natural direction of my
5:39life now I had always been really
5:40interested in
5:41technology uh or shall I say sort of
5:44naturally proficient with technology uh
5:47but I was really influenced by the
5:49claims of uh government by sort of the
5:51mythology that's grown up around our
5:53country and of course Hollywood so I
5:55thought you know in the midst of the
5:59lead up to the Iraq War when so many
6:01other Americans were protesting I
6:04actually drank the Kool-Aid and I said
6:06I'm going to sign up for the US Army
6:08didn't go for the Air Force didn't go
6:09for the Navy I said I want to try out
6:10for special forces and they had a
6:11special program it was very selective
6:13you had to pass higher standards than
6:16you normally would at graduation of boot
6:17camp just to be selected for it but I
6:20worked really hard and I got in now I
6:22got injured and I got pushed out and
6:24that was a time where I really looked
6:26back and reflected on my life what could
6:27I do uh and the conversations that
6:32surrounded me were well you've already
6:33started on your security clearance
6:35because of course you enlisted in the
6:36military uh so why don't you finish that
6:39up and go into technology Contracting
6:41for the IC agencies and that was where I
6:43went I went to the CIA where I first
6:45worked as a contractor while I was there
6:48I was sort of talent scouted by one of
6:50the government employees who said would
6:51you like to go overseas and I had been
6:54again looking for that uh and it just
6:58felt like it was something I could do a
7:00lot of other people in the office were
7:01like I don't want to go it seems like a
7:03burden it seems like it wouldn't be uh
7:05you know the kind of life you want but
7:06for me why not so I did that I rolled
7:09over to being a staff employee at the
7:11Central Intelligence Agency on my first
7:13day I came in I took the oath of service
7:15now I will point out it's not an oath of
7:17secrecy in fact no oath of secrecy
7:20exists within the CIA or the NSA the
7:22oath of service is to support and defend
7:25the Constitution of the United States of
7:27America against all enemies foreign and
7:30domestic it's not a pledge of loyalty to
7:32the president to an official to a policy
7:34or anything else it's to defend the
7:35Constitution specifically uh and not
7:38just against those outside but also
7:40against those inside but I didn't have
7:43any problems there I went overseas I
7:44served under cover for a number of years
7:46from a diplomatic platform uh and then I
7:50came back and went back into Contracting
7:52for the NSA now and this was perhaps
7:56200920 somewhere in there and for a
7:59number of years I worked uh actually
8:01sorry uh I worked for the NSA as a
8:04contractor in Japan for a number of
8:07years then I came back to the United
8:09States I worked uh for Dell as the lead
8:12technologist for their CIA account
8:14designing sort of supercomputers for
8:16building password cracking clusters and
8:18things like that and then I rolled over
8:20to Hawaii after I developed epilepsy and
8:23was no longer permitted to drive in
8:25Maryland
8:27um and there I really began to be
8:30exposed to a scope of surveillance that
8:33I hadn't seen earli in my career there
8:35had been things that made me concerned
8:37uh but particularly with the election of
8:39President Barack Obama and his claims to
8:41really roll back some of the most
8:44extensive policies that we saw during
8:45the bush era I thought you know he
8:47should be given a chance and it was with
8:50growing concern in these last years at
8:52the National Security Agency
8:54particularly when I rolled over in my
8:55final position to working directly with
8:58the tools of mass
9:00surveillance although I wasn't working
9:01terrorism I was working counter cyber uh
9:05that I saw that our public claims had
9:07become entirely divorced from the
9:10private realities of how things work in
9:12the intelligence services in the United
9:14States and that I would say is really
9:16how my The Arc of my career in full
9:19began so you mentioned that when you
9:22joined the CIA position that there was
9:25not a requirement or an oath of um
9:27confidentiality but I assume when you
9:29took the NSA position like other
9:32contractors or employees you required to
9:34acknowledge the fact that you had an
9:36obligation um not to disclose any
9:38classified information to persons not
9:40authorized to receive it and were aware
9:42of the fact that the federal law
9:43prohibiting that so what is yes I'm I'm
9:46glad that you brought that up because
9:48the the thing here is that yes you are
9:50asked when you join the CIA as well and
9:52of course the US military as well if you
9:54gain access to classified information
9:56you're required uh by this policy to
9:58safeguard and of course by some federal
10:00laws uh however it's a civil agreement
10:03uh literally just a standard
10:04bureaucratic form like all of the others
10:06you fill out when you're being brought
10:08on on boarded to these agencies there
10:09are many of them called sf-312 it's
10:13literally a standard form that the
10:14government makes everyone sign so yes of
10:16course I recognized the importance of it
10:19as did everyone else I work with this is
10:21a critical thing we don't want people
10:23just taking all the classified they have
10:24and throwing it up in the air and just
10:25saying you know it'll all sort out in
10:27the end that is a very valid concern at
10:30the same time it is not an oath and this
10:34is where we start to get into the
10:35challenges what happens when your
10:37obligations that the government has
10:39itself asked you to take upon yourself
10:42are in conflict with themselves do you
10:44obey the oath of service or the standard
10:47form
10:48312 so um you reached a point clearly
10:52where you concluded that despite the
10:55fact that there are as you acknowledge
10:56federal laws prohibiting the disclosure
10:59of classified information to persons
11:01unauthorized to receive it that it was
11:03the right thing to do to make a fairly
11:07large amount of classified information
11:10public um so I'm
11:11curious what led you to the conclusion
11:14that was the right thing to do and who
11:15did you consult in making that
11:18decision I think it's the the critical
11:21thing when we start to get into this is
11:23setting out the context now I wasn't new
11:26to the intelligence Community i' been
11:27working in it for eight years before
11:29came public actually I believe more than
11:31eight years uh and the
11:35uh the thing here is that over time
11:38particularly in the Obama Administration
11:41uh we were given the impression in the
11:44press that things were changing the
11:45programs were shutting down again the
11:47pro president promised to shut down
11:48Guantanamo a thing which again he should
11:50be applauded for uh but he didn't
11:53actually do it now that's not something
11:55we can assign entirely to him uh because
11:57obviously there's Congress involved in
11:59other things like that but particularly
12:01in the progress of the laws the progress
12:04of the policies the progress of the
12:05technologies that I worked with directly
12:08and in fact uh helped build and design
12:10some of these systems uh a point which
12:13you know perhaps we'll have a chance to
12:15discuss later in the evening uh but for
12:18me it really came to a head I had
12:20thought prior to this that there was
12:22something that must be
12:23done but I hadn't gotten to the point of
12:27should I light my own life on fire uh
12:30because I knew the risks you know we had
12:32seen other whistleblowers previously uh
12:34Thomas Drake now we see recently Thomas
12:36Tam Bill Binny Kirk weeby Ed Lumis many
12:39other whistleblowers who had had their
12:41careers destroyed for going through the
12:44established process uh but it eventually
12:47reached a point where public officials
12:49were having uh conflicts within Congress
12:53where Congressman felt the public needed
12:55to know the truth of programs and yet
12:57the most senior official in the United
12:59States General James Clapper the
13:00Director of National Intelligence felt
13:03comfortable enough in his position that
13:04he was willing to lie under oath does
13:07the NSA collect any type of data at all
13:11on millions or hundreds of millions of
13:14Americans no
13:16sir it does
13:19not not
13:21wittingly there are cases where they
13:23could in inadvertently perhaps uh
13:26collect but not not wittingly
13:30now if I could just make one point here
13:31because I I think it is important for
13:33sort of the timeline of how people
13:34understand this uh and this was not
13:37public until quite recently Laura pitrus
13:39the first journalist which I was with
13:41which I was in contact with was at that
13:44point communicating with an anonymous
13:46source who said look there are serious
13:48things going on uh in terms of mass
13:51surveillance but she wrote in her
13:53journal that the source was unwilling to
13:56actually provide classified information
13:59to her at this point he was willing to
14:00hint he was willing to talk about the
14:02programs but he wasn't actually willing
14:03to provide documentation 10 days after
14:07that session in Congress she said the
14:09source which was me had said they were
14:13ready to provide documentation that for
14:15me was the Rubicon
14:17moment Remains the question of when it
14:20is appropriate for with all respect a
14:23relatively low-level official in the
14:26National Security realm to take it upon
14:27himself to decide
14:29that it is in the National interest to
14:32disclose the existence of programs that
14:35have been approved by the House and
14:37Senate intelligence committees by the
14:39executive branch by the foreign
14:41intelligence surveillance Court um and
14:43to decide for himself well I think
14:44they're wrong I think these programs are
14:46not justified I think they're illegal um
14:49and therefore even though it might have
14:52serious effects on the effectiveness of
14:54the programs to make them public I think
14:57the public needs to know um when is it
14:59appropriate to make that judgment to
15:01override the decisions of all the
15:03elected branches of the government
15:05who've reached a contrary
15:07decision I think it's a really important
15:09question I mean this is is one that I
15:11struggled with uh for for quite some
15:14time and that's why when I worked with
15:15the journalists I made sure that I never
15:17had to make that decision I wanted it to
15:19remove from myself uh the authority the
15:23sort of positional capability to publish
15:26any document on my own and that's the
15:28reason why now we're sitting in 2016
15:30I've never made public a single
15:32classified document now what I did do is
15:34try to replicate that same uh system of
15:38checks and balances which had failed in
15:40our government again clearly Senator Ron
15:43weiden felt that he should have made or
15:46that this program should have been
15:47public when he was questioning the
15:49Director of National Intelligence about
15:51does this program exist basically uh we
15:53had seen earlier in that year in
15:56February of 2013 uh the courts had an
15:59opportunity to assess the same thing and
16:03actually uh validate the
16:05constitutionality of laws uh validate
16:08sort of do an independent assessment of
16:10the propriety of these Mass surveillance
16:12programs in a court case called amnesty
16:15versus Clapper which was brought forward
16:16by the ACLU but they demurred they said
16:20uh the executive branch was asserting
16:22State Secrets right and courts by long
16:25tradition uh tend to defer to the
16:27executive when they go look it's a
16:28secret get involved and beyond that they
16:31went the plaintiffs couldn't prove that
16:35they had been spied on which of course
16:37raises the question of would the court
16:38have decided differently if the court C
16:41uh if the plaintiffs actually could
16:43prove yes in fact we had been spied on
16:46and the president uh and sort of the
16:48executive brants in general of course
16:49could have rolled back these programs uh
16:52but they didn't in fact they were
16:53clearly trying to shelter themselves in
16:54many different ways uh where they didn't
16:57have to take any sort of uh
16:59stance where they would publicly explain
17:01what is the value of these programs what
17:03is the efficacy of these programs and
17:05what is truly the necessity of these
17:08programs and this I think clearly goes
17:10to the heart of the issue which is that
17:112013 isn't wholly about surveillance now
17:14holy or surveillance is obviously a
17:16critical factor of it uh that's much of
17:19what we've discussed but what we're
17:20talking about here now is AR really
17:23about surveillance at all it's about
17:25democracy right and democracies right
17:29our governments open liberal Western
17:31democracies uh tend to derive their
17:33legitimacy their ability to pass laws to
17:35rule to uh enforce policies on the
17:38principle of the consent of the
17:39government but as anyone in this room
17:42could tell you consent is only
17:44meaningful if it is informed so then how
17:47do we bridge that Gap where the system
17:49does fail and as you say uh we suddenly
17:53have a case the system has failed
17:55comprehensively the only people who can
17:57actually write this system are
17:58individuals but these individuals aren't
18:01all at the top level right there are of
18:03course you know senior directives and
18:04Executives who could have done the same
18:06thing but there are also people at the
18:08working level who can do the same thing
18:10is your seniority really more critical
18:13than what you've witnessed right there
18:15are many people at the top level of
18:17these programs uh who know how the
18:19policies work they know every letter of
18:21the law but they have never actually run
18:23a query through a system of mass
18:25surveillance in their life they know the
18:27theory of How It's implemented
18:29but they don't know the fact of how it
18:31is
18:32executed and so for me I recognized that
18:35I wasn't perfectly placed as you imply
18:38actually as you stated and no offense
18:40taken by it uh I was not sitting you
18:43know next to the table of the Secretary
18:44of Defense having this conversation with
18:46him uh but this is why we have a free
18:50press this is why the first amendment is
18:54first right we need to have a truly
18:57independent a political faction within
19:00free society that can challenge the
19:03government uh for control over
19:06information on which they will base
19:08their votes and so I talked to the
19:10journalists and I said look I'm going to
19:12make an independent assessment of the
19:14documents that are available to me on
19:16the basis of the things that are known
19:17to me of what you need to know to make
19:21that independent judgment about the
19:22lawfulness the efficacy the propriety of
19:25these programs I do not want you to
19:28publish all of these documents uh in
19:30fact I don't want you to publish any
19:32detail any fact that you do not believe
19:34to be necessary uh and serve a vital
19:38role in the public interest for us to
19:40know about and then further Beyond this
19:43beyond my review beyond the journalist
19:46review I required them to agree that
19:48they would go to the government in
19:49advance of publishing every story and
19:52give the government uh sort of a uh
19:55almost an opportunity to do a sort of a
19:57negotiated Junction here where the
20:00government would have the opportunity to
20:01review the documents on which they're
20:03based and make an independent assessment
20:06of would these cause specific harm to
20:11any policy any program or critically
20:13most critically any individual and in
20:15all cases that process has been followed
20:17to the best of my knowledge and the
20:18government does not dispute that the
20:21only thing that is in
20:23contention is that the journalists uh
20:26and these aren't just sort of radical
20:27journalists we're not talking left or
20:28anything we're talking about the
20:29Washington Post the New York Times uh
20:32said that in no case of the stories they
20:34published that they believe they put a
20:35life at risk and that's why I think now
20:38we're in 2016 right uh not 2013 when it
20:42was quite reasonable to go this could
20:44cost lives this seems really dangerous
20:47and in fact it could have been I don't
20:50discount the fact that risks were
20:51involved in this but the operation of a
20:53free press necessarily involves risk
20:57living in a free societ Society involves
21:00risk that is not a weakness that is a
21:03strength so let me do a little bit of
21:06Devil's Advocate to that position um to
21:09point out that we live as you say first
21:11of all I want to point out the first
21:12amendment is first because the first two
21:13amendments didn't get adopted so that's
21:16need here and there
21:20um the um uh the notion of a free press
21:27uh is to give a great deal of freedom
21:30but in the Democracy the notion is that
21:32the people get to decide things and one
21:34of the things they get to decide is they
21:35get to elect their representatives and
21:37the representatives get to make
21:38decisions everything's not a pleite um
21:42and there are certain areas in which
21:43it's always been understood that there's
21:44a degree of secrecy that's necessary so
21:47the problem with secrecy is that on the
21:49one hand it can quite legitimately
21:51further important interests on the part
21:54of the government and it can also be
21:56used as a device
21:59for
22:00shielding wrongdoing or abuse of
22:03authority from criticism and one of the
22:06difficult questions is knowing which of
22:08those two types of secrecy is going on
22:10in any given circumstance and one of the
22:13reasons why we put in place a series of
22:17oversight over National Security
22:20activities which didn't exist before the
22:22late 70s uh by creating the foreign
22:24intelligence surveillance Court by
22:25creating the House and Senate
22:26intelligence committees was to basically
22:28create a series of checks and balances
22:30within the government to to provide a
22:33mechanism by Which democracy could
22:34operate not in the sense that there
22:36can't be Secrets but in the sense that
22:38Secrets could be kept only if there's a
22:41persuasive case that's made to the
22:43elected representatives to the Judiciary
22:46um that that secrecy is necessary so
22:48there's still the underlying conundrum
22:50of when it's appropriate to make this
22:52decision that I think or journalists who
22:56you know journalists have self-interest
22:58which are not necessarily the interests
22:59of the nation um when they should be put
23:02in a position of making these decisions
23:04uh other than the representatives of the
23:06people themselves uh let me go to
23:08another point though and ask what was
23:10the what was the outcome of all this so
23:14um to what extent in your view has the
23:17law
23:19changed about these programs in ways
23:22that you think solve the problems or
23:25address the concerns that motivated you
23:28in the first first place to disclose
23:30this
23:31information well as was said in the the
23:34introduction I think uh it's important
23:35to understand that I wasn't setting out
23:37to change policy I was setting out to
23:40restore the balance uh between the
23:42governing and the Govern which has
23:43started to get a little bit out of whack
23:45I mean as you say we elect
23:48representatives for a reason right but
23:50the only way that we can understand
23:51whether we want to reelect them or
23:53support their policies continue this is
23:55if we actually know what they are and at
23:57least brought out lines now I'm not
23:59saying we need to know the name of every
24:01terrorist Target I'm not saying we need
24:02to know the name of every company we've
24:04penetrated or or whatever but if we
24:07don't know at least those broad outlines
24:10we're starting to enter a a system where
24:13actually our votes begin to become
24:15ineffective because as you say we elect
24:18people to represent us but if we don't
24:20know what they're doing and if we don't
24:21know what the other candidates who are
24:23their Alternatives would be doing what
24:25are our votes really doing uh so I think
24:28necessarily there is a bias toward an
24:31informed public rather than one that's
24:34in the dark now there are exceptions to
24:36this but these exceptions are I would
24:38argue extraordinarily rare when we're in
24:41times of Total War for example you boats
24:43in the harbor uh we are already engaging
24:46in in policies uh We've rolled back
24:48civil liberties in ways that we would
24:50never approve of during war peacetime
24:54and we very likely should not in
24:55peacetime thinking about things like
24:57Japanese internment but regardless of
24:59our desires in fact we see the human
25:01nature they often do uh these things
25:04become more clear because we're starting
25:06to talk about existential threats to the
25:07nation now there are no serious
25:10officials uh including the the president
25:12of the United States does not consider
25:13terrorism to be an existential threat to
25:16the United States I think that's fair
25:20um but when we think about how this
25:23balance is done and I I think you're
25:24starting to get on to a a theme which is
25:27that are we throwing open the doors if
25:30we allow whistleblowing to occur uh
25:32without punishment if we allow uh people
25:34who are at the working level to reveal
25:36evidence of serious wrongdoing or policy
25:39failures waste Fraud and Abuse however
25:41you want to classify it
25:44um is this something that will very
25:46rapidly get out of control will there be
25:48sort of an anarchic rise of all of these
25:50low-level employees whenever policy
25:52decisions made saying I don't agree with
25:54that I don't agree with that I'm running
25:55to the newspaper and things will fall
25:57apart well
25:59I would argue uh the record shows that's
26:02not likely because let's look at the
26:04case in the status quo today are there
26:08any cases of successful whistleblowers
26:11who have changed policy in the National
26:13Security space right in this classified
26:14space we're discussing uh who have not
26:17been retaliated against
26:19severely Daniel ellberg was literally
26:21charged with treason for his activities
26:23back uh on the Pentagon papers in the
26:2670s and this was again uh referring to a
26:29a huge report you know I believe it was
26:31thousands of pages uh but something that
26:33was uh he was revealing after it
26:35happened the information was a little
26:37bit stale despite this you know treason
26:41it was during the time of War
26:42technically his life was on the line the
26:44only reason uh he was not actually uh
26:48convicted was because of the
26:49government's wrongdoing I I think you
26:50wrote a a book on the Espionage fact the
26:54Espionage Act and pointed out that
26:56there's often no defense at all
26:59against these charges we've seen Thomas
27:01Drake again who is trying to reveal the
27:03bush era warrantless wiretapping program
27:05which I believe you've spoken out
27:06against uh and yet he was on subject to
27:10criminal investigation his career was
27:12over he lost his wife he lost his home
27:14now rather than working uh as a senior
27:17executive at the National Security
27:19Agency where he's drawing an sees level
27:21uh pay grade for those of you who aren't
27:23in the government uh the senior
27:24Executives have an entirely different
27:26pay grade which is uh shall we say uh
27:29very well
27:30accommodating and now he works at an
27:32Apple store selling iPods uh I would
27:36argue that there is enough uh natural
27:40counterveiling
27:41weight against whistleblowing there
27:44enough counterarguments there that we
27:46don't need to worry about that so much
27:49uh but I'm entirely open to being
27:51persuaded otherwise so the interesting
27:53thing though about what you just said is
27:55you're right in saying that one needs a
27:57balance that there are certainly
27:58circumstances where whistleblowing is
28:01important and valuable and Justified but
28:04there's also circumstances where you
28:06don't want it where it's it it does much
28:09more harm than good and the question is
28:10how to strike the right balance there so
28:12one thing but your point is that well we
28:14don't really have that many
28:15whistleblowers um because of the way we
28:18treat whistleblowers so maybe that's
28:20striking the right balance I mean maybe
28:22the bottom line is to basically say okay
28:24we have to we have to make these people
28:26suffer some people will have enough
28:28Integrity as arguably you do to say I'm
28:31willing to pay the price because I think
28:34that's important for the nation and they
28:37will blow the whistle on things um but
28:40if you make it painless then you may
28:42wind up with having all these Tom Dick
28:43and Harry's doing it in situations where
28:45it's actually much more harmful than
28:47beneficial so maybe we're doing it right
28:51at the present time and that if we don't
28:54penalize the whistleblowers even if
28:56they've done more good than harm right
28:58will wind up inviting too much
28:59whistleblowing which will do more harm
29:01than
29:02good so that that is a fair argument but
29:05I would also say it's a very utilitarian
29:07argument right is an argument without
29:08ethics uh we're thinking about the ends
29:11without thinking about the means is it
29:12right to basically sacrifice people who
29:15are acting in what we're taking for
29:17granted in this example is the public
29:20service right should we throw the
29:22village girl into the volcano to appease
29:24P so there's no volcanic eruption um
29:29you can make an argument for that uh but
29:32there's actually I would argue a problem
29:34down the road which is you run out of
29:37whistleblowers very quickly uh
29:39whistleblowing is already rare enough as
29:41it is as we've said and in most of these
29:44cases uh we see individuals who actually
29:46are bringing things of public interest
29:48now the president of the United States
29:50uh was certainly not uh my biggest fan
29:53in June of 2013 when this first came out
29:56uh he spoke at a press conference where
29:58where he seemed quite uncomfortable and
29:59he said look basically there's nothing
30:01to see here we've drawn the right
30:02balance don't worry about it but by
30:05January of 2014 his position had gained
30:07an awful lot of nuance by then he had
30:09appointed you and I believe a number of
30:11his peers to write uh the report Liberty
30:13and Security in a changing World which
30:15by the way I thought was excellent um
30:18but he also said uh while he can't
30:21condone what I
30:22did this has made us stronger as a
30:26nation uh and so if we lose
30:30that we're either losing opportunities
30:33for us to become stronger as a nation or
30:35we're actually starting to face a
30:37countervailing risk of Decay where we
30:39don't have these natural whistleblowing
30:42events which are basically steam release
30:43valves right whistleblowers because of
30:46the risks only come out when the system
30:48fails comprehensively right I tried to
30:51work in the system I went to my
30:52supervisor I went to my peers and they
30:54all said you have no idea what you're
30:55getting into you really don't want to
30:57play that game
30:58uh whereas Thomas Drake for example he
31:01went to the NSA Inspector General uh he
31:03went to the Department of defenses
31:05Inspector General uh he went to the
31:07nsa's office of general counsel I
31:09believe and he went to Congress he did
31:10everything right and yet they absolutely
31:12destroyed his life anyway and I think to
31:17contextualize this is is key for a
31:19moment I'd like you to put yourself in
31:22the position of a whistleblower right
31:24don't take my case for example imagine
31:25your own case you seem you see something
31:28you witness something that is so
31:30contrary to the values of this nation to
31:32our black letter laws for example let's
31:34take the bush era warrantless wir
31:36tapping program which was what Thomas
31:38Drake was trying to blow the whistle on
31:40uh and you try to fix this in the system
31:43because I think this is the the solution
31:46right we should have official
31:48whistleblowing paths right you should be
31:50able to work within the system in a way
31:52where you can get the grievance
31:53addressed right you can get the bad
31:55policy corrected uh you can get the vi
31:57viations of law uh and those who have
32:00broken those laws held to account and
32:02remediated uh but right now when you go
32:06through that system uh the government is
32:09not particularly I I would argue
32:11especially responsive to that uh the
32:13lawyer the deputy general counsel right
32:16the number two lawyer at the NSA uh who
32:18Tom Drake came to his complaints with uh
32:20said this he came to me someone who was
32:22not read into the program and told me
32:27that we were running a muck essentially
32:31and violing the Constitution there's no
32:33doubt in my mind I would have told him
32:36you know go talk to your management
32:37don't bother me with this I mean you
32:41know the the minute he said if if he did
32:45say you're using this to violate the
32:49constitution I I mean I probably would
32:50have stopped the conversation at that
32:52point quite frankly so I mean if that's
32:56what he said he said then anything after
32:58that I probably wasn't listening to
33:04anyway I I take it what he meant by that
33:07I hadn't seen that before but I would
33:08take it what he meant by that was we
33:09were in violating of the Constitution
33:12and and we thought about this we have
33:13lawyers looked at it they said it was
33:15okay some some somebody comes and
33:17complains to us about it I know better
33:20um so I that's how I would interpret
33:22what you just showed there which is not
33:24necessarily wrong I I but that that's
33:27entire yeah I didn't like that
33:28programming either but that sounds to me
33:30like what he's saying you you're
33:32absolutely right there's a much greater
33:33need in the system for um review and
33:37checks and balances and so on than
33:40existed in the past and that exists at
33:42the present time and there's also
33:44clearly a need for better avenues for
33:45whistleblowers to bring their concerns
33:48to the attention of people who have the
33:50authority to act upon those concerns
33:52within the system um and those are real
33:54failings that that that that continue to
33:56exist but I I do want to go back to the
33:58question I asked earlier which is have
34:00the changes that have occurred in the
34:02laws as a result of your
34:04disclosures in your view made a real
34:07difference or they just pretty much
34:09window
34:10addressing no AB absolutely I mean we've
34:13seen the very first law uh restricting
34:15the powers of the intelligence Community
34:17rather than expanding them passed in the
34:19wake of these now again these are the
34:21programs that everyone was defending uh
34:23in June of 2013 including I I believe
34:25you this is again not no disrespect
34:27respect but it's just to show that even
34:29individuals such as yourself who have
34:31come down very strongly throughout their
34:33history on the side of civil liberties
34:35no one would say you're sort of an agent
34:36of the state or anything like that we're
34:38persuaded you said you know there's
34:40nothing in these programs that we've
34:41seen that's illegal that's
34:43unconstitutional but since then when we
34:46got that extra layer of review right
34:48once we take that NSA Deputy general
34:50counsel uh who goes look I don't have
34:52time for this I'm not going to listen to
34:53this because we've already looked at
34:55this as lawyers right we're we're not
34:57just brush this off we've said all right
34:58this is
35:00constitutional what about the
35:02independent review the review that comes
35:04from the courts now so again in February
35:06of 2013 amnesty versus Clapper got
35:08flushed from the courts uh but in 2014
35:12we saw the same cases that had been
35:13brought forward Again by the ACLU
35:15because they were a customer of Verizon
35:17business who was subject to that very
35:20first document that was revealed get
35:22them into the courts and on appeal they
35:24won uh we had had other judges who said
35:26these programs
35:28uh were illegal uh they were likely
35:30unconstitutional uh they were orwellian
35:33in their scope um and of course we had
35:36had counter from other courts and things
35:38like that but suddenly it begins to
35:39percolate up to the Supreme Court where
35:41we get an actual matter of vital uh
35:44public importance you know this really
35:45shapes the relationship between the
35:47public and the government
35:51uh answered in what one would believe
35:54would be the traditional American sense
35:56because as you say right we've got the
35:58executive branch of government that's
35:59saying look we looked at these policies
36:01we're comfortable with them fair enough
36:03but that's not what the Whistleblower is
36:05necessarily coming forward to do right
36:07they need to get this addressed by the
36:09whole of government and ultimately uh
36:13I'm no lawyer you're the professor here
36:15uh I was raised to believe that when we
36:19have those major cases and controversies
36:22it is the courts that should be able to
36:24decide upon these but the courts
36:26increasingly because of sort of the over
36:28classification problem uh the reflexive
36:31assertion of State Secrets privilege
36:33they do not get to weigh in on these
36:36matters of what would be sort of
36:37critical public importance and I would
36:39wonder you know is this perhaps would
36:42you consider this to be another method
36:45of getting these controversies answered
36:48in a safer or more internal way where we
36:51get public Advocate organizations like
36:53the ACLU or others who can actually go
36:56before courts and get these things
36:58answered in a way create some sort of
37:00procedure where rather than the
37:03government saying you know courts don't
37:05have an answer or can't have any
37:06involvement in this all except the
37:08rubber stamp fisa court that in 33 years
37:10said no only 11 times out of 33,900
37:14requests uh if we could get a real Court
37:16a normal Court out there an open court
37:19that even in careful ways you know
37:21providing opinions in careful ways could
37:24get to the heart of controversies
37:26without requiring individual employees
37:28to put themselves on the line like that
37:31so perhaps ones who are not qualified or
37:33make the wrong
37:34call to the audience about the the real
37:38regular courts real courts and the fisa
37:39court um historically the problem with
37:42having real courts regular courts deal
37:45with issues of NA national security is
37:48that those courts don't have clearances
37:51for access to top secret information uh
37:53their law clerks their Messengers their
37:55secretaries their facilities are not
37:57made for that and so you can't actually
38:00have them address issues uh that are
38:02meant to be classified because they're
38:04not capable of handling the the the
38:07security issues so in Congress in 1978
38:10created the foreign intelligence
38:12surveillance Court which was a special
38:14Court consisting of regular federal
38:15judges who serve on a rotating basis um
38:18within the National Security realm who
38:21act as regular judges uh for the purpose
38:23of being able to rule on the legality or
38:26constitutionality of of secret programs
38:29and it's the foreign intelligence
38:30surveillance court that is meant to
38:32serve that function um and one of the
38:35questions that that Mr Snowden raises is
38:37whether the court has actually served
38:38that function effectively and I think
38:40they legitimate questions about whether
38:42that's so um let me ask you this in what
38:44circumstances would you come back and
38:45face
38:47charges so I've already said uh from the
38:51very first moment that if the government
38:52was willing to provide a fair trial if I
38:54had access to public interest defenses
38:56and other things like that I would want
38:57to come home and and make my case to the
39:00jury but as I I think you're quite
39:02familiar the Espionage Act does not
39:05permit a public interest defense you're
39:06not allowed to speak the word
39:08whistleblower at trial uh that was in
39:11the case of Thomas Drake H and it's this
39:14kind of thing where you know it's a very
39:15popular criticism right uh that I I
39:19think many people would innately
39:20understand and feel is reasonable right
39:23uh why don't you face the music but if
39:26the only tune they're playing is an
39:27unfair trial where you are literally uh
39:29deprived of the only defense that
39:32actually matters uh in in the case uh is
39:35that really something that we would
39:37consider to be in America's interest do
39:39we want to create uh sort of a precedent
39:43that dissidents uh should be
39:45volunteering themselves not for the 11
39:48days in jail of Martin Luther King or
39:50the single night in jail of thorough for
39:54not paying his pole tax uh but 30 years
39:56or more more in prison for what is an
39:59act of public service now the reason
40:01that theow and Martin Luther King uh put
40:03forth this brand of civil disobedience
40:06is to uh put the burden across many
40:09members of society in a mass movement to
40:11create change that could not be ignored
40:15if all of the weight is borne by a
40:17single individual right you can't build
40:20a mass movement because the first one to
40:22step forward is put in jail
40:23forever what you're saying is is unless
40:26you can make the case to the jury that I
40:29was justified in doing this and there is
40:31a defense of it was I was justified in
40:36whistleblowing um that you wouldn't come
40:38back so so why doesn't Congress pass a
40:40law that creates that defense it's
40:42perfectly within their
40:44Authority Professor I I would have to
40:46say that's a better question for you
40:47than I I'm not uh sort of quite so
40:51expert in the intricacies of theocracy
40:53but democracy doesn't seem to agree with
40:55you
40:57well I wouldn't say make they don't
40:59because they don't think it's a good
41:00idea well do we have them even consider
41:03it do we have them even debate it
41:05Congress is desperate to pass so many
41:07laws today you may have noticed uh but
41:09they're not doing so well in actually
41:11getting any legislation passed they're
41:13having trouble passing a budget and now
41:15you're asking them to restructure laws
41:16that are 100 years old right that may be
41:19absolutely atrocious that everyone in
41:20Congress realizes are just obscene but
41:23at the same time they're still focusing
41:25on getting that budget passed right
41:26there's priority ities um but more
41:29generally let me turn that turn that
41:32around a little bit uh do you think it's
41:36appropriate do you think it's fair uh
41:38that someone who has done something
41:40that's done more good than bad
41:43presumptively uh goes to jail for the
41:46rest of their life for a public
41:48service um particular without being able
41:51to make a defense of their action the
41:54the argument I would make as playing
41:57devil's advocate here against that
41:59position is that you don't want to
42:02encourage every Tom Dick and Harry
42:04government employee with access to
42:06National Security classified information
42:08to think that it's okay for them to
42:10disclose this
42:12information the benefit outweighs the
42:14harm you just don't want people doing
42:17that and therefore you can't create the
42:19defense because the defense creates more
42:20problems than itself that's that's the
42:22argument on the other side so if you
42:23look at it not in terms of the the
42:25Justice to the particular individual
42:27but to the systemic incentives it
42:29creates I can see why Congress has no
42:31interest in doing this even if they're
42:33sympathetic to you they may say you know
42:36we're going to create a lot more
42:37snowdens who are not actually having the
42:39benefit outweigh the the harm but they
42:41think it is and therefore they're going
42:42to do these harmful leaks and we don't
42:44want to encourage that but isn't that
42:47why we have jury trials isn't that a
42:49question for the
42:51jury no the jury only operates under the
42:54law as it's been established by Court or
42:57by legislator they don't get to make up
42:59the law so the question here I'm not
43:02talking about jury nullification or
43:04anything like that I'm saying if a law
43:06were passed it's not a given it's not
43:09taken for granted that suddenly you have
43:11this anarchic release of everything
43:13these people still get charged but now
43:15they just have a defense that they can
43:16make to the jury that the jury goes you
43:18caused more harm than you did benefit no
43:20you go to jail right but the argument
43:22with manslaughter self-defense all of
43:24these other laws right and it's anal the
43:26exceptional Act of whistleblowing that
43:29would make it unreasonable for a jury to
43:32to weigh the same facts the same harms
43:34as other crimes again I think the answer
43:37that one would give is that is that the
43:39the incentive effects it creates are
43:42dangerous um because again you have this
43:45problem of relatively low-level
43:47employees who think that they know
43:48enough to make a wise decision on this
43:51and they're wrong and if they're wrong
43:52it it arguably has real harm to the
43:54National Security and to the nation and
43:56you don't want to encourage that
43:57so I just think the stakes are perceived
43:59as very great on the negative side and
44:02that isn't to say I wouldn't be in favor
44:04of this is that I'm playing devil's
44:05advocate here right but I think that's
44:06the argument on the other side um one I
44:09guess last question before we open it up
44:11to the to the audience um what's what's
44:13it like for you in
44:17Russia
44:18strange uh I have to say though it's
44:21it's also kind of amazing because right
44:25now I'm not in Russia I'm in Chicago a
44:27few hours earlier I was in Zurich
44:29Switzerland giving a talk to an IT
44:31security company uh tomorrow I'll be at
44:34Princeton speaking with researchers uh
44:36cryptographers and technologists
44:38computer scientists to try to solve some
44:41of these Mass surveillance issues that
44:42were we're dealing with today uh so well
44:45it is true I do sleep in Russia I live
44:48all over the
44:50world
44:52person I'm sorry I lost the first part
44:54of do you get to walk around and be like
44:56regular person in R yeah of course
45:00there's not like a you know a wire fence
45:03with a guard and a a tower or something
45:05how do you pay for stuff I ride the
45:06subway like everybody else how do you
45:08pay for like lunch with money how do you
45:10pay for
45:11stuff I mean where do you get
45:14it I get paid to speak at at many of
45:17these events uh and I provide a enormous
45:20portion of
45:21that I don't I don't know that would be
45:23a question for for for I'll let you pass
45:25on that I I believe this is an un event
45:29particularly right particularly because
45:31uh you know you and and Mr Axel Rod I
45:33believe who were thank you by the way
45:35for arranging this talk uh Mr Obama
45:38might not be excited to hear that that
45:39you are arranging paid talks on my
45:41behalf well with this let me invite but
45:44there actually before before we before
45:45we go to the audience there was one
45:47other question I I wanted to go to you
45:48on uh because you've got a lot of
45:50expertise here uh that you know I've
45:52thought about this before and it it's
45:54fascinating so the premise that you put
45:56forth for the foreign intelligence
45:58surveillance court and you know this is
46:00not contested is that we couldn't trust
46:02normal judges with it because they're
46:03not placed to handle sort of this
46:05sensitive
46:07information but is the fact that we are
46:10actually monitoring this specific
46:12terrorist they are creating this
46:13specific plot we want to thwart it here
46:15or there more sensitive or even
46:18sensitive in a particularly different
46:20character than it is for the police or
46:23the FBI to go to a normal judge in an
46:25ordinary court and say we are tracking a
46:27serial killer who we think will kill
46:29again or we're monitoring this burglar
46:31or this organized crime figure and
46:33things like that courts have handled
46:36extraordinarily sensitive material for
46:38hundreds perhaps thousands of years what
46:41is it that makes this so different and
46:43is it really different or do we take it
46:46for granted that the bargain we made in
46:48the 70s and have now tried out actually
46:51hasn't worked out and maybe we should
46:53restructure
46:54it the the Assumption I think
46:57is that in the National Security realm
46:59where you're dealing with international
47:01relations and um you're dealing with
47:03much higher Stakes than in domestic
47:06criminal conduct except in very rare
47:09circumstances um is that uh there's a
47:12need to keep secret your investigative
47:15methodologies and surveillance
47:17techniques because if they're known
47:19people can circumvent I mean that's and
47:21that's the key argument the key argument
47:22is that if people know what we're doing
47:24not it's not just our American citizens
47:26who know it but it's the targets of the
47:28surveillance and once they know it they
47:29can avoid it and then we lose the
47:30information and then we have terrorist
47:32attacks and you know how true how true
47:35that is but that's the argument that's
47:37that that's I think the concern the
47:38danger just to go back to the point I
47:40made earlier the danger is that that's
47:41not really what's going on what really
47:43what's going on is the people in this in
47:46The Secret World want to be able to do
47:48what they want to be able to do without
47:49having anybody else question them
47:51actually nobody wants to be questioned
47:53if they can avoid it in terms of their
47:54Authority and that this is actually a a
47:58um an illegitimate use of secrecy in the
48:00guise of protecting National Security
48:02which is really in the guise of creating
48:04autonomy for people who don't want to be
48:05bothered and sorting that out is a
48:07critical challenge let me turn to some
48:09some
48:10question hi Mr Snowden thank you for
48:12joining us my name is Matt Eno I'm a
48:14first year student at the law school and
48:15I'd like to ask if you would support
48:17efforts to access and disseminate
48:19classified information from the
48:22FSB absolutely I
48:25mean who wouldn't
48:27but if I could actually get back on
48:30sorry is there follow the FSB for
48:33anybody who doesn't
48:35know yeah apologies yeah Chinese
48:38Ministry of State security Russian uh
48:40you know FSB whatever uh if we have
48:43understandings of these organizations
48:45particularly in more authoritarian
48:46States I I don't think it's particularly
48:49controversial to think that would
48:50necessarily serve a public interest
48:52however I didn't work for the FSB I
48:54didn't work for the Chinese MSS I worked
48:56for the US National Security Agency if I
48:58could get back to just to one point
49:02uh about the uh challenge one more
49:05Orthodoxy uh that Professor Stone you
49:08put forth which is very fair of when
49:12people know that these capabilities
49:13exist do they suddenly become
49:15ineffective uh and I would actually
49:17argue again this is something that's
49:18taken for granted just like we need a
49:20secret spy Court to deal with spy
49:22programs uh but when we look at the
49:26history is that really true everyone in
49:28the room knows that your phone calls
49:30could be tapped and they knew that
49:31before 2013 right this has been in
49:33movies for more than 60 years uh these
49:36programs have been public for since you
49:39know the 19 teens I believe and yet
49:43every day we are still collecting
49:45evidence of criminal activity uh on open
49:47phone lines we are still intercepting
49:49terrorists phone calls even though Osama
49:51Bin Laden stopped using a cell phone in
49:541998 after Bill Clinton fired a missile
49:56training camp and even Angela Merkel uh
49:59as was published in one of the things
50:01this is a head of state is making open
50:03phone calls about matters of Foreign
50:05Affairs the fact that a capability is
50:07known I would argue does not render it
50:10as ineffective as we might
50:12[Music]
50:13presume hi my name is Melissa and I'm a
50:16second year in the college looking ahead
50:17to the 2016 presidential election um as
50:20well as the Congressional elections do
50:22you foresee any change occurring in the
50:24system you've been talking about
50:27uh we have already seen sort of the
50:29beginning of uh uh an effort to
50:32challenge or perhaps modify uh section
50:35702 of the fisa Amendments act uh this
50:38is a program that involves Mass
50:41interception uh but targeted reading you
50:44would argue uh of communications that
50:46have one and foreign so one side of them
50:48is in the United States other sides are
50:51overseas and they sort of GP through
50:53everything with their uh with their
50:55tools and pull things out of the bucket
50:57they also use it for uh going to US
51:00service providers uh there's a a famous
51:02slide I won't pop it up for you uh but
51:04showing sort of Yahoo Microsoft Google
51:07Facebook Apple all of those guys and the
51:09times in which they voluntarily joined
51:11this NSA program uh to simplify beyond
51:15what the law allowed right the law
51:17required them to respond to subpoenas
51:18and whatnot but all of these providers
51:20created sort of Boutique tailored
51:22processes uh for American intelligence
51:25agencies to go forward and get whatever
51:26they wanted now if it's about an
51:28American citizen they had to get a
51:30warrant for this but if it's anybody
51:31else in the world doesn't matter whe
51:32they're French German or something else
51:34they're fair game without a
51:39warrant uh hello Mr snow and thank you
51:41for being in Chicago today so say um my
51:45name
51:46is uh my name is niiko I'm from Berlin
51:49Germany and I remember in 2013 um your
51:52leaks and all these stories about the
51:54NSA have been on the news in Germany and
51:56in Europe Europe generally for months
51:58and I would say a large majority
52:00majority of the public there knows your
52:02name and even more people are informed
52:03about the NSA survellance systems
52:06however in the United States I've talked
52:08to people even on this very campus that
52:10I've never heard your name or even aware
52:12of NSA surveillance so how do you
52:14explain or what's what's your take on
52:16these uh discrepancies between Europe
52:18and United
52:19States so something I mean this is this
52:21is a really complex question I'm not
52:24best qualified to answer it but if you
52:25ask me to spend speculate on why that is
52:29uh we have a broadcast media body uh in
52:31the United States that's very
52:33politically charged it's very
52:39[Music]
52:46hyperarc incentives uh when we look at
52:51the portion of the United States public
52:53that gets the majority of their News
52:55online we've seen polls that show they
52:57have greater familiarity with the NSA
53:00Revelations and things like that I
53:02imagine this correlation also exists
53:05overseas um but countries that were not
53:07the United States didn't have the same
53:10hero versus Trader uh ratings grab
53:14available to them because for them of
53:15course they're not Americans they they
53:17don't care uh about that they don't see
53:19that as an issue at all they're only
53:21focused on what is the public interest
53:23of this information uh whereas sort of
53:25the traditional Broad anchors in the
53:27United States they found and we've seen
53:29this I mean I did an interview with
53:30Brian Williams where that their whole
53:32lead was to do an online poll at the
53:35same time of hero versus Trader hero
53:37versus Trader they were not so
53:39interested in in dealing with the
53:41controversies as they were with actually
53:44making uh their product which is you
53:47know whether it's a news product it's an
53:48entertainment product whatever it is
53:50very much a
53:54business hi Mr Snowden I'm Mark I'm a
53:57first year in the college um I've got a
53:59two-pronged question so the first is do
54:02you have reason to believe that NSA has
54:05compromised either 4096-bit RSA or any
54:08of the common ECC curves and for the
54:10rest of the audience what are the
54:12consequences if or when NSA breaks
54:15strong
54:16encryption uh so the the gentleman is
54:19referring to Common encryption
54:21algorithms that are seen as very strong
54:23today uh one of them is the one that's
54:25typically used used by for example gpg
54:27Communications and as of the time I was
54:29at NSA it was not broken and the NSA
54:31doesn't even dispute this um I believe
54:35that uh as a form of asymmetric
54:38encryption using the RSA thing once we
54:40start to get quantum computers uh that
54:42are actually effective in Quantum
54:44algorithms that work on the search space
54:46it'll reduce the security of it by half
54:49it won't break it entirely it won't
54:50break it immediately I could be wrong
54:52here I'm not a cryptographer hopefully
54:53someone in the room is and you guys can
54:54meet after but um
54:57the second one about elliptic curves
54:59there are real questions about how some
55:01of the elliptic curves uh again for
55:03those in the room who are not
55:05mathematicians this is a very difficult
55:07math problem that we basically use to
55:10protect your information if you can't
55:12solve the math problem you can't uh you
55:14can't read what people were doing and
55:16the way we make this work for encryption
55:18is we just share the answer to the
55:20problem between the people who should be
55:21able to read it anybody who doesn't have
55:23the answer right who can't cheat on it
55:25the problem's just too hard to work
55:26through uh some of these sort of initial
55:29seed values we don't know how they were
55:32generated uh so we have alternative
55:34curves uh called like nothing up my
55:36sleeves curves that were created in
55:38response to some of these concerns uh so
55:41there are choices there but in general
55:43we have seen the NSA make efforts uh to
55:47break or weaken cryptographic algorithms
55:49information security processes uh in
55:52products and services that are used in
55:54the United States uh and this does
55:56expose us to a lot of risk but we have a
55:59growing cohort within government uh and
56:01those who uh sort of support government
56:04and and write reports on their behalf
56:05who share their expertise such as
56:07Professor Stone here and I I think
56:08people in the room should give him
56:09credit for his report where I believe
56:11Professor Stone correct me if I'm wrong
56:13here you recommended in your 46
56:15recommendations for the United States
56:16government in response to these Le
56:18Revelations that the NSA not weaken
56:21encryption standards and in fact they
56:23work to increase the security of them is
56:24that correct that's correct absolutely
56:31uh thank you for coming today uh my
56:33question is about what's your reaction
56:35to third-party portrayals of your story
56:38whether it's Oliver Stone's forthcoming
56:40movie or my favorite JN Oliver coming
56:42over equating your leaks to pictures of
56:45genitalia what what's your what's your
56:47reaction to that did you expect to
56:48become a celebrity in this
56:51way you know it's really funny if you go
56:53back to to June 2013 you know I was very
56:55forceful my first interviews and I said
56:57look guys stop talking about me talk
56:59about the NSA I am the least important
57:01part of the story here but again when we
57:03get into how does media sell attention
57:06right how do they get or sorry how do
57:08they buy attention how do they actually
57:10get you to watch things people care
57:13about characters for whatever reason you
57:15know just our our biology our brains the
57:17way we relate to things is about
57:19character stories so they simply would
57:21not let me go I was hoping so hard that
57:24you know we would get some other
57:25figurehead somebody to stand up uh and
57:27start talking about them who didn't have
57:29the common criticisms against their
57:31character that I do right because
57:33regardless of how you feel about me
57:34there are people who dislike me right
57:36there are people who disapprove of what
57:37I did if we could divorce that uh from
57:40The Narrative that would be
57:41extraordinarily helpful but we didn't
57:43see it happen at least the media didn't
57:45have an interest in it at this point now
57:47three years down the road the way I look
57:49at it is these different portrayals and
57:52these different 30d party things I don't
57:54care how they want to talk about me as
57:56long as they're getting people
57:57interested in the matters of governance
58:00democracy and security for our
58:02Communications around the world talking
58:04about you know what the world is today
58:06in the status quo but more importantly
58:08what kind of world do we want to live in
58:10I don't care how they do it and I think
58:12it's a great thing that we at least as
58:13the public can have those conversations
58:16I think it's great that in the United
58:17States we don't have hopefully secret
58:19services that are kicking in the doors
58:21and shredding hard drives of journalists
58:23like they did in the United Kingdom or
58:25God knows more authoritarian countries
58:27are doing all the time so you know I I
58:30guess I kind of rambled there but I
58:32would say look you
58:34know one of the weird things about being
58:38thrust into these positions where
58:39everybody's talking about you is about
58:4280% of it's wrong right and you just
58:44pray for the 5% they get
58:52right hi there I'm Lily I'm a first year
58:54in the college so I found it uh very
58:57interesting that in a recent article you
58:59wrote you encourage people to
59:00whistleblow only if they feel like it's
59:02a right moment so how do people know
59:04when it's the right moment and how much
59:06of the attention you received in 2013
59:08would you attribute to good
59:12timing that's a really good question in
59:14fact I think I missed my moment uh I
59:17think had I had a better understanding
59:18of these programs earlier on had I
59:21understand sort of the nature of that
59:23Senate intelligence committee
59:24relationship with the director of
59:26intelligence where he was totally
59:28comfortable you know giving false
59:30testimony uh when he had sworn an oath
59:33uh I should have come forward when
59:34people could have actually talked about
59:35this during the election
59:38um but at the same time it has worked
59:40extraordinarily well uh ultimately the
59:44fact that so many people do know about
59:46this and the fact that our government
59:48has changed its policies its positions
59:50comprehensively across the board you
59:51know again prior to June 2013 everybody
59:55was defending these program programs
59:56everybody was supporting these programs
59:57without change since then we've seen the
1:00:01president put forth uh new changes new
1:00:04executive orders again they're not the
1:00:06reform we need but it's a start right
1:00:09which is important uh we have seen the
1:00:11Congress pass new laws in response we
1:00:13have seen the courts consider these
1:00:15questions we have seen uh and find
1:00:18consider these questions and again
1:00:19actually find these laws
1:00:20unconstitutional saying they had never
1:00:22been authorized by Statute uh from the
1:00:24beginning of their operation we have
1:00:26seen the United Nations uh declare Mass
1:00:29surveillance of exactly the character
1:00:31we've been discussing today uh and of
1:00:33course this is not specific to the
1:00:34United States this is a global problem
1:00:36we're dealing with this in many
1:00:37countries uh is a violation of Human
1:00:40Rights we have seen the European court
1:00:43of justice strike down the data
1:00:44retention directive uh which is was a
1:00:47mass surveillance sort of mandate where
1:00:49you had to log all of the access of your
1:00:52citizenry like every website they
1:00:53touched and things like that every phone
1:00:55call they made and so on and so forth uh
1:00:58and it just goes on and on and on I mean
1:01:00I can't actually give these things with
1:01:01the times that we have available but
1:01:03more than anything
1:01:05else we know about it right not
1:01:08everybody has to care about every issue
1:01:11right uh not everything is the most
1:01:13important thing in the world but the
1:01:14fact that we can assess these for
1:01:16ourselves we can make informed decisions
1:01:18about how we want to communicate how we
1:01:20want to protect uh against the sort of
1:01:22depredations of people using uh group
1:01:24groups who have access to these
1:01:26Technologies and also ultimately what we
1:01:29want to advocate for what we want to
1:01:31campaign for the kind of candidates that
1:01:33we want to support to actually get the
1:01:35kind of Reform we need when we cast our
1:01:37vote that's a
1:01:41win I apologize it looks like you've
1:01:44lost my video feed so I'll go on audio
1:01:47hi I'm Andrea I'm getting my masters in
1:01:49social science here and I was reing a
1:01:52story that was saying how Henry
1:01:54Kissinger on Monday received ceed an
1:01:56award from the Department of Defense and
1:01:59you could make the argument that he was
1:02:01a party to government misdoings and so I
1:02:06guess my question is what do you see is
1:02:08the role of a whistleblower in calling
1:02:10out individuals that are party to that
1:02:14kind of government abuse and does
1:02:17pointing out individuals strengthen the
1:02:19argument or does it just create
1:02:20scapegoats when you're really trying to
1:02:22Target the government entity itself
1:02:27well actually if I could defer this one
1:02:29to you Professor stone at least for a
1:02:31first take on it uh given that you have
1:02:33the concerns about how this grows into a
1:02:35practice and the potential concerns how
1:02:37would you feel about that I am
1:02:39embarrassed to say that I've been
1:02:40looking at the screen and trying to
1:02:41figure out when the picture is going to
1:02:43come back and I did not listen to the
1:02:46question I apologize no no I I feel like
1:02:49a student in class who who got called on
1:02:51when I was looking at my
1:02:53iPhone okay um
1:02:56[Applause]
1:02:59we all have a finite amount of attention
1:03:01right could you repeat the question for
1:03:02the professor can you repeat yeah no
1:03:06problem basically when a whistleblower
1:03:10comes forward what do you see as their
1:03:12role in pointing out individuals that
1:03:14are party to the system does it heighten
1:03:16by creating examples and really making
1:03:18it tangible for individuals or does it
1:03:20seem to undermine the entire system that
1:03:22whistleblowers are trying to point out
1:03:24by creating Escape
1:03:26the scapegoat meaning other people they
1:03:28identify um more that the government can
1:03:31point to an individual's wrongdoing than
1:03:34the ACT than taking responsibility that
1:03:36The Whistleblower is trying to point out
1:03:39so I guess the question is to what
1:03:42extent does the focus on on the issue of
1:03:46this of The
1:03:47Whistleblower divert attention from the
1:03:50substantive question that's been raised
1:03:51so we're all sitting here today talking
1:03:54with Edwards sowden about Edward Snowden
1:03:57if we had an event today about the
1:03:59substantive issues that Mr Snowden
1:04:03raised my guess is we would not have
1:04:05nearly the demand in the audience that
1:04:08we have here so now the question is
1:04:11whether that that diversion takes
1:04:13attention away from the substantive
1:04:14issue or whether people are actually
1:04:16much more interested in the celebrity
1:04:17than the substantive issue and I think
1:04:19probably both are true um but I I I have
1:04:21no doubt that I know we had huge demand
1:04:23for this event so we could watch Mr
1:04:26Snowden up on a video screen um and I
1:04:28have no doubt if I were having this
1:04:30conversation here about the very same
1:04:31issues that Mr Snowden raised um that
1:04:35the vast majority of of students who
1:04:37wanted to attend this event wouldn't be
1:04:38here but I don't know if that's a
1:04:40negative thing I think it's it's the two
1:04:41different elements of it there's an
1:04:43interest in the substance and there's an
1:04:44interest in the celebrity and uh they
1:04:47they don't I think take away from each
1:04:49other
1:04:51sure and if I could just follow on that
1:04:54real quick uh I do think there's
1:04:56actually a a peripheral issue that's a
1:04:58little bit different which is if we get
1:05:00a lot of whistleblowers who are focused
1:05:03on individuals criminalities right
1:05:05rather than programmatic wrongdoing uh
1:05:09whistleblowing can start or at least the
1:05:11individual acts of it can start to look
1:05:13partisan it can start to look like this
1:05:15is actually about people you don't like
1:05:16are trying to get your boss out of his
1:05:18chair so you can occupy as was the case
1:05:21with with Mark felt I believe uh the
1:05:23deep throat back in the The Water Gate
1:05:25era although we don't know for sure that
1:05:28that's one of the sort of leading
1:05:29theories uh it's more helpful uh when we
1:05:34actually start to focus again on the
1:05:35programmatic things now as Mr Stone said
1:05:38can you draw the same crowd when you
1:05:39don't have the individual story I'm not
1:05:41sure I I tried my best but they wouldn't
1:05:44really let go uh one last Point um if
1:05:48technologically we can restore the video
1:05:50if we just uh reset the call right now
1:05:53I'm not sure if the audio room is is
1:05:54prepared to do that
1:05:56if they are we can do that otherwise we
1:05:57can uh just forge ahead with uh audio
1:06:00only right now can we get the next
1:06:02question in the meantime while they
1:06:04decide hi Mr Snowden my name is Isabelle
1:06:06D I'm a first year in the college and my
1:06:08question actually works nicely with that
1:06:09last point you were making um I'd like
1:06:11to talk about the uh path that you
1:06:13mentioned a little bit earlier for
1:06:15whistleblowers in the government and I'm
1:06:17wondering if you foresee any sort of
1:06:18problems with partisanship with politics
1:06:22um if that path could be abused by any
1:06:24sort of government official to use that
1:06:27path for their own political soap box
1:06:29and to abuse it taking away uh the
1:06:32spotlight from the heart of the issue
1:06:34and focusing it on the politics of
1:06:36whatever that government official may be
1:06:38viewing do you foresee any sort of
1:06:39problems if that path were to be set
1:06:42up so this this creates actually uh or
1:06:46starts to get at a a very serious
1:06:49problem which has not been discussed at
1:06:51all publicly in any substantive way uh
1:06:54at least in the open side um Professor
1:06:57Stone may have seen some of this when
1:06:58they were talking internally around the
1:07:00White House and related agencies uh but
1:07:04regardless of what you think about me
1:07:06regardless of if what I did was the
1:07:08right thing or the wrong thing what does
1:07:11it mean that a 29y old contractor could
1:07:15walk into the NSA walk out with what the
1:07:19government contends is an unknowable
1:07:21number of files provide these to
1:07:24journalists in secret
1:07:26and the government doesn't know about it
1:07:28until this individual is sitting down in
1:07:29the room with the
1:07:31journalists what if that individual or a
1:07:34similar individual weren't going to the
1:07:37Press what if they weren't interested in
1:07:39the furtherance of of uh you know our
1:07:42methods of government what if they
1:07:43weren't trying to help things what if
1:07:44they were trying to help themselves
1:07:46right what if they were spying on
1:07:48people's Communications or sharing them
1:07:49for monetary gain or they were actually
1:07:52a foreign intelligence agent or
1:07:54something like that uh the fact that
1:07:58controls are so LAX in an agency with so
1:08:03much power so much capability uh should
1:08:07concern
1:08:08everyone thank
1:08:12you hi Mr Snowden my question has to do
1:08:16with um earlier one of the questions
1:08:18mentioned that there's a surprising
1:08:20possibly surprising level of unawareness
1:08:23of your name and your leaks in the US
1:08:26and earlier we also touched upon the
1:08:29interest of the in the contents of these
1:08:30leaks about whether people would show up
1:08:33at events if the we if the leaker wasn't
1:08:37a celebrity someone of a celebrity so I
1:08:39also noticed that even among people who
1:08:42are aware of the massive level of
1:08:43interception of information information
1:08:45and Communications um a sort of apathy
1:08:49towards the content of these
1:08:51leaks despite their gravity so I was
1:08:54wondering if
1:08:56um you expected that sort of reaction to
1:08:59your leaks and why you think that
1:09:02is so I pretty famously talked to the
1:09:06the journalists uh for those who
1:09:09followed the story and said I was pretty
1:09:11confident this was going to be three-day
1:09:12story uh you know it was going to be on
1:09:14the front page there was going to be
1:09:15reaction the next day and then there was
1:09:17going to be some commentary the next day
1:09:18and they were going to move on nobody's
1:09:19going to be talking about it anymore uh
1:09:22the response that we have gotten uh has
1:09:24so far out pasted any reasonable
1:09:27expectations right there has been so
1:09:29much interest in this topic there has
1:09:31been so much that people want to do uh
1:09:33to try to address these problems real or
1:09:37perceived uh in terms of the mass
1:09:39surveillance of the American people and
1:09:40of course those overseas to a much
1:09:42greater extent now at the same time what
1:09:46you read as apathy uh I think it comes
1:09:49down to what is the origin of that
1:09:51because I don't think you're wrong in
1:09:53seeing that a lot of people you know
1:09:55give a shrug at it but I believe that's
1:09:58actually a feeling of disempowerment
1:10:00that people don't actually feel they
1:10:02have any agency any capability to change
1:10:05their circumstances in this regard
1:10:07because we're talking about
1:10:08extraordinarily complex Technical
1:10:10Systems that are inaccessible in the
1:10:12most part to many laymen um and even for
1:10:15Specialists right this is a very complex
1:10:19topic and even if you can go uh you know
1:10:22we can solve this issue or we can solve
1:10:24that issue trying to solve everything
1:10:26comprehensively so we can go this is the
1:10:28goal this is the policy this is the plan
1:10:30this is how we fix it uh feels like it's
1:10:33unreach large for people who don't have
1:10:35their entire life to dedicate with uh to
1:10:37it and there are many people out there
1:10:39uh who are doing that but I think the
1:10:42the response that we should have here is
1:10:45to think about what you can do and one
1:10:47of the most important things you can do
1:10:48is just talk about it when you mention
1:10:50there are people uh that don't know
1:10:52about this who are apathetic about it
1:10:53think about what's really at stake here
1:10:55because it's not about surveillance it's
1:10:57about rights when people say you know I
1:10:59don't care about privacy because I've
1:11:01got nothing to hide they don't really
1:11:03understand what privacy is about privacy
1:11:05isn't about something to hide privacy is
1:11:08about something to protect that thing
1:11:11privacy is the right to the self right
1:11:14privacy is what you allows you to decide
1:11:16what it is you believe what it is you
1:11:18think about freedom of speech doesn't
1:11:20have much meaning unless you have the
1:11:22freedom and space to think freedom of
1:11:24religion doesn't mean anything unless
1:11:26you have the freedom from Prejudice from
1:11:28outside forces right the space within
1:11:30yourself to decide what it is that you
1:11:32truly want to worship uh even when we
1:11:36get down into the language of private
1:11:38property you cannot have a claim to
1:11:41yourself unless there is a right to the
1:11:44self otherwise you're simply entirely
1:11:46subject to the whims of the collective
1:11:49saying that you don't care about privacy
1:11:51because you don't have anything to hide
1:11:52is no different than saying you don't
1:11:53care about freedom of speech because you
1:11:55have nothing to say it is the most
1:11:56fundamentally antisocial thing I can
1:11:59think about because even if you honestly
1:12:02did not need it and many people who are
1:12:04in P positions of privilege positions of
1:12:07power really don't because the
1:12:08authorities are never going to come
1:12:09after them they're who the authorities
1:12:11are there to support there who the
1:12:12authorities are there to protect but if
1:12:14you are a minority if you are a little
1:12:17bit different in any way if you are a
1:12:19little bit radical or you dissent in any
1:12:22way against the prerogatives or the
1:12:24Privileges of people in the most power
1:12:26rights are for you if you want to have
1:12:29them you better stand up and defend
1:12:32them thank you and thank you so much for
1:12:34all your
1:12:36work thank
1:12:38you on that eloquent note um we have run
1:12:42out of time uh please join me in
1:12:44thanking Mrs Snowden particularly wait
1:12:47wait wait particularly because in fact
1:12:48we did not pay him to join us
1:12:53today thank you

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Edward Snowden Live From Russia by UChicago Institute of Politics, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 13,027 words across 1,904 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.