How we take back the internet | Edward Snowden

Chris Anderson: The rights of citizens, the future of the Internet. So I would like to welcome to the TED stage the man behind those revelations, Ed Snowden. (Applause) Ed is in a remote location somewhere in Russia controlling this bot from his laptop, so he can see what the bot can see. Ed, welcome to the TED stage. What can you see, as a matter of fact? Edward Snowden: Ha, I can see everyone. This is amazing. (Laughter) CA: Ed, some questions for you. You’ve been called many things in the last few months. You’ve been called a whistleblower, a traitor, a hero. What words would you describe yourself with? ES: You know, everybody who is involved with this debate has been struggling over me and my personality and how to describe me. But when I think about it, this isn’t the question that
we should be struggling with. Who I am really doesn’t matter at all. If I’m the worst person in the world, you can hate me and move on. What really matters here are the issues. What really matters here is the
kind of government we want, the kind of Internet we want, the kind of relationship between people and societies. And that’s what I’m hoping
the debate will move towards, and we’ve seen that increasing over time. If I had to describe myself, I wouldn’t use words like “hero.” I wouldn’t use “patriot,” and I wouldn’t use “traitor.” I’d say I’m an American and I’m a citizen, just like everyone else. CA: So just to give some context for those who don’t know the whole story — (Applause) — this time a year ago, you were stationed in Hawaii working as a consultant to the NSA. As a sysadmin, you had access to their systems, and you began revealing
certain classified documents to some handpicked journalists leading the way to June’s revelations. Now, what propelled you to do this? ES: You know, when I was sitting in Hawaii, and the years before, when I was
working in the intelligence community, I saw a lot of things that had disturbed me. We do a lot of good things
in the intelligence community, things that need to be done, and things that help everyone. But there are also things that go too far. There are things that shouldn’t be done, and decisions that were being made in secret without the public’s awareness, without the public’s consent, and without even our representatives in government having knowledge of these programs. When I really came to struggle with these issues, I thought to myself, how can I do this in the most responsible way, that maximizes the public benefit while minimizing the risks? And out of all the solutions that I could come up with, out of going to Congress, when there were no laws, there were no legal protections for a private employee, a contractor in intelligence like myself, there was a risk that I would be
buried along with the information and the public would never find out. But the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution guarantees us a free press for a reason, and that’s to enable an adversarial press, to challenge the government, but also to work together with the government, to have a dialogue and debate about how we can inform the public about matters of vital importance without putting our national security at risk. And by working with journalists, by giving all of my information back to the American people, rather than trusting myself to make the decisions about publication, we’ve had a robust debate with a deep investment by the government that I think has resulted in a benefit for everyone. And the risks that have been threatened, the risks that have been played up by the government have never materialized. We’ve never seen any evidence of even a single instance of specific harm, and because of that, I’m comfortable with the decisions that I made. CA: So let me show the audience a couple of examples of what you revealed. If we could have a slide up, and Ed, I don’t know whether you can see, the slides are here. This is a slide of the PRISM program, and maybe you could tell the audience what that was that was revealed. ES: The best way to understand PRISM, because there’s been a little bit of controversy, is to first talk about what PRISM isn’t. Much of the debate in the U.S.
has been about metadata. They’ve said it’s just metadata, it’s just metadata, and they’re talking about a specific legal authority called Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That allows sort of a warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the entire country’s phone records, things like that — who you’re talking to, when you’re talking to them, where you traveled. These are all metadata events. PRISM is about content. It’s a program through which the government could compel corporate America, it could deputize corporate America to do its dirty work for the NSA. And even though some of
these companies did resist, even though some of them — I believe Yahoo was one of them — challenged them in court, they all lost, because it was never tried by an open court. They were only tried by a secret court. And something that we’ve seen, something about the PRISM program
that’s very concerning to me is, there’s been a talking point in the U.S. government where they’ve said 15 federal judges have reviewed these programs
and found them to be lawful, but what they don’t tell you is those are secret judges in a secret court based on secret interpretations of law that’s considered 34,000 warrant requests over 33 years, and in 33 years only rejected 11 government requests. These aren’t the people that we want deciding what the role of corporate America in a free and open Internet should be. CA: Now, this slide that we’re showing here shows the dates in which different technology companies, Internet companies, are alleged to have joined the program, and where data collection began from them. Now, they have denied collaborating with the NSA. How was that data collected by the NSA? ES: Right. So the NSA’s own slides refer to it as direct access. What that means to an actual NSA analyst, someone like me who was working
as an intelligence analyst targeting, Chinese cyber-hackers, things like that, in Hawaii, is the provenance of that data is directly from their servers. It doesn’t mean that there’s a group of company representatives sitting in a smoky room with the NSA palling around and making back-room deals about how they’re going to give this stuff away. Now each company handles it different ways. Some are responsible. Some are somewhat less responsible. But the bottom line is, when we talk about how this information is given, it’s coming from the companies themselves. It’s not stolen from the lines. But there’s an important thing to remember here: even though companies pushed back, even though companies demanded, hey, let’s do this through a warrant process, let’s do this where we actually have some sort of legal review, some sort of basis for handing over these users’ data, we saw stories in the Washington Post last year that weren’t as well reported as the PRISM story that said the NSA broke in to the data center communications between Google to itself and Yahoo to itself. So even these companies that are cooperating in at least a compelled but hopefully lawful manner with the NSA, the NSA isn’t satisfied with that, and because of that, we need our companies to work very hard to guarantee that they’re going to represent the interests of the user, and also advocate for the rights of the users. And I think over the last year, we’ve seen the companies that are named on the PRISM slides take great strides to do that, and I encourage them to continue. CA: What more should they do? ES: The biggest thing that an Internet company in America can do today, right now, without consulting with lawyers, to protect the rights of users worldwide, is to enable SSL web encryption on every page you visit. The reason this matters is today, if you go to look at a copy of “1984” on, the NSA can see a record of that, the Russian intelligence service
can see a record of that, the Chinese service can see a record of that, the French service, the German service, the services of Andorra. They can all see it because it’s unencrypted. The world’s library is, but not only do they not
support encryption by default, you cannot choose to use encryption when browsing through books. This is something that we need to change, not just for Amazon, I don’t mean to single them out, but they’re a great example. All companies need to move to an encrypted browsing habit by default for all users who haven’t taken any action or picked any special methods on their own. That’ll increase the privacy and the rights that people enjoy worldwide. CA: Ed, come with me to this part of the stage. I want to show you the next slide here. (Applause) This is a program called Boundless Informant. What is that? ES: So, I’ve got to give credit to the NSA for using appropriate names on this. This is one of my favorite NSA cryptonyms. Boundless Informant is a program that the NSA hid from Congress. The NSA was previously asked by Congress, was there any ability that they had to even give a rough ballpark estimate of the amount of American communications that were being intercepted. They said no. They said, we don’t track those stats, and we can’t track those stats. We can’t tell you how many communications we’re intercepting around the world, because to tell you that would be to invade your privacy. Now, I really appreciate that sentiment from them, but the reality, when you look at this slide is, not only do they have the capability, the capability already exists. It’s already in place. The NSA has its own internal data format that tracks both ends of a communication, and if it says, this communication came from America, they can tell Congress how
many of those communications they have today, right now. And what Boundless Informant tells us is more communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians. I’m not sure that’s what an intelligence agency should be aiming for. CA: Ed, there was a story broken
in the Washington Post, again from your data. The headline says, “NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year.” Tell us about that. ES: We also heard in Congressional
testimony last year, it was an amazing thing for someone like me who came from the NSA and who’s seen the actual internal documents, knows what’s in them, to see officials testifying under oath that there had been no abuses, that there had been no violations of the NSA’s rules, when we knew this story was coming. But what’s especially interesting about this, about the fact that the NSA has violated their own rules, their own laws thousands of times in a single year, including one event by itself, one event out of those 2,776, that affected more than 3,000 people. In another event, they intercepted all the calls in Washington, D.C., by accident. What’s amazing about this, this report, that didn’t get that much attention, is the fact that not only were there 2,776 abuses, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had not seen this report until the Washington Post contacted her asking for comment on the report. And she then requested a copy from the NSA and received it, but had never seen this before that. What does that say about the state of oversight in American intelligence when the chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee has no idea that the rules are being broken thousands of times every year? CA: Ed, one response to this whole debate is this: Why should we care about all this surveillance, honestly? I mean, look, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about. What’s wrong with that point of view? ES: Well, so the first thing is, you’re giving up your rights. You’re saying hey, you know, I don’t think I’m going to need them, so I’m just going to trust that, you know, let’s get rid of them, it doesn’t really matter, these guys are going to do the right thing. Your rights matter because you never know when
you’re going to need them. Beyond that, it’s a part of our cultural identity, not just in America, but in Western societies and in democratic societies around the world. People should be able to pick up the phone and to call their family, people should be able to send a text message to their loved ones, people should be able to buy a book online, they should be able to travel by train, they should be able to buy an airline ticket without wondering about how these events are going to look to an agent of the government, possibly not even your government years in the future, how they’re going to be misinterpreted and what they’re going to think your intentions were. We have a right to privacy. We require warrants to be based on probable cause or some kind of individualized suspicion because we recognize that trusting anybody, any government authority, with the entirety of human communications in secret and without oversight is simply too great a temptation to be ignored. CA: Some people are furious at what you’ve done. I heard a quote recently from Dick Cheney who said that Julian Assange was a flea bite, Edward Snowden is the lion
that bit the head off the dog. He thinks you’ve committed one of the worst acts of betrayal in American history. What would you say to people who think that? ES: Dick Cheney’s really something else. (Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. (Laughter) I think it’s amazing, because at the time Julian Assange was doing some of his greatest work, Dick Cheney was saying he was going to end governments worldwide, the skies were going to ignite and the seas were going to boil off, and now he’s saying it’s a flea bite. So we should be suspicious about the same sort of overblown claims of damage to national security from these kind of officials. But let’s assume that these
people really believe this. I would argue that they have kind of a narrow conception of national security. The prerogatives of people like Dick Cheney do not keep the nation safe. The public interest is not always the same as the national interest. Going to war with people who are not our enemy in places that are not a threat doesn’t make us safe, and that applies whether it’s in Iraq or on the Internet. The Internet is not the enemy. Our economy is not the enemy. American businesses, Chinese businesses, and any other company out there is a part of our society. It’s a part of our interconnected world. There are ties of fraternity that bond us together, and if we destroy these bonds by undermining the standards, the security, the manner of behavior, that nations and citizens all around the world expect us to abide by. CA: But it’s alleged that you’ve stolen 1.7 million documents. It seems only a few hundred of them have been shared with journalists so far. Are there more revelations to come? ES: There are absolutely more revelations to come. I don’t think there’s any question that some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come. CA: Come here, because I want to ask you about this particular revelation. Come and take a look at this. I mean, this is a story which I think
for a lot of the techies in this room is the single most shocking thing that they have heard in the last few months. It’s about a program called “Bullrun.” Can you explain what that is? ES: So Bullrun, and this is again where we’ve got to thank the NSA for their candor, this is a program named after a Civil War battle. The British counterpart is called Edgehill, which is a U.K. civil war battle. And the reason that I believe they’re named this way is because they target our own infrastructure. They’re programs through which the NSA intentionally misleads corporate partners. They tell corporate partners that these are safe standards. They say hey, we need to work with you to secure your systems, but in reality, they’re giving bad advice to these companies that makes them degrade the security of their services. They’re building in backdoors that not only the NSA can exploit, but anyone else who has time and money to research and find it can then use to let themselves in to the world’s communications. And this is really dangerous, because if we lose a single standard, if we lose the trust of something like SSL, which was specifically targeted by the Bullrun program, we will live a less safe world overall. We won’t be able to access our banks and we won’t be able to access commerce without worrying about people
monitoring those communications or subverting them for their own ends. CA: And do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyberattacks from other sources? ES: Absolutely. One of the problems, one of the dangerous legacies that we’ve seen in the post-9/11 era, is that the NSA has traditionally worn two hats. They’ve been in charge of offensive operations, that is hacking, but they’ve also been in
charge of defensive operations, and traditionally they’ve always prioritized defense over offense based on the principle that American secrets are simply worth more. If we hack a Chinese business and steal their secrets, if we hack a government office in Berlin and steal their secrets, that has less value to the American people than making sure that the Chinese can’t get access to our secrets. So by reducing the security of our communications, they’re not only putting the world at risk, they’re putting America at risk in a fundamental way, because intellectual property is the basis, the foundation of our economy, and if we put that at risk through weak security, we’re going to be paying for it for years. CA: But they’ve made a calculation that it was worth doing this as part of America’s defense against terrorism. Surely that makes it a price worth paying. ES: Well, when you look at the results of these programs in stopping terrorism, you will see that that’s unfounded, and you don’t have to take my word for it, because we’ve had the first open court, the first federal court that’s reviewed this, outside the secrecy arrangement, called these programs Orwellian and likely unconstitutional. Congress, who has access to be briefed on these things, and now has the desire to be, has produced bills to reform it, and two independent White House panels who reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack that was imminent in the United States. So is it really terrorism that we’re stopping? Do these programs have any value at all? I say no, and all three branches of the American government say no as well. CA: I mean, do you think there’s a deeper motivation for them than the war against terrorism? ES: I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you, say again? CA: Sorry. Do you think there’s a deeper motivation for them other than the war against terrorism? ES: Yeah. The bottom line is that terrorism has always been what we in the intelligence world would call a cover for action. Terrorism is something that provokes an emotional response that allows people to rationalize authorizing powers and programs that they wouldn’t give otherwise. The Bullrun and Edgehill-type programs, the NSA asked for these authorities back in the 1990s. They asked the FBI to go to
Congress and make the case. The FBI went to Congress and did make the case. But Congress and the American people said no. They said, it’s not worth the risk to our economy. They said it’s worth too much damage to our society to justify the gains. But what we saw is, in the post-9/11 era, they used secrecy and they
used the justification of terrorism to start these programs in secret without asking Congress, without asking the American people, and it’s that kind of government behind closed doors that we need to guard ourselves against, because it makes us less safe, and it offers no value. CA: Okay, come with me here for a sec, because I’ve got a more personal question for you. Speaking of terror, most people would find the
situation you’re in right now in Russia pretty terrifying. You obviously heard what happened, what the treatment that Bradley Manning got, Chelsea Manning as now is, and there was a story in Buzzfeed saying that there are people in the intelligence community who want you dead. How are you coping with this? How are you coping with the fear? ES: It’s no mystery that there are governments out
there that want to see me dead. I’ve made clear again and again and again that I go to sleep every morning thinking about what I can
do for the American people. I don’t want to harm my government. I want to help my government, but the fact that they are willing to completely ignore due process, they’re willing to declare guilt without ever seeing a trial, these are things that we need to work against as a society, and say hey, this is not appropriate. We shouldn’t be threatening dissidents. We shouldn’t be criminalizing journalism. And whatever part I can do to see that end, I’m happy to do despite the risks. CA: So I’d actually like to get some feedback from the audience here, because I know there’s widely differing reactions to Edward Snowden. Suppose you had the following two choices, right? You could view what he did as fundamentally a reckless act that has endangered America or you could view it as fundamentally a heroic act that will work towards America and the world’s long-term good? Those are the two choices I’ll give you. I’m curious to see who’s willing to vote with the first of those, that this was a reckless act? There are some hands going up. Some hands going up. It’s hard to put your hand up when the man is standing right here, but I see them. ES: I can see you. (Laughter) CA: And who goes with the second choice, the fundamentally heroic act? (Applause) (Cheers) And I think it’s true to say that
there are a lot of people who didn’t show a hand and I think are still thinking this through, because it seems to me that the debate around you doesn’t split along traditional political lines. It’s not left or right, it’s not really about pro-government, libertarian, or not just that. Part of it is almost a generational issue. You’re part of a generation that grew up with the Internet, and it seems as if you become offended at almost a visceral level when you see something done that you think will harm the Internet. Is there some truth to that? ES: It is. I think it’s very true. This is not a left or right issue. Our basic freedoms, and when I say our, I don’t just mean Americans, I mean people around the world, it’s not a partisan issue. These are things that all people believe, and it’s up to all of us to protect them, and to people who have seen and enjoyed a free and open Internet, it’s up to us to preserve that liberty for the next generation to enjoy, and if we don’t change things, if we don’t stand up to make the changes we need to do to keep the Internet safe, not just for us but for everyone, we’re going to lose that, and that would be a tremendous loss, not just for us, but for the world. CA: Well, I have heard similar language recently from the founder of the world wide web, who I actually think is with us, Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Tim, actually, would you like to come up and say, do we have a microphone for Tim? (Applause) Tim, good to see you. Come up there. Which camp are you in, by the way, traitor, hero? I have a theory on this, but — Tim Berners-Lee: I’ve given much longer answers to that question, but hero, if I have to make the choice between the two. CA: And Ed, I think you’ve read the proposal that Sir Tim has talked about about a new Magna Carta to take back the Internet. Is that something that makes sense? ES: Absolutely. I mean, my generation, I grew up not just thinking about the Internet, but I grew up in the Internet, and although I never expected to have the chance to defend it in such a direct and practical manner and to embody it in this unusual, almost avatar manner, I think there’s something poetic about the fact that one of the sons of the Internet has actually become close to the Internet as a result of their political expression. And I believe that a Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values not just in writing but in the structure of the Internet, and it’s something that I hope, I invite everyone in the audience, not just here in Vancouver but around the world, to join and participate in. CA: Do you have a question for Ed? TBL: Well, two questions, a general question — CA: Ed, can you still hear us? ES: Yes, I can hear you.
CA: Oh, he’s back. TBL: The wiretap on your line got a little interfered with for a moment. (Laughter) ES: It’s a little bit of an NSA problem. TBL: So, from the 25 years, stepping back and thinking, what would you think would be the best that we could achieve from all the discussions that we have about the web we want? ES: When we think about in terms of how far we can go, I think that’s a question that’s really only limited by what we’re willing to put into it. I think the Internet that we’ve enjoyed in the past has been exactly what we as not just a nation but as a people around the world need, and by cooperating, by engaging not just the technical parts of society, but as you said, the users, the people around the world who contribute through the Internet, through social media, who just check the weather, who rely on it every day as a part of their life, to champion that. We’ll get not just the Internet we’ve had, but a better Internet, a better now, something that we can use to build a future that’ll be better not just than what we hoped for but anything that we could have imagined. CA: It’s 30 years ago that TED was founded, 1984. A lot of the conversation since then has been along the lines that actually George Orwell got it wrong. It’s not Big Brother watching us. We, through the power of the web, and transparency, are now watching Big Brother. Your revelations kind of drove a stake through the heart of that rather optimistic view, but you still believe there’s a way of doing something about that. And you do too. ES: Right, so there is an argument to be made that the powers of Big Brother
have increased enormously. There was a recent legal article at Yale that established something called
the Bankston-Soltani Principle, which is that our expectation of privacy is violated when the capabilities of government surveillance have become cheaper by an order of magnitude, and each time that occurs, we need to revisit and rebalance our privacy rights. Now, that hasn’t happened since the government’s surveillance powers have increased by several orders of magnitude, and that’s why we’re in the
problem that we’re in today, but there is still hope, because the power of individuals have also been increased by technology. I am living proof that an individual can go head to head against the most powerful adversaries and the most powerful intelligence agencies around the world and win, and I think that’s something that we need to take hope from, and we need to build on to make it accessible not just to technical experts but to ordinary citizens around the world. Journalism is not a crime, communication is not a crime, and we should not be monitored
in our everyday activities. CA: I’m not quite sure how
you shake the hand of a bot, but I imagine it’s, this is the hand right here.
TBL: That’ll come very soon. ES: Nice to meet you, and I hope my beam looks as nice as my view of you guys does. CA: Thank you, Tim. (Applause) I mean, The New York Times
recently called for an amnesty for you. Would you welcome the chance
to come back to America? ES: Absolutely. There’s really no question, the principles that have been the foundation of this project have been the public interest and the principles that underly the journalistic establishment in the United States and around the world, and I think if the press is now saying, we support this, this is something that needed to happen, that’s a powerful argument,
but it’s not the final argument, and I think that’s something
that public should decide. But at the same time, the government has hinted that they want some kind of deal, that they want me to compromise the journalists with which I’ve been working, to come back, and I want to make it very clear that I did not do this to be safe. I did this to do what was right, and I’m not going to stop my work in the public interest just to benefit myself. (Applause) CA: In the meantime, courtesy of the Internet and this technology, you’re here, back in North America, not quite the U.S., Canada, in this form. I’m curious, how does that feel? ES: Canada is different than what I expected. It’s a lot warmer. (Laughter) CA: At TED, the mission is “ideas worth spreading.” If you could encapsulate it in a single idea, what is your idea worth spreading right now at this moment? ES: I would say the last year has been a reminder that democracy may die behind closed doors, but we as individuals are born behind those same closed doors, and we don’t have to give up our privacy to have good government. We don’t have to give up our liberty to have security. And I think by working together we can have both open government and private lives, and I look forward to working with everyone around the world to see that happen. Thank you very much. CA: Ed, thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “How we take back the internet | Edward Snowden

  1. Welcome to your police state. The government operates with absolute impunity. They do what they want when they want, and nothing you say, or do, will change that. Even though it's totally illegal. This will remain the case until more people like Snowden come out of the closet, stand up to these thugs and say enough is enough. Snowden should have been given a god damn medal.

  2. This is why the Darknets and the Darkweb exist…..But these alternatives are not as attractive….The Military Industrial Complex is now centered at the NSA, where every bit of data is collected, from cell phones to internet to cable , etc as Metadata but which can be used at any minute, by assembling all those past bits and pieces, into the partial picture of a person, and since it is built from many sources, it would give a more accurate description than say what is collected by Facebook, for which you gave your OK, but not to our "other" Government, the one behind doors. This information can be used against you the Citizen at any time in the near Future and without any basis on the law since it is all 'Secret Courts/Judges'….Left, Right, Middle, it doesn't matter since those are distractions from the Reality we live in.
    I nowadays give Alex Jones a little bit of credit….I guess he wasn't as totally wacko as I thought…

  3. The farce of the patriot act is the exuse they use. Get rid of the farce. The entire patriot act is a total exploitation scam. To be totally rescinded; not strengthened. Nothing but a giant Hegelian dialectic ploy that repeats itself.

  4. 「 政治的圧力にフレイ効果使用の疑い 」











  5. 겨우 인터넷만? 내가 겪어보니 걍 다 호구던데 아가리 ㄷㅊ고 비웃기만하고?

  6. PT should be doing the right thing now he has more than enough evidence Now Treason = ? These people are ready to infect the world with Ebola 💔🌎🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

  7. You're even more admirable than I already felt. I am profoundly thankful for your sacrifices to save our freedom, privacy, security and prosperity.

  8. Step One: Betray a trust and hide in Russia.
    Real Civil Disobedience is performed with the intent to get caught (to publicize the cause) and a willingness to accept punishment (to demonstrate the injustice). Nice try, Ed. Even if you're right, you're still just a tool. Imagine the power of a US court case and the claim to be a political prisoner. Then look at "brave" Ed teleconferencing from an undisclosed location.

  9. They got Assange. our freedom hangs in the balance..They have control over your search engine which means it propaganda central.. One side to every story now…Bend over spread your legs and take it like a man. Freedom is an illusion..

  10. It's been over five years now that this conference took place and there has been no internet magna carta that I'm aware of. As a result of this, the world has become an order or two of magnitude more bizarre. Change for the worse was already rapidly occurring around that time. Lack of privacy has become an even bigger issue in the last five years. There has been several known breeches of privacy with social media tech companies sharing private user data with other organizations. Almost every, OS provider, and application software provider requires users to have an account in the cloud for data storage, managed by the software providers and with alleged privacy but no guarantee of end-to-end encryption which means it's not fully private. Now, we have the problem of biased censorship in social media. It is shutting down freedom of speech for people to the right of the far left. And there is an extreme bias in the MSM in favor of the left. We have authoritarianism emanating from the left with the MSM and social media's support and approval. Plus we have left wing thugs in the streets committing violence at will against those with which they disagree, being able to do so with the approval of the MSM, social media, local governments, and with silence coming from the federal government. Freedom of speech is completely lost in Europe and Canada. Traditional and religious values are being attacked by the left and the managerial class in the name of equity, diversity, and female, gay, and transgender rights. And Western countries are being flooded with immigrants in order to destabilize our societies, weaken our cultures, under cut wages, and to destroy the white phenotype as an ongoing phenomenon. May God help us all.

  11. He's a good man i can't believe what they have done to him his family friends he's a whistleblower who not hurting anyone he informs us with truth what we should be aware of no gov secrets just informed the public deserves to be A_ HERO 👍


  13. If you watch the movie Atlas Shrugged this is exactly how Ayn Rand portrayed this. Through the character John Gault

  14. FB and nsa and Google Microsoft. etc will indeed take our rights and constitution down the toilet.. too much power. Years later, they will use it to jail you. Bc freedom is taken for granted.
    Julian Assange is a hero, so is Edward!

  15. So….no comments in the past 2 years – despite all the horrors our failing government is involved in daily, including false flag aggression against Iran and Venezuela, the usurpation of civil liberties, the racism, the political corruption by the financial elites, the subjugation of our Constitution and the corporatization of the Supreme Court. I wish you well, Ed. Sad that Vladimir Putin is a more reliable defender of free speech than anyone in the hall of power in Washington.

  16. Thank you Edward Snowden for the education from a generation x er. He is honest.

  17. so this is where most of the foreign countries intelligent gatherers lurk..


  19. Snowden should only use the word Traitor. Hum, who might benefit from government secrets….Russia, China….what have Russia acquired, hypersonic technologies, informations on stealth technologies, electronic warfare weaknesses that American warships might have, numbers of deployed equipment maybe, how much of what the US might have…all kinds of crap maybe..

  20. his initial two sentences proved that he is genius and a very intelligent person with clear thoughts.i respect u man (Ed Snowden)

  21. "Russia! Keep Snowden safe"
    "Affirmative. Keep. Snowden. Safe. Superpower is approaching, preparing to destroy"
    "But don't nuke anyone!"
    "Readjusting parameters to <keep Snowden safe>"

    "I've begun a trade war between two superpowers and stolen their faces with an app. Snowden is safe."

  22. 2019 and we find they spied on the President, and created false info, this is the danger he was talking about back in 2014. you do nothing wrong, and they can make fake info and media push it as fact "you did something wrong" Congress in on this and FISA courts rubber stamp, if they even use it. Snowden was right. This is a BIG danger, if they could do this to Trump, then they could do the same to any of us.

  23. Snowden is a HERO but sadly Americans are to freaking DUMB to realise that they live under TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT and lost ALL rights and freedoms. American people are by design of education system turned into mindless business ignorant fools.

  24. He is a Goddamn Hero of the highest magnitude. He is a true citizen of the world. Thanks for all you did, may it inspire several people like you – A Global citizen.

  25. The alliance that hopes to control the world and almost already has…..Jump to about 8 to 10 minutes into the video:

  26. Elon Musk isn't human, he's the real deal Android , so is Al Gore-rhythms, & Mark Zuckerberg, even also Obama-Osama, the only difference between ObAMA & OsAMA is:
    the "b.s."

  27. SNOWDEN nickname:
    PRE-Trump TRUMP.
    Before there was President Trump, there was
    Honorable SNOWDEN TRUMP
    Two Trumps back to back.

  28. Any updates on the idea of a new Magna Carta for the internet age? The Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 has a space to work on this. #SDG16 is about de-corrupting dysfunctional institutional systems so that healthy institutions may be able to advance equal justice for all. What would help in turning this into a mechanism for true people power, would be if independent activists were to become points of contact for a league for #SDG16.

  29. What KIND of a STUPID statement is "I'm not doing anything bad, why should I care if I'm surveilled?" You IDIOT! THAT opens Pandora's box and I personally don't want my searches for a fucking screwdriver followed by the clueless twits we've all seen on TV in our government!!!!! Understand, these idiots in government are the SAME fools in highschool who couldn't put one foot in front of the other without tripping, the complete idiots we ALL knew became lawyers then politicians and have now stumbled into positions of power. I do NOT want that gaggle of clowns knowing a GD thing I'm doing!

  30. Snowden He is a very sympathetic character however he is is basically a Jew– or you never would've heard of him. He is permitted to be famous because he won't tell you about the Internet bill of rights or the inventor of the Internet
    Digital slavery starts with Google hiding your business, and your cell phone which has 1000 little spy programs to keep track of your whereabouts and where are you search and what you buy and how often you talk. And what you say. The high-level spying government mumbo-jumbo that Snowden is talking about is to catch really bad people who want to do gigantically bad things to Americans , Snowden is the irrelevant tip of the iceberg–the Internet bill of rights is about the mass oppression that everyone has to worry about. If you have trouble reaching the page please email me if possible the site is up but we have caught serving blank pages.

  31. dear lying brits, its not a magna carta. its the bill of rights.
    they simply make these things because i was writing. they are all lyars and spys.

  32. The moment I begin writing the Internet bill of rights three things happened, the fake web guy "Tim Lee" ( see Internet bill of rights) began calling for a "Internet bill of rights". After. then About two weeks After I publish the Internet bill of rights, the media started talking about "fake news". this is all part of a dedicated program to a erace the inventor of the Internet, I should know I am he. they quickly saw the error of their ways and started calling it a "Magna Carta"… we have already had many "big charts" Of the Internet. But no rights. The Internet bill of rights (below) is yet another astounding work by the inventor of the World Wide Web, which is for you. they want to steal from you and enslave you and cheat you. I'm trying to help you. That's what made Steve Jobs great he made programs that made computers work for-you. That's why I invented tube shaped vaporizers ( so that you wouldn't die from cancer. These guys are nobody.

  33. Terrorism is just a way to scare you and let you do anything they want.
    He is a hero risking himself for the thuth, funny thing that our comments and like here in this video can be collected from Youtube to NSA, and they will learn about our images and guess whats our inclinations and ideas, if we they want maybe because of your opinion and information you are passing you could get a pretty label like "Terrorist" or "Pro-terrorist", "Traitor", whatever and its already a form of justifiying shutting you down.
    The world is a scary place, the future is going to be fucked all around the world, different countries are becoming dystopic or orwellian, but there should be a way to learn how to do something, how to find breachs for information still be free.
    Sadly they are getting more and more powerful computers.

  34. Edward i dont understand if your saying we shouldnt hack if your saying we cannot have a say when we have a problem with our government what are we meant to do just like you im scared my family may be attacked because ive recently had threats "well" not just recently but factions across the internet have actually become haters and attackers of our children not just in your country let me repeat but in every nook and corner.

  35. There is no secret on the internet nowadays, used when you feel like using n throw it inside the toilet bowl when you don't feel like.

  36. I will put you as one of the in charge in Miem, you can protect my country data issue as to protect our staff n customers rights.

  37. I don't need to know my staff n customers movements as long as they don't volate any laws.

  38. "if you have nothing to hide then why should you care about people knowing all your information and history"

    -Some random guys with anonymous YouTube accounts with some random photo on their profile pic

  39. You are just a spy , snitch and a traitor. There's no other way to describe you fealty ways. You are a disgrace to the humans caind . Ignorant by choice etc etc………You have no reasonable explanation for what you did. Your job was to watch overall possibilities to secure our country. You have no idea what this Country security represent to the World. Nor what you are talking about. You make me sick and for sure even the one's you share all your stupid information. You are nothing but a Universal garbage. You should be and i know you are or not you don't have the ability mentally to comprehend you tried to do to our Country and the Country's who's are trying to preserve security to the world not only us . Is about the planet security not only us .Shame on you cockroaches…………….🗽🇺🇸

  40. 没用的,只要美国政府在的一天,所有和美国政府作对或者意识形态对立的国家或者团体都会受到美国政府的特殊对待。

  41. We need more people to take action like him. And it doesn't have to be such large scale things, even educating an individual on a single issue has the potential to change the world

  42. Yes in deed hide from stalking slander bullying rooting behaviors yes it is truly sad. Im nothing but a $ to my community and government its enough to make me regret ever starting a business.

  43. How do we know if E.S. is not a plant. I will believe him when he tells us what he know about 911.

  44. And Americans call Chinas or Russias companies connected to government. All US big companies are under government control as well. Here's your freedom and constitution goes to toilet. Your freedom is just another fake news.

  45. What I liked was Snowden's expose' of Putin and Russian covert operations. . . . Oh, wait . . . he never did that.

  46. Its a silly question "why should we care about if we have nothing to worry about or if we have done nothing wrong." The point here is that my privacy has been invaded. If that is the case why shouldn't' we let everyone get into our bedroom or peek into our houses? No. Because we want our privacy.

  47. You’re rights matter because you never know when you need them!!! True statement. A guise for the powers to be to protect us can also work against us. Our rights do matter.

  48. the longer this man is forced out of this nation, the bigger shame it is on the government

  49. We will have a better world if and only if we have the courage to punish harshly MASS MURDERERS instead of letting then play golf up to their golden sunsets.

  50. Nobel prize org: Are you home? Edward Snowdon lost his home, his family, his country, his freedom, his future since age 29. TO FIGHT FOR PEACE AND THE FREEDOM OF ALL OFF US. When your home, do your right thing for the so very rare real integrity and the love and beauty of real sacrifice to fight for the peace and
    freedom of all of us.

  51. Snowden todo el mundo te dá las gracias a tú valentía y tú gran honestidad de denunciar con pruebas y hechos sobre la manipulación de datos y el monitoreo de las comunicaciones.

  52. what a terrible world, our world has become where gorvnment institutions are able to act on its own without the knowledge of people who are supposed to be heading these institutions.

  53. 868 thumbs down by all members of the Prism Program. This man has MUCH more informarion and answers than he has presently revealed.

    The sooner we hear it the better.

    Too many security questions being asked. This man has so much more to reveal.

    I have no doubt about it

  54. A traitor is giving a TED Talk. Why should I listen to him? He stole & released thousands of classified documents. He is not an American anymore, he can rot in Russia.

  55. Mr. Snowden needs to run for POTUS, so he van pardon himself and offer freedom from untoward overreach by any government anywhere!

  56. USA is a sick nation RULED by Psychopaths and Sociopaths. These RULING BULLY'S in USA are a DANGER to Peace and stability on Earth. BULLY'S and trouble makers come to AN END sooner or later. Hopefully, For the good of USA, they will come to an end Soon, if we are to survive

  57. The govt our govt loves power and control over the masses…was true in middle ages…true today….Bush instituted spying on citizens under the guise of protecting us after 9/11….Obama carried it over to spy on political enemies…for power and greed. Snowden merely turned back the curtain to reveal a deep corrupt state as it is….and they hate him for it…..I was very patriotic before…served 10 years in military…….not anymore.

  58. I think he’s a hero because I didn’t know any of this and if history has any connection it’s that people have abused things and anything can be abused even people with slavery or governments killing there own people. If this continues without a whistle blower like Snowden communication will end up being a crime. It’s only a crime if it’s against the law, if communication is not against the law then it’s not a crime, until if it does become against the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *