搜尋此網誌

載入中…

2013年6月19日 星期三

斯諾登回答世界網友提問--中英文版全文

斯诺登回答世界网友提问 正式否认其为中国间谍传言
http://tech.hexun.com/2013-06-18/155242447.html
2013061808:18 来源:和讯科技

  和讯科技消息 美国前中情局雇员斯诺登在北京时间昨天晚上11点突然通过英国《卫报》网站,跟网民直接交流,回答对他曝光美国政府监控行动的质疑。他否认有把美国机密交给中国,称有关棱镜的监控细节会陆续公布,但他没有透露手上还有多少机密资料。在问答中针对于之前传言称其为中国情报人员一事,斯诺登正式否认称“我不是中国间谍”。

  以下为答问实录:

  问:让我们从下面两个问题开始,
  (1)你为什么选择去香港,然后告诉他们,美国侵入了他们的研究机构和大学?
  (2)你公布的文件中有多少是你自己制作的,有多少人拥有了它们?如果你遭到不测,它们还会存在吗?

  斯诺登(1) 首先,就像他们对付别的泄密者那样,美国政府立即不出所料地摧毁了在国内进行公正审判的可能性,公开宣布我犯有叛国罪;宣布,揭发秘密的、犯罪的、甚至是违宪的行为,是一种不可饶恕的犯罪。那不公平,而如果你在监狱外比在监狱内能做更多的好事,那么自投罗网就太愚蠢了。
  其次,让我们搞清楚,我没有透露任何美国对合法军事目标采取的行动。我之所以指出美国非法侵入民用基础设施的地方,如大学、医院、私营企业,因为这是危险的。这些赤裸裸、具有侵犯性的犯罪行为是错误的,无论目标是什么。不仅如此,当国家安全局在一个操作行动中犯了一个技术性错误,关键的系统崩溃了。国会并没有向一些国家宣战(它们中大多数是盟国),但在没有征得公众许可的情况下,国家安全局正在采取针对它们的网络行动,影响了数百万无辜的人们。这是为了什么?这样一来,我们就能秘密进入我们甚至未与之交战的一个国家的电脑吗?这样一来,我们就有可能揭露一个潜在的恐怖分子,而这个恐怖分子杀死美国人的潜力甚至比我们自己的警察还少?不,公众需要知道一个政府以它的名义做的是哪种种事情,否则“被统治者的认可”就是毫无意义的。
  (2) 我现在所能说的就是,通过关押我或谋杀我,美国政府将无法掩盖这一点。真相正在到来,它无法被阻止。

  问:你为什么不直接飞往冰岛,如果它是你所倾向的庇难地?

  斯诺登:离开美国要冒很大的风险,作为国家安全局雇员,出国旅行要提前30天申报并遭到监控。我可能在途中被拦截,所以我不得不在没有提前预约的情况下旅行,前往一个其文化和法律框架能够允许我工作而不是立刻遭到拘捕的国家。香港为我提供了这些。在公众有机会表达他们的观点之前,冰岛可能会更快地受到更大压力。

  问:你说,你欣赏埃尔斯伯格和曼宁。但你认为你和曼宁之间有一个重要的区别。你称:“我仔细评估了我披露的每份文件,以确保它们都符合公众利益。我并没有提供那些能产生巨大影响的文件,因为伤害他人不是我的目标,我的目标是透明性。”你是否在暗示曼宁不计后果地将机密交给维基解密,他有意伤害他人?

  斯诺登:“不,我不这样认为。维基解密是一个合法的新闻出口,他们根据对公众利益的判断对所有发布的内容进行了整理。发布未经整理的电报内容是由于一位合作记者未能控制密码短语”。虽然如此,我知道许多媒体用“倾倒文件”的说法来污蔑曼宁,我想明确表示这不是一个有效的断言。

  问:你是否就薪水说谎?这方面有什么问题吗?你为何告诉格林瓦尔德你的年薪是20万美元,而实际上只有12万美元(解雇你的公司是这样的说的)

  斯诺登:格里恩和他的同事们向我反馈了情况,并不是所有的对话都进行了录音。我所说的年薪20万美元是我职场的高收入区间,我在从事具体工作时不得不接受减薪。博思艾伦咨询公司不是给我薪水最多的单位。

  问:如果你说,你想告诉世界关于国家安全局的项目,那些项目在奥巴马成为总统前就开始了,你为什么还要等一下,才公布那些文件呢?

  斯诺登:奥巴马阵营的承诺和当选让我相信,他会带领我们朝着解决问题的方向前进,那些问题就是他在拜票中列举的问题很多美国人也有相似的感觉。不幸的是,就在取得权力后不久,他就关闭了调查系统违反法律行为的大门,深化、扩大了好几个滥用权力的项目,拒绝花费政治资本,去结束我们在关塔那摩看到的那种违反人权的做法,那里的人们现在仍在未遭到指控的情况下坐牢。

  问:请尽可能详细地定义你所说的“直接接触”?分析人员能否在未获许可证的情况下窃听国内电话?

  斯诺登:如果国家安全局、联邦调查局、中情局、国防情报局、分析人员能够进入信号情报原始数据库,他们可以获得想要的电话号码、电子邮件、用户身份证、手机身份证。这方面的限制是政策方面,而非技术方面。此外,在这方面的审核是草率的、不完全的、可以被虚假的理由轻易骗过。至少在英国政府通信总部,窃听行动的审核比例只有5%
  由于数个原因,美国国家安全局喜欢用“国内”这样含糊其词的措词。现实是,由于外国情报监视法修正法案和其702条款授权,情报部门每天都在收集和阅读美国人的通讯,这取决于分析师的认证等级而不是许可证。
  他们为此给出的借口是“意外收集”,但国家安全局的一些人仍掌握了你的通讯内容。即便是在获许可证的截收情况下,情报部门并不总是要与“真正”的许可证打交道,并不像警局那样,情报部门的许可证更多是一个他们填写的模板,呈送给一位可靠的法官,批准只是走程序而已。

  问:当你说国家安全局的人仍将获得你通讯的内容,这是什么意思?你是说他们获得了通信记录或者是通信内容?

  斯诺登:两者都有,例如,如果我的对象是一个电子邮件地址,根据FAA702条款,那个邮件地址给你发送了一些东西,分析师得到了它。所有的东西,IP地址、原数据、内容、标题、附件,所有的东西,它将保存很长时间,可能通过免除条款而不是许可证获得延长。

  问:你对谷歌和脸谱网的否认有何看法?你认为它们真的对棱镜项目一无所知?或者你认为它们是被迫说谎?可能,对于格林瓦尔德这样的律师来说这是一个更好的问题:如果你获得了一份你被禁止披露其存在的秘密命令,如果你拒绝合作,他们将采取何种措施?

  斯诺登:它们的否认进行了数次修改,它们的否认是误导性的,包括了同样的措词,这一点越来越清楚。由于这些报料和这些公司的影响力,我们终于开始看到这些项目更多的透明性和更多细节,这在这些项目开始以来还是首次。
  它们在法律上被迫服从,就项目的细节保持沉默,但这并不意味着它们在道德上应服从。例如,脸谱网、谷歌、微软、苹果拒绝与情报界合作,你认为政府会采取什么措施?把它们关闭吗?

  问:爱德华,有大量猜测,预言,你已经或者将要把美国机密情报交给中国或者其它国家的政府以换得庇护。你已经或者将要这么做吗?

  斯诺登:这是我在报料之前猜到的诽谤,因为美国媒体会对任何涉及香港或者中国的东西作出“红色中国”的下意识反应,这是为了转移人们对美国政府不当行为议题的注意力。问问你自己:如果我是一名中国间谍,我为什么不直接飞往北京?我现在将居住在宫殿里,抚摸凤凰了。

  问:爱德华-斯诺登,对你为我们国家做出的勇敢的服务,我向你表示感谢。关于你的某些说法,存在一些怀疑,其中包括这一点,“我坐在我的办公桌旁,肯定有权窃听任何一个人,你,你的会计师,一个联邦法官,甚至总统,只要我发现一份个人电子邮件”。你真准备那样做吗?如果真的那样,能详细阐明下吗?

  斯诺登:是的,我准备那样。美国人的确享有限的政策保护,再一次,要理解政策保护就是没有保护,政策是一个只会松弛的棘齿轮,这样理解很重要;此外,美国还享有一种非常虚弱的技术保护,就像位于我们摄取点上的一个近前端过滤器。过滤器逐渐老化了,被设置在被婉转地称为“最大允许光圈”的东西上,随时都有可能被剔除。即使有这么一个过滤器,美国的通讯依然被摄取了,而如果他们是离境的通讯,甚至会遭到更多的摄取。你们受到保护的通讯应继续是受保护的通讯,而这仅仅是因为它们相连的IP
  更基本的,就整体而言,“美国人的”保护只是这一系统的力量和危险衍生的一种娱乐。不表示怀疑的监视并不会变成对的,而这仅仅是因为,它只不过以伤害95%的世界,取代了伤害整个世界。我们的国父们并没有这样写,“我们坚持这些不言自明的真理,即,美国人是生而平等的。”

  问:美国官员说,由于你的泄密,恐怖分子已经在对TTPs产生了警觉,说你是叛徒。你怎么回答?

  斯诺登:美国官员每次都这么说,存在公共讨论,而这能够限制他们的权力。美国官员还进行误导,或干脆提供关于这些项目的价值的虚假说法,就像他们在最近的扎齐案中做的那样。法院文件清楚地显示,“棱镜”项目未公布该案。
  记者应该问一个特殊的问题,即:既然这些项目在911袭击后不久就开始运作,那么单单这种通过不表示怀疑的监视获取、通过别的来源无法获取的信息,究竟防止了多少恐怖袭击?接着应该问,为了达到这一点,有多少个人信息被摄取;还要问你自己,这样做是否值得。浴缸掉下来了,警官比恐怖主义杀死的美国人还多,然而,就因为害怕成为它的牺牲品,我们已经被要求牺牲我们最神圣的权利。
  此外,牢记住这一点很重要,那就是,把我称为叛徒的,是前副总统迪克·切尼这样的人。强加给我们非法窃听项目,就是他。在欺骗性地设计一场冲突的道路上,这个项目被当做暴行的热身,而那场冲突杀死了4400多美国人,致使3.2万美国人伤残,让10万多伊拉克人丧命。被迪克·切尼称为叛徒,那是你能赋予一个美国人的至高荣誉,我们听到一个像他、范斯坦、金那样的人惊慌失措的谈话越多,我们所有人的状况就越好。如果他们上了一堂如何成为让迪克·切尼揪心的那种公民的课,那么我已经从高中毕业了。

  问:加密电子邮件是否能避开国家安全局的监视?我的数据是否得到标准加密的保护?

  斯诺登:加密确实有效果,适当使用的强有力加密系统是你可以依靠的一件东西。不幸的是,终结点的安保非常脆弱,国家局可以经常找到避开它的方法。

  问:你是否认为政府对宾尼、德拉克和其他人的处理影响了你的道路?你是否感受到了“系统奏效”?

  斯诺登:宾尼、德拉克、基里亚库、曼宁都是对为公众利益而报料者作出过份严厉处理只会提升未来报料的规模、范围和技能的例子。
  有良心的公民不会因为他们因此被毁灭而对错误行为置之不理,他们的良心不允许这样做。政府对他们采取的严厉措施只是打造了更好的报料者。如果奥巴马政府对我采取更强硬的措施,他们将会很快发现自己将会面临同样强硬的公众。
  报料为奥巴马提供了一个呼吁重返理性、宪法政策、法制而非人制的机会。他仍有许多时间,他可以作为向下看悬崖,向后退而不是向前跳入悬崖的总统载入史册。我个人建议他召集一个特别委员会来评估这些监视项目、放弃危险的“国家机密”特权,开创在准备离任时任命一位特别调查员来评估在职时的政策以找到错误行为的传统。如果我们最高官员拒绝接受审查,人们将不会对政府有信心,他们应当建立透明性的范例。

  问:“你想对那些可以泄漏机密情报以提高公众对美国情报部门认知度的人说什么?你有什么证据可以否认国家安全局所说的在未获得外国情报监视法庭具体命令无法窃听电话内容的说法?

  斯诺登:美国是一个值得为它而死的国家。

  问:考虑到根据反响你现在正在面临的暴行,你能否描述一下,你究竟是在什么时候,知道了自己将一无反顾地这么做,而不考虑什么后果?生活在一个后泄密的世界,你现在的感受如何?是否一再犹豫后,才决定采取行动?我想,对那些打算成为泄密者的人来说,如果知道具有决定性的时刻究竟是怎样的,将对他们有所帮助。对你的勇气和英雄主义,我要再次表示感谢。

  斯诺登:我想,每个人的经历都是不同的。但对我来说,没有什么单独的时刻。我听到了从高官到国会说的一连串的谎言,美国人民因此也听到了。我意识到了国会完全支持这些谎言,尤以“八人帮”为甚。迫使我采取行动的,就是这些因素。我看到,像国家情报主管詹姆斯·克莱帕这样一个身居高位的人,居然露骨地向公众撒谎,并且没有什么反响,这就是一个被毁灭的民主政体的证据。如果被统治者未被告知真相,那么他们的认可就并非真正的认可。

  问:就你是否秘密将机密情报交给中国政府的问题,一些人称你没有清楚回答这个问题?你能否明确否认这一点?

  斯诺登:我没有那么做,我没有接触中国政府,与卫报和华盛顿邮报一样,我只与记者合作。

  问:到目前为止,就公共辩论而言,事情是否向你想像的那样发展?

  斯诺登:我开始时很受鼓舞。不幸的是,主流媒体现在看起来对我17岁所说的话或者我的女朋友长什么样更感兴趣,而不是人类历史上最大规模的可疑监视项目。

  问:你还想补充什么吗?

  斯诺登:我想就所有支持者的支持表示感谢,请记住,只因为你不是监视项目的目标并不是可以实施监视项目的理由。美国公民/外国人的区分不是个人化怀疑的合理取代,做这样的区分只是为了改善监视项目的支持度。这正是美国国家安全局提供给国会的理由,以为其监视项目获得特别豁免权。(全文完)
------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20aux-1%20Mini-bento:Bento%20box%208%20col:Position2
Edward Snowden's live Q&A: eight things we learned
Key points from the whistleblower's responses to questions about the NSA leak
Haroon Siddique    
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 18 June 2013 12.47 BST 

Edward Snowden Q&A
It is the interview the world's media organisations have been chasing for more than a week, but instead Edward Snowden is giving Guardian readers the exclusive.

The 29-year-old former NSA contractor and source of the Guardian's NSA files coverage will – with the help of Glenn Greenwald – take your questions today on why he revealed the NSA's top-secret surveillance of US citizens, the international storm that has ensued, and the uncertain future he now faces. Ask him anything.

Snowden, who has fled the US, told the Guardian he "does not expect to see home again", but where he'll end up has yet to be determined.

He will be online today from 11am ET/4pm BST today. An important caveat: the live chat is subject to Snowden's security concerns and also his access to a secure internet connection. It is possible that he will appear and disappear intermittently, so if it takes him a while to get through the questions, please be patient.

To participate, post your question below and recommend your favorites. As he makes his way through the thread, we'll embed his replies as posts in the live blog. You can also follow along on Twitter using the hashtag #AskSnowden.

We expect the site to experience high demand so we'll re-publish the Q&A in full after the live chat has finished.

Updated at 10.03am ET
Question:
GlennGreenwald
17 June 2013 2:11pm

Let's begin with these:
1) Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?
2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?

Answer:
1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.
Second, let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.

2) All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.

Question:
ewenmacaskill
17 June 2013 3:07pm

I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?

Answer:
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

Question:
ActivistGal 
17 June 2013 2:15pm
You have said HERE that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army private...
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?

Answer:
No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.

Question:
D. Aram Mushegian II 
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

Answer:
I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.
Question:
Gabrielaweb 
17 June 2013 2:17pm
Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?

Answer:
Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.

Question:
Anthony De Rosa 
17 June 2013 2:18pm
1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.
2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

Answer:
1) More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

Updated at 11.41am ET
Anthony De Rosa 
17 June 2013 2:18pm
1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.
2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

Answer:
2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

Glenn Greenwald follow up: When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?

Answer:
Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

Question:
HaraldK 
17 June 2013 2:45pm
What are your thoughts on Google's and Facebook's denials? Do you think that they're honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they're compelled to lie?
Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you're presented with a secret order that you're forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?

Answer:
Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.
They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?

Question:
MonaHol 
17 June 2013 4:37pm
Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country.
Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this:
I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.
Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?

Answer:
Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

Question:
Spencer Ackerman 
17 June 2013 4:16pm
Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you?

Answer:
This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk "RED CHINA!" reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.

Question:
Kimberly Dozier @KimberlyDozier 
US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond? http://www.guardiannews.com  #AskSnowden

Answer:
US officials say this every time there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.

Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.

Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.

Updated at 12.11pm ET
Question:
Mathius1 
17 June 2013 2:54pm
Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? Id my data protected by standard encryption?

Answer:
Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.


12.24pm ET
Question:
Do you believe that the treatment of Binney, Drake and others influenced your path? Do you feel the "system works" so to speak? #AskSnowden
12:00 AM - 18 Jun 2013

Answer:
Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response.

This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.


Question:
Ryan Latvaitis 
17 June 2013 2:34pm
What would you say to others who are in a position to leak classified information that could improve public understanding of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and its effect on civil liberties?
What evidence do you have that refutes the assertion that the NSA is unable to listen to the content of telephone calls without an explicit and defined court order from FISC?

Answer:
This country is worth dying for.

Question:
AhBrightWings 
17 June 2013 2:12pm
My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

Answer:
I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

Follow-up from the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman:
Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn't answer clearly - can you give a flat no?

Answer:
No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.

Question:
So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala

Answer:
Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

Final question from Glenn Greenwald:
Anything else you’d like to add?

Answer:

Thanks to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person / foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

沒有留言:

張貼留言