Greenwald Defends Snowden Leaks, Accuses UK of Press Intimidation

BBC Politics

Greenwald asserts that Western intelligence agencies use anti-terror pretexts to hide mass surveillance and economic espionage against allies, while the British state relies on authoritarian intimidation to silence journalists.

AI-assisted summary of Glenn Greenwald full interview on Snowden, NSA, GCHQ and spying - Newsnight — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2013-10-03

Key ideas

Glenn Greenwald defended The Guardian's handling of the Snowden archive, rejecting government claims of compromised national security and arguing that intelligence agencies, rather than journalists, suffered catastrophic operational security failures. (0:03)
Leaked intelligence documents revealed economic espionage against non-terrorist entities, including Brazilian energy giant Petrobras and the Organization of American States, undermining official claims that mass surveillance exists solely to thwart terrorism. (2:58)
Greenwald condemned the UK government's heavy-handed tactics, highlighting the nine-hour detention of David Miranda under the Terrorism Act and the state-supervised physical destruction of hard drives in The Guardian's basement. (7:23)
Snowden remains stranded in Moscow only because the US State Department revoked his passport during transit, with Greenwald asserting that the underlying archive remains protected by encryption uncrackable by Russian intelligence. (10:50)

Detailed notes

## Background This interview was published on YouTube by BBC Politics on October 3, 2013. According to the show description, it features an exclusive BBC Newsnight interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald addressing Edward Snowden, the PRISM revelations, and mass surveillance.

## TL;DR In a pointed exchange, Glenn Greenwald vigorously defends his publication of Edward Snowden's leaked intelligence files, rejecting official accusations that the reporting damaged national security or assisted terrorists. Greenwald argues that the archive exposed systemic surveillance directed against innocent citizens, international allies, and corporate entities rather than dangerous extremists. He condemns the British government's aggressive tactics, contrasting the detention of David Miranda and the physical destruction of Guardian hard drives with First Amendment protections in the United States. Finally, Greenwald recounts his clandestine initial meeting with Snowden in Hong Kong and maintains that Snowden's data remains uncompromised despite his enforced stay in Russia.

## Atmosphere & style The interview crackles with combative, high-stakes tension as the Newsnight presenter subjects Greenwald to an adversarial cross-examination regarding national security risks and operational recklessness. Greenwald counters with blistering, rapid-fire pushback, exuding moral certainty while displaying open disdain for British state intimidation and government-fed narratives. The mood briefly shifts in the closing minutes from a sharp, forensic clash into a suspenseful, spy-thriller reflection as Greenwald describes identifying Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel by looking for a Rubik's Cube.

## Bulletin - [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=3s) Glenn Greenwald defended The Guardian's handling of the Snowden archive, rejecting government claims of compromised national security and arguing that intelligence agencies, rather than journalists, suffered catastrophic operational security failures. - [02:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=178s) Leaked intelligence documents revealed economic espionage against non-terrorist entities, including Brazilian energy giant Petrobras and the Organization of American States, undermining official claims that mass surveillance exists solely to thwart terrorism. - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=443s) Greenwald condemned the UK government's heavy-handed tactics, highlighting the nine-hour detention of David Miranda under the Terrorism Act and the state-supervised physical destruction of hard drives in The Guardian's basement. - [10:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=650s) Snowden remains stranded in Moscow only because the US State Department revoked his passport during transit, with Greenwald asserting that the underlying archive remains protected by encryption uncrackable by Russian intelligence.

## Key takeaways - [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=3s) Greenwald rejects the accusation that he unilaterally decides what enters the public domain, citing a collaborative, line-by-line editorial vetting process with veteran Guardian journalists. - [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=3s) The argument that surveillance disclosures aid terrorists is dismissed as absurd, since hostile actors already assumed electronic surveillance while ordinary citizens were kept entirely in the dark. - [02:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=178s) Disclosures of espionage against Brazil's Petrobras and the Organization of American States demonstrate that the surveillance dragnet extends far beyond counterterrorism and serious crime. - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=286s) Greenwald emphasizes that GCHQ and the NSA were the entities that failed operational security by giving tens of thousands of staff access to raw files, unlike journalists who secured them with heavy encryption. - [04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=286s) The UK government's claim that David Miranda carried accessible passwords was directly contradicted by its own court affidavits, which conceded that only about 75 files could be decrypted. - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=443s) Greenwald clarifies that his Portuguese comments after Miranda's detention were mistranslated, denying allegations of 'revenge journalism' and insisting state intimidation requires deeper journalistic scrutiny. - [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=443s) British officials forcing the physical destruction of computer hard drives inside The Guardian's offices was characterized as an act of authoritarian state censorship. - [09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=571s) A sharp legal divide exists between the US and UK: Greenwald cites First Amendment safeguards as protecting his return to America, while criticizing British authorities for aggressively undermining press freedoms. - [10:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=650s) Edward Snowden secured his classified archive with extreme cryptographic layers that make foreign or Russian intelligence compromise impossible. - [10:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=650s) Snowden's presence in Russia was involuntary, caused by the US revoking his passport and pressuring allies to prevent his transit to Latin America. - [12:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=773s) The initial rendezvous in Hong Kong was arranged without Greenwald knowing Snowden's identity, relying on a Rubik's Cube in Snowden's hand as the visual recognition signal. - [12:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=773s) Widespread global recognition of Snowden's actions as public-interest whistleblowing has complicated US government efforts to apprehend and quietly imprison him.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=3s) Public Interest, National Security, and the Scope of the Leaks

The interview opens with the presenter challenging Glenn Greenwald, speaking via satellite from Rio de Janeiro, over what gives him the right to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes the public interest versus what threatens national security. Greenwald immediately rejects that framing, explaining that he works collaboratively alongside a large team of *Guardian* editors and seasoned national security reporters. He argues that the fundamental purpose of journalism is to serve as an independent check on authority by exposing what those in power attempt to conceal. When the presenter cites official claims that Edward Snowden took around 58,000 British documents—and reminds Greenwald that former GCHQ director Sir David Omand compared the fallout unfavorably to the notorious Philby, Burgess, and Maclean spy ring, calling it an impending "car crash"—Greenwald dismisses reliance on government statistics. Drawing a parallel to the flawed official claims preceding the Iraq War, he insists that raw document counts are irrelevant; what matters is how the material is handled. Every published piece undergoes rigorous line-by-line editorial scrutiny, and Greenwald maintains that not a single word published could plausibly be argued to compromise national security.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Editorial Process vs Government Accusations accDescr: Diagram contrasting the government accusations of intelligence breaches with the journalistic vetting process applied to the Snowden archive.

subgraph GovClaims["Official Accusations"] A["58,000+ UK Documents"] --> B["Equated to Philby, Burgess & Maclean spy ring"] B --> C["Allegations of a national security 'car crash'"] end

subgraph EditorialProcess["Journalistic Vetting"] D["Snowden Archive"] --> E["Line-by-line editorial review with The Guardian"] E --> F["Filtering content vs metadata"] F --> G["Publication limited strictly to public interest"] end ```

The presenter counters by suggesting that publishing detailed information about metadata collection inherently aids terrorists, who will inevitably adapt their communication tactics to bypass intelligence dragnets. Greenwald brands this assertion “completely ludicrous.” He notes that the disclosures go vastly beyond passive metadata into the direct content of private conversations, online chats, emails, and internet browsing histories of ordinary, innocent citizens. Furthermore, he points out that any operative with basic competence has long assumed Western intelligence agencies attempt to monitor their channels. The revelations, he argues, did not teach terrorists that spies exist; they informed regular democratic citizens that the surveillance machine is directed at them.

- Sir David Omand, former director of GCHQ, warned that the Snowden disclosures were worse than the Cold War espionage of Philby, Burgess, and Maclean. - The UK government claimed the leaked archive included roughly 58,000 British intelligence documents. - Glenn Greenwald retorted: “Of course every terrorist who's capable of tying their own shoes has long known that the UK and US governments are trying to monitor their communications.”

---

[02:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=178s) Challenging the Terrorist Narrative: Spying on Allies and Corporations

Pressed repeatedly by the presenter on whether he can definitively guarantee that his reporting has not made it easier for terrorists to operate, Greenwald challenges the logical premise of being asked to prove an absolute negative. Rational journalism, he states, requires weighing competing evidence, and the documentation in their possession demonstrates pervasive spying on law-abiding individuals rather than novel methods against terrorists. When the presenter suggests the public might not be surprised by espionage and could even find broad intelligence operations reassuring, Greenwald points to the fundamental dishonesty of state officials who reassure the public that surveillance targets only terrorists and pedophiles while evidence proves otherwise.

Greenwald cites specific investigations that puncture the official anti-terror narrative. Reporting by his team revealed that GCHQ and the NSA actively conducted economic espionage against Petrobras, the massive Brazilian state-controlled oil enterprise whose earnings fund domestic public and social programs. Similarly, intelligence agencies monitored internal deliberations within the Organization of American States (OAS) during trade and economic negotiations. He questions whether the presenter genuinely believes there are terror cells inside Brazilian energy companies or child exploiters in trade delegations, maintaining that journalists must dismantle deceptive government pretexts used to justify the systematic erosion of privacy rights.

- When asked to prove that the disclosures haven't aided terrorists, Glenn Greenwald stated: “I would like to find a journalist or a human being who says I would rather remain ignorant about what my government is doing in a democracy that is not how a healthy democracy functions.” - Revelations revealed surveillance targeting Petrobras, the Brazilian oil giant, triggering diplomatic tensions between Brazil and Western governments. - Intelligence files showed intercepts aimed at economic diplomacy within the Organization of American States (OAS).

---

[04:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=286s) Security of the Files and David Miranda’s Heathrow Detention

The interview turns tense as the presenter probes the physical and digital security of the unpublished documents, asking bluntly whether Greenwald keeps them in his Rio bedroom or on a USB memory stick in his pocket. Greenwald dismisses the invasive line of questioning regarding his living quarters, highlighting the irony of the accusation: the only parties who demonstrably lost control of classified national security data are GCHQ and the NSA itself. He details how UK intelligence agencies transferred sensitive files to an NSA internal database accessible to tens of thousands of personnel, whereas *The Guardian* has safeguarded its entire archive using high-grade encryption without suffering any loss of control.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Information Security Comparison accDescr: Flowchart contrasting intelligence agency data sharing against the security of journalist archives.

subgraph StateAgencies["Intelligence Failures"] GCHQ["GCHQ Files"] -->|"Uploaded to wide-access network"| NSA["NSA Database (Tens of thousands with access)"] NSA -->|"Breached from within"| Leak["Snowden Whistleblowing"] end

subgraph Newsroom["Guardian Safeguards"] Files["Snowden Material"] --> AdvancedCrypto["Advanced End-to-End Encryption"] AdvancedCrypto --> SecureStorage["Zero Breaches / Fully Maintained Custody"] end ```

The presenter presses further, bringing up the detention of Greenwald’s partner, David Miranda, at London’s Heathrow Airport, alleging that government court submissions showed Miranda was carrying plaintext passwords alongside encrypted drives. Greenwald calls that claim a blatant falsehood peddled by the British government to justify illegal acts in the middle of a high-stakes lawsuit. To debunk the government's claim, Greenwald points directly to the state's own filed legal affidavits, which stated that authorities could only decrypt approximately 75 out of thousands of documents because the material was so heavily fortified by encryption.

- David Miranda was detained for nine hours at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 of the UK's Terrorism Act 2000 while transporting materials. - Greenwald pointed out that the UK government's own court affidavit conceded the seized files remained “heavily encrypted,” with authorities only able to reconstruct roughly 75 documents. - Emphasizing the agencies' operational failures, Glenn Greenwald argued: “The only ones who have lost control of the documents through horrific operational security is the GCHQ and the NSA.”

---

[07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=443s) Retaliation Accusations vs. Journalism Under State Intimidation

The presenter brings up Greenwald’s public reaction immediately following Miranda's nine-hour detention, quoting remarks where Greenwald appeared to warn that he would become far more aggressive, publish significantly more files on England’s surveillance apparatus, and ensure the British authorities would "be sorry for what they did." The presenter suggests this posture resembles political activism or a vendetta of "revenge journalism" rather than objective reporting. Greenwald corrects the timeline and context, clarifying that the interview in question took place roughly four weeks prior in Portuguese and had suffered from distorted translation. Rather than issuing personal threats, he had been asked how the UK’s actions would be perceived internationally; his response was that targeting journalists and their families would be widely viewed in genuine democracies as thuggish, counterproductive, and an embarrassment that British officials would ultimately come to regret.

Far from being an act of revenge, Greenwald insists that investigative scrutiny must intensify whenever governments overreach. He contrasts the behavior of the British state with authoritarian regimes, pointing out that UK officials entered *The Guardian*’s offices to supervise the physical destruction of computer hard drives—an act of state censorship one would anticipate in Iran, Russia, or China, not a Western democracy. Subjecting a journalist’s partner to anti-terror interrogation laws for nine hours was an overt effort at state intimidation, reinforcing why uncompromised, aggressive investigative journalism is urgently needed.

- Reporting on GCHQ's surveillance of Petrobras had already been broadcast on Brazil's *Fantastico* news program following Miranda's release. - UK security agents oversaw the physical destruction of hard drives in *The Guardian*’s basement to suppress reporting. - Framing his journalistic philosophy, Glenn Greenwald declared: “My view of journalism is that the more people in power abuse that power, the more accountability and transparency they prove that they need through journalism.”

[09:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=571s) Personal Safety and the Contrast Between US and UK Press Freedoms

The conversation turns to Glenn Greenwald’s personal safety following the publication of the National Security Agency leaks. Greenwald dismisses personal anxiety, noting that he does not dwell on danger because journalists frequently face difficult circumstances. The Brazilian government has offered and provided him with security in Rio de Janeiro, leaving him content with his current situation.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Greenwald Travel Risk Assessment accDescr: Diagram comparing Greenwald's legal risks when traveling to the US versus the UK.

subgraph US["United States"] US_Const["First Amendment Constitutional Protections"] US_DOJ["Former DOJ Officials Call Journalist Prosecution Unthinkable"] US_Outcome["Plans to return when sensible"] US_Const --> US_DOJ --> US_Outcome end

subgraph UK["United Kingdom"] UK_Acts["Detained partner under Terrorism Act"] UK_Media["Forced The Guardian to destroy hard drives"] UK_Threats["Active threats of criminal investigation"] UK_Outcome["High caution / avoids visiting"] UK_Acts --> UK_Outcome UK_Media --> UK_Outcome UK_Threats --> UK_Outcome end ```

When asked whether he feels safe traveling to the United States and the United Kingdom, Greenwald draws a sharp distinction between the legal regimes of both countries. He expresses full confidence in returning to the United States whenever he chooses, citing the First Amendment: “Well I am going to return to the United States as soon as I I decide that it makes sense to do so because unlike in the UK there's actually a constitutional guarantee of a free press and I think lots of even former Obama Justice Department officials have said it's unthinkable that the Obama Administration would prosecute the journalist in this case.” By contrast, he describes British authorities as operating with hostility toward media freedoms.

- Greenwald notes that the UK government has “proven that they are willing to very thuggishly run roughshod over press freedoms.” - Specific British actions cited include threatening criminal investigations against reporters, detaining his partner (David Miranda) under the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow Airport, and forcing *The Guardian* to physically smash its hard drives and laptops. - Greenwald concludes with a dismissive remark regarding travel restrictions to the UK: “Not being able to visit the UK is not really something I regard as a particularly great punishment.”

---

[10:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=650s) Contact with Snowden, Data Security, and Russian Asylum

The discussion moves to Edward Snowden's status in Russia and whether Greenwald maintains communication with him. Greenwald confirms that they speak regularly, describing him not just as a source but as someone he cares about personally. The interviewer presses him on whether Snowden has been forced to yield classified information in exchange for protection from Russian authorities, especially given his travel through Hong Kong and arrival in Moscow.

Greenwald rejects the allegation, arguing that Snowden's statements have proven completely true throughout their reporting, whereas American and British official accounts have repeatedly fallen apart. He explains that Snowden implemented extreme cryptographic barriers to protect the cache: “I know for a fact that he has protected the data that he has with extreme levels of encryption that not even the NSA let alone the lesser Russian intelligence agencies can crack and he didn't unravel his life to fight surveillance in order to then go to the Russians and help them surveil.”

When the interviewer challenges that Greenwald cannot prove Snowden surrendered nothing, Greenwald turns the interviewer’s earlier logic on its head, reminding him that one cannot prove a negative. He insists that all available evidence demonstrates zero intelligence compromise, and admonishes reporters for speculating without backing: “There's zero evidence that they have and any responsible journalists would refrain from suggesting that that happened when they have no evidence that it did.”

Addressing Snowden’s security given that Russia had only granted a temporary one-year asylum—and citing the grounding of Bolivian President Evo Morales’s plane in European airspace when Western agencies suspected Snowden was on board—Greenwald reminds the program of the real circumstances of Snowden's presence in Moscow: - Snowden never intended to remain in Russia; he was attempting to transit to Latin America when the US State Department revoked his passport and coerced allied nations into blocking transit routes. - Faced with the alternative of serving decades in a maximum-security institution, Greenwald remarks: “Given the alternative which is a supermax prison in United States where he's disappeared for the next 40 years I think he's quite content to be where he is.”

---

[12:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=773s) Meeting in Hong Kong and Snowden's Ultimate Fate

The interviewer shifts to the dramatic spy-thriller atmosphere surrounding the initial reporting, asking Greenwald how he first recognized Snowden in Hong Kong. Greenwald recalls arriving in the city with no knowledge of his source's appearance, name, or age. Snowden arranged a rendezvous in a designated public area of his hotel, instructing Greenwald and documentarian Laura Poitras to look for an operative carrying an iconic prop.

Snowden was not present at the first scheduled meeting time, forcing them to return for a secondary backup window. Minutes later, Snowden appeared holding a Rubik's Cube in his hand, which served as the prearranged visual signal confirming his identity to the journalists.

Turning to the long-term outlook, the interviewer asks whether Snowden will ultimately end up inside an American penitentiary. Greenwald reflects on how much public perceptions have shifted since their initial meetings in Hong Kong, when capture appeared virtually guaranteed:

> “Well when we were in Hong Kong he had assumed I think we were all assuming that that was going to be the likely outcome of the brave choice that he had made which is what made it so brave. I think now it's a lot more difficult because the his reporting is considered heroic by huge numbers of people around the world and I think it's made it much more difficult for the US government to get their hands on him and and basically disappear him and make it so that he's never heard from again.”

## Notable quotes > [07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=443s) My view of journalism is that the more people in power abuse that power, the more accountability and transparency they prove that they need through journalism. — Glenn Greenwald

> [00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94&t=3s) Of course every terrorist who's capable of tying their own shoes has long known that the UK and US governments are trying to monitor their communications. — Glenn Greenwald

## Mentioned Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, David Miranda, Sir David Omand, Laura Poitras, Evo Morales, Barack Obama, The Guardian, BBC Newsnight, GCHQ, NSA, US Department of Justice, US State Department, Petrobras, Organization of American States (OAS), PRISM, Terrorism Act 2000, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Philby, Burgess, and Maclean, Fantastico

## Video description BBC Newsnight exclusive interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald on Edward Snowden, the PRISM revelations and mass surveillance

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1Zvo8N3G94)

中文简报

格林沃尔德为斯诺登泄密事件辩护，指责英国恐吓新闻界格林沃尔德断言，西方情报机构以反恐为借口掩盖对盟友的大规模监控和经济间谍活动，而英国政府则依靠威权式的恐吓手段使记者噤声。在一次尖锐的交锋中，格伦·格林沃尔德有力地为自己报道爱德华·斯诺登泄密情报档案的行为进行辩护，驳斥了官方关于该报道危害国家安全或协助恐怖分子的指控。格林沃尔德认为，这些档案曝光的系统性监控针对的是无辜公民、国际盟友以及企业实体，而非危险的极端分子。他谴责英国政府的激进手段，将戴维·米兰达遭拘留以及《卫报》硬盘被物理销毁的遭遇，与美国第一宪法修正案的保护形成了鲜明对比。最后，格林沃尔德回顾了自己在香港与斯诺登进行的秘密初次会面，并坚称尽管斯诺登被迫滞留俄罗斯，但其数据仍未受到侵害。格伦·格林沃尔德为《卫报》对斯诺登档案的处理进行辩护，驳斥了政府关于国家安全受损的说法，并认为遭遇灾难性行动安全失败的是情报机构本身，而非记者。 (0:03) 泄露的情报文件披露了针对非恐怖主义实体的经济间谍活动，其中包括巴西能源巨头巴西国家石油公司和美洲国家组织，这削弱了官方所谓大规模监控纯粹是为了挫败恐怖主义的说辞。 (2:58) 格林沃尔德谴责了英国政府的高压手段，特别指出了戴维·米兰达根据《反恐法》被拘留九小时，以及政府在《卫报》地下室监督物理销毁硬盘的事件。 (7:23) 斯诺登滞留莫斯科完全是因为美国国务院在其转机途中吊销了他的护照，格林沃尔德断言底层档案仍受到俄罗斯情报部门无法破解的加密技术的保护。 (10:50)

Source quotes

[7:23] Glenn Greenwald: My view of journalism is that the more people in power abuse that power, the more accountability and transparency they prove that they need through journalism. [0:03] Glenn Greenwald: Of course every terrorist who's capable of tying their own shoes has long known that the UK and US governments are trying to monitor their communications.

Original transcript

[0:03] Gordon Carrera well Glenn Greenwald is [0:05] the journalist responsible for releasing [0:07] the information leaked by Edward Snowden [0:09] he joins us from Rio good evening Glenn [0:11] greenworld um first of all why should [0:14] you be the Arbiter about what is in the [0:17] public interest and what is vital to [0:19] National [0:21] Security I'm not the Arbiter of that I [0:24] work with a huge number of Guardian [0:26] editors and some of the most experienced [0:29] National security journalist in the [0:31] world and journalism which is designed [0:34] to serve as a check on those in power is [0:37] about Shining Light on what those people [0:39] who are in power are doing that they try [0:41] and hide from the public and those are [0:43] the judgments that all journalism [0:45] requires every single day um 58,000 [0:48] British documents we know uh at least as [0:51] many presumably from the NSA um you [0:54] heard perhaps a David Oman there for the [0:57] former [0:58] gchq uh chief saying you're not even [1:01] philb Burgess and McLean H had such an [1:04] impact as this and this is a car crash [1:08] coming well this idea that there's [1:11] 58,000 documents just because the UK [1:13] government said it I would hope that [1:15] we've learned the lesson after the Iraq [1:16] war that government claims are not [1:19] tantamount to the truth but I think the [1:21] broader point is that it isn't how many [1:24] documents the guardian or other [1:25] newspapers around the world possess the [1:27] question is what is it that they're [1:29] doing with those documents and in every [1:31] single article that we've published and [1:33] in every single article that we will [1:35] publish we have very carefully gone over [1:37] every single line of every single [1:39] document and not one line not one comma [1:42] of what we published could even [1:43] plausibly be said to damage National [1:45] Security it's all about informing people [1:47] in democracies of what their governments [1:49] are doing but what you have H shown is [1:52] is it where the the huge metadata [1:54] connections now those connections are [1:57] often made to track would be terrorists [1:59] as a very result of those being known to [2:01] people all over the world terrorists [2:04] would be terrorists change their tactics [2:06] so it is very possible that you actually [2:09] by your actions make it easier for [2:12] terrorists to understand how to evade [2:14] all the checks that are made on them [2:18] online that's completely ludicrous first [2:20] of all the premise of your question is [2:22] entirely false we've shown much more [2:25] than just the mere collection of [2:26] metadata we've shown all sorts of [2:28] invasions into the content of [2:30] communications between innocent people [2:33] having conversations with one another [2:34] online through emails online chat [2:36] collection of their browsing history the [2:38] idea that terrorists didn't know excuse [2:41] me that the United States and UK [2:43] governments were trying to monitor their [2:45] Communications is laughable of course [2:47] every terrorist who's capable of tying [2:49] their own shoes has long known that the [2:51] UK and US governments are trying to [2:53] monitor their Communications the only [2:54] thing we've informed people of is that [2:56] the spying system is aimed at them but [2:58] what I want to ask you is how can you be [3:01] sure that your actions have not made it [3:04] easier for terrorists to operate you [3:06] can't be sure of that you can't prove a [3:08] negative like that can [3:11] you well I don't know why you're asking [3:13] me to prove a negative I'm simp proven [3:16] way that the way that the way the way [3:17] that the way that human beings reason [3:19] and that journalists make decisions is [3:21] that you weigh all the competing [3:23] evidence as rationally as you can and we [3:25] know that the evidence that we are [3:26] disclosing to the world is not about [3:28] spying on teror that they don't already [3:30] know about but spying on innocent human [3:32] beings and I would like to find a [3:34] journalist or a human being who says I [3:36] would rather remain ignorant about what [3:38] my government is doing in a democracy [3:40] that is not how a healthy democracy [3:42] functions but do you think it would be [3:43] such a shock that spies actually do spy [3:46] or do you think actually for a a a [3:49] majority of the population perhaps it [3:51] actually might be quite reassuring they [3:53] might actually feel quite [3:56] safe I think it's a shock that [3:58] government officials lie to the face of [4:00] journalists who don't seem to mind very [4:02] much so for example in that segment that [4:04] you just played you had people defending [4:06] the gchq on the grounds that this is [4:08] only about terrorism or pedophiles and [4:11] yet much of the reporting that we've [4:12] done proves that's a lie we we reported [4:15] that the gchq and NSA are spying on [4:17] Petra brass the Large Brazilian oil [4:19] company that funds social programs in [4:21] Brazil are there terrorists and Petra [4:23] Bros or that they're spying on the [4:25] organization of American states when [4:27] they're negotiating economic Agreements [4:28] are they pedophile at the OAS so I think [4:31] that the job of journalists is to [4:32] prevent people in power from lying to [4:35] the people over whom that they over whom [4:37] they're ruling and while some of this [4:38] may be devoted to terrorists huge [4:40] amounts of the system are devoted to [4:42] innocent people in the population whose [4:44] privacy is being eroded let's you [4:46] there's vast amounts of material I I [4:48] gather that you have that still has not [4:50] been revealed at the moment I mean do [4:52] you have this is it in your bedroom in [4:57] Rio I'm not going to talk about what's [4:59] in my bedroom and I'm not going to talk [5:00] about the security measures what I will [5:02] say but I mean do you have I mean [5:04] possible presum you have a little let me [5:06] no people want to know is I'll I'll tell [5:09] you why people want to know they want to [5:11] know I suppose that how can you [5:14] guarantee that the material you have you [5:16] can keep safe I mean the thing is you [5:20] know could it possibly be on a memory [5:22] stick in your pocket I mean people want [5:23] to know how you think you can keep [5:25] things [5:27] safe well I'll be happy to answer that [5:29] that was what I was about to tell you [5:30] when you interrupted there's only one [5:32] group of people who has lost control of [5:34] huge amounts of what they claim are [5:36] important documents and those people are [5:38] called the gchq and the NSA the gchq [5:42] took documents that they claim are so [5:43] very sensitive and put them onto a [5:46] system at the NSA that tens of thousands [5:49] of people have access to we at the [5:51] guardian have protected all of our data [5:53] with extremely Advanced methods of [5:55] encryption and our documents have [5:57] remained completely secure we have not [5:59] lost lost control of any of our material [6:01] that remains entirely secure the reason [6:04] I asked that is because when your [6:06] partner and as it where I suppose [6:08] collaborator um um David Miranda was [6:11] apprehended in the evidence it said that [6:14] actually what he was doing he was [6:16] carrying around password material [6:17] written a piece of paper H beside the [6:20] encrypted files to a lot of people that [6:23] is not very worrying about how uh [6:25] careful you are about [6:28] security [6:30] right well I guess I need to give you [6:31] the reminder again that as a journalist [6:33] you should be aware that simply because [6:35] the government makes a claim especially [6:37] when they're making that claim in the [6:38] middle of a lawsuit while they're being [6:40] sued for violating the law one should [6:42] not go around assuming that claim to be [6:44] factually true the UK government claim [6:47] that my partner was carrying a pass it [6:50] was a it was a lie the idea that he was [6:52] carrying a password that allowed access [6:53] to those documents and let people open [6:55] those documents and read them is [6:57] absolutely false the only ones who have [6:59] lost control of the documents through [7:01] horrific operational security is the [7:03] gchq and the NSA he did not have the [7:06] password and I will show you the proof [7:08] of that just look at the affidavit that [7:09] they filed that said we have to keep [7:11] this material because it's all Quote [7:13] heavily encrypted and we've only been [7:14] able to reconstruct 75 of those [7:17] documents they filed an affidavit [7:19] themselves proving that what they've [7:20] convinced you of is actually a lie well [7:23] I I after what happened to David Miranda [7:25] when he was held and so forth and and [7:28] you know as his partner that must have [7:29] been a very distressing for you you then [7:31] said I'll be far more aggressive in my [7:34] reporting from now I'm going to publish [7:35] many more documents I'm going to publish [7:37] things on England too I have many [7:39] documents on England spy system I think [7:41] they'll be sorry for what they did um is [7:44] there something coming down the pipeline [7:46] because that's a number of months ago [7:49] now right actually it was a few weeks [7:52] ago um I think it was four weeks ago and [7:54] since then there has been a report as I [7:56] said on Fantastico about gchq spying on [7:59] Petr brass which caused a major [8:00] diplomatic scandal with uh with with the [8:04] with with Brazil um but that interview [8:06] that you referen is is in Portuguese and [8:08] you're the translation you're reading [8:09] from is very poor what I was asked was [8:12] how do you think the the British [8:14] government's Behavior both toward the [8:15] guardian and toward your partner will be [8:17] viewed and I said it'll be looked at in [8:19] most democracies where press freedoms [8:21] are protected unlike in the UK um as a [8:24] very thuggish form of behavior and an [8:26] attack on journalism that will make them [8:28] look quite bad I think gets contrary to [8:29] their interest and they'll come to [8:31] regret it it had nothing to do with [8:33] vowing to do Revenge journalism as some [8:35] tried to depict but we will continue [8:37] absolutely aggressively reporting on [8:39] both the gchq and the NSA but do but do [8:41] you see why however inappropriate the [8:43] translation was that it was seen very [8:46] much as you know you acting as a [8:48] campaigner and an activist I kind of you [8:51] talked about revenge journalism being [8:52] the wrong way of describing it but you [8:54] can see how people think [8:57] that no I'll tell you my view of [8:59] journalism very clearly my view of [9:00] Journalism is that the more people in [9:02] power abuse that power the more [9:05] accountability and transparency they [9:07] prove that they need through journalism [9:09] and so when I see a government like the [9:10] UK barge Into The Newsroom of the [9:13] newspaper with which I work and demand [9:15] that they destroy their computers [9:17] something you would expect to hear in [9:18] Iran or Russia or China or when they [9:21] detain someone they think is working [9:22] with a journalist under a terrorism law [9:24] for 9 hours and basically acknowledge [9:26] through the media that they're doing it [9:28] to be intimidated [9:29] that is a government that is attacking [9:31] PR and abusing their power and showing [9:33] that they need more transparency and [9:35] that's the role of Journalism so Glenn [9:37] Greenwell do you fear for your [9:41] safety though that's no I don't that's [9:44] not something I I focus on the Brazilian [9:46] government has actually offered me and [9:47] provided security and I'm perfectly [9:49] content and um with the situation I'm in [9:51] lots of journalists are in difficult [9:53] positions all the time U so it's not [9:55] something I think about but do you feel [9:56] do you feel you could travel further a [9:58] few for example let do you feel you [9:59] could travel one to United States and [10:01] two do you feel H comfortable about [10:03] traveling to [10:07] Britain well I am going to return to the [10:09] United States as soon as I I decide that [10:11] it makes sense to do so because unlike [10:13] in the UK there's actually a [10:14] constitutional guarantee of a free press [10:16] and I think lots of even former Obama [10:19] Justice Department officials have said [10:20] it's Unthinkable that the Obama [10:22] Administration would prosecute the [10:23] journalist in this case the UK is a [10:26] different story because that government [10:27] has proven that they are willing to very [10:29] thuggish run rough shot over press [10:33] freedoms they're threatening criminal [10:34] investigations they detain my partner [10:36] under a terrorism law they forced the [10:38] guardian to destroy their laptops so I [10:40] am much more cautious about traveling to [10:43] the UK although not being able to visit [10:45] the UK is not really something I regard [10:47] as a particularly great punishment are [10:50] you still in touch uh with Edward [10:53] Snowden sure he's my source and and [10:56] somebody I care about and I speak with [10:57] him regularly uh you speak with with him [10:59] regularly and how do you uh know how he [11:02] is being treated and how do you know [11:04] more importantly whether he hasn't had [11:06] to give up Secrets if he's under Russian [11:10] protection because unlike the UK [11:12] government and the US government Mr [11:14] snowden's statements have proven to be [11:16] completely true in every single instance [11:18] I've never once seen him lie to me about [11:19] anything I know for a fact that he has [11:22] protected the data that he has with [11:24] extreme levels of encryption that not [11:26] even the NSA let alone the Lesser [11:28] Russian intelligence agencies can crack [11:30] and he didn't unravel his life to fight [11:33] surveillance in order to then go to the [11:35] Russians and help them surveil no but [11:37] but he has been through China obviously [11:38] in Hong Kong and he's in Russia now you [11:40] can't be sure that he hasn't had to give [11:42] up [11:44] something well you pointed out very [11:47] astutely just a few minutes ago that [11:48] nobody can prove a negative so if you're [11:50] looking for me to prove to you [11:52] mathematically that they don't have any [11:54] data I can't do that what I can do is [11:56] tell you that all of the evidence that [11:57] we do actually know [11:59] makes it ludicrous to think that they [12:02] have obtained any of that data there's [12:04] zero evidence that they have and any [12:06] responsible journalists would refrain [12:08] from suggesting that that happened when [12:10] they have no evidence that it did I [12:12] wonder though uh with Edward Snowden [12:15] whether or not um his position in Russia [12:19] I mean you know if he tried to travel [12:20] look what happened look what the [12:22] Americans did uh you know to the [12:23] presidential plane the Bolivian [12:24] presidential plane over European [12:26] territory does he really feel all that [12:28] safe that Russians have only said they [12:29] keep him for a [12:32] year well remember he didn't choose to [12:34] be in Russia he was trying to pass [12:36] through Russia and the United States [12:37] government basically forced him to be [12:39] there by revoking his passport and [12:41] preventing other countries from letting [12:43] him Transit through but he certainly [12:45] given the alternative which is a super [12:47] max prison in United States where he's [12:49] disappeared for the next 40 years I [12:51] think he's quite content to be where he [12:53] is it's interesting because this is in [12:55] some ways the elements of spy film [12:57] because when you first met him I [12:58] understand understand that how did you [12:59] identify him when you first met [13:03] him Ray I had no idea uh how old he was [13:07] who he was what he looked like before I [13:08] first met him and so the plan was he had [13:10] asked us to go to a part of the hotel [13:12] where he was staying in at a designated [13:14] time and he said that he would enter [13:15] that room and we would know him because [13:17] he was carrying a Rubik's Cube um and we [13:20] went at the designated time he wasn't [13:21] there we came back at the second time [13:23] that he had given us um he showed up a [13:25] couple of minutes later carrying a [13:27] Rubik's Cube and and that was how knew [13:29] that it was our source that we had been [13:30] so finally finally I want to ask you [13:32] because we we've gone from that kind of [13:34] kind of extraordinary kind of spy film [13:35] thing to the idea that he actually might [13:37] end up in an American supermax prison do [13:40] you think ultimately he might indeed end [13:42] up in an American [13:45] prison well when we were in Hong Kong he [13:48] had assumed I think we were all assuming [13:49] that that was going to be the likely [13:50] outcome of the Brave choice that he had [13:52] made which is what made it so brave I [13:54] think now it's a lot more difficult [13:56] because the his reporting is considered [13:58] heroic by huge numbers of people around [14:00] the world and I think it's made it much [14:01] more difficult for the US government to [14:03] get their hands on him and and basically [14:05] disappear him and make it so that he's [14:07] never heard from again uh Glen Greenwall [14:09] thank you very much indeed um