YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Edward Snowden On Privacy, Threats To Democracy and Trump, Full Interview Sept 2019 MSNBC

Edward Snowden On Privacy, Threats To Democracy and Trump, Full Interview Sept 2019 MSNBC — Transcript

by David Getoff · 8,443 words · 1,232 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00so add Snowden a lot of people in this
0:02country are probably curious when was
0:05the last time you had substantive
0:07discussions about coming home to the
0:11United States and would this still be
0:14your preference do you still refer to it
0:16as home the United States will always be
0:22my home and I'll always be willing to
0:25come back on a single condition and I've
0:29been quite clear about this over the
0:31years this is that the government
0:33guarantee that I have the right and
0:35every whistleblower has the right to
0:37tell the jury why they did what they did
0:40right we can disagree about whether this
0:43was right or wrong we can disagree about
0:44whether this is good or bad we can
0:46disagree about whether this is legal
0:47early illegal that's right and proper in
0:49a democracy but we have to agree that
0:52the jury is supposed to be the proper
0:55authority to ultimately decide was this
0:57right or wrong and I hate to say it but
0:59under current laws that is explicitly
1:03forbidden under the Espionage Act which
1:06as you know it's increasingly being used
1:08against the sources of journalism
1:10instead of foreign spies the law makes
1:13no distinction between someone who tells
1:16a secret to a journalist and someone who
1:18tells a secret to a foreign government
1:20and and so yeah there have nots there
1:23has not been any movement unfortunately
1:25on that conversation since the Obama
1:28administration when I told the
1:31government that all they need to do is
1:34give me the right of what we call a
1:36public interest offense this is a fair
1:38trial an open trial where the jury hears
1:40what is happening they decide was this
1:43justified or not and unfortunately a
1:47then Attorney General Eric Holder
1:49responded and said we can't promise that
1:52we won't promise that we will promise
1:54not to torture you unfortunately I'd say
1:58that's not quite enough something you've
2:01said repeatedly is that you would expect
2:04and you would accept a certain
2:07punishment for your actions what if that
2:11package of punishment included working
2:13for the home team
2:15what if someone said help us harden our
2:18elections from attack using your skills
2:20I would volunteer for that instantly you
2:26know they they wouldn't even have to pay
2:28me for that remember I volunteered to
2:31work for the CIA for the NSA
2:33when I came forward to reveal mass
2:35surveillance which we need to be clear
2:37the courts have found was in fact
2:40unlawful on the part of the government
2:42and one court said likely
2:43unconstitutional so I have no objection
2:49to helping the government I came forward
2:51not to burn the NSA down I came forward
2:54to reform it to help it return to the
2:57ideals that we're all supposed to share
2:59so there will never be a question of
3:01when my government is ready when my
3:03government wants me to help I will be
3:05there
3:06how has your opinion changed about mr.
3:11Putin since you've been in Russia well I
3:17don't think it really has changed
3:18because the question might presume that
3:22I had a positive opinion at some point I
3:24think everyone would agree probably
3:26including the Russian President himself
3:28that he is an authoritarian leader I
3:31think the Russian government broadly
3:33does not have a good record on human
3:35rights and that hasn't changed how odd
3:38is it to you that while you've been
3:41there consensus here has hardened that
3:45they are the actors who interfered in
3:48our last presidential election I don't
3:53think that's especially surprising there
3:56was a story published in The New York
3:59Times actually reporting on a study in
4:02February of 2018 and was also done in
4:05the Washington Post a few months prior
4:07to that about the record of electoral
4:10interference and they looked at the
4:12history of Russia and the Soviet Union
4:15and an electoral and town interference
4:17by intelligence agencies and they found
4:19I think 30
4:20different cases of electoral
4:23interference over roughly the past 50
4:25years but then they also looked at the
4:27United States intelligence services and
4:29found that we hit enter feared in
4:31foreign elections 81 different times now
4:35this is not to say one is better than
4:37the other it's not about that it's about
4:38budget about it's about capability but
4:41we do what we do see from this is that
4:44what happened in 2016 actually was not
4:47unusual from the perspective of
4:49intelligence agencies this is what they
4:52believe are they are hired to do what we
4:55have to do is find out how to secure our
4:58systems against the attacks that we know
5:01are inevitable something you've been
5:04asked before something you have answered
5:06before but since this is a fresh
5:08occasion we'll we'll ask it again why
5:11not stay in this country and face the
5:14music if you believed in the strength of
5:17your conviction this is a great question
5:21Brian and I'm glad you asked it when we
5:25say face the music the question is well
5:27what song are they playing I was
5:30intentionally charged as every major
5:33whistleblower in the last decades has
5:35been with the very particular crime this
5:40is a violation of the Espionage Act of
5:421917 and and this is a law that is
5:47explicitly designed to prohibit a
5:50meaningful defense in court this is
5:53applied or this law is used against
5:56people who's the only thing that they've
5:59done and this is by the government's own
6:00terms the only thing the government
6:02accuses people defending themselves
6:04against this charge I have done is that
6:08they have told something to a journalist
6:11that the government considers classified
6:13that is the whole of the crime they
6:17don't consider whether it was good or
6:18bad they don't consider whether or not
6:20it caused harm simply did you tell
6:22something classified to a journalist if
6:24you did the jury is not allowed to
6:27consider in fact they're explicitly
6:29forbidden from considering why you
6:32journalists they're explicitly forbidden
6:35from considering did it result in a
6:37public benefit right did it further the
6:40public interest instead they simply say
6:42did you tell a journalist not the
6:43classified so I am NOT if I had stayed
6:46in the United States and my good friend
6:48Daniel Ellsberg by the way that has told
6:50me that I was right not to stand and
6:54wait for an inevitable arrest because
6:56the laws and the way they're enforced
6:58today is not the same as the 1970s when
7:01he came forward with the Pentagon Papers
7:02I would not have received a fair trial
7:06there would not have been much of a
7:08trial at all I would only have received
7:11a sentencing and the question there is
7:15what message does that send whether you
7:18like me or not I could be the best
7:20person in the world I could be the worst
7:21what message does a conviction where you
7:24spend the rest of your life in prison
7:25for telling journalists things that
7:28change the laws of the United States
7:30that have resulted in the most
7:33substantive reforms to intelligence
7:34authorities since the 1970s if the only
7:40result of doing that is a life sentence
7:44in prison the next person who sees
7:46something criminal happening in the
7:47United States government will be
7:49discouraged from coming forward and I
7:51can't be a part of that where do your
7:54parents come down on what you did in the
7:56book we learn a lot more than we knew
7:59about them they were both we say this in
8:02quotes deep Staters we learn that they
8:04both had varying degrees of security
8:07clearances in their lives yeah I come
8:13from a federal family my father worked
8:16for the military my mother works for the
8:17courts my whole line going back has
8:21worked in the in the government service
8:23so I think this was difficult for them
8:26and in fact one of the things that I
8:29will be eternally grateful for is the
8:31fact that they still stand by me today
8:34and believe that I did the right thing
8:36were they present for your wedding
8:39you've gone and gotten married in the
8:40years since we've last spoken
8:45there hasn't been a wedding yet actually
8:48we were married but it was just a
8:51paperwork exercise in a courthouse
8:54because Lindsey and I had been living
8:56together we had been in love with each
8:59other we had been in a relationship for
9:01more than ten years there will be a
9:04wedding someday Brian and I hope you'll
9:06be there what do you make of Donald
9:08Trump there are so many things that are
9:16said about the president right now and
9:19so much thinking and honestly I try not
9:21to think about it there's so much chaos
9:24and there are so many aggressive and
9:27offensive things said I think even his
9:30supporters would would grant that but I
9:33think he's actually quite simple to
9:35understand Donald Trump strikes me like
9:39nothing so much as a man who has never
9:43really known a love that he hasn't had
9:45to pay for and so everything that he
9:47does is informed by a kind of
9:49transactional ism I think and what he is
9:52actually looking for is simply for
9:54people to like him unfortunately that
9:56produces a lot of negative effects do
9:59you believe he is a threat to national
10:00security I mean this is the question of
10:07who defines national security what is
10:10national security when we used to talk
10:12about national security we thought about
10:14public safety but now national security
10:17really means the security of the system
10:20itself the institution of government and
10:23I think he's made it his stated goal to
10:26change the way that system works I think
10:30we have seen tremendous harm done to
10:32civil liberties in the United States
10:34increasingly since September 11th and I
10:36haven't seen any reduction in the rate
10:38of that we have several important jobs
10:43vacant in this country including
10:45director of national security national
10:48security advisor is that a threat to our
10:52security
10:56I think it really says something about
11:03where we are what this point in our
11:05history looks like when we find that
11:10there are not enough people in the
11:11country that are willing not serve in
11:14the White House and and qualified to
11:16serve in the White House who all sides
11:18of the government feel comfortable
11:20working with and who they can back we
11:23are in a time that is increasingly
11:24fractured and I think that's a product
11:27of the fact that look if you look around
11:28at the world right now when you look at
11:30news when you look at news coverage when
11:32you look at every controversy that we
11:33see something has changed and that is
11:38that it has become increasingly popular
11:40for your feelings to matter more than
11:45the facts and I think that's toxic to
11:47animosity because if there's one thing
11:49that we have to have to be able to have
11:52this discussion to be able to learn to
11:54live with people that we disagree with
11:56we can't have a conversation about what
11:59we should do we can't have a
12:02conversation about where we are going if
12:06we can't agree on where we are if we
12:08can't agree on what is happening facts
12:11have to matter more in the feelings
12:14you've said your greatest fear over what
12:18you did was that things would not change
12:21have things changed would you do it
12:25again today knowing what you know now
12:29this is a significant portion of the the
12:32final chapter of my book things have
12:37changed and I would do it again if I
12:39changed anything I would hope that I
12:41could have come forward sooner it took
12:44me so long just to understand what was
12:46happening and it took so long enough to
12:49realize that nobody else was going to
12:51fix this believe me when I say I did not
12:57want to light a match
12:59and burn my life to the ground no one
13:00does nobody really wants to be a
13:04whistleblower but the results of that
13:08have been staggering I thought this was
13:10gonna be two days to worry I thought
13:12everybody was gonna forget about this a
13:13week after the journalist ran the first
13:17stories in 2013 but here we are in 2019
13:20and we're still talking about it in fact
13:22data security surveillance the Internet
13:25manipulation and influence that's
13:28provided or produced rather by a
13:30corporate or governmental control of
13:33this permanent record of all of our
13:37private lives that's been created every
13:39day by the devices that we have before
13:442013 if you said there's a system that's
13:46watching everything you do the
13:47government is collecting records of
13:49every phone call in the United States
13:51even for those people who are not
13:52suspected of any crime it was a
13:54conspiracy yes there were some people
13:56who believed it was happening yes there
13:58were academics who could say this was
13:59technically possible yes there were
14:01technologists who could went this is
14:04something that could be done but what we
14:08didn't have it was we the world of 2013
14:14we suspected some suspected that this
14:17was happening the world after 2013
14:20we know that it's happening and this is
14:23the critical importance of journalism
14:24particularly this moment that we have
14:25today
14:26the distance between speculation and
14:28fact is everything in a democracy
14:32because that's what what lets us as we
14:35did post 2013 change our laws at the
14:38very first program that was real to
14:40newspapers I has since been terminated
14:42Barack Obama who criticized me so
14:44strongly in June of 2013 by January of
14:472014 was proposing that this program be
14:50ended eventually it was ended under the
14:52USA Freedom Act the NSA argued that mass
14:57surveillance was legal bulk collection
14:59as they call it they said 15 different
15:04judges authorized this what they didn't
15:07tell us was that those 15 judges all
15:10belonged to the rubber-stamp FISA Court
15:13that over 33 years had been asked thirty
15:15three thousand nine hundred times by the
15:17government to prove surveillance
15:19requests and only said doe in 33 years
15:23eleven times now this was a court that
15:27was never designed to interpret the
15:29Constitution right it was never designed
15:31to create novel powers for the
15:34intelligence community
15:35it was just designed to stamp basic
15:37routine warrants now we know what has
15:42changed the very first open court
15:44outside of these secret rubber-stamp
15:46courts that got this case in front of
15:49them I was judge Leon I in a federal
15:52court and then a court of appeals said
15:55that the NSA's mass surveillance
15:57activities were violating even the very
15:59loose standards of the Patriot Act they
16:01broke the law he further said these
16:03programs are likely unconstitutional and
16:07this would not have happened if we
16:11couldn't say this is real this is
16:13actually happening and I just want to
16:15make clear that's not me saying that
16:17that's not speculation that was the
16:20determination of the Supreme Court just
16:22a few months before I came forward in a
16:25famous case Amnesty versus clapper I I
16:28believe it was in February of 2013 or
16:30door December of 2012 all the way to the
16:36Supreme Court these surveillance
16:37authorities were being challenged the
16:39plaintiff said the government has a mass
16:41surveillance program it has impacted
16:43this human rights organization they have
16:45been spied on in secret by the
16:47government the government said that may
16:50be but if it's happening we will neither
16:53conform confirm nor deny that it's
16:56happening it is a state secret and
16:59because you can't prove it
17:02the court should be forbidden from
17:04ruling on the constitutionality of this
17:06program and sadly the Supreme Court of
17:08the United States agreed they said this
17:10program could be unconstitutional but if
17:13you cannot prove it exists we cannot
17:16evaluate it
17:16that's what 2013 changed on the legal
17:21side we have now had the GDP or we have
17:24firt had the first
17:25in regulations that are trying to limit
17:29the amount of data that can be collected
17:31secretly and used against populations
17:33broadly and we have also seen the basic
17:35structure of the Internet itself change
17:38in response to this understanding that
17:41the network path that all of our
17:44communications cross when you request a
17:47website when you send a text message
17:48when you read an email for so long those
17:52communications have been electronically
17:54naked or unencrypted before 2013 more
17:58than half the world's internet
18:00communications were unencrypted now far
18:04more than half are measured by just web
18:07traffic from one of the world's leading
18:09browsers the Google Chrome browser some
18:12figures showed it more than 80 percent
18:15the entire world has changed in the last
18:19few years it hasn't gone far enough the
18:21problems still exist and in some ways
18:23they've gotten worse but we have made
18:26progress that would not have been
18:27possible if we didn't know what was
18:29going on related question what today can
18:32the government do to your phone and your
18:37laptop the phone and laptop of any
18:39American what's the extent of the
18:42government's reach if they're determined
18:44to reach into your life we could talk
18:50about this question for hours Brian but
18:53we don't have time so I'll try to
18:55summarize hacking has increasingly
18:59become what governments consider a
19:01legitimate investigative tool they use
19:03the same methods and techniques as
19:05criminal hackers and what this means is
19:07they will try to remotely take over your
19:09device once they do this by detecting a
19:14vulnerability and in the software that
19:16your device runs such as Apple's iOS or
19:19Microsoft Windows they can craft a
19:22special kind of attack code called an
19:24exploit they then launch this exploit at
19:27the vulnerability on your device which
19:29allows them to take total control of
19:31that device anything you can do on that
19:33device the attacker in this case the
19:36government can do they can read your
19:38email the
19:39and collect every document they can look
19:41at your contact book they can turn the
19:43location services on they can see
19:45anything that is on that phone instantly
19:48and send it back home to the mothership
19:50they can do the same with laptops the
19:53other prong that we forget so frequently
19:55is that in many cases they don't need to
19:57hack our devices they can simply ask
20:00Google for a copy of our email box
20:03because Google saves a copy of that
20:05everything that you've ever typed into
20:07that search box Google has a copy of
20:09every private message that you've sent
20:11on Facebook every link that you've
20:13clicked everything that you've liked
20:14they keep a permanent record of and all
20:18of these things available not just to
20:20these companies but to our governments
20:22as they are increasingly deputized as
20:24sort of miniature arms of government
20:26what about enabling your microphone
20:29camera if you can do it they can do it
20:35it is trivial to remotely turn on your
20:38microphone or to activate your camera so
20:42long as you have systems-level access if
20:44you had hacked someone's device remotely
20:47anything they can do you can do they can
20:51look up your nose right they can record
20:53what's in the room the screen may be off
20:55as it's sitting on your desk but the
20:58device is talking all of the time the
21:01question we have to ask is who isn't
21:03talking to even if your phone is not act
21:05right now you look at it it's just
21:07sitting there on the charger it is
21:10talking tens or hundreds or thousands of
21:13times a minute to any number of
21:16different companies who have apps
21:19installed on your phone it looks like
21:21it's off it looks like it's just sitting
21:23there but it is constantly chattering
21:25and unfortunately like pollution we have
21:28not created the tools that are necessary
21:30for ordinary people to be able to see
21:33this activity and it is the invisibility
21:36of it that makes it so popular in common
21:38and attractive for these companies
21:40because if you do not realize they're
21:43collecting this data from you this very
21:45private and personal data there's no way
21:47you're going to object to it what about
21:50its ability to track its own
21:53and talk to me specifically about the
21:56case of Jamal khashoggi so in the case
22:02of Jamal khashoggi
22:03this is a Washington Post reporter and a
22:06primary critic of the Saudi regime he
22:13was ward
22:15into the Saudi Arabian consulate in
22:19Istanbul in in Turkey
22:21and while his fiance waited outside for
22:24him to get the paperwork he needed in
22:27order to marry her he was murdered by
22:30the Saudi government allegedly on the
22:33orders of the Crown Prince now we have
22:39to ask ourselves how did the Saudi
22:41government decide that he was worth
22:45killing how did they decide when and how
22:47they would kill him how did they know
22:49this opportunity was going to arise how
22:51do they know what his plans and
22:53intentions were that they needed to stop
22:55from their perspective we don't have
22:59evidence that his phone personally was
23:02hacked unfortunately because we do not
23:04have his phone but we do have the phones
23:09and his friends who were living in exile
23:11in Canada and we do know thanks to the
23:13research of a group called the citizen
23:15lab affiliated with a university in
23:17Canada that their phones were hacked
23:20which means their conversations with
23:22Jamal khashoggi were intercepted and
23:24this allowed the Saudi regime to know
23:27that he was intending to create an
23:29electronic protest movement they didn't
23:33need to know from his friend's phone or
23:36even from his phone that he was
23:38travelling to the consulate because he
23:41had to make an appointment but it did
23:43tell them his private intentions his
23:47hopes and dreams for a different
23:49government for their country and perhaps
23:51although we do not know for sure on that
23:53basis they decided to murder him once
23:57your phone is hacked what is in their
24:02hands is not simply your device it is
24:04your
24:05future it's important also to remember
24:08how did the government of Saudi Arabia
24:11manage to hack these people's phones
24:13which are modern phones well they didn't
24:17have this capability in their government
24:20they didn't have this level of
24:21intelligence capability available to
24:24them directly so they purchased it from
24:27a digital arms broker a company called
24:29the NSO Group an Israeli company in this
24:33company the only thing they do is
24:35manufacture digital weapons kind of
24:38hacking tools they can be used against
24:40the critical infrastructure that all of
24:42us rely on the phones and our pockets
24:44they primarily target devices such as
24:47the Apple iPhone and they sell this
24:50capability to break into phones of
24:52people around the world for millions and
24:54millions of dollars to some of the worst
24:56governments on earth and the only
24:58meaningful oversight that they have
25:00unfortunately because the export control
25:03laws for these kind of digital weapons
25:04are extremely weak in Israel is their
25:08own internal ethics board this is oh it
25:11was fine we didn't break any norms that
25:13has to change what about the public
25:16attitude held by millions of everyday
25:20Americans all I've got on a computer is
25:25pictures of my family CCTV cameras that
25:30are prevalent in a ton of American
25:34cities and overseas capitals those
25:36cameras are your friend if you're
25:38innocent and have nothing to hide
25:43well I'd say that's very much what the
25:46average Chinese citizen believed or
25:49perhaps even still to this day believes
25:51but we see how these same technologies
25:54are being applied to create what they
25:56call the social credit system if any of
26:01these family photos if any of your
26:03activities online if your purchases if
26:05your associations if your friends or in
26:08any way different from what the
26:10government or the powers that be of the
26:11moment would like them to be you're no
26:15longer able to purchase train tickets
26:17you're no longer able
26:18to board an airplane you may not be able
26:20to get a passport you may not be
26:22eligible for a job you might not be able
26:24to work for the government all of these
26:26things are increasingly being created
26:29and programmed and decided by algorithms
26:32and those algorithms are fueled by
26:34precisely the innocent data that our
26:38devices are creating all of the time
26:39constantly invisibly quietly right now
26:44our devices are casting all of these
26:50records that we do not see being created
26:54that in aggregate seemed very innocent
26:58you were at Starbucks at this time you
27:01went to the hospital afterwards he spent
27:04a long time at the hospital after you
27:06left the hospital you made a phone call
27:08you made a phone call to your mother you
27:11talked to her until the middle of the
27:12night the hospital was an oncology
27:15clinic even if you can't see the content
27:19of these communications the activity
27:21records what the government calls
27:23metadata which they argue they do not
27:26need a warrant to collect tells the
27:31whole story and these activity records
27:34of being created and shared and
27:36collected and intercepted constantly by
27:39companies and governments and ultimately
27:42it means as they sell these as they
27:45trade these as they make their
27:47businesses on the backs of these records
27:49what they are selling is not information
27:52what they're selling is us they're
27:55selling our future they're selling our
27:57past they are selling our history our
28:00identity and ultimately they are
28:03stealing our power and making our
28:06stories work for them what devices do
28:10you use in your life now and have you
28:14accepted the notion that you are watched
28:18rather constantly well probably every
28:25intelligence the world is definitely
28:26targeting me and try to learn anything
28:28they can just as they did with Jamal
28:31Kosh
28:31in regards to what are my plans and
28:34intentions I try not to make that easy
28:37for them if I get a smartphone and I
28:41need to use a phone I actually open it
28:44up before I use it I perform a kind of
28:46surgery on it to physically desolder
28:49or sort of melt the metal connections
28:53that hold the microphone on the phone
28:55and I physically take this off I remove
28:57the camera for the phone and then I
28:58close it back up I seal it up and then
29:01if I need to make a phone call I will
29:03attach an external microphone on and
29:05this is just so if the phone is sitting
29:08there and I'm not making a call it
29:10cannot hear me now this is extreme most
29:14people do not need this but for me it's
29:17about being able to trust our technology
29:20my phone could still be hacked my laptop
29:24could still be hacked and just as I told
29:25you before the same principles applied
29:27to me if it is hacked they can do
29:30anything to the device that I can do so
29:33my trust in technology is limited but
29:35just because that's how it is today
29:37doesn't mean that's how it has to be and
29:40a large majority of my work with the
29:42freedom of the press foundation where I
29:43serve as president of the board is
29:45dedicated to trying to make technology
29:48more secure to try to create programs
29:50and protocols by which we can make the
29:55communications of sources and
29:58journalists more confidential because if
30:01we lose the confidentiality between
30:03sources and journalists we lose access
30:05to those essential facts that let us
30:07understand what's happening in the world
30:09and unfortunately under this White House
30:11just like under the prior White House we
30:14see the sources of very important
30:16stories that have advanced the public
30:18interest facing retaliation from a very
30:22angry government I believe it's in the
30:25first half of the book and I'm
30:26paraphrasing you come out and just say
30:29the computer guy knows everything or at
30:32least he should
30:34what part computer guy are you were you
30:37and what part trained spy
30:44well for the vast majority of my career
30:46I was what was called a systems engineer
30:49or a systems administrator an
30:52administrator sort of maintains and
30:54expands a system that they have
30:56inherited and the systems engineer sort
31:00of develops new projects new
31:02capabilities for these systems roles
31:05what this means in short was that all of
31:09the systems the NSA and the CIA that I
31:11was put in charge of I had total access
31:14to and this is just what happens with
31:18the systems administrator when you think
31:19about a computer system who gives
31:21someone else access well someone has to
31:24be the original authority that has
31:26access to everything that was me and so
31:30I would say the computer guy knows
31:32everything that's not a boast that's
31:35simply the way these systems are
31:37designed that that's the way they're
31:38structured and this is very much a
31:42vulnerability because it means that you
31:44have to trust this this administrator
31:47will work to the good of the users but
31:51what happens when the people using that
31:53network the people constructing that
31:55network are going against the benefit of
31:58the broader society and this put me in a
32:01very interesting kind of conflicted
32:03position I could do what the NSA wanted
32:06me to do or I could do what the
32:08Constitution of the United States that
32:09the public of the United States needed
32:12me to do which was report that my agency
32:16had broken the law do you regard
32:18yourself as a journalist these days I'm
32:24not I'm not I have tremendous respect
32:26for journalists but I try to keep a
32:28distance particularly in this moment
32:31where so much of journalism is coming
32:32under attack because the government has
32:34a tremendous incentive to discredit me
32:37to make people distrust me and so if I
32:40hold myself out if I start reporting
32:42stories if I start talking to sources if
32:45I try to start advancing what the public
32:49knows on a personal level my reputation
32:52could could sort of poison the well
32:54instead I keep a distinction what I do
32:56is I try to
32:57made the work of journalism but I'm not
33:00myself a journalist your book is highly
33:02personal tell us about the price your
33:05then girlfriend now wife paid for your
33:10actions and how you feel she was miss
33:12portrayed in the eyes of the world when
33:16we got that first kind of thumbnail
33:18sketch of who she was so in the wake of
33:25the revelations of mass surveillance in
33:282013 this was suddenly the world's
33:32biggest story in every country they were
33:34talking about the same thing and
33:36unfortunately that meant that everyone
33:37who was connected to me in some way they
33:40were also talking about because they
33:41were trying to say who I was where I
33:45came from and this unfortunately meant
33:49that Lindsey my lifelong partner was
33:55intensely investigated both by the FBI
33:58in the United States she didn't know
34:00what I was doing I could not tell her
34:03what I was doing because if I had they
34:06would have said she was an accessory to
34:07the crime they would have said she was
34:11part of a criminal conspiracy so long as
34:13she didn't immediately pick up the phone
34:14and say help help someone's talking to a
34:16journalist and so this meant that I
34:20couldn't tell her she learned about what
34:22was going to happen the same way
34:25everybody else did or rather what is
34:26happening the same way everybody else
34:28did she saw me on TV which probably
34:31makes me the worst boyfriend in the
34:32history of the United States but she
34:35stuck by me and we are reunited and
34:38together today and I will never be able
34:41to repay her for the faith that she's
34:44shown me but the media had a tremendous
34:50amount of salacious reporting when they
34:53realized that she taught toll pole
34:55fitness classes which are quite popular
34:58for within these days they called her a
35:00stripper even though she's never been
35:02one even though she's a poet even though
35:05she's a photographer
35:06they sexualized her they focused on her
35:08body they focus on her image
35:10because that's what got attention she's
35:12a much more complex and deep figure than
35:15the media ever gave her credit for she
35:17is more brave then anyone can possibly
35:22understand and she's more political and
35:25intelligent than any of these reporters
35:29at the time could appreciate her
35:31politics in fact influenced mine and I'd
35:35like to think I learned as much from her
35:37or perhaps even more than she ever
35:41learned from me you paint a portrait of
35:44what some of us knew and that was that
35:46you were a thoroughly American kid in
35:49your upbringing you wake up every day in
35:53Russia you go to sleep every night in
35:56Russia are you actively seeking to get
36:01out are you as has been reported looking
36:04for asylum elsewhere well this is not an
36:10actively seeking this is not a new thing
36:12and this is important history especially
36:15for those people who don't like me for
36:17those people who doubt me who have heard
36:19terrible things about me it was never my
36:21intention to end up in Russia I was
36:24going to Latin America and my final
36:26destination was hopefully going to be
36:27Ecuador when the United States
36:29government heard that I had left Hong
36:32Kong where I met the journalists they
36:34canceled my passport they gave press
36:37conferences about it which meant I
36:38wasn't allowed to board my ongoing
36:40flight which was going to take me that's
36:43a Latin America rather than applying for
36:46Russian asylum rather than saying I'll
36:49play ball with any Russian intelligence
36:51service just please protect me I said no
36:53I will not cooperate with the Russian
36:55government or any government instead
36:58what I did as I was trapped for 40 days
37:01in an airport I don't know a year
37:03longest layover is but 40 days was that
37:05was a tough stint I applied for asylum
37:08in 27 different countries around the
37:10world
37:10traditional US allies places like France
37:12and Germany places like Norway that I
37:16felt the US government in the American
37:19public could be
37:20comfortable that was fine for
37:22Whistleblower being and yet every time
37:24one of these governments got close to
37:26opening their doors the phone would ring
37:29and they're in their Foreign Ministries
37:31and on the other end of the line would
37:33be a very senior American official it
37:36was one of two people then Secretary of
37:38State John Kerry or then Vice President
37:40Joe Biden I mean they would say look we
37:43don't care what the law is we don't care
37:45if you can do this or not we understand
37:47the protecting whistleblowers and
37:48granting asylum as a matter of Human
37:50Rights and you could do this if you want
37:52to but if you protect this man if you
37:56let this guy out of Russia there will be
37:59consequences
38:00we're not gonna say what they're what
38:02they're gonna be but there will be a
38:04response I continue to this day to say
38:08look if the United States government if
38:11these countries are willing to open the
38:14door that is not a hostile act that is
38:16the act of the front of a friend if
38:18anything if the United States government
38:20is so concerned about Russia right
38:22shouldn't they be happy for me to leave
38:25and yet we see they're trying so hard to
38:28prevent me from leaving I would ask you
38:30why is that
38:31I'm guessing Joe Biden is not your
38:34candidate for 2020 actually I don't take
38:40a position on the 2020 race look it's a
38:44difficult position being in the
38:47executive branch it's a difficult
38:48position being in power and you have to
38:50make unpopular decisions I would like to
38:55think having seen now in 2019 that all
38:58of the allegations against me did not
39:00come true national security was not
39:03harmed as a result of these disclosures
39:05but they did win the Pulitzer Prize for
39:08public service journalism the laws were
39:12changed as a result the courts said
39:14these programs were unconstitutional we
39:17live in a safer and more secure world
39:19because the Internet is safer and more
39:22secure as a result of understanding
39:24these common vulnerabilities which not
39:26just US intelligence agencies we're
39:28exploiting but our adversaries were
39:30exploiting when we close these hole
39:33we do not become more vulnerable we
39:36become more secure in 2013 it's fair to
39:40say some of these officials some of
39:42these candidates can grow well the
39:44intelligence services are saying this
39:46guy's dangerous they're saying this is a
39:47risk they're saying this shouldn't have
39:48happened in 2019 we can see that no
39:52evidence has ever been presented that
39:57the public understanding mass
39:58surveillance is real has caused any kind
40:01of harm whatsoever no one has died no
40:04terrorist attacks have succeeded because
40:06we knew about this stuff these programs
40:09work regardless of whether or not you
40:11know about them but we have seen the
40:14public benefits substantiated year after
40:18year after year and so I'd like to think
40:20these people would re-evaluate their
40:21position you know there are government
40:23officials who would push back very
40:25strong on your assertion that national
40:27security was not harmed you do you chose
40:30not to stop with your revelations at
40:34what was being done to Americans and you
40:37got into America and its allies and
40:42perceived enemies when we're looking at
40:48the reports that were published in 2013
40:51it's important to understand
40:52I never published a single story the
40:55number of documents that I revealed is
40:58zero what I did was I collected an
41:01archive of material showing criminality
41:03or unethical or unconstitutional
41:05behavior on the part of the United
41:07States government I provided this
41:09archive to journalists who were required
41:13as a condition of access to this
41:14material not to publish any story
41:17because it's interesting they could
41:19publish no story simply because it's
41:21newsworthy they were only allowed as so
41:24far as the agreement went to publish
41:26stories that they were willing to stand
41:27up and say we're in the public interest
41:29to know and this is not some crazy
41:32fly-by-night organization these are
41:33newspapers like the Washington Post like
41:37the New York Times like The Guardian and
41:40in every case this process was followed
41:43now as an extraordinary check on top of
41:45in case I went too far in case I
41:48collected a document that was too hot or
41:51I misunderstood things so the jernt the
41:53journalists misunderstood things the
41:55journalists were further required to go
41:57to the government in advance of
41:59publication and they were required to do
42:01this at my request and warn the
42:04government this is the story that we're
42:06gonna run this is what it's about this
42:08is what we're gonna say so the
42:10government could argue against it to
42:12create an adversarial check on what the
42:15journalists and I were trying to do to
42:17reconstruct the system of checks and
42:19balances in the United States that it
42:21itself failed in the government you know
42:25because that process was followed so
42:27scrupulously that's why I am so
42:29confident that no harm happened no harm
42:32occurred now if there are those in the
42:34government that say harm took place if
42:36there are those in the government who
42:38say people have died I ask you this why
42:41haven't they proved it you know better
42:43than anyone Brian that these government
42:46officials are more than happy to pick up
42:48a phone and make a leak to the New York
42:50Times every day of the week if they had
42:54some evidence that somebody was hurt if
42:56they had evidence that a terrorist
42:57attack got through because of this
43:00journalism it would be in the front page
43:01of every newspaper in the world and
43:03despite six years of history that's
43:08never happened describe your life today
43:12what is every day like how are you
43:15supporting yourself and and as a simple
43:19equation if the Russians have reached so
43:21effectively into our lives and our
43:24electoral systems they must be all over
43:26your life so that was several different
43:32questions but yeah I'm sure the Russian
43:34government is trying to spy on me I'm
43:36sure the United States government is
43:37trying to spy on me everyone's trying to
43:39spy on me the thing is I don't cooperate
43:41with them my allegiance is to my country
43:45my allegiance is to my Constitution now
43:49in my terms of my daily life it's
43:52actually pretty ordinary Oh which is to
43:53say it's not so interesting
43:55I've always been something of an indoor
43:57cat
43:57right um nightclubs and partying my life
44:01since I was a child has always been
44:02mediated by a screen um that's my choice
44:05so not much actually changes in my
44:08day-to-day whether I'm living in New
44:09York or Berlin or Moscow in terms of my
44:13work which a lot of people are curious
44:15about this I think is a polite way of
44:17people asking do you work for the
44:19Russian government do you accept money
44:21from the Russian government you know are
44:22you living in Russian government housing
44:23are you in a bunker are there guards and
44:26of course the answer to all of these is
44:27no no I'm not what I do for a living is
44:35speak professionally and now I'm
44:38actually an author I have a speaker's
44:40bureau it's called the American program
44:42Bureau and you can call them and you can
44:44book a public event I speak at
44:46universities I speak at corporate events
44:48I speak at cybersecurity conferences to
44:51talk to people about what is happening
44:53on the internet what is the future of
44:56surveillance and how can we protect
44:58ourselves I'm very fortunate to have had
45:00that opportunity and it's meant that
45:03I've had a quite comfortable life and in
45:05quite a difficult position the former
45:08White House a HR Haldeman left us with
45:11an expression for the ages and when he
45:14said you can't put the toothpaste back
45:16in the tube for Americans who feel that
45:20that this is just a behemoth that they
45:25could there's no way they could have any
45:27control over it for Americans who long
45:30ago decided we're just going to have to
45:33live with this surveillance how could it
45:35possibly be receded or rescinded or
45:39stopped we can stop a program we can
45:48thwart an attack we can make a device
45:51more secure but as you imply the system
45:57is still better the institutions and
46:00agencies and companies that produced
46:02these attacks that are creating new
46:04methods of spying every day will still
46:06be there the fundamental change
46:09not just in the United States but around
46:11the world that has to happen is we have
46:14to stop thinking about the limitations
46:16on how data is used as data protection
46:21regulations right now when we talk about
46:24what Google and Facebook are doing right
46:26now when we talk about what the NSA is
46:27doing right now when we talk about what
46:30rival governments are doing what the
46:31Russians are doing what the Chinese are
46:33doing what the North Koreans and the
46:34Iranians are doing we're constantly
46:36thinking about all right this data has
46:38been collected and these companies have
46:41it how do we regulate their use
46:45regulating the use is a mistake we
46:50should do that but that's the wrong
46:52focus it is the collection of data that
46:56is a problem when you start trying to
46:58regulate use you're going the collection
47:01has already happened
47:01the collection was already legal one of
47:04the fundamental flaws in u.s. privacy
47:07legislation is the fact that we are one
47:10of the only advanced democracies in the
47:11world that does not have any basic
47:14privacy law whatsoever we have the
47:16Fourth Amendment of the Constitution
47:17which is the reason that I came forward
47:19but that restricts what the federal
47:22government can do that restricts what
47:24the state governments can do it doesn't
47:27restrict what companies can do and as
47:29you know as everybody knows these
47:32companies are playing a bigger and
47:33bigger part in the world today we have
47:37to say all of these records that they're
47:39creating about all of us all this
47:41control that they're developing from
47:43these surveillance programs whether
47:45they're saying they're doing it for
47:46targeting advertisements or whether
47:48they're doing it for targeting killings
47:51these records belong to the people that
47:55they are about not to the companies and
47:59this is a fundamental change that we
48:01have never discussed in a meaningful way
48:03broadly and publicly but we have to
48:06because all of these governments have
48:09said you know the the mass surveillance
48:11system why do we have it why is it
48:14useful they say because of terrorism
48:16they say it's saving lives they save its
48:18presidenting attacks but no less than
48:21Barack Obama
48:22and the response to the 2013 revelations
48:25created two independent Commission's to
48:28investigate exactly the answer to that
48:30question were these programs effective
48:32in stopping terrorist attacks did these
48:34revelations cause harm to national
48:36security it was called the privacy and
48:38civil liberties oversight board and the
48:40president's review group on intelligence
48:42and communications technologies and
48:44despite having an enormous budget
48:47despite having complete access to
48:49classified information despite the fact
48:51that they interviewed the heads of the
48:52FBI the NSA the CIA you know the full
48:55alphabet soup they found in the
48:58government's own words the kind of mass
49:02surveillance that's represented by this
49:05bulk collection program where the NSA
49:07was secretly collecting the phone
49:09records of every American and everybody
49:11else around the world every day under an
49:14authority provided by a secret court
49:15order that nobody even knew existed that
49:19program had never made their own words a
49:21concrete difference in a single
49:24counterterrorism investigation think
49:27about that more than 10 years of
49:28operation and secret never made a single
49:30concrete difference these programs mass
49:34surveillance is not about public safety
49:36it is not about terrorism it is about
49:40power
49:41it is about economic espionage it is
49:44about diplomatic manipulation and it is
49:46about social influence it is about
49:50understanding the actions of everyone in
49:53the world as carefully as they can no
49:57matter who they are no matter how
49:58innocent their life final question has
50:02to do with the Fourth Amendment we have
50:04it today because mr. Adams and others
50:07wanted to keep the British out of their
50:10homes and their horse carriages what
50:14would mr. Adams and the founders make of
50:17the reach of the government in your view
50:20into our lives given its humble
50:24beginnings
50:28I think if any of the founders of this
50:30country looked around today they would
50:32be shocked by the kind of rhetoric they
50:34hear and they would be shocked by the
50:36kind of activities of government they
50:37see if you read the Bill of Rights
50:40something that struck me when I was
50:42writing about it and in this book was
50:46that fully half of the first ten
50:50amendments are explicitly making the
50:53work of government harder they're making
50:55life for law enforcement officials
50:58harder and all of the founding fathers
51:01thought that was a good idea because
51:03they recognized the more efficient a
51:06government is the more dangerous it is
51:09we want a government always that is not
51:12too efficient we want a government
51:14always that is just efficient enough
51:18because government holds extraordinary
51:21power in our lives we want government
51:24always to be using their powers in a way
51:26that is only necessary and proportionate
51:30to the threat presented by whoever it is
51:32that they're investigating when the
51:34government is getting by by the skin of
51:36their teeth the people are free right
51:39the government should be afraid of the
51:41people people shouldn't be afraid of the
51:43government one of the ironies about the
51:46founding fathers for those who are
51:48skeptical of me which is fair again I
51:50don't want you to trust me I want you to
51:52doubt me I want you to question me but I
51:54want you to look at the facts I want you
51:57to look beyond how you feel in the
51:58moment how we all feel in the moment and
52:01see what these stories said in 2013 see
52:05that the courts of the United States
52:08where I'm being charged as a criminal
52:10said that the government itself was
52:12engaged in criminal activity look at
52:15these things and then remember the
52:17people who founded this country were
52:21called traitors the signing the writing
52:26of the Declaration of Independence was
52:29an outrageous act of treason it was
52:32criminal but it was also right the
52:36question whether or not I broke the law
52:38is lest it
52:39and less interesting than whether you
52:42think what I did was right or wrong what
52:45is legal is not always the same as what
52:47is more final prediction then we'll let
52:50you go nightclubbing and that is do you
52:53predict do you predict you will at some
52:57point live out your life and die in the
53:00United States I think I will return when
53:06we look at the kind of things that we're
53:09being said about me in 2013 the kind of
53:11hostility I face the kind of accusations
53:13I faced from the most senior officials
53:15in government and we look at the world
53:17today yes there are many still who don't
53:20like me but far far fewer because we
53:23have seen that all the harms that they
53:25alleged over the course of these years
53:26never came to pass
53:28they were never substantiated because
53:30they don't exist but the benefits are
53:33becoming more clear with each passing
53:35year the question that I think people
53:37have to answer whether you like me as
53:40person or not right whether you agree
53:43with how I did what I did whether you
53:47agree with the work of the journalists
53:48who decided what the public should know
53:51in order to cast their votes today you
53:55know the government broke the law today
53:57you know the United States government
53:58had broken that violated the
54:00Constitution and the rights of people in
54:02this country and around the world would
54:06you rather not know thank you and
54:10Snowden thank you very much good luck
54:12with the book it's my pleasure Brian
54:16thank you for having me
54:17hey there I'm Chris Hayes from MSNBC
54:19thanks for watching MSNBC on YouTube if
54:21you want to keep up to date with the
54:22videos we're putting out you can click
54:23subscribe just below me or click over on
54:26this list to see lots of other great
54:27videos

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Edward Snowden On Privacy, Threats To Democracy and Trump, Full Interview Sept 2019 MSNBC by David Getoff, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 8,443 words across 1,232 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.