YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Edward Snowden: The Virtual Interview - The New Yorker Festival

Edward Snowden: The Virtual Interview - The New Yorker Festival — Transcript

by The New Yorker · 12,098 words · 1,734 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01we've got the pleasure of being able to
0:03show a short trailer from an
0:05extraordinary new film that had its
0:07World debut last night at the New York
0:09Film Festival about Edward Snowden it's
0:11called citizen 4 it's directed by Laura
0:15patus and it will have a theatrical
0:17opening Elsewhere on October
0:2024th uh the new yorker's wonderful
0:23writer George Packer has a piece about
0:25it in the upcoming issue and it's up
0:27online now the film is I saw it last
0:30night full of amazing real-time footage
0:33inside the hotel room in Hong Kong where
0:36Snowden patus and two other reporters
0:38were H up for days before his escape to
0:41Moscow one small piece of news is the
0:45Revelation that isolated though Mr
0:47snowden's existence has been in Moscow
0:49it just got a little less so starting in
0:52July um he uh was joined by his
0:55girlfriend then who's been living with
0:57him and it may be um the most watched
1:01Russian romance in Exile now since I was
1:04thinking since Julie Christie joined Dr
1:06shivago so uh so let's look at the
1:10trailer and then we'll plunge into the
1:18interview
1:19Laura at this stage I can offer nothing
1:22more than my
1:23word I am a senior government employee
1:26in the intelligence Community I hope you
1:29understand that contact ing you is
1:30extremely high
1:32risk for now know that every border you
1:34cross every purchase you make every call
1:37you dial every cell phone tower you pass
1:40friend you keep site you visit and
1:43subject line you type is in the hands of
1:45a system whose reach is unlimited but
1:47whose safeguards are not in the end if
1:50you publish The Source material I will
1:52likely be immediately
1:54implicated I ask only that you ensure
1:57this information makes it home to the
1:59American public
2:00thank you and be careful citizen
2:044 so I don't know anything about you
2:07okay um I work for uh Sor I don't know
2:11who your name oh sorry I uh my name is
2:14Edward Snowden uh I go by Ed um Edward
2:18Joseph snowden's the full name
2:22[Music]
2:31so I think citizen 4 is amazing in
2:34capturing in real time what was going on
2:36in that Moscow hotel room and I think
2:39one thing it may put to bed are any um
2:42concerns that some people have had
2:44critics have had that Edward Snowden
2:46might be a spy with some kind of
2:48Nefarious na master plan because you see
2:52this scramble in this this hotel room
2:54that that made me want to ask my first
2:57question which was um it's it's seemed
3:00like the planning for Distributing this
3:03information to the reporters was very
3:06careful that you did you had three
3:08backups three reporters there'd be
3:10backups and uh you took precautions on
3:13on how to cover the security for that
3:16but it was almost as if there was no end
3:18plan beyond that for yourself um and so
3:23it it seemed when you first arrived you
3:25were talking about you know you were the
3:27one who was going to be nailed to the
3:28cross and that was you were ready to
3:30deal with it um but eventually as the
3:34days went on it seemed like there was
3:36possibility that arrived for escape and
3:40and maybe an a a way out of that box you
3:42were in in that room so what I wanted to
3:44know was what was in your mind what was
3:47your
3:48original uh you know game plan in terms
3:51of where you thought it would end then
3:53and did new things open up while you
3:56were there that that offered you maybe a
3:58way out
4:00so I would say uh first off can you hear
4:02me yes I can can you hear out there okay
4:07so what I would say
4:10is when I look back on that period And I
4:13look about at at everything that
4:16happened and how complex it was and how
4:18everybody was working you know
4:19incredible amounts of time the
4:21journalists uh to get this out to
4:23coordinate with uh the National Security
4:25Agency other intelligence Community
4:27agencies to basically make sure that
4:30nobody was going to be inappropriately
4:31harmed no one was going to be put at
4:33risk by this um we were kind of
4:37overcome with a sense that there wasn't
4:40enough time to do anything and this was
4:42going to continue and continue and
4:43continue and this was a feeling that
4:46they were new to but had been consuming
4:49me for quite some time because going
4:52forward
4:55uh you know I had to recognize that this
4:58was something of which I was only a very
5:00small piece I was the mechanism of
5:03presenting information that been had
5:05been concealed from the American people
5:07that we needed to know we had our most
5:09senior officials um in government
5:11whether it was James Clapper the
5:13Director of National Intelligence Keith
5:14Alexander former director of the NSA
5:17they were giving sworn statements in
5:18front of Congress that were false uh and
5:21we have video of that now I can look
5:22back it's it's not really a question of
5:24dispute but when it gets to that level
5:28of severity
5:30now when the the consequences for our
5:32democracy are so great somebody has to
5:33step forward but as far as what happens
5:36to them that's an open question that
5:38they cannot answer so when I discussed
5:40this with the journalists I I told them
5:42that my plan was not to decide for
5:45myself what should happen but to ask the
5:47world for justice and go look are these
5:50programs consistent not only with
5:52national laws but with International
5:54laws how does it fit into a larger
5:56system and what should happen uh and it
5:58turned out that there were human rights
6:00lawyers who were uh very concerned about
6:03the things that had happened and they
6:04began to advise me and we moved forward
6:06from there so so when you first went
6:09there did you think you would be
6:10arrested probably um and then and then
6:13it seemed possible that maybe you could
6:15get the the some sort of um
6:19Asylum the most likely scenario was
6:21always that I would be arrested and that
6:23I would get sent to jail I don't think
6:25anybody on the team um whether it was
6:27myself whether it was the lawyers
6:28whether it was the journalist
6:30uh had even imagined the situation would
6:32turn out like it eventually did um I
6:35mean we were talking about some of the
6:37greatest and most sophisticated
6:38intelligence actors in the world um the
6:41world's sole superpower uh and a number
6:45of officials very powerful officials who
6:47were personally embarrassed when it was
6:49revealed that you know they had
6:50oversight over these things and they had
6:53sort of abdicated that role they had
6:55given up on controlling these programs
6:57and just said look don't tell us about
6:59about it we don't want to know about it
7:00we don't care who it affects we don't
7:02care about what impact it has on our
7:04system uh just keep it out of the public
7:09domain uh so yeah I I
7:14think the most real moment where the
7:17fact that we had passed the Rubicon
7:19become became absolutely clear to me was
7:23when uh Laura patus sat down in front of
7:26me and she turned the camera on it was
7:28me and Glen Greenwald he was doing the
7:29initial vetting which was actually a lot
7:31more like a cross-examination he's uh
7:34he's he's pretty aggressive when it
7:35comes to to interviewing somebody and
7:38uh we both immediately stiffened we
7:41froze up we looked at each other and you
7:43know it was it was very clear that you
7:46know there's there's no going back you
7:48know the only way we can move at this
7:50point is forward and simply do the best
7:53we can to make sure that all of our
7:54actions from this point forward serve
7:56the public interest I guess I mean the
7:58reason I ask is there been people who've
8:00said to me sometimes well why didn't he
8:03um decide to just you know uh do this
8:07act of Civil Disobedience and then pay
8:09the consequences you know have be
8:12arrested fight your fight in the courts
8:15be like you know Martin Luther King in
8:16the jail and in writing from from uh
8:20Montgomery um did you did you ever
8:23contemplate possibly a scenario in which
8:25you might face American Justice like
8:27that well absolutely but I mean the
8:30question there was would the American
8:32justice system be open to that and I
8:35looked at other cases uh previously from
8:37Thomas Drake uh you know Chelsea Manning
8:39all of the former whistleblowers um even
8:42people who weren't brought in front of
8:43Courts uh you know in the same man or
8:45Bill b uh Kirk weeby Ed Lumis but when
8:49we go back to Daniel ellsburg uh you
8:51know many many years ago we saw that he
8:54had the opportunity to stay free while
8:56he was in trial you know he could go on
8:58the news he could go go to an open court
9:00he could make uh the case in front of
9:02the jury you know that what he did was
9:06uh he he took his actions to Champion
9:09the public interest but in in my case
9:12and all of the cases of the last decade
9:14we've seen that the way uh the way the
9:17law is being used in uh whistleblowing
9:19cases has changed um you're actually
9:22forbidden now from making a public
9:24interest defense if you're charged with
9:27uh under the Espionage Act which are the
9:28charges they brought against me uh every
9:30country in the world actually recognizes
9:32the Espionage Act as what's called a
9:34political crime which means it's not
9:37extraditable um and that it's not
9:39considered a actually a legitimate
9:42charge um and that's because the crime
9:46that they're saying they the victim is
9:48not an individual like assassination is
9:50not actually considered a political
9:52crime because the victim is a person
9:54it's an individual it's someone who can
9:55be harmed a political crime is what they
9:58call uh an act that's taken against an
10:00actual State not individuals but the
10:03state itself not a nation but the
10:05institutions of State when you're
10:07challenging policies when you're
10:08challenging laws and normally whenever
10:10these cases happen you're allowed to
10:12address the jury you're allowed to say
10:14you know we may disagree and you may
10:16find me guilty you may say you know I am
10:18a criminal I deserve to go to prison but
10:20you'll allow me to make my case um it's
10:24critical to remember that there were no
10:26whistleblower protections that would
10:27cover me as a private contract trctor um
10:30there were no proper channels through
10:32which I could have reported these
10:33concerns to individual uh independent
10:35actors who could review it and change
10:37these all of the channels led to the
10:39officials who actually authorized these
10:42programs in secret without public
10:44consent and without public knowledge and
10:46that's a really serious concern because
10:48when we think about the way government
10:50works in America the way democracy Works
10:53in America and more broadly liberal
10:55societies function around the world they
10:58function on the of the consent of the
11:00Govern and you know consent is not
11:03meaningful if it's not informed if
11:05officials are making decisions for us
11:08behind closed doors they're authorizing
11:10operations on the decisions of secret
11:13courts where the judges on those courts
11:15are all appointed by a single individual
11:18at this time Justice John Roberts um and
11:21they all say you know this is okay this
11:23is okay this is okay but the minute
11:26these issues hit the newspaper yeah turn
11:29up
11:29uh the minute these issues hit the
11:31newspaper um we see something completely
11:35different the president himself comes
11:37out on stage and says you know what
11:38these conversations have made us
11:40stronger all of the review boards that
11:42are instituted find that these programs
11:45are not only dangerous to our civil
11:47liberties to the rights that we've
11:49inherited and to our constitution as a
11:51document but that they're also not
11:53necessary that they've never stopped
11:54even a single terrorist attack but you
11:57you basically felt the American system
11:59didn't really offer a possibility at
12:01this point for speaking out and having a
12:04fair trial and being able to put this
12:06argument across I guess and well the key
12:09there is that that decision wasn't
12:10actually made by me personally that was
12:12made by lawyers um I've told the
12:14government again and again in
12:15negotiations you know that if they're
12:17off they're prepared to offer an open
12:20trial a fair trial in the same way that
12:22Dan ellor got and I'm allowed to make my
12:24case to the jury I would love to do so
12:26oh really they deine but they won't
12:28assure you that you'd have an open trial
12:30it would be in some kind of um I know in
12:32the Drake trial want use special
12:34procedures basically they want to close
12:36Court they want to use things called
12:37like classified information protection
12:39act like this right and then they use
12:42sound machines to silence the person so
12:45the jury couldn't nobody could the
12:47public couldn't hear what he was talking
12:49about at that point so is that was you
12:51were afraid that there would be some
12:52kind of screening out of what your your
12:54arguments would be right we saw this in
12:56the Thomas Drake case this was a classic
12:58whistleblower you actually wrote an
13:00article about him I believe so you
13:01should be fairly familiar with the case
13:03and he exposed classic waste Fraud and
13:05Abuse you know these were classic um
13:09basically inarguable public interest
13:12issues but they tried to Railroad him
13:14you know they limited the arguments he
13:16could make they limited the evidence
13:17that he could PR present uh and they
13:19tried to put him in jail without anybody
13:21knowing him without it being able to be
13:22a public issue because reputations were
13:26off the line not just reputations of
13:27individuals but reputations of agencies
13:30and that's a concern because what we
13:32begin to
13:33see is what we saw last year when when
13:36James Clapper raised his hand you know
13:38and swore to tell the truth and then he
13:40told a lie in front of Congress is
13:43that's a felony that's punishable by I I
13:45believe between five to seven years in
13:47prison uh but he faced no consequence he
13:50didn't face even a slap on the wrist so
13:52how do you account when when we when we
13:55hold basically our most Senior Elite
13:58officials to one standard of behavior
14:00but we hold the working level people you
14:02know the whistleblowers to a completely
14:04different standard is it another another
14:06form of too big to jail
14:09too you know I I I think there there is
14:12some level of Truth to that uh and and
14:14the reality is that I wanted to rely on
14:17the people to make the decisions about
14:19what should happen and Asylum claims
14:20were a great way to litigate that while
14:23the US government you know decided how
14:24it really felt about these issues um
14:29but uh I think the too big to jail thing
14:32is something that we see spreading
14:33throughout society as you mentioned it's
14:35not just in the National Security sector
14:37we see it in the banking sector
14:39and I mean I part of the reason I wanted
14:42to go over this ancient history was that
14:43that the film I think which I hope
14:46people see is is is really fascinating
14:48but you can see it's this changing
14:51evolving situation that's sort of
14:54extraordinary um and and and one of the
14:57things that came out of it which has
14:59caused I think you a lot of um of uh you
15:02know tough questions from people was
15:04that you ended up first year in China
15:07and then you end up in Moscow neither of
15:10which country is famous for its civil
15:13liberties and so I think that's putting
15:16it graciously okay and so because of
15:19that I think people have you know they
15:22they've they've certain it's certainly
15:24made people wonder well why why those
15:27choices and I I think what I took away
15:30from watching the movie was that it was
15:32this just kind of crazy work in progress
15:34but I I I wanted to know I I I assume
15:37from maybe it was from greenwald's book
15:39that you chose Hong Kong because it has
15:42a tradition of Asylum um and that and
15:45that Moscow it seems was hopefully a way
15:48station is that is that fair to say well
15:50so I never planned to stay in Moscow I
15:52was actually just transiting I had a
15:54ticket uh on a plane that was actually
15:56headed to Latin America there were
15:58journalists on the plane took pictures
15:59of my seat because the a flot I guess
16:01leaked my seat number
16:04um a little bit of irony there uh but
16:09what happened was after I departed uh
16:11after I departed Hong Kong the state
16:13department froze my passport so when I
16:15landed in Russia I wasn't able to leave
16:18um I didn't at the same time want to put
16:20in an asylum claim I wanted to continue
16:22and you know I wondered about that I
16:24wondered about the reasoning uh for the
16:26state department why why they would want
16:28me to be in Russia particularly when on
16:30TV at the time they were saying you know
16:32this guy knows all this information he's
16:34got millions of documents which was
16:36actually not true um I had actually
16:38destroyed my the documents that I held
16:40after I turned them over to the
16:42journalists um and I I I was asking
16:47myself why was this happening and then
16:48you know the more I talked to uh people
16:50in the civil liberties community and the
16:52activist Community about what was going
16:53on the clear it became that this was
16:55actually a political strategy um I had
16:58told the government you know that that I
17:00wasn't going to to be trying to to
17:02Blackmail them to do anything like this
17:05um and they believed me and they
17:07realized that by putting me in Russia
17:10they actually diminished my voice and
17:11they they enabled a very powerful attack
17:14that would not be going away because so
17:16formerly I worked for the Central
17:18Intelligence Agency undercover overseas
17:21so I I know a little bit about how this
17:22works if I had been the director of CIA
17:25or the FBI or the NSA you know sitting
17:27at the National Security Council round
17:29table at the White House in The
17:30Situation Room going you know how do we
17:33get this guy the very best thing they
17:36could have done was allowed me to
17:38transit in Latin America because the CIA
17:41has a very powerful presence there and
17:42the governments and the security
17:44services there are relatively much less
17:47capable than say Russia who you know
17:50nobody would be surprised to know has
17:51been in the spying game for quite some
17:54time so why did they stop me from going
17:58someplace that they could have basically
17:59snatched me and then put me on a boat
18:01and and and rendered me to whatever fate
18:03they they thought was appropriate and
18:05instead kept me in the place where it
18:07would be the most difficult for them to
18:08get me and that's a question where I'm
18:10not sure we'll ever get a uh an official
18:13answer uh you know a written answer but
18:16I think it's important to look at that
18:17and and question why why would that be
18:19in the government's interest what were
18:21they really trying to do there um one
18:23thing that's also somewhat I think um
18:26less well known about that period was
18:29when it was uh when it was leaked that I
18:32was considering going to Latin America
18:35trying to to find some method of getting
18:37there uh to depart Russia and the
18:40Bolivian president Abel Morales had been
18:44at a diplomatic Summit in Moscow to
18:46discuss a gasy or something like that he
18:48made publicly a uh claim where he said
18:51he'd be willing to consider granting me
18:53Asylum and this was when it was the
18:54issue of the day and the News was
18:56covering it uh and amazing ly when his
19:00plane departed and I was still stranded
19:02at Shero Moscow
19:05airport uh his plane was grounded the
19:09airspace of I think three countries um
19:12Italy France and Spain was closed to his
19:15plane specifically which is actually a
19:17violation of uh international law
19:18because it's a diplomatic flight
19:20carrying a head of state and he was
19:22forced to the ground uh and when he got
19:25on the ground in Austria uh the American
19:28Ambassador was there and uh you know
19:31there's a lot of things and it turned
19:32out they wanted to search the plane to
19:34see if I was on
19:37board so it was really there were there
19:39were some unprecedented activities that
19:41happened to keep me uh from departing R
19:44get off the subject of Moscow and but I
19:46I just curious do you feel safe there um
19:51my my thinking has really Advanced uh
19:53anyone who sees the documentary will
19:55will realize that
19:57uh you know as you said there wasn't a
19:59plan my whole mission was to get this
20:02information back to the public once that
20:03was done I didn't really think about
20:06what was going to happen to me you know
20:07everybody hopes for a happy ending but I
20:09I didn't plan it out I didn't have this
20:11you know great
20:12Mastermind uh strategy I just hoped for
20:15the best and I hoped that the public
20:17would understand why I did what I did um
20:20and we could get a a resolution that
20:23society as a whole would agree
20:24on on that on that the but to nowadays
20:29as I've done more and more and I've seen
20:31how people have responded to this and
20:34how important our rights are to people
20:36uh even when they're constantly coming
20:38under threat from new and new uh new and
20:40new policies and prerogatives from
20:41government and it's important for people
20:43to remember this is not just about the
20:44United States governments around the
20:45world are engaged in this kind of
20:46behavior and we really have to push back
20:49is that if something happens to me
20:52personally in the pursuit of my work
20:54that's something that I have to be
20:55willing to accept or I'll never have the
20:58impact that that I want to have you know
21:00I have to be willing to take risks and
21:03accept the fact that you know I'm one
21:05small guy I'm an ordinary person in an
21:09incredibly unusual circumstance and
21:12there's no way I'm going to be safe uh
21:15but you know the work is worth
21:17it well this is one of the questions
21:20that I had and when we asked for
21:21questions from the audience they had is
21:23about the work being worth it and um I
21:27think you know people wonder how you
21:30feel about the incredible sacrifice
21:33you've made um most people think that
21:37living in Hawaii with a high-paying job
21:40and a nice house and girlfriend it might
21:43have been sort of Nirvana and it's you
21:46made an unusual Choice um and so the
21:49question is whether it has been worth it
21:52and whether the country has responded in
21:55the way that's made it worth it um
21:57you've said it at various points that
22:00your greatest fear would be that people
22:03wouldn't care and that there might be
22:04apathy in the face of these Revelations
22:07so are you feeling that you're getting
22:10the reaction that has made it worthwhile
22:13um so
22:14far for me it was never about you know
22:17dictating outcomes it was never about
22:19saying what would happen it was about
22:21getting the information back to people
22:23so they could decide if it matters and
22:25decide if they care about it and on that
22:27uh on that account on that question I
22:29think um I could not have been more
22:32wrong in thinking that people wouldn't
22:34care I mean we've seen an extraordinary
22:36debate uh all of the uh polling of
22:38opinions show that people care more
22:40about their civil liberties now than
22:42they ever have um in the post 911 period
22:46um and it's because we thought about you
22:49know these things and we realized they
22:51were possible but they were abstract
22:53they seemed a little bit like conspiracy
22:55theories we didn't honestly imagine that
22:58you governments out there were
22:59collecting all of our emails collecting
23:01all of our phone calls and and actually
23:03analyzing them to understand what we're
23:05doing and when we found out that that
23:07was in fact the case I think that
23:09changed the game for a lot of people and
23:11since then we've seen all of these
23:13reform bills proposed in Congress uh
23:15we've seen bills already pass in the
23:17house um the judicial branch which has
23:20for years and years and years said that
23:23um you know we can't decide these issues
23:25we've got to defer to the executive
23:27branch on the state Secrets privilege
23:30and we can't actually discuss whether
23:32this is constitutional or not um because
23:35it's simply too dangerous uh but after
23:37seeing you know the white house uh
23:39appointed review boards that had
23:42complete unrestricted access to
23:43classified information and they found
23:45that hey you know these programs have
23:46actually never stopped a terrorist
23:48attack they've never shown any concrete
23:50value at all um you know all the
23:54branches of government pay attention to
23:56this kind of thing and Society more
23:57broadly notices this the very first open
24:00court to consider the constitutionality
24:02of these programs said it was likely
24:05unconstitutional and this is after years
24:07of secret courts saying you know we're
24:09not even going to consider the
24:10constitutionality of the questions we're
24:12just going to approve the program um and
24:16you
24:16know the president of the United States
24:19of America got up on stage and he said
24:21we need to make reforms we need to
24:23change the way this is done um and
24:25although he hasn't gone as far as you
24:27know I necessarily think
24:29uh would be important that's not my
24:31decision to make and for him to say this
24:33is a debate that makes this country
24:36stronger I think is very important for
24:39everybody who believes that our rights
24:40matter that our constitution matters and
24:42that intelligence agencies even if they
24:44have good intentions can go too far and
24:48when they violate the constitution on a
24:50massive scale that matters and people
24:52need to be held to account for it I I
24:54mean it's interesting that you you talk
24:56about how the president said this is a
24:58debate worth having but meanwhile we had
25:00the National Security Community saying
25:02that the that these disclosures had just
25:04done egregious harm at first and they
25:07seem to have backed off of that somewhat
25:09in more recent times have you have you
25:11noticed a little bit of retrenchment
25:13there I have i' I've noticed it and it's
25:16extraordinary I think um some level of
25:20explanation to that is the people making
25:22those statements were the officials who
25:24were personally implicated in
25:25authorizing the programs um when Keith
25:28Alexander who oversaw you know the this
25:30massive um unrestricted drag net of
25:34Americans Communications being monitored
25:37uh he said this will cause grave and
25:40irreversible harm to National Security
25:42but then he was pushed out of the agency
25:44and replaced with the new director of
25:46the National Security Agency Michael
25:47Rogers and he said from his chair and
25:51again he's on top of the National
25:53Security Agency he doesn't see the sky
25:55falling you know this is not so serious
25:57we will continue to do necessary work
26:00and we will continue to succeed and
26:02remember I was an analyst at the
26:04National Security Agency on top of an
26:06engineer I actually used these systems
26:09for monitoring targets uh so I was aware
26:13generally uh I think much more so than
26:15the the average commentator about where
26:17the lines could be drawn uh and where
26:20would be going too far and exposing
26:22things that could actually cause real
26:23harm and I tried my best to do that at
26:26the same time I recognized that you know
26:29nobody sees the full picture I have my
26:31own biases I am fallible I could make
26:33mistakes and draw you know that that
26:35balance wrong and that's the reason I
26:37have never published a single document
26:40uh about the National Security Agency I
26:42haven't revealed any news or new details
26:45I've instead trusted that entrusted that
26:48to American journalists and said look
26:51you guys are the ultimate Guardians of
26:54the public interest when the system
26:56breaks down you are the fourth state
26:59that helps us write the ship you know
27:02you you Veer us back on track so what I
27:04want you to do is look at these think
27:07very hard about what in these documents
27:09would serve the public interest for us
27:11to know and what goes simply too far and
27:14then beyond that add an additional layer
27:16of checks by Consulting with the
27:18government to ensure that maybe there's
27:20some information in those documents that
27:22you can't recognize the importance of
27:24and give them an opportunity to say you
27:26know hey this will put some at risk
27:28don't print this and in every single
27:31case where the government's made uh
27:32presented some kind of compelling
27:34argument there we've seen that happen
27:36and in other cases where the government
27:37simply made an empty claim the Press has
27:39gone you know we appreciate your input
27:42but the public really needs to know
27:43about that and I think that's the reason
27:45that the story is won the pullit
27:46surprise for public service ha have you
27:50um in in when you made this Handover of
27:53the material to the three reporters that
27:55you chose to work with did you dis- us
27:58where you would draw that line and and
28:01have they at any point disappointed you
28:03of any of the disclosures from your
28:05standpoint gone too far I know that I
28:08asked this because um I think there was
28:10one comment that I I read about from
28:12Bill Benny um who is a national security
28:16analyst um cryptographer I think you
28:19would know better than I these I'm this
28:21definitely in over my head on these
28:22issues um but um he did say that he felt
28:26that some of the disclosures about had
28:28gone too far yeah I I actually remember
28:30that uh that quote
28:32and Bill since then has said you know
28:35the the reporting that came out at that
28:37time um was a little
28:40mischaracterized heard it was not quite
28:41accurate because it was described as uh
28:45I think as he heard it as revealing
28:47penetrations the NSA had into Chinese
28:49military institutions and things like
28:51that and that was in fact not accurate
28:53um it was about penetrations into public
28:55universities into hospitals into to
28:58critical infrastructure um that doesn't
29:00just put people overseas at risk it puts
29:02Americans at risk because we've seen a
29:06lot of stories where some people would
29:07say it's about uh foreign spine for
29:10example there was one where it was found
29:12the National Security Agency use
29:14executive authorities uh those are
29:16authorities that are not authorized by
29:18law um they're simply the President says
29:21let's do this and they do
29:22it uh to hack in to the private networks
29:26of American companies which in itself is
29:29legally questionable um and provide
29:33themselves uh secret access to the
29:36networks of I I believe it was Google
29:38and uh Yahoo it could have been could
29:40have been other companies um but it's
29:45these kind of things where the NSA
29:47Justified it as saying well these
29:48actions took place overseas but they're
29:51affecting American companies on which
29:54hundreds of millions of Americans
29:56Communications Transit every day
29:58um and it's happening without the
30:00awareness of Congress because spining
30:03programs that happen that are authorized
30:05under executive authorities are not
30:07required to be presented to the
30:09Congressional oversight committees and
30:11you know not everyone is aware about
30:12that um but that creates real blind
30:15spots in our methods of governance when
30:17it comes to spying and if we don't know
30:19about that if we simply say because this
30:22happened outside the borders of the
30:24United States we should never know about
30:26it um we exposing ourselves to a lot of
30:29danger of intrusion and abreg and
30:31erosion of our rights because we live in
30:33an interconnected world you know
30:35American Communications do not stop at
30:37the border you hit websites overseas you
30:40buy services and products overseas um
30:43and your Communications even if they're
30:44going from Utah to Maryland can actually
30:47travel all the way around the world
30:49before they make that trip so we we have
30:52to be really careful about how we draw
30:53that and while the question that you
30:55asked more specifically was do I agree
30:58with all of the stories that the
30:59journalists have presented um I don't
31:02you know I would draw those uh those
31:04lines a little differently and I think
31:05much more conservatively than some of
31:07the journalists have had but it's not my
31:10place to decide what should be published
31:12and what shouldn't and that is the role
31:13of our press and our representatives in
31:16Congress so in drawing the line is your
31:19standard um basically protecting lives
31:24sources methods those kinds of th those
31:27s sorts of um lines or how how do you it
31:31you have such an incredible mass of
31:34information how how would you decide
31:36what what where to draw the line between
31:39security and secrecy on it well the
31:41ultimate question is the public interest
31:43does this make a difference is it
31:45something that the public needs to know
31:46to make an informed decision about the
31:49policies and prerogatives of our
31:50government um if it's about secret
31:52programs that affect our rights that
31:54affect our economy and things like that
31:57um that could cost American jobs that
31:58could cost American lives uh we need to
32:01be careful about how we handle that
32:02information um but at the same time we
32:05have to know about something if the
32:07trend is likely to cause more damage in
32:09the future than if we didn't know about
32:12it and allow these programs to fester in
32:13the dark without our knowledge and
32:15consent um it seemed like one of the
32:18issues that came up um that's mentioned
32:20in the film that troubled you um was the
32:24information you began to get about the
32:26US drone program
32:28um was there a
32:31particular tell me reason just I'm
32:34curious about what you saw that made you
32:37think that there were concerns people
32:39should have do you feel it's too
32:40secretive and the public needs to be
32:43have more buy into it or uh there should
32:45be more transparency about the
32:47casualties or it what what was it that
32:50you were looking at that worried you
32:53ultimately uh what concerned me what
32:55really made me me cross the line between
32:57going this is a a concern and this is
32:59something that actually moves people to
33:01action uh it provided me with a duty to
33:05act to stand up and say something about
33:06this um was the deception of government
33:09officials I mean we can have secret
33:13programs um you know the American people
33:15don't have to know the name of every
33:17individual that's under investigation we
33:19don't need to know the technical details
33:21of absolutely every program in the
33:23intelligence Community but we do have to
33:26know the and Broad outlines of the
33:30powers that our government is claiming
33:31broadly and how they affect us and how
33:34they affect our relationships overseas
33:36because if we don't you know we are no
33:39longer citizens you know we no longer
33:41have leaders we're subjects and we have
33:44rulers democracy is about participation
33:48and if we're denied the information that
33:50we need in order to vote about the
33:51policies that we want in this country
33:53and the boundaries of our rights that we
33:55as a people think are appropriate um
33:59we're no longer really free uh we're
34:01beginning sort of a descent into a less
34:03free less liberal and more authoritarian
34:06society and when that that descent
34:09begins um it's very difficult to reverse
34:12you know when the government claims a
34:13new power when the government institutes
34:15a new program uh it's very difficult to
34:18get them to give it up regardless of
34:20whether it was legal regardless of
34:21whether it was lawful for example uh in
34:24the Bush Administration we had a
34:26warrantless wiretapping program that was
34:28uh it was unlawful the doj agreed that
34:30there was no uh there was no statutory
34:32constitutional basis authorizing the
34:34program um and that it should be shut
34:37down uh when that happened however uh
34:40what we actually saw was despite the
34:43fact that the program was considered
34:45unconstitutional the doj said they
34:47wouldn't back it the president uh had
34:50his um his cabinet go to the Director of
34:54National Security time Michael Hayden in
34:56secret uh ask him would he authorize the
34:59program without a statutory basis if the
35:02president requested it and he thought
35:04about this and this is detailed in a
35:06classified document called the inspector
35:08General's report on stellarwind
35:09published in the Washington Post last
35:11year uh and he said yes regardless of
35:14whether it had a statutory
35:16constitutional basis if the president
35:17requested it he would do it um and that
35:20is that's that's really the challenge
35:22what happens when our government uh when
35:24our most senior officials use secrecy
35:28to unchain themselves from
35:30accountability to law and
35:32democracy um and if we allow that to
35:35happen that's really a road we don't
35:36come back from well I I know that or at
35:40least I've read that in 2008 you were
35:43very hopeful that some of those abuses
35:45of power that took place during those
35:47years in the bush years would be
35:50corrected and we have a different
35:52Administration with a different point of
35:54view that is um at the very Helm of
35:57which is is a constitutional law
35:59professor and so I I I don't I I know
36:03that I don't want to put you on the spot
36:05in a place that's uncomfortably to be
36:07given that you may have to negotiate
36:09with the same Administration but um how
36:12are you I I suppose I wonder how are you
36:15feeling about the possibility that there
36:18really will be reform um within the the
36:21Spectrum as we know it from from
36:23Democrat to Republican in the in in the
36:26US governments
36:29you know regardless of negotiations
36:32regardless of the relationship between
36:34myself and the administration whether
36:35it's adversarial or cooperative um
36:38ultimately I don't think it's my place
36:40you know I'm not going to put it upon
36:42myself to advise the president as to
36:43what he should or should not do um
36:45that's a role for the public you know
36:47for our our institutions the press for
36:49us as a community us as a society to
36:52decide what kind of things we believe in
36:54and hold our Representatives to account
36:58in demanding that they actually Champion
37:01those policies as opposed to those which
37:03would be most convenient for them at the
37:05time whether that's politically or
37:07reputationally
37:09um in terms of will we get
37:13reform I think this is the question
37:15that's actually uh not just on the
37:16Public's mind but on historians Minds uh
37:20because when we look at uh the changes
37:23to policy that happened in the Bush
37:25Administration the authorization of
37:26torture um warrantless wire tapping the
37:30unitary executive Theory and basically
37:32the idea that more and more um we as the
37:36soul superpower should begin accepting
37:39ourselves from the rules and standards
37:41of behavior that we set ourselves for
37:43the rest of the world um it's something
37:47that should change uh and if that's the
37:50case when we look at the surveillance
37:52Revelations you know all the things
37:54about Mass surveillance that we learned
37:55in 2013
37:57uh they provide a mandate for Change and
38:02the question is whether or not that
38:03mandate will be used or whether history
38:06will record that as a point where we had
38:07an opportunity to change but our chose
38:11not to do
38:13so people have said that whistleblowers
38:16generally um are moved to disclose
38:19crimes and one of the complicated
38:22situations that you're in is that what
38:25you revealed was not a crime but maybe a
38:28moral or ethical or or political crime
38:31in some ways in in in the way you looked
38:33at it do you feel that that leaking was
38:37um the only form of check and balance
38:39that could have corrected this well
38:42there is definitely a point um in every
38:44institution in every process where the
38:47final check on the abuse of power is
38:50whistleblowing um however I would
38:52dispute that there have been no crimes
38:53shown in fact we've seen serial
38:55violations of law um in the wake of
38:58these uh Revelations we had people
39:00testify to Congress that I believe more
39:01than 12 times NSA employees had used
39:04these surveillance powers to spy on exes
39:06to spy on lovers um and that's a felony
39:10however none of them were prosecuted
39:11because it was considered that the value
39:13of the programs was greater than the
39:16interest of Justice in basically
39:19punishing people who had violated the
39:20law uh the false claims of senior
39:25officials to Congress was probably one
39:28of the most serious crimes uh that a
39:32government official can commit um and
39:34that was only revealed by the
39:36revelations that we saw in the
39:37investigations that followed them up um
39:40beyond that these programs themselves
39:43are
39:44unconstitutional again the very first
39:45judge who who ruled on this found that
39:47they were likely unconstitutional will
39:49go to the Supreme Court and I am
39:50confident that the Supreme Court will
39:52agree that these programs went too far
39:55um the problem with this is and what
39:59critics uh what critics claim the people
40:01who are supporting Mass surveillance
40:03claim is that if these things are
40:05authorized by Statute in this way or
40:07that way or the other the Constitution
40:09doesn't really matter because the
40:11Constitution does not assign penalties
40:14for
40:15violations but our system of government
40:18is founded upon the principle that the
40:20constitution is the supreme law of the
40:22land so when we say that yes a statute
40:25may have not been violated in this
40:27particular instance of this particular
40:29case when you look at the totality of
40:31circumstance it is very clear that
40:35several different amendments of the
40:36Constitution whether it's our right to
40:37freely associate uh under the First
40:40Amendment or the Fourth Amendment um
40:42right to be free from unreasonable
40:44search and seizure uh has been violated
40:46on a massive and unprecedented scale a
40:48system of surveillance that is
40:50unauthorized uh by any kind of
40:51constitutional Authority uh has never
40:54existed in this country in this manner
40:57and we've seen public intellectuals
40:59we've seen lawyers we've seen
41:00Specialists from all areas of society
41:03agree that this is in the that this is
41:05the case and were this not the case were
41:09it found that these programs were indeed
41:11constitutional that this was indeed uh
41:13authorized by Statute and that you know
41:15the government could simply claim simply
41:18invest itself in secret with the power
41:21to watch all of us uh without limit sort
41:24fiveyear records of our behaviors and
41:26you know retroactively investigate us at
41:28will I would argue that it is still
41:32proper and still correct to reveal these
41:33programs because of the strength of the
41:36response ultimately governments exist
41:39for the benefit of the public and if
41:41they are no longer serving our needs if
41:42they are working contrary to the public
41:44interest as opposed to uh working to
41:47further the public interest that's
41:49something that we deserve to know that's
41:50something more than we deserve to know
41:52that we have a right to know and when
41:55officials in the American government are
41:57asked to swear an oath to defend the
42:00Constitution of the United States
42:01against all enemies foreign in domestica
42:02I believe they're bound to stand up and
42:05act when they see this kind of behavior
42:06and do something about it and I could be
42:08wrong and I'm willing to be to to to to
42:11face history's judgment for that but I I
42:14stand by that decision and I think the
42:16reaction of the public the fact that the
42:18internet of the structure uh the
42:20structure of the internet since that
42:22period has changed uh shows that there
42:25is a lot of agreement and am not alone
42:28taking that position it seems Silicon
42:30Valley is to some extent also um trying
42:33to make some changes correct in um
42:35trying to close some of the back doors
42:37that that the government has used to spy
42:40on on us and you know the government is
42:43still arguing that this is going to
42:45cause egregious harm and that they won't
42:47be able to keep people safe um from
42:51they've used you know examples of child
42:53predators and things like that are you
42:55worried at all about whether not they
42:57need to be able to get into people's um
42:59you know Google and uh Yahoo uh Apple
43:04whatever in order to uh keep the public
43:07safe so I I have a a somewhat unique
43:10perspective on this because I was
43:11specifically hired um to basically hack
43:14hackers for the NSA um so I've gone
43:17after hard targets I know how they
43:19operate uh I'm obviously quite familiar
43:21with encryption myself uh given the fact
43:23that the NSA publicly claims they still
43:25have no idea what happened
43:28um but we'll we'll leave that there uh
43:31the reality is that encryption is not uh
43:34something that prevents the
43:37investigation uh that properly
43:39authorized law enforcement investigation
43:42if you are a criminal and you encrypt
43:44your phone uh and I suspect you of a
43:47crime I can go to a judge I can present
43:50uh a showing of probable cause get a
43:52Judicial warrant that will allow me to
43:55use law enforcement tools to to gain
43:57Total Access to your phone um even if
44:00that phone is encrypted even if there
44:02are pictures even if there are messages
44:04on it that are protected by the
44:06strongest encryption that encrypts uh
44:08that exists today uh the key has to
44:12exist somewhere on that phone when the
44:15user the criminal in this case is
44:17viewing those pictures viewing those
44:18documents or they themselves would not
44:20be able to read it uh encrypted data
44:23when it's not paired with the key is
44:24illegible it's uh it's garbage it's it's
44:27junk data so when we're talking about
44:29investigating someone who's using this
44:31information for a crime they're storing
44:33evidence and things like that as soon as
44:35they access that data that data is
44:37available to law enforcement if they go
44:39through proper procedures and use proper
44:41tools to steal the key that is then able
44:44to decrypt that information so beyond
44:47that uh even if encryption were let's
44:50say this uh unbreakable impenetrable
44:53shield uh that law enforcement couldn't
44:55get around on the phone we live in the
44:58cloud era um when you take a picture on
45:01your iPhone it gets uploaded to their
45:03service called the
45:05iCloud that data is not encrypted that
45:08data is available uh to you know Apple
45:11can respond to a subpoena from the FBI
45:13and provide a copy of that when you make
45:16a phone call with an encrypted phone um
45:19the phone records there don't go to
45:21Apple they don't go to Samsung they
45:23don't go to these other phone
45:24manufacturers they go to AT&T they go to
45:27Verizon they go to a Time Warner or
45:29whoever you use for your services for
45:31your your television your internet your
45:32phone um and again these are unencrypted
45:35they're available to law enforcement uh
45:38your phone is only a Gateway into these
45:42uh these different networks the
45:44transmission of information is not
45:46controlled by you you know your phone
45:48can be encrypted all day long but it's
45:51just a Gateway into a Global Network
45:53that's being comprehensively and
45:54sometimes unlawfully monitored in a way
45:57that we've never seen before in human
45:59history so for law enforcement agencies
46:02to complain and say you know we're
46:04concerned we're not going to be able to
46:05to uh to gather information in our
46:09investigations is not just ridiculous
46:11but it's actually offensive because it
46:13implies that they're not more powerful
46:15now than they have been before and when
46:18we look at their classified documents
46:19what they're saying in private as
46:20opposed to in secret which we now have a
46:22rare chance to do we see that they call
46:25today the golden age of signals
46:28intelligence they say we have access to
46:29more information more easily than we
46:32ever had
46:34before okay I have a few questions now
46:37that fall into a category that I know is
46:39not the favorite of anybody at the NSA
46:42where personal is described as or
46:44extroverts are described as the person
46:46when you when you're talking you look at
46:48the other person's shoes right that's
46:50the extrovert um as opposed to your own
46:52and so it's not it's not a place known
46:55for chattiness but I just just wanteded
46:57to ask you a couple sort of mild
46:59questions about your life um one is um
47:02you know what you miss most about
47:04America at this
47:06point I mean the only
47:10question whenever I think about that the
47:12question is you know what what don't I
47:14miss whether it's my family whether it's
47:16my home whether it's my friends whether
47:18it's my work at the agency you know I
47:20was fulfilled and happy I I I think it's
47:22critical to remember that the the
47:25revelations of of last year you know the
47:27actions that I took were not
47:29specifically about surveillance that's
47:31that's a misreading it's not a complaint
47:33about policy it's about the
47:34accountability of government it's about
47:36the relationship between the governing
47:38and those who are being governed and if
47:40we allow that to slip we lose what our
47:42country is so I was willing to make
47:44sacrifices because I wanted everybody
47:46else who I loved and that I had around
47:47me whether they were family whether they
47:49were friends whether they were simply
47:50people who lived in the same country I
47:52did I wanted them to enjoy the same
47:54things you know that we've always had
47:56going for forward that we are beginning
47:57to see come increasingly under
48:00threat uh so yeah I
48:02mean thing things is simple as having uh
48:05my old beat up car you
48:08know there's there's a lot to miss you
48:11know it's a great
48:12country um I wondered after realizing
48:16from watching citizen 4 that you had to
48:19take off without telling um your
48:22significant other Lindsay Mills that you
48:25would not be seeing her Poss possibly
48:27for the rest of your life when you did
48:29get back together was she
48:33mad ah you know I'll leave that to the
48:36investigative journalist to see if they
48:38can puzzle that one out um come on just
48:41a yes she was uh she was not entirely
48:44pleased but at the same time it
48:47was it was an incredible reunion because
48:51um she understood and that that that
48:53meant a lot to me um
48:57so many people from so many parts of
48:59society they go you know they may not
49:02agree with everything that I did they
49:03may not agree with the way I did it but
49:06they do agree with the principle they
49:08believe that in America government
49:09answers to the public and when that
49:12changes it's no longer America so
49:15although she had a very very um
49:18challenging year and I'll leave it to
49:20her to to discuss that when and if she's
49:22ever ready um
49:27it was a meeting I'll never
49:30forget um and can you imagine possibly
49:34staying in Russia
49:40forever I'll do what needs to be done to
49:43to continue my work um at at this point
49:45the issues have so uh vastly
49:49overshadowed um what I do that I feel
49:52like I have a lot more flexibility um
49:54there I have a lot of disagreements with
49:56the policy of the Russian government I
49:57think they do some horrible atrocious
49:59things particularly when it comes to the
50:00right uh to privacy and the manner in
50:03which they go about surveillance the
50:04extent they do that and the way we see
50:06that affecting journalism and public
50:08opinion um
50:11but ultimately I answer to my country
50:14you know and the way things go the
50:16policies of my government uh maybe one
50:19day if I speak fluent Russian you know I
50:21know everything about Russian society
50:22and their politics I'll be able to
50:24engage more more fully but my first Duty
50:26is my own people okay I'm going to ask
50:29you one other question and then maybe go
50:31to the ones from the people in the
50:32audience I I wondered as just because of
50:36the choices you made were so unusual um
50:39to stand up and take these risks what
50:44was there anything in your childhood or
50:46growing up that that you that inspired
50:49you to do this I mean do were there
50:51models in mind or even your own family
50:55or what was it do you think that made
50:57you separate yourself from everyone else
50:59who just kind of keeps
51:00going ahead without doing these things
51:04you know I
51:06think I think nobody really knows you
51:09know none of us are masters of our own
51:11psychology we don't know what shaped us
51:13we don't know what drove us to make the
51:14decisions uh that we made but my entire
51:18family worked for the federal government
51:20uh you know going back to grandparents
51:22and things like that particularly in the
51:23military I signed up for the Army in the
51:25wake of uh the wake of September 11th
51:28and and volunteered to to participate in
51:30the Iraq War because I believed the
51:32claims of our government and that was
51:34something that I think was uniformed
51:36throughout my family so as I became more
51:38and more senior as I as I climbed up
51:40through the ranks as I joined the c i
51:43later worked for the NSA um and I I
51:46gained access to the absolute highest
51:47levels of
51:48classification uh and I realized that
51:51anybody you know could use these these
51:55programs that they had extraordinary
51:57capabilities that nobody knew about them
51:59uh for the public that they had not been
52:01authorized by the public um and the fact
52:05that really pushed me over the edge was
52:08that the people the officials in
52:09government that did know about this were
52:12willing to directly lie to the public
52:16about it um it showed to me that they
52:19were not acting in a manner consistent
52:22with the government that I uh the
52:25principles that I and my family and
52:27everyone else in this country uh swore
52:29their loyalty to if they're going to ask
52:31us to pledge allegiance to the flag
52:33every day in school they had better hold
52:35themselves to the principles that the
52:37Flag represents because if they don't
52:39they're asking for
52:41trouble well I guess they got
52:45it um okay I'm going to read you a
52:47couple questions from the audience some
52:49people um left their names and and some
52:52did not um this is a question from
52:54someone named Ellen corso and she says
52:57in true New Yorker Festival style I do
53:00not actually have a question I would
53:02like to tell you something I just wanted
53:04to say thank you for what you did and
53:06thank you for your sacrifice and I
53:07really appreciate it and I think that
53:09you are a hero and I hope that you were
53:11able
53:12to find
53:15refuge in a more pleasant spot soon but
53:19then she says but maybe I do have a
53:21question how are you supporting yourself
53:25so so there they I've been incredibly
53:28fortunate to have support from so many
53:30people uh from around the world um
53:32whether they're civil liberties
53:33organizations whether they private
53:35individuals whether it's crowdsourcing
53:37donations for my defense funds and
53:39things like that um I'm actually working
53:41on a very significant Grant uh to work
53:45for a foundation creating uh I don't
53:49know how much I I should reveal at this
53:51point because I think they'd prefer to
53:53do it um but to work for the benefit
53:57of the press and journalists who are
53:59working in threatened areas and by
54:01threatened areas I I don't mean just uh
54:03you know the um James Rosen who are
54:06getting their their phone records
54:08subpoenaed by the Department of Justice
54:09I mean people you know in sub Sahar in
54:11Africa I mean people in regimes where
54:13journalists get shot they don't get
54:15indicted um how they can continue their
54:18work uh and it's been incredibly
54:20rewarding um I I'll leave at that and if
54:22I could actually respond to the uh she
54:26called me a hero and I really appreciate
54:30that I supp I appreciate the support
54:32that everyone's given me but I think
54:33it's important that we remember that I'm
54:35an ordinary guy you know I'm not a hero
54:37and I would argue that there are no
54:39Heroes there are people who do heroic
54:42things but when we begin to label people
54:44as Heroes what we're doing is we're
54:46otherizing them we're elevating them
54:48we're putting them on a pedestal and
54:49saying they're different I could never
54:51do that but the reality is you can do
54:53that we can all do that we all have a
54:56line there's a measure of incivility and
54:59inhumanity that we all can tolerate and
55:02then there's One Step Beyond it that we
55:04cannot and all we have to do is
55:06recognize where that line is recognize
55:08what we believe and commit ourselves not
55:11just to believing in it but to standing
55:13for it when it comes under threat thank
55:16you um okay from Ariana Marini she says
55:21a great deal of discussion has gone on
55:23about whether you did the right or wrong
55:25thing Mr Snowden at my college we had a
55:27three-hour panel discussing discussion
55:30regarding whether you are a hero or a
55:33traitor do you ever regret leaking the
55:36NSA
55:37documents no I I have not regretted it
55:40at all I think in fact uh what has
55:43happened since has shown us that it was
55:46critical to do and that had I not done
55:49it personally someone else would have um
55:52the question was not would this be
55:54revealed but when would it be
55:56the public had to know about this um and
56:00there were I know for a fact from my
56:01internal discussions where I I I told
56:03colleagues you know do you see what's
56:05going on do do you know what's going on
56:07here uh you know how do you feel about
56:08this and they were appalled you know
56:10they thought the same thing when they
56:11saw the boundless informant heat map of
56:13B nsa's Global collection that shows how
56:16much we're collecting in what areas how
56:18many Communications we're intercepting
56:19on Americans on Germans on Russians and
56:21so on and so forth which by the way the
56:24NSA told Congress it did not have that
56:26capability and could not do it even
56:28though the tool was available to anyone
56:29with the top secret clearance on the
56:31nsas network
56:34um when they saw that and they looked at
56:37the statistics and they saw that we were
56:39collecting and intercepting and
56:41monitoring more American Communications
56:44than we were Russian Communications you
56:47know people go where did we where did we
56:50misplace our priorities why is this
56:52happening um so it's I don't think is
56:55cont controversial as some commentators
56:58in the media have made it out to be a
57:00lot of what we've seen in the last year
57:02has been opinion shapen you know we've
57:04had a lot of very senior officials going
57:05up on Sunday shows uh giving Anonymous
57:08comments to the Press trying to say hey
57:11this causes damage this causes damage
57:13this causes damage but we've had court
57:15cases we've had independent review
57:17boards which were appointed by the White
57:19House right they're not they're not
57:20appointing adversaries here they're
57:22appointing Partners um uh and people who
57:25have gone before Congress you know these
57:27officials been had been trotted out and
57:30despite full access to classified
57:31information not something you know not
57:34we're not talking about situations where
57:35they've gone we can't tell you about it
57:37because if we made it public it would
57:39cause harm and they've been asked has
57:41this caused any any individual instance
57:43of harm at all can you give us one
57:45example of where this hurt things and
57:47they've never been able to show that so
57:48the question is if this was so damaging
57:52and the government has every incentive
57:55to show us and to make the cas to get
57:57the public instead to back these
57:59programs instead of condemn them and to
58:01get us to give up more of ours to make
58:03these programs more capable more
58:05efficient why have they not done so and
58:07the reality is because it hasn't
58:09happened we have been incredibly careful
58:11and by we I mean myself I mean the
58:12journalists I mean all of the people
58:14involved in the review um including the
58:17government itself because every story
58:19that's appeared in the newspaper the
58:21government has had a chance to review
58:23provide comment on and say look this
58:25goes too far this is going to cause harm
58:28and every story that you've read in the
58:29paper is there because the government
58:31said you know ultimately we're not going
58:33to like this but it's not going to hurt
58:37anything okay this is from Jennifer chow
58:40and she says what are your suggestions
58:41for how people can protect themselves
58:44and their
58:46privacy so this is a uh this is an
58:49incredibly complex topic um because I
58:53understand this on a on a technical
58:54level you know I I could talk for the
58:56next n hours about this and and and
58:58everybody would fall asleep and hate me
59:01um but the the basic principles are
59:04first off we have to Champion reform
59:07domestically and go when we say you know
59:10I don't worry about this I don't have
59:12anything to hide so I'm not afraid of
59:14them you know reading my emails and
59:16collecting all of the books I read at
59:19Amazon seeing all of my friends and when
59:21I call them and where I go and what I do
59:24uh because what you're saying with this
59:26is you're inverting the model of
59:27responsibility for how rights work when
59:29you say I have nothing to hide you're
59:32saying I don't care about this right
59:34you're saying I don't have this right
59:36because I've got to the point where I
59:37have to justify it the way rights work
59:40is the government has to justify its
59:42intrusion into your rights you don't
59:45have to justify why you need freedom of
59:47speech you don't have to justify why you
59:50need the right to be left alone without
59:52any kind of reasonable suspicion or
59:53probable cost uh so we have to establish
59:57that we have to say that we value our
59:58rights and the same rights that we
1:00:00inherited our children deserve to
1:00:02inherit the same way but ultimately we
1:00:05have to remember that political reform
1:00:07in the United States is not going to
1:00:09solve the problem globally because
1:00:11governments around the world whether
1:00:13it's in Europe whether it's in Latin
1:00:14America whether it's in Asia um they're
1:00:17going to have their own National laws
1:00:19and that's you know these these can be
1:00:21terrible governments where they go we
1:00:23don't care about your rights we're going
1:00:24to intercept everything we can so
1:00:26because of that you have to use secure
1:00:28Communications and that's a very complex
1:00:30technical topic but the real key is
1:00:34companies that are willing to
1:00:35collaborate with any government to
1:00:38compromise the security of their
1:00:40products and services do not deserve to
1:00:42be trusted with your data because if
1:00:45they'll do it for one government they'll
1:00:46do it for another government and
1:00:47governments don't play by the same rules
1:00:49they in fact have to because if a
1:00:51government makes an exception for the
1:00:52United States government they'll have to
1:00:54do the same thing for the Indian
1:00:55government the Chinese government the
1:00:57Russian government the French government
1:00:59otherwise they'll be sanctioned in that
1:01:00country you know they'll face some kind
1:01:02of response they won't be able to get
1:01:03license they won't get regulatory
1:01:05approvals uh so when we see things that
1:01:08we've recently seen where senior
1:01:10officials in government uh you know the
1:01:11FBI director the Attorney General come
1:01:13out and they say oh my goodness apple is
1:01:15saying they're going to increase the
1:01:17security of their phones we can't allow
1:01:19that we want to basically mandate that
1:01:21they're going to have to compromise
1:01:23their security their devices um that has
1:01:26incredible mackon effects not just for
1:01:28Apple um but for the country because the
1:01:32same way that nobody's going to put
1:01:34their money in a bank that's most famous
1:01:36for stealing from its clients nobody's
1:01:38going to buy phones from a company that
1:01:40puts in that compromises the security of
1:01:42them so they can be ease dropped on
1:01:44particularly when we talk about a global
1:01:46economy no German is going to buy an
1:01:48American with a back uh with a back door
1:01:51in it that allows anybody to listen in
1:01:54uh when they can buy a Korean phone or
1:01:55or a German fund that does the same
1:01:57exact thing but is actually secure um so
1:02:00that's going to cost us jobs if we don't
1:02:02do anything about it that's going to
1:02:03cost us economic competitiveness and
1:02:05that that's really going to have a knock
1:02:06on effect so you've got to support
1:02:09secure products and services but you
1:02:12also have to have to recognize that some
1:02:15of the technologies that we need have
1:02:17not been developed they have not been
1:02:19popularized they have not been made easy
1:02:21to use and you need to support efforts
1:02:24and Research into those I speak with
1:02:26cryptographers and cryp uh computer
1:02:28scientists every day to try to figure
1:02:30out how we can create solutions to the
1:02:32metadata problem um which is the fact
1:02:36that uh signaling information who you
1:02:40called when you called uh what websites
1:02:43you visit but not necessarily um you
1:02:46know what you said on the phone call
1:02:48that information is very difficult on a
1:02:50technological basis to protect without
1:02:53associating the efficiency cost but we
1:02:55get kind of technical there um but there
1:02:58there are solutions there are ways
1:03:00forward and we need to pursue them we
1:03:01need to work toward them and we need to
1:03:04say that this is an effort worth doing
1:03:06what the last year represented was the
1:03:08atomic moment for computer scientists it
1:03:10was the loss of innocence for a
1:03:13generation of professionals who were
1:03:15creating new advancements who were
1:03:17researching new technologies for that
1:03:20they intended to be used to bring people
1:03:22closer together to create more liberal
1:03:25more inter connected more free societies
1:03:28and we realized that in secret they were
1:03:30being subverted to contrary purposes um
1:03:34and just as with happen just as with
1:03:36happened with physicists I think we're
1:03:38going to see the political rad
1:03:40radicalization of a class of
1:03:42professionals that will be able to I
1:03:44think better protect us as a society and
1:03:47and step us back from the brink of
1:03:50conflict that we had during the Cold War
1:03:52with nuclear weapons that we have today
1:03:55with electronic conflict well another um
1:04:00person who wrote in had a similar
1:04:02question but the it was following up on
1:04:05that what could what can an ordinary
1:04:08person who's not a
1:04:10computer um genius do they want to know
1:04:13what can they do to help further this
1:04:15cause of of more openness in in the
1:04:19country and and pushing back on sort of
1:04:21uh Mass surveillance so do you have any
1:04:24thoughts about what people can do the
1:04:26first thing you can do is search for
1:04:28encrypted Communications programs
1:04:30because what encryption does on a basic
1:04:32level what secure Communications
1:04:34programs do is they simply enforce your
1:04:37rights on the technical level as opposed
1:04:39to the statutory level they make sure
1:04:41that when you're when your um you know
1:04:44when your Communications Transit through
1:04:46Guatemala it doesn't matter what the
1:04:48laws of Guatemala are you will still
1:04:50have your rights protected to the
1:04:51measure that was designed into the
1:04:52program so encryption what is this
1:04:54encryption we're talking encryption
1:04:56we're talking about uh dropping programs
1:04:58that are hostile to privacy for example
1:05:01Dropbox uh get rid of Dropbox it doesn't
1:05:04support encryption it doesn't protect
1:05:06your uh your private um files and use
1:05:10competitors like spyer Oak that do the
1:05:13same exact service but they protect the
1:05:16content of of what you're sharing uh
1:05:18same thing with companies like Facebook
1:05:20with companies like Google they've made
1:05:22strides to increase the security of
1:05:24their programs and they're they getting
1:05:25better than they have been but they're
1:05:28still not safe you know these are
1:05:30dangerous services and you need to use
1:05:32Alternatives that are better encrypted
1:05:34um don't send your texts unencrypted on
1:05:37your iPhone uh use programs like uh red
1:05:41phone like Silent Circle uh anything by
1:05:44Moxy Marlin Spike and open whisper
1:05:47systems uh these are typically free
1:05:50programs uh that are better than what
1:05:52comes standard on your phone and they're
1:05:55safer uh I would say look into these and
1:05:57you know typically they're actually
1:05:58getting much better much easier to use
1:06:00than they used to be you just click on
1:06:01it in the App Store you download it and
1:06:03then you use
1:06:04it finally from Kevin um what do you
1:06:08believe your legacy will ultimately be
1:06:11and um is it going to be different from
1:06:14what you thought it would be when you
1:06:16thought okay I have to tell the
1:06:20world that's a pretty big question I
1:06:23think to to ask you know 30 something I
1:06:26haven't really given much consideration
1:06:29to
1:06:31um is it too early to
1:06:34tell I think I'll have to leave that to
1:06:36historians and say that my intention is
1:06:39to to continue to work to change the
1:06:41game and to say that infringements of to
1:06:44our rights are not inevitable with the
1:06:47progress of Technology we're going to
1:06:48continue to face new challenges we're
1:06:50going to continue to face new threats we
1:06:52are always going to have government
1:06:53officials who want to go that extra
1:06:55state
1:06:56who want to Grant themselves this extra
1:06:58power in secret but Civil Society is
1:07:01more powerful today than it ever has
1:07:03been um and we see more and more people
1:07:06becoming skeptical of claims being made
1:07:09to us by
1:07:10corporations um by foundations and by
1:07:13governments and I think that's not a
1:07:15sign of discont that's a sign of a
1:07:18Renaissance of critical thinking that
1:07:20will allow us to have a better safer and
1:07:21more free society as long as we
1:07:23participate and continue to say hey you
1:07:26know that sounds reasonable but does it
1:07:28make sense and what can I do to make
1:07:30things better than than the way I found
1:07:33them well on an optimistic note we can
1:07:37bring this to close and let you go enjoy
1:07:40a vodka or whatever they do I actually
1:07:43don't drink alcohol little fact I've
1:07:46never been drunk you've been so nice to
1:07:48spend this time with all of us thank you
1:07:51so very much for everything so thank you
1:08:02thank you very much

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Edward Snowden: The Virtual Interview - The New Yorker Festival by The New Yorker, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 12,098 words across 1,734 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.