http___www.ted.com_talks_edward_snowden_here_s_how_we_take_back_the_internet_transcript_language_hr_1.xml
1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 7.1 7.2 7.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 9.1 9.2 9.3 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 11.1 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.9 14.10 14.11 14.12 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 20.1 20.2 20.3 21.1 21.2 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 23.9 24.1 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 26.1 26.2 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 28.1 29.1 30.1 30.2 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 31.9 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 34.8 35.1 35.2 36.1 37.1 38.1 38.2 38.3 38.4 38.5 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 40.1 40.2 41.1 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 43.1 44.1 44.2 44.3 44.4 44.5 44.6 45.1 46.1 47.1 48.1 48.2 49.1 49.2 50.1 51.1 52.1 52.2 52.3 53.1 53.2 53.3 53.4 53.5 53.6 54.1 54.2 54.3 54.4 54.5 55.1 55.2 55.3 56.1 57.1 58.1 58.2 59.1 59.2 59.3 59.4 59.5 60.1 60.2 61.1 61.2 61.3 62.1 62.2 62.3 62.4 62.5 63.1 64.1 65.1
Transcript 0:12 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? 0:44 Edward Snowden: Ha, I can see everyone. This is amazing. (Laughter) 0:52 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? 1:08 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. 1:58 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. 4:45 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. 5:02 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. 6:47 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? 7:09 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. 8:59 CA: What more should they do? 9:01 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 Amazon.com, 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 Amazon.com, 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. 10:12 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? 10:22 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. 11:43 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. 11:54 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? 13:20 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. 14:55 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? 15:21 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. 17:13 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? 17:27 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. 17:41 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? 18:01 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. 19:27 CA: And do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyberattacks from other sources? 19:38 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. 20:40 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. 20:50 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. 21:48 CA: I mean, do you think there's a deeper motivation for them than the war against terrorism? 21:53 ES: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, say again? 21:55 CA: Sorry. Do you think there's a deeper motivation for them other than the war against terrorism? 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. 23:03 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? 23:36 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. 24:32 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. 25:15 ES: I can see you. (Laughter) 25:18 CA: And who goes with the second choice, the fundamentally heroic act? 25:22 (Applause) (Cheers) 25:25 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? 26:02 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. 26:49 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? 27:02 (Applause) 27:04 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 -- 27:17 Tim Berners-Lee: I've given much longer answers to that question, but hero, if I have to make the choice between the two. 27:26 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. 28:34 CA: Do you have a question for Ed? 28:36 TBL: Well, two questions, a general question — 28:39 CA: Ed, can you still hear us? 28:41 ES: Yes, I can hear you. CA: Oh, he's back. 28:45 TBL: The wiretap on your line got a little interfered with for a moment. (Laughter) 28:50 ES: It's a little bit of an NSA problem. 28:52 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? 29:08 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. 30:06 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. 30:36 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. 31:58 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. 32:12 CA: Thank you, Tim. 32:15 (Applause) 32:20 I mean, The New York Times recently called for an amnesty for you. Would you welcome the chance to come back to America? 32:29 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) 33:35 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? 33:51 ES: Canada is different than what I expected. It's a lot warmer. (Laughter) 34:01 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. 34:46 Thank you very much. 34:47 CA: Ed, thank you. 34:49 (Applause)
1.1 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10 11.11 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11 14.1 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 17.11 18.1 18.2 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9 20.10 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.10 22.11 22.12 22.13 22.14 23.1 23.2 23.3 24.1 24.2 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 26.6 26.7 26.8 26.9 26.10 27.1 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 29.1 29.2 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 30.6 31.1 32.1 33.1 33.2 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 34.7 34.8 34.9 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.4 35.5 35.6 36.1 36.2 36.3 36.4 36.5 36.6 36.7 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 37.5 37.6 37.7 37.8 38.1 38.2 39.1 40.1 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4 43.1 43.2 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 46.1 47.1 47.2 47.3 47.4 47.5 47.6 48.1 49.1 50.1 51.1 51.2 52.1 52.2 53.1 54.1 55.1 55.2 55.3 56.1 56.2 56.3 56.4 56.5 56.6 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 57.5 58.1 58.2 58.3 59.1 61.1 61.2 62.1 62.2 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.6 62.7 63.1 63.2 64.1 64.2 64.3 65.1 65.2 65.3 65.4 65.5 66.1 67.1
Subtitles and Transcript Translated by Maja Covic Reviewed by Ivan Stamenkovic 0:12 Chris Anderson: Prava građana, budućnost Interneta. Rado bih na pozornicu TED-a pozvao čovjeka koji stoji iza tih otkrića, Eda Snowdena. (Pljesak) Ed je na udaljenoj lokaciji negdje u Rusiji i kontrolira ovog robota putem svoga laptopa, tako da može vidjeti što vidi robot. Ed, dobrodošao na pozornicu TED-a. Što, zapravo, možeš vidjeti? 0:44 Edward Snowden: Ha, vidim sve. Ovo je nevjerojatno. (Smijeh) 0:52 CA: Ed, imam neka pitanja za tebe. Zvali su te svakakvim imenima zadnjih nekoliko mjeseci. Zvali su te zviždačem, izdajicom, junakom. Kojim riječima bi se ti sam opisao? 1:08 ES: Svatko tko je uključen u ovu raspravu ima problema sa mnom, mojom osobnošću i s tim kako da me opiše. No, kada razmislim o tome, ne bismo se trebali time zamarati. Zaista nije važno tko sam ja. Da sam najgora osoba na svijetu, možete me mrziti i nastaviti dalje. Ovdje su bitni problemi. Bitno je kakvu vladu želimo, kakav Internet želimo, kakve odnose među ljudima i društvima želimo. Nadam se da će se rasprava usmjeriti prema tome, i vidjeli smo da se interes za to tijekom vremena povećao. Da se trebam opisati, ne bih koristio izraze poput "junak". Ne bih rekao "domoljub" niti "izdajica". Rekao bih da sam Amerikanac i građanin, poput svih ostalih. 1:58 CA: Samo da damo neki kontekst onima koji nisu upoznati sa cijelom pričom -- (Pljesak) — u ovo vrijeme prošle godine, bio si stacioniran na Havajima, radeći kao savjetnik za NSA. Kao administrator sustava, imao si pristup njihovim sustavima, i počeo si otkrivati određene tajne dokumente nekim pomno odabranim novinarima što je dovelo do otkrića u lipnju. Što te je potaknulo da to napraviš? ES: Znaš, dok sam sjedio na Havajima, i godinama prije toga, dok sam radio u obavještajnoj zajednici, vidio sam puno uznemirujućih stvari. U obavještajnoj zajednici radimo mnogo dobrih stvari, stvari koje trebaju biti učinjene, i koje pomažu svima. No postoje i stvari koje odlaze predaleko. Postoje stvari koje se ne bi smjele raditi, i odluke koje su se donosile u tajnosti bez znanja javnosti, bez pristanka javnosti, i čak bez saznanja naših predstavnika u vladi o ovim programima. Kada su me zaista počeli mučiti ti problemi, pitao sam se kako to mogu raditi na najodgovorniji način, kojim ću maksimizirati javnu korist i minimalizirati rizike. I od svih rješenja kojih sam se sjetio, od toga da odem u Kongres, kada nisu postojali zakoni, nije postojala pravna zaštita za privatnog zaposlenika, ugovornog djelatnika u obavještajnoj službi, poput mene, postojala je opasnost da me se pokopa zajedno s informacijama a javnost nikada ne bi saznala. No, Prvi amandman Američkog ustava jamči nam slobodu tiska s razlogom, a to je da omogući kritično novinarstvo, da vladi postavlja izazove, ali i da surađuje s vladom, da vodi dijalog i raspravu o tome kako možemo informirati javnost o ključnim pitanjima bez da ugrožavamo nacionalnu sigurnost. No, surađujući s novinarima, dajući sve svoje informacije Američkom narodu, umjesto da sebi povjeravam odluke o njihovom objavljivanju, vodio sam žestoku raspravu s vladom koja se snažno angažirala, i vjerujem da je rezultat toga bila korist za sve nas. Rizici koji su prijetili, rizici koje je naglašavala vlada nikada se nisu ostvarili. Nikada nismo vidjeli nikakve dokaze ni o jednom štetnom slučaju, i zbog toga miran sam što sam donio takvu odluku. 4:45 CA: Dopusti mi da pokažem publici par primjera onoga što si razotkrio. Ako bismo mogli dobiti slajd, i Ed, ne znam možeš li vidjeti, slajdovi su ovdje. Ovo je slajd o programu PRISM, i možda bi mogao objasniti publici što je to bilo otkriveno. 5:02 ES: Najbolji način da shvatite PRISM, budući da je bilo kontroverzi oko njega, jest da kažem što PRISM nije. U Americi je bilo puno rasprave u vezi metapodataka. Govorili su da su to "samo metapodatci, samo metapodatci", i govore o određenoj pravnoj nadležnosti zvanoj Sekcija 215 Patriotskog zakona. On omogućuje prisluškivanje bez naloga, masovni nadzor telefonskih zapisnika cijele zemlje, takve stvari -- s kime razgovarate, kada razgovarate s njima, kamo ste putovali. To su sve primjeri metapodataka. PRISM je usredotočen na sadržaj. To je program preko kojeg bi vlada mogla prisiliti korporativnu Ameriku, delegirati je da radi njene prljave poslove za NSA. I iako su se neke tvrtke suprotstavile tome, iako su neke od njih -- mislim da je jedna od njih Yahoo - tužile vladu na sudu, sve su izgubile spor, jer se suđenje odvijalo na sudu zatvorenom za javnost. Odlučivao je jedino tajni sud. I nešto što smo vidjeli, nešto u vezi programa PRISM što je za mene jako zabrinjavajuće jest to da je Američka vlada iznijela argument tvrdeći da je 15 saveznih sudaca istražilo te programe i zaključilo da su zakoniti, no ono što vam ne govore jest da su to tajni suci na tajnom sudu temeljenom na tajnim tumačenjima zakona koji je odlučivao o 34.000 zahtjeva za ovlasti tijekom 33 godine, i u 33 godine odbio je samo 11 vladinih zahtjeva. Ne želimo da nam takvi ljudi odlučuju kakva bi trebala biti uloga korporativne Amerike na slobodnom i otvorenom Internetu. 6:47 CA: Ovaj slajd koji pokazujemo prikazuje datume kada su se različite tehnološke i Internetske tvrtke navodno uključile u program, i kako je od njh započelo prikupljanje podataka. One su zanijekale suradnju s NSA. Kako je NSA prikupljao te podatke? 7:09 ES: Slajdovi koji pripadaju NSA nazivaju to izravnim pristupom. Ono što to znači konkretnom analitičaru u NSA, nekome poput mene, koji sam radio kao obavještajni analitičar usmjeren na Kineske cyber hakere, i takve stvari, na Havajima, jest da te podatke dobiva izravno s njihovih servera. To ne znači da postoji grupa predstavnika tvrtke koji sjede u zadimljenoj prostoriji s NSA družeći se i ugovarajući zakulisne dogovore kako će predati te podatke. Svaka tvrtka to radi na drukčiji način. Neke su odgovorne. Neke su nešto manje odgovorne. No zaključak jest taj da, kada govorimo o tome kako se ove informacije daju, da one dolaze od samih tvrtki. Nisu ukradene s linija. No, ovdje treba upamtiti važnu činjenicu: iako su se tvrtke usprotivile, iako su tvrtke zahtijevale da se to čini kroz ovlašteni proces, da se to čini tako da imaju neki pravni nadzor, nekakve temelje za davanje takvih korisničkih podataka, čitali smo prošle godine priče u Washingt Postu, koje nisu bile toliko dobro iznesene kao reportaža o PRISM-u, koje su tvrdile kako je NSA upala u komunikacije podatkovnog centra između sebe i Googla i između sebe i Yahooa. Tako da čak i te kompanije koje surađuju na prisilan, no nadajmo se i zakonit način s NSA, NSA nije time zadovoljna, i zbog toga, naše tvrtke trebaju raditi puno na tome da mogu jamčiti kako će predstavljati interese korisnika i da će se boriti za njihova prava. Mislim da smo tijekom prošle godine vidjeli kako tvrtke koje su navedene na slajdovima PRISM-a brzo napreduju prema tome, i ja ih potičem da tako tako nastave. 8:59 CA: Što bi još te tvrtke trebale napraviti? 9:01 ES: Najveća stvar koju neka Internetska tvrtka u Americi može napraviti danas, sad odmah, bez da se savjetuju s odvjetnicima, kako bi zaštitili prava korisnika diljem svijeta, jest da omoguće SSL kriptografsku zaštitu mreže na svakoj stranici koju posjećujete. Razlog zašto je ovo bitno danas jest taj što, ako pogledate primjerak knjige "1984" na Amazonu, NSA može vidjeti zapis o tome, Ruska obavještajna služba može vidjeti zapis o tome, Kineska služba može to vidjeti, Francuska služba, Njemačka služba, služba Andore. Sve one mogu to vidjeti jer nije kriptogrsfski zaštićeno. Amazon je svjetska knjižnica, no ne samo da već standardno ne podržava enkripciju, već nemate ni opciju da birate korištenje enkripcije kada pregledavate knjige. To trebamo promijeniti, ne samo za Amazon, ne želim ih izdvajati, no oni su odličan primjer. Sve se tvrtke trebaju okrenuti standardnoj kriptografskoj zaštiti pregledavanja za sve korisnike koji nisu poduzeli nikakve mjere ili odabrali neku svoju posebnu metodu. To će povećati privatnost i prava za ljude diljem svijeta. 10:12 CA: Ed, pođi sa mnom na ovu stranu pozornice. želim ti pokazati slijedeći slajd. (Pljesak) Ovo je program zvan Boundelss Informant (Bezgranični doušnik). Što je to? 10:22 ES: Moram pohvaliti NSA što korisiti prikladne nazive za ovo. Ovo mi je jedan od najdražih NSA-inih kriptonima. Bezgranični doušnik program je koji je NSA skrila od Kongresa. Kongres je prethodno ispitao NSA postoji li mogućnost da približno procijeni količinu komunikacija u Americi koju se presreće. Rekli su da ne mogu, da ne prate tu statistiku, i da je ne mogu pratiti. Rekli su da ne mogu reći koliku količinu komunikacija diljem svijeta presreću, jer da im to kažu, to bi bilo narušavanje naše privatnosti. Jako cijenim takav njihov stav, no, ako pogledate ovaj slajd, vidite da u stvari ne samo da imaju mogućnost da to naprave, ta mogućnost već postoji. Već je u pogonu. NSA ima unutarnji podatkovni format koji prati oba kraja komunikacija, i ako taj format pokaže da neka komunikacija dolazi iz Amerike, mogu reći Kongresu koliki broj tih komunikacija trenutno imaju. Ono što nam Bezgranični doušnik govori jest da se u Americi presreće više komunikacija Amerikanaca nego što se u Rusiji presreće komunikacija Rusa. Nisam siguran da bi se jedna obavještajna služba trebala usmjeravati na takvo što. 11:43 CA: Ed, u Washington Postu je bila objavljena priča, opet temeljena na tvojim podacima. Naslov je glasio, "NSA prekršila pravila privatnosti nekoliko tisuća puta u godini dana." Pričaj nam o tome. 11:54 ES: Slušali smo prošle godine u kongresnom svjedočenju. Bilo je nevjerojatno za nekoga poput mene, tko dolazi iz NSA i tko je vidio konkretne interne dokumente, i zna što je u njima, gledati službenike kako svjedoče pod prisegom kako nije bilo nikakvih zlouporaba položaja, kako nije bilo kršenja NSA-inih pravila, kada smo već znali da je ova priča u igri. No, ono što je ovdje posebno zanimljivo jest činjenica da je NSA prekršila vlastita pravila, vlastite zakone par tisuća puta u samo jednoj godini, uključujući jedan izdvojen slučaj, jedan od njih 2776, koji je imao utjecaja na preko 3000 ljudi. U jednom drugom slučaju, presreli su sve pozive iz Washingtona D.C.-a, slučajno. Nevjerojatno je to da je ovo izvješće, koje nije privuklo puno pozornosti, činjenica kako nije samo bilo 2776 slučaja zlouporabe, već i to da predsjednica Komiteta Američkog Senata za obavještajne službe, Dianne Feinstein, nije vidjela to izvješće dok je Washington Post nije kontaktirao tražeći njen komentar na to izvješće. Tada je od NSA zatražila primjerak izvješća i dobila ga, no prethodno ga nije bila vidjela. Što nam to govori o propustima u Američkim obavještajnim službama kada predsjednica Komiteta Američkog Senata za obavještajne službe nema pojma da se pravila krše nekoliko tisuća puta svake godine? 13:20 CA: Ed, jedan odgovor na cijelu ovu raspravu je ovaj: Zašto da se brinemo oko svog tog nadzora? Ako nisi ništa loše napravio, nemaš se čega bojati. Što nedostaje takvom načinu gledanja? ES: Kao prvo, odričete se svojih prava. Govorite kako mislite da vam neće biti potrebna, tako da ćete jednostavno vjerovati da ih se treba riješiti, da nisu bitna, da će ti momci obaviti posao kako treba. Vaša prava su bitna, jer nikada ne znate kada ćete ih trebati. Više od toga, oni su dio našeg kulturnog identiteta, ne samo u Americi, već u Zapadnim društvima, i u demokratskim društvima diljem svijeta. Ljudi bi trebali moći podići slušalicu i nazvati svoje obitelji, ljudi bi trebali moći poslati sms poruku svojim voljenima, ljudi bi trebali moći kupiti knjigu putem Interneta, trebali bi moći putovati vlakom, trebali bi moći kupiti avionsku kartu, bez da se pitaju kako će te radnje izgledati nekom vladinom agentu, koji čak vjerojatno pripada nekoj stranoj vladi, godinama kasnije, kako će biti krivo protumačene i što će misliti koje su vam bile namjere. Mi imamo pravo na privatnost. Zahtijevamo da se nalozi temelje na vjerojatnoj sumnji ili nekoj individualiziranoj sumnji jer shvaćamo da je povjeriti bilo kome, ijednom vladinom tijelu, cjelokupne komunikacije ljudi u tajnosti i bez nadzora jednostavno preveliko iskušenje da bi ga se ignoriralo. 14:55 CA: Neki ljudi su bijesni zbog toga što si učinio. Nedavno sam čuo citat Dicka Cheneyja koji je izjavio da je Julian Assange bio ugriz buhe, dok je Edward Snowden lav koji je psu odgrizao glavu. Smatra da si počinio jednu on najgorih izdaja u Američkoj povijesti. Što bi rekao ljudima koji tako razmišljaju? 15:21 ES: Dick Cheney je zaista nešto posebno. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Hvala. (Smijeh) Smatram to zapanjujućim, budući da, u vrijeme kada je Julian Assange radio na jednom od svojih najvećih djela, Dick Cheney je izjavljivao da će to uništiti vlade diljem svijeta, da će se nebesa zapaliti i da će mora ispariti, a sada govori da je to bio ugriz buhe. Zato bismo trebali biti sumnjičavi oko takvih i sličnih napuhanih izjava ovakih dužnosnika o šteti koja se nanosi nacionalnoj sigurnosti. No, pretpostavimo da ti ljudi zaista vjeruju u to. Tvrdio bih da oni imaju ograničenu predodžbu o nacionalnoj sigurnosti. Povlastice ljudi poput Dicka Cheneyja ne čine naciju sigurnom. Interes javnosti nije uvijek jednak nacionalnom interesu. Ratovanje s ljudima koji nam nisu neprijatelji na mjestima koja nisu prijetnja ne čine nas sigurnima, i to je tako, bilo da je riječ o Iraku ili o Internetu. Internet nije neprijatelj. Naše gospodarstvo nije neprijatelj. Američke tvrtke, Kineske tvrtke, i bilo koje druge tvrtke dio su našeg društva. Dio su našeg međusobno povezanog svijeta. Vežu nas bratske spone, a ako uništimo te spone potkopavanjem standarda, sigurnosti, načina ponašanja, koje nacije i građani diljem svijeta očekuju da ih poštujemo. 17:13 CA: No, smatra se da si ukrao 1,7 milijuna dokumenata. Čini se da je tek nekoliko stotina njih dosad podijeljeno s novinarima. Slijedi li još otkrića? 17:27 ES: Definitivno slijedi još otkrića. Nije uopće upitno da neke od najznačajnijih objava tek slijede. 17:41 CA: Priđi ovdje, htio bih te pitati nešto o ovom konkretnom otkriću. Pogledaj ovo. Mislim da je ovo priča koja je za mnoge informatičare ovdje najšokantnija stvar koju su čuli u posljednjih nekoliko mjeseci. Radi se o programu "Bullrun". Možeš li objasniti o čemu je riječ? 18:01 ES: Ovdje također trebamo zahvaliti NSA na iskrenosti. Bullrun je program nazvan prema jednoj bitci u Američkom građanskom ratu. Britanska verzija se zove Edgehill, prema bitci u engleskom građanskom ratu. Vjerujem da su tako nazvani jer ciljaju na našu vlastitu infrastrukturu. To su programi pomoću kojih NSA hotimično vara korporativne partnere. Govore korporativnim partnerima da su ovo sigurni standardi. Govore im da trebaju poslovati s njima kako bi zaštitili njihove programe, no zapravo, daju loše savjete tim tvrtkama koje posljedično smanjuju sigurnost svojih usluga. Ugrađuju tajne pristupe svojim uslugama koje ne samo da NSA može iskorištavati, već i svatko tko ima vremena i novaca da ih istraži i pronađe može ih iskoristiti da upadne u sve komunikacije na svijetu. To je zaista opasno, jer ako izgubimo jedan jedini standard, ako izgubimo povjerenje u nešto poput SSL-a, na kojega je posebno ciljao program Bullrun, svi ćemo živjet u manje sigurnom svijetu. Nećemo moći pristupiti našim bankama niti trgovini bez straha da netko prati našu komunikaciju ili ih potkopava iz vlastite koristi. 19:27 CA: Izlažu li te iste odluke Ameriku cyber napadima iz drugih izvora? 19:38 ES: Apsolutno. Jedan od problema, jedna od opasnih ostavština koje smo vidjeli nakon napada 11. rujna, jest da je NSA tradicionalno imala dva zadatka. Upravljala je ofenzivnim operacijama, poput hakiranja, no upravljala je i obrambenim operacijama, i tradicionalno je uvijek davala prioritet obrani umjesto napadu bazirajući se po principu da su Američke tajne vrednije od tuđih. Ako hakiramo Kinesko poslovanje i ukrademo njihove tajne, ako hakiramo ured u Berlinu i ukrademo njihove tajne, to za Amerikance vrijedi manje od toga da se osiguramo da Kinezi neće moći doći do naših tajni. Smanjivanjem zaštite naših komunikacija, ne samo da ugrožavaju svijet, već ugrožavaju i Ameriku na fundamentalan način, budući da je intelektualno vlasništvo osnova, temelj naše ekonomije, i ako to ugrozimo slabom zaštitom, ispaštat ćemo za to godinama. 20:40 CA: No procijenili su da je vrijedilo to učiniti kao jedan od načina obrane Amerike od terorizma. Sigurno da je to cijena koju vrijedi platiti. 20:50 ES: Kada pogledate rezultate tih programa u sprečavanju terorizma, vidjet ćete da je to neutemeljeno, i ne morate mi vjerovati, budući da smo imali prvo otvoreno suđenje. Prvi federalni sud koji je ovo preispitao, bez tajnih postupaka, nazvao je ove programe "orwellskim" i jamačno neustavnim. Kongres, koji ima pravo dobivati izvješća o ovakvim stvarima, i koji sada želi čuti izvješća, donio je zakone o njihovom uređivanju, a dva nezavisna vijeća Bijele Kuće koja su pregledala sve tajne dokaze ustvrdila su kako ti programi nikada nisu zaustavili niti jedan teroristički napad koji je prijetio SAD-u. Radili se ovdje, stoga, zaista o sprečavanju terorizma? Imaju li ovi programi ikakvu vrijednost? Tvrdim da nemaju, i sve tri grane Američke vlade tvrde isto to. 21:48 CA: Vjeruješ li da postoji neki dublji razlog od borbe protiv terorizma? 21:53 ES: Oprosti, nisam te čuo, možeš li ponoviti? 21:55 CA: Oprosti. Vjeruješ li da postoji neki dublji razlog za njih od borbe protiv terorizma? Sve se svodi na to da je terorizam oduvijek bio ono što mi u obavještajnom svijetu zovemo pokriće za djelovanje. Terorizam je nešto što izaziva emocionalni odgovor koji omogućuje ljudima da racionaliziraju ovlaštene autoritete i programe što u protivnom ne bi činili. Programi poput Bullruna i Edgehilla, NSA je tražila takve ovlasti još u 1990-ima. Tražili su od FBI-a da ode u Kongres i lobira za njih. FBI je otišao u Kongres i doista lobirao. Međutim, Kongres i Američki narod rekli su "ne". Rekli su da ne vrijedi riskirati našu ekonomiju. Rekli su da prijeti prevelika šteta za društvo da bi mogli opravdati korist. No, u eri nakon 11. rujna, vidjeli smo da su se koristili tajnama i da su koristili terorizam kao opravdanje za pokretanje ovih programa u tajnosti bez da su pitali Kongres za dozvolu, bez da su pitali Američki narod, i to je takva vrsta vlade iza zatvorenih vrata protiv koje se trebamo zaštititi, jer nas čini manje sigurnima, i ne nudi nikakve vrijednosti. 23:03 CA: U redu. Pođi sa mnom ovamo na tren, imam jedno malo privatnije pitanje za tebe. Kada govorimo o strahu, većina ljudi bi smatrala situaciju u kojoj se ti sada nalaziš u Rusiji jako zastrašujućom. Očigledno si čuo što se dogodilo, kakav je tretman prošao Bradley Manning, to jest sada Chelsea Manning, a u Buzzfeedu je bila priča o tome kako ima nekih ljudi u obavještajnim vodama koji ti žele smrt. Kako se nosiš s time? Kako se nosiš sa strahom? 23:36 ES: Nije nikakva tajna da postoje vlade koje me žele mrtvog. Opetovano sam se izjašnjavao kako idem spavati svako jutro razmišljajući što mogu učiniti za američki narod. Ne želim nauditi svojoj vladi. Želim joj pomoći, ali činjenica da su spremni potpuno ignorirati sudski proces, da su spremni nekoga proglasiti krivim bez ikakvog suđenja, to su svari protiv kojih se trebamo boriti kao društvo i reći da to nije prikladno. Ne bismo smjeli prijetiti disidentima. Ne bismo smjeli kriminalizirati novinarstvo. I koju god da ulogu mogu odigrati da se to okonča rado ću je odigrati usprkos rizicima. 24:32 CA: Htio bih dobiti povratnu informaciju od publike ovdje, jer znam da ima vrlo različitih reakcija na Edwarda Snowdena. Pretpostavite da imate ove dvije opcije. Možete smatrati da je ono što je napravio potpuno nepromišljeno djelovanje koje je ugrozilo Ameriku ili možete to promatrati kao definitivno junačko djelo koje će doprinijeti dugoročnom boljitku Amerike i svijeta. Dajem vam te dvije opcije. Zanima me tko će se opredijeliti za prvu opciju, da je to nepromišljeno djelo. Ima nekoliko podignutih ruku. Nekoliko ruku je gore. Teško je dići ruku dok Edward ovdje stoji, no vidim ih. 25:15 ES: Vidim vas. (Smijeh) 25:18 CA: A tko se opredjeljuje za drugu opciju, definitivno junačko djelo? 25:22 (Pljesak) (Navijanje) 25:25 Mislim da sam u pravu kada kažem da ima puno ljudi koji nisu digli ruku i vjerujem da još uvijek promišljaju o ovome, jer mi se čini da se rasprava o tebi ne dijeli prema tradicionalnim političkim linijama. Nije ni lijevo ni desno, ne radi se o pro-vladinoj struji, libertarijanizmu, i ne samo tome. Djelomično je skoro riječ o generacijskom problemu. Pripadaš generaciji koja je odrasla uz Internet, i čini se kao da se ljudi nađu duboko uvrijeđeni kada vide da se radi nešto što smatraju štetnim za Internet. Ima li u tome istine? Mislim da je to potpuno točno. Ovdje se ne radi o problemu ljevice i desnice. Naše osnovne slobode, i kada kažem naše, ne mislim samo na Amerikance, mislim na ljude diljem svijeta, nisu pitanje pristranosti. Ovo su stvari u koje svi ljudi vjeruju, i na svima je nama da ih zaštitimo, i na ljudima koji su vidjeli i uživali u slobodnom i otvorenom Internetu, na nama je da očuvamo tu slobodu za sljedeću generaciju, i ako to ne promijenimo, ako se ne zauzmemo za promjene koje su potrebne da bi se očuvao siguran Internet, ne samo za nas, već za sve, izgubit ćemo ga, a to bi bio izniman gubitak, ne samo za nas, nego i za cijeli svijet. 26:49 CA: Nedavno sam čuo nešto slično od osnivača World Wide Weba, mislim da je ovdje s nama, Sir Tim Berners-Lee. Time, bi li se popeo ovdje i rekao, imamo li mikrofon za Tima? 27:04 Drago mi je da te vidim, Time. Dođi gore. Inače, na kojoj si ti strani? Izdajnik, junak? Imam neku teoriju o tome, no -- 27:17 Tim Berners-Lee: Davao sam puno dulje odgovore na to pitanje, no - junak, ako trebam birati između te dvije opcije. 27:26 CA: Ed, vjerujem da si pročitao prijedlog o kojem je Sir Tim govorio, o novoj Magni Carti kako bi preuzeli Internet. Ima li to smisla? ES: Apsolutno. Moja generacija, ja sam odrastao ne samo razmišljajući o Internetu već sam odrastao u Internetu, i iako nikada nisam očekivao da ću imati priliku braniti ga na tako izravan i praktičan način i utjeloviti ga na ovaj neobičan, skoro avatarski način, mislim da je pomalo poetična činjenica da jedan je od sinova Interneta postao blizak Internetu kao posljedica svojeg političkog izjašnjavanja. Smatram da je Magna Carta za Internet upravo ono što nam je potrebno. Moramo šifrirati naše vrijednosti ne samo u pismenom obliku već i u strukturi Interneta, i tome se nadam, pozivam sve u publici, ne samo ovdje u Vancouveru već diljem svijeta, da se pridruže i sudjeluju. 28:34 CA: Imaš li pitanje za Eda? 28:36 TBL: Imam dva pitanja, općenito pitanje — 28:39 CA: Ed, čuješ li nas još uvijek? 28:41 ES: Da, čujem vas. CA: Evo ga natrag. 28:45 TBL: Uređaj za prisluškivanje na tvojoj liniji malo se upleo na tren. (Smijeh) 28:50 ES: To je problem za NSA. 28:52 TBL: Znači, nakon 25 godina, kad se odmakneš i promisliš, što misliš da je najbolje što bismo mogli postići od svih rasprava koje vodimo o mreži kakvu bismo željeli? 29:08 ES: Kada razmišljamo o tome koliko daleko možemo ići, mislim da je to pitanje koje je jedino ograničeno onime što smo spremni uložiti. Mislim da je Internet koji smo koristili u prošlosti bio upravo ono što mi, ne samo kao nacija već kao ljudi na cijelom svijetu trebamo, i kroz suradnju, uključivanje ne samo tehničkog dijela društva, već kao što si rekao, korisnika, ljudi diljem svijeta koji doprinose putem Interneta, društvenih mreža, koji samo provjeravaju vremensku prognozu, koji se svaki dan pouzdaju u to kao dio svog života, da to brane. Ne samo da ćemo dobiti Internet kakav smo imali, nego još bolji Internet, bolju sadašnjost, nešto čime možemo izgraditi bolju budućnost koja će biti bolja ne samo od onoga čemu smo se nadali nego od bilo čega što smo mogli zamisliti. 30:06 CA: Prošlo je 30 godina od osnivanja TED- a, 1984. Otada je bio mnogo rasprava o tome kako je George Orwell zapravo bio u krivu. Ne promatra nas Veliki Brat. Mi, putem mreže, i transparentnosti, sada promatramo Velikog Brata. Tvoja otkrića su na neki način uništila taj dosta optimističan stav, no još uvijek vjeruješ da se može nešto učiniti oko toga. Kao i ti. 30:36 ES: Treba dokazati da su se ovlasti Velikog Brata iznimno povećale. Nedavno je objavljen pravni članak na sveučilištu Yale koji je ustanovio nešto što se zove Bankston-Soltani princip, a to je da je naše očekivanje privatnosti bilo narušeno kada su sposobnosti vladinog nadzora postale jeftinije prema redu veličine, i svaki put kada se to dogodi, trebamo ponovo razmotriti i preustrojiti naša prava na privatnost. To se nije dogodilo otkad su ovlasti vladinog nadzora porasle nekoliko redova veličine, i zato danas imamo problem, no još uvijek ima nade, jer je moć pojedinaca također porasla pomoću tehnologije. Ja sam živi dokaz kako se pojedinac može suprotstaviti najmoćnijim protivnicima i najmoćnijim službama za nadziranje diljem svijeta i pobijediti, i mislim da je to nešto iz čega trebamo crpiti nadu, i poći od toga i učiniti to dostupnim ne samo informatičkim stručnjacima već i običnim građanima svijeta. Novinarstvo nije zločin, komunikacija nije zločin, i ne bi nas smjeli nadzirati u našim svakodnevnim aktivnostima. 31:58 CA: Ne znam kako se rukovati s robotom, no mislim da je ovo desna ruka. TBL: To će ubrzo doći. ES: Bilo mi je drago upoznati Vas, i nadam se da je moja slika jednako dobra kao što je meni vaša. 32:12 CA: Hvala ti, Time. 32:20 The New York Times je nedavno zatražio tvoje pomilovanje. Bi li rado prihvatio mogućnost povratka u Ameriku? 32:29 ES: Apsolutno. To uopće nije pitanje, principi na kojima se temeljio ovaj projekt bili su interesi javnosti i principi koji su temelj novinarstva u SAD-u i diljem svijeta, i smatram da, ako mediji govore da to podupiru, da se to mora dogoditi, to je onda moćan argument, no ne i finalni argument. Mislim da bi o tome trebala odlučiti javnost. No, istovremeno vlada je nagovijestila da želi nekakav dogovor, da želi da otkrijem s kojim sam novinarima surađivao kako bih se mogao vratiti. Želim jasno naznačiti da ovo nisam učinio kako bih bio siguran. Učinio sam to da napravim nešto što je ispravno, i neću stati s nečime što je u inetesu javnosti samo da bih sebi pomogao. (Pljesak) 33:35 CA: U međuvremenu, zahvaljujući Internetu i ovoj tehnologiji, ovdje si, ponovno u Sjevernoj Americi, ne baš u SAD-u, nego u Kanadi, u ovome obliku. Zanima me, kakav je osjećaj? 33:51 ES: Kanada je drukčija od onog što sam očekivao. Puno je toplije. (Smijeh) 34:01 CA: Za TED je misija "ideje koje vrijedi širiti". Kada bi mogao sažeti u jednoj jedinoj ideji, koja bi bila tvoja ideja vrijedna širenja u ovome trenutku? ES: Rekao bih da je prethodna godina bila podsjetnik kako demokracija može umrijeti iza zatvorenih vrata, no da smo mi kao pojedinci rođeni iza istih tih zatvorenih vrata, i ne trebamo dizati ruke od svoje privatnosti da bismo imali dobre vlade. Ne trebamo odustajati od naše slobode kako bismo bili sigurni. Mislim da zajedničkim djelovanjem možemo imati i otvorenu vladu i privatnost, i radujem se surađivanju sa svima diljem svijeta da se to omogući. 34:46 Puno vam hvala. 34:47 CA: Ed, hvala tebi.