:00:08. > :00:18.Tonight, we examine the fall-out from the leak of thousands of top
:00:18. > :00:25.secret documents by Edward Snowden. Was it an act of vandalism against
:00:25. > :00:31.our national security? Not even the KGB in its day of fill bee and
:00:31. > :00:37.Burgess and Maclean could have dreamt of acquiring 58,000 highly
:00:37. > :00:41.classified intelligence documents. We have an exclusive interview with
:00:41. > :00:46.the journalist responsible for releasing the information leaked by
:00:46. > :00:50.Edward Snowden and we discuss the consequences. I may be freezing to
:00:50. > :00:57.death but you will never get rid of me. All the ice in the world cannot
:00:57. > :01:02.kill a true idea. Back on dry land, the thinker that some call an
:01:02. > :01:11.intellectual rock star, but other a left fascist, talks about his new
:01:11. > :01:17.film. The composer whose music has launched more than 100 films. It's
:01:17. > :01:22.all because I love doing it. I get excited. When somebody comes to show
:01:22. > :01:31.you some images and they've got an idea and they are excited.
:01:31. > :01:40.Good evening. For years we worried that the likes of Google Microsoft
:01:40. > :01:44.and Facebook knew too much. But when the American intelligence contractor
:01:44. > :01:48.Edward Snowden revealed a list of secret programmes the US and British
:01:48. > :01:52.intelligence services have been working on, it seemed the State had
:01:52. > :01:57.amassed a capability beyond everything. Intercepting and storing
:01:58. > :02:02.vast amounts of everyday traffic. The power and scale surprised many,
:02:02. > :02:06.concerned about the level of intrusion it represented, but should
:02:06. > :02:11.we be worried, given the amount of data generated on-line, is it any
:02:11. > :02:15.wonder they require the most powerful systems to find the pieces
:02:15. > :02:27.of information that might prevent a terrorist attack say? How much
:02:27. > :02:31.gathering are we prepared to accept? Piece by piece over the last few
:02:31. > :02:38.months we have got glimpses of something that was previously
:02:38. > :02:42.hidden. Top-secret documents leaked by former American intelligence
:02:42. > :02:50.analyst, Edward Snowden have revealed a huge web of intelligence
:02:50. > :02:53.gathering run by Britain's GCHQ and America's NSA. Even if you are not
:02:53. > :02:57.doing anything wrong, you are being watched and recorded. This is the
:02:57. > :03:02.truth and what is happening. You should decide whether we need to do
:03:02. > :03:06.this. You have a powerful capability to find a small amount that you are
:03:06. > :03:16.looking for, but it doesn't mean that the State is reading everyone's
:03:16. > :03:19.e-mails. The NSA's actions have more than undermined internet security.
:03:19. > :03:24.They've threaten to break it. In the same way that technology has
:03:24. > :03:28.transformed our daily lives, it's revolutionised the world of
:03:28. > :03:36.intelligence. The way in which modern communications flow is
:03:36. > :03:44.dizzyingly complex. I might send an e-mail from my phone using Microsoft
:03:44. > :03:45.or Google. The data will be broken up into tiny packets that might
:03:45. > :03:51.travel along an international fibre up into tiny packets that might
:03:51. > :03:58.optic cable. The message might also be encrypted by a company's
:03:58. > :04:02.software, designed to make sure no-one can read it until it reaches
:04:02. > :04:05.the person to whom it's addressed. What we have learnt from the Edward
:04:05. > :04:09.the person to whom it's addressed. Snowden revelations is that
:04:09. > :04:14.America's SNA and Britain's GCHQ are developing the capability to target
:04:14. > :04:18.communications at every point along the route. The NSA has a programmed
:04:18. > :04:21.communications at every point along called Prism which allows had to get
:04:21. > :04:30.hold of data from software companies like Microsoft and Google. GCHQ is
:04:30. > :04:34.tapping the international fibre optic cables through which vast
:04:34. > :04:39.amount of data and individual mess aBgs pass and the two intelligence
:04:39. > :04:42.agencies are working to crack the secret codes so they can read
:04:43. > :04:48.messages, which other people thought were secret. They also hoover up a
:04:48. > :04:54.huge amount of information about communications, so-called meta-data
:04:54. > :04:59.to go through and analyse looking for patterns and connections. The
:04:59. > :05:03.overall ambition is enormous - to be able to reach into the global stream
:05:03. > :05:13.of digital communication and pluck out a single message and then read
:05:13. > :05:19.it. So with so much of our lives on-line leaving a digital trail
:05:19. > :05:27.behind has the State without anyone knowing become Big Brother? I had a
:05:27. > :05:32.family and a home in paradise. That is what he believed. He's now in
:05:32. > :05:37.hiding in Russia. A hero to some, a villain to others. How you see him
:05:37. > :05:43.depends on how surprised and outraged you are by what he's
:05:43. > :05:47.revealed. Thanks to him, the Guardian has got hold of a massive
:05:47. > :05:52.trove of top-secret documents from the NSA, as well as 58,000 from
:05:52. > :05:58.Britain's GCHQ. So far, it's published just a few pieces. In the
:05:58. > :06:02.last week, I've been Griffin direct access to a small selection of
:06:02. > :06:08.original documents held outside the UK. These form the basis of some of
:06:08. > :06:11.the stories the Guardiola has already published. -- the guardian
:06:11. > :06:18.has already published. The capabilities they reveal and secrets
:06:18. > :06:20.they contain, make real the national security and public interest
:06:20. > :06:24.argument. Those who have worked inside the secret state though say
:06:24. > :06:30.that this power is vital for national security and is used only
:06:30. > :06:34.for national security. What the State needs and law enforcement
:06:34. > :06:38.needs is the possibility of accessing the communications of the
:06:38. > :06:42.terrorists, the criminals, the kidnappers and the proliferators,
:06:42. > :06:46.the paedophiles, but those communications are all mixed up with
:06:46. > :06:52.everyone else's communications. There are 204 million e-mails a
:06:52. > :06:57.minute buzzing around the globe. You have to have a powerful capability
:06:57. > :07:02.to find the small amount that you are looking for. It doesn't mean
:07:02. > :07:09.that the State is reading everyone's e-mails, nor would that conceivably
:07:09. > :07:13.be feasible. You say the State isn't reading everyone's e-mails, but
:07:13. > :07:19.people might fear they could be reading my e-mails? Would you really
:07:19. > :07:23.support a world in which it was possible for -- was not possible for
:07:23. > :07:28.the police and agencies to find the communications of the terrorists and
:07:28. > :07:35.the proliferators and the kidnappers and criminals? But can we trust the
:07:35. > :07:39.State? Technology allows it to do things it could never have done
:07:40. > :07:44.before. Collecting and going through billions of records to find a
:07:44. > :07:50.connection, or reconstructing a person's social interactions. The
:07:50. > :07:56.programmes are innovative and highly complex. While there is a system of
:07:56. > :08:01.oversight and accountability, every search has to be justified under the
:08:01. > :08:05.human rights acts, critics feel it's not strong enough. The controls at
:08:05. > :08:11.the moment frankly are far too small. They couldn't conceivably
:08:11. > :08:16.check all the sorts of the sort that Snowdon is talking about. It's not
:08:16. > :08:19.possible. Something which is justified in terms of national
:08:19. > :08:23.possible. Something which is security is expanded into all of our
:08:23. > :08:27.privacies? Yes, or the scope to do so, yes and the relatively
:08:27. > :08:30.unfettered scope to do so. Everyone will say we're responsible people. I
:08:30. > :08:34.know some of them, the people involved in this and they are
:08:34. > :08:39.decent, civilised people, but the State simply shouldn't have these
:08:39. > :08:46.powers. One day they will get used wrongly and by then it's too late.
:08:46. > :08:51.As well as processing vast amounts wrongly and by then it's too late.
:08:51. > :08:54.of data, the Snowden files point to the agencies deliberately
:08:54. > :09:00.undermining some of the security protocols on the internet. Like the
:09:00. > :09:07.process of encryption, with the goal of making it easier for them to gain
:09:07. > :09:13.access to data. For us, the revelations in early September that
:09:13. > :09:20.the NSA had had a major covert programme to compromise its security
:09:20. > :09:23.standards and products were a 9/11 moment. Some leading computer
:09:23. > :09:28.security experts have been left outraged. They've spent decades
:09:28. > :09:32.trying to make sure people can communicate securely and privately
:09:32. > :09:38.over the internet. The goal of the NSA and GCHQ is ensure this is not
:09:38. > :09:43.the case. That they can break anybody's privacy at any time and
:09:43. > :09:48.interfere with a transaction at any time. In order to do this they have
:09:48. > :09:53.compromised in various ways many of the protocols on which the internet
:09:54. > :09:57.relies. Now, when you introduce these vulnerabilities, they are not
:09:57. > :10:03.just available from the spies, but available for bad guys to use too.
:10:03. > :10:09.The files confirm the scale of what has been built, but they also
:10:09. > :10:12.contain page after page of top-secret information. For
:10:13. > :10:16.instance, GCHQ's work in supporting military operations overseas, so by
:10:16. > :10:19.making this material vulnerable to those who want to know Britain's
:10:19. > :10:26.secrets and in disclosing certain aspects of it, have Edward Snowden's
:10:26. > :10:35.actions compromised national security? Not even the KGB in its
:10:35. > :10:42.height of fill bee and Burgess and Maclean in the 1950s could have
:10:42. > :10:46.dreamt of acquiring 58,000 highly classified intelligence documents.
:10:47. > :10:53.My fear is that we are now going to witness a slow-motion car crash. In
:10:53. > :11:01.which gradually sources dry up, targets such as terrorists and cyber
:11:01. > :11:05.criminals will work out what are the kind of capabilities that we have
:11:05. > :11:10.and they will attempt their methods and it will be harder to track them
:11:10. > :11:14.down. The State has amassed enormous powers when it comes to interception
:11:14. > :11:18.and it's done so in secret. That concerns many, who believe there
:11:18. > :11:23.needs to be more public knowledge about the State's capability and
:11:23. > :11:27.more consent to its use of those powers. Secrecy is the antagonist of
:11:27. > :11:31.accountability and always is. Sometimes you can't go around it.
:11:31. > :11:34.You've got to have secret agencies and spies and you've got to have
:11:34. > :11:40.ways of dealing with the enemies. Nobody disputes that. But you also
:11:40. > :11:43.have to have in a free society a way of keeping it under control and
:11:43. > :11:47.making sure it doesn't runaway. They pushed it even further than we
:11:47. > :11:55.thought they would. The surprising thing to us was that there are
:11:55. > :12:00.occasional pockets of come p combatants win the two. Many of us
:12:00. > :12:03.had thought that the real secret like other large pub sector IT
:12:03. > :12:06.had thought that the real secret projects it didn't work and there
:12:06. > :12:07.was really nobody there. But to find they've built this machine and got
:12:07. > :12:15.was really nobody there. But to find it working is an eye opener. The
:12:15. > :12:20.balance between secrecy and accountability is being shifted as a
:12:20. > :12:22.direct result of Snowdon's disclosures. A senior US
:12:22. > :12:27.intelligence official acknowledged there would now have to be more
:12:27. > :12:31.transparency about the NSA's work. But as the public understands more
:12:31. > :12:35.about the powerful machine that has been built in secret, how far will
:12:35. > :12:43.it be confident that it's been used to keep us safe rather than to spy
:12:43. > :12:46.on us? Glenn Greenwald is the journalist responsible for releasing
:12:46. > :12:51.the information leaked by Edward Snowden and he joins us from Rio.
:12:51. > :12:56.Good evening. Firstly, why should you be the ash for of about what is
:12:56. > :13:02.in the public interest and what is vital to national security? I'm not
:13:02. > :13:06.the ash for of that. I work with a huge number of Guardian editors and
:13:07. > :13:10.some of the most experienced national security journalists in the
:13:10. > :13:16.world. And journalism, which is designed to serve as a check on
:13:16. > :13:19.those in power is about shining light on what the people in power
:13:19. > :13:23.are doing, that they try to hide from the public and those are the
:13:23. > :13:28.judgments that all journalism requires every single day. 58,000
:13:28. > :13:37.British documents we know. At least as many presumably from the NSA. You
:13:37. > :13:46.heard perhaps Sir David there saying you are not even Philby, Burgess and
:13:46. > :13:49.Maclean and this is a car crash coming. Well, this idea that there
:13:49. > :13:52.Maclean and this is a car crash is 58,000 documents just because the
:13:52. > :13:57.UK Government said it, I would hope we have learned after the Iraq war
:13:57. > :14:00.that Government claims are not tantamount to the truth, but I think
:14:00. > :14:04.the broader point is that it isn't how many documents the Guardian or
:14:04. > :14:08.other newspapers around the world possess, but the question is what is
:14:08. > :14:14.it that they are viewing with those documents and in every single
:14:14. > :14:17.article we publish, we have gone over every single line of every
:14:17. > :14:22.single document and not one line, not one comma of what we published
:14:22. > :14:25.could even possibly be said to damage national security. It's all
:14:25. > :14:26.about informing people if democracies about what their
:14:26. > :14:40.governments are doing. You have shown where there are
:14:40. > :14:45.connections. Those connections are used to track terrorists.
:14:45. > :14:47.Terrorists, would-be terrorists, change their tactics. It is possible
:14:47. > :14:51.Terrorists, would-be terrorists, that by your actions you make it
:14:51. > :14:56.easier for terrorists to understand how to evade the checks that are
:14:56. > :14:59.made on them online. That is completely ludicrous. First, the
:14:59. > :15:04.premise of your question is false. We have shown much more than just a
:15:04. > :15:08.collection of meta data. We have shown all sorts of invasions into
:15:08. > :15:11.the content of communications between innocent people, having
:15:11. > :15:14.conversations online through e-mail, online chat, collecting
:15:14. > :15:20.their browsing history. The idea that terrorists did not know that
:15:20. > :15:24.the United States and UK governments were trying to monitor their
:15:24. > :15:29.communications is laughable. Every terrorist is capable of tying their
:15:29. > :15:32.own issues, and have long known that governments are trying to monitor
:15:32. > :15:37.their communications. The only thing we have informed people of is that
:15:37. > :15:41.the spying system is aimed at them. How can you be sure that your
:15:41. > :15:45.actions have not made it easier for terrorists to operate? You cannot be
:15:45. > :15:51.sure of that. You cannot prove a negative of that, can you? I do not
:15:51. > :15:55.why you are asking me to prove a negative, if it cannot be proven. A
:15:55. > :16:00.way that human beings reason and journalists make decisions is that
:16:00. > :16:04.you weigh the competing evidence as rationally as you can. We know the
:16:04. > :16:06.evidence we are disclosing to the world is not about spying on
:16:06. > :16:11.terrorists that they do not know about, but spying on innocent human
:16:11. > :16:15.beings. I would like to find a human being who says, I would rather
:16:15. > :16:18.remain ignorant about what my government is doing in a democracy.
:16:18. > :16:25.That is not how healthy democracy functions. Do you think it would be
:16:25. > :16:29.a shock that spies actually do spy? Or do you think the majority of the
:16:29. > :16:34.population might find it reassuring, they might feel quite safe? I think
:16:34. > :16:38.it is a shock that government officials lied to the face of
:16:38. > :16:43.journalists, who do not seem to mind much. For example, in that segment
:16:43. > :16:46.you played, you had people defending GCHQ on the grounds that this is
:16:46. > :16:49.only about terrorism and paedophiles. But much of the
:16:49. > :16:55.reporting we have done proves that is a lie. We reported that GCHQ and
:16:55. > :16:59.NSA are spying on a large Brazilian oil company that funds social
:16:59. > :17:03.programmes in Brazil. Are there terrorists in that? They are spying
:17:03. > :17:06.on the organisation of American States when they are negotiating
:17:06. > :17:12.economic agreements. Are they paedophiles? The job of journalists
:17:12. > :17:15.is to present -- prevent those in power from lying to the people over
:17:15. > :17:18.whom they are ruling. While some of this may be devoted to terrorists is
:17:18. > :17:26.comic huge amounts are devoted to innocent people whose privacy is
:17:26. > :17:30.being eroded. I gather you have vast amounts of material that has not
:17:30. > :17:36.been revealed. Is it in your bedroom in Rio? I am not going to talk about
:17:36. > :17:43.what is in my bedroom, or about the security measures. It is possible
:17:43. > :17:50.that presumably you have... Let me... People want to know, I
:17:50. > :17:57.suppose, how can you guarantee that the material you have, you can keep
:17:57. > :18:01.it safe? Could it possibly be on a memory stick in your pocket? People
:18:01. > :18:06.want to know how you think you can keep things safe? I will be happy to
:18:06. > :18:10.answer that. That is what I was about to tell you when you
:18:10. > :18:13.interrupted. There is only one group of people who have lost control of
:18:13. > :18:19.huge amounts of what they claim are important documents. Those are GCHQ
:18:19. > :18:24.and the NSA. The GCHQ took documents they claim are so very sensitive and
:18:24. > :18:29.put them on a system at the NSA that tens of thousands of people have
:18:29. > :18:33.access to. At the Guardian, we have protected our data with extremely
:18:33. > :18:36.advanced methods of encryption. And our documents have remained
:18:36. > :18:41.completely secure. We have not lost control of any of our material. That
:18:41. > :18:47.remains entirely secure. The reason I asked is that when your partner
:18:47. > :18:50.and, I suppose, collaborator, David Miranda, was apprehended, in the
:18:50. > :18:55.evidence it said that actually he was carrying around password
:18:56. > :19:01.material, written on a piece of paper, beside encrypted files. To a
:19:01. > :19:07.lot of people, that is worrying about how careful you are about
:19:07. > :19:11.security. I guess I need to give you the reminder that, as a journalist,
:19:11. > :19:13.you should be aware that simply because the government makes a
:19:13. > :19:17.claim, especially when they are making that claim in the middle of a
:19:17. > :19:20.lawsuit while they are being sued for violating the law, one should
:19:21. > :19:31.not assume that claim is factually true. So you are denying it? It was
:19:31. > :19:34.a lie. The idea that he was carrying a password that allow people access
:19:34. > :19:39.to those documents is absolutely false. The only ones who have lost
:19:39. > :19:43.control of the documents through horrific operational security is the
:19:43. > :19:47.GCHQ and NSA. He did not have the password. I will show you the proof
:19:47. > :19:51.of that. The affidavit that they filed said, we have to keep this
:19:51. > :19:56.material because it is heavily encrypted and we have only been able
:19:56. > :19:58.to reconstruct 75 documents. They filed an affidavit proving that what
:19:58. > :20:04.they have convinced you of is actually a lie. After what happened
:20:04. > :20:08.to David Miranda, as his partner, that must have been very distressing
:20:08. > :20:12.for you, you then said, I will be far more aggressive in my reporting
:20:12. > :20:16.from now on. I will publish many more documents. I will publish
:20:16. > :20:20.things on England, too. I have documents on England's spy system. I
:20:21. > :20:24.think they will be sorry for what they did. Is there something coming
:20:24. > :20:32.down the pipeline? That is a number months ago now. Actually, I think it
:20:32. > :20:36.was four weeks ago. Since then, there has been a report about GCHQ
:20:36. > :20:43.spying on a Brazilian company, which caused a major diplomatic scandal,
:20:43. > :20:46.with Brazil. That interview that you reference is in Portuguese and the
:20:46. > :20:50.translation you are reading from is very poor. I was asked, how do you
:20:50. > :20:54.think the British government's behaviour, toward the Guardian and
:20:54. > :20:58.your partner, will be viewed? I said, it will be looked at in most
:20:58. > :21:02.democracies, where press freedoms are protected, unlike the UK, as a
:21:02. > :21:06.thuggish form of behaviour and an attack on journalism that will make
:21:06. > :21:10.them look ad. I think it is contrary to their interest and they will come
:21:10. > :21:14.to regret it. -- it will make them look bad. But we will continue
:21:14. > :21:21.aggressively reporting about the GCHQ and the NA -- NSA. However
:21:21. > :21:25.inappropriate the translation, do you see that it was seen very much
:21:25. > :21:28.as you acting as a campaigner and act to Vista? You talked about
:21:28. > :21:33.revenge journalism being the wrong way to describe it, but you can see
:21:33. > :21:40.how people think that. -- as an activist. My view of journalism is
:21:40. > :21:43.that the more people in power abuse that power, the more accountability
:21:43. > :21:46.and transparency they prove they need through journalism. When I see
:21:46. > :21:49.a government like the UK barging need through journalism. When I see
:21:49. > :21:52.into the newsroom of the newspaper with which I work and is demanding
:21:52. > :21:56.they destroy their computers, something you would expect to hear
:21:57. > :22:01.in Iran and Russia and China, or when they detain someone they think
:22:01. > :22:04.is working with a journalist under terrorism law for nine hours and
:22:04. > :22:07.that knowledge through the media that they are doing it to be
:22:07. > :22:10.intimidating, that is a government attack on press freedom, abusing
:22:10. > :22:15.their power and showing they need more transparency, and that is the
:22:15. > :22:23.role of journalism. Do you fear for your safety? No, I don't. That is
:22:23. > :22:27.not something I focus on. The Brazilian government has provided
:22:27. > :22:29.security and Diane perfectly content with the situation. Lots of
:22:29. > :22:36.journalists are in difficult positions all the time. -- I am
:22:36. > :22:39.perfectly content. Do you feel you could travel to the United States,
:22:39. > :22:46.and do you feel comfortable about travelling to Britain? Well, I am
:22:46. > :22:51.going to return to the United States as soon as it makes sense to do so.
:22:51. > :22:57.Unlike the UK, there is a constitutional guarantee of a free
:22:57. > :23:00.press. Even former Obama Justice officials have said it is on think
:23:00. > :23:03.above that the administration would prosecute the journalist in this
:23:03. > :23:07.case. The UK is a different story because that government has proven
:23:07. > :23:11.that they are willing to run roughshod over press freedoms. They
:23:11. > :23:15.are threatening criminal investigations, detaining my partner
:23:15. > :23:18.under terrorism law, forcing the Guardian to destroy laptops. So I am
:23:18. > :23:23.more cautious about travelling to the UK, although not being able to
:23:23. > :23:28.visit the UK is not something I regard as particularly great
:23:28. > :23:34.punishment. Are you still in touch with Edward Snowden? Sure. He is my
:23:34. > :23:39.source, somebody I care about and I speak with him regularly. And how do
:23:39. > :23:42.you know how he is being treated, and how do you know, more
:23:42. > :23:48.importantly, whether he has not had to give up secrets, if he is under
:23:48. > :23:52.Russian protection? Because, unlike the UK and US governments, his
:23:52. > :23:56.statements have proven completely true in every instance. I have never
:23:56. > :24:00.once seen him lie to me about anything. I know that he has
:24:00. > :24:04.protected the data that he has with extreme levels of encryption that
:24:04. > :24:08.not even the NSA, let alone the lesser Russian intelligence
:24:08. > :24:11.agencies, can crack. And he did not unravel his life to fight
:24:11. > :24:16.surveillance in order to go to the Russians and help them serve ale.
:24:16. > :24:19.But he has been through China, and Hong Kong, and you cannot be sure
:24:19. > :24:26.that he has not had to give up something. You pointed out very
:24:26. > :24:30.astutely a few minutes ago that nobody can prove a negative will
:24:30. > :24:33.stop if you are looking to prove mathematically that they do not have
:24:33. > :24:36.any data, I cannot do that. I can tell you that all of the evidence
:24:36. > :24:41.that we actually know makes it ludicrous to think that they have
:24:41. > :24:44.obtained any of that data. There is zero evidence that they have, and
:24:44. > :24:46.any responsible journalist would refrain from suggesting that
:24:46. > :24:54.happened when they have no evidence that it did. I wonder, with Edward
:24:55. > :24:59.Snowden, whether or not his position in Russia, if he tried to travel,
:24:59. > :25:02.look what the Americans did to the presidential plane, the Bolivian
:25:02. > :25:06.presidential plane over European territory. Does he feel safe? The
:25:06. > :25:12.Russians only said they would keep him for a year. Remember, he did not
:25:12. > :25:15.choose to be in Russia. He was trying to pass through, and the US
:25:16. > :25:20.government basically forced him to be there by revoking his passport
:25:20. > :25:24.and preventing other companies -- countries from letting him transit
:25:24. > :25:27.through. Given the alternative, a super max prison in the United
:25:27. > :25:33.States where he disappears for the next 40 years, I think he is content
:25:33. > :25:37.to be where he is. In some ways, these are elements from a spy film.
:25:37. > :25:43.When you first met, how did you identify him? Right, I had no idea
:25:43. > :25:46.how old he was, who he was, what he looked like. The plan was, he asked
:25:46. > :25:52.us to go to a part of the hotel he looked like. The plan was, he asked
:25:52. > :25:55.was staying in at a designated time and he said we would know him
:25:55. > :26:00.because he was carrying a Rubik 's cube. We went at the designated time
:26:00. > :26:03.and he was not there. We went at the second time he gave, and he showed
:26:03. > :26:07.up a couple of minutes later carrying a Rubik 's cube. Finally, I
:26:07. > :26:11.up a couple of minutes later want to ask you, because we have
:26:11. > :26:15.gone from that kind of extraordinary spy film thing to the idea that he
:26:15. > :26:18.actually might end up in an American super max prison. Do you think he
:26:18. > :26:24.might ultimately end up in an American prison? When we were in
:26:24. > :26:28.Hong Kong, he had assumed, we were all assuming that would be the
:26:28. > :26:30.likely outcome of the brave choice that he had made, which is what made
:26:30. > :26:34.likely outcome of the brave choice it so brave. Now, it is more
:26:34. > :26:38.difficult because his reporting is considered heroic by huge numbers
:26:38. > :26:41.around the world, which has made it more difficult for the US government
:26:41. > :26:45.to get their hands on him and disappear him and make it so that he
:26:45. > :26:48.has never heard from again. Let's discuss further now with
:26:48. > :26:51.Baroness Neville-Jones, former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee,
:26:51. > :26:58.and Anthony Barnett, the founder of Open Democracy.
:26:58. > :27:04.Should we not have been told about all of this anyway? I think the
:27:04. > :27:10.government does have to have powers to protect us. Extraordinary things
:27:10. > :27:14.that were being said by Glenn Greenwald. In particular, the most
:27:14. > :27:18.astounding thing, which I simply do not credit that he believes, that
:27:19. > :27:23.the Russians and Chinese are not in full possession now of both
:27:23. > :27:31.techniques and information. So you actually believe... Wider you
:27:31. > :27:33.believe that to be the case? He has absolutely no defences against
:27:34. > :27:37.them. They will have taken possession of his computers and gone
:27:37. > :27:41.into them. I do not think there is any doubt at all that they now have
:27:41. > :27:49.a great deal of information which is damaging to our security, and which
:27:49. > :27:55.is the result of betrayal on the part of a trusted employee. Did you
:27:55. > :28:00.is the result of betrayal on the know all this was going on? The
:28:00. > :28:04.world has changed with the internet. We talk about, people who are
:28:04. > :28:08.worried about this, talk about this explosion in surveillance. It is a
:28:08. > :28:15.function of the massive increase in the transmission of communications.
:28:15. > :28:18.So you knew it was happening? Interception has always taken place.
:28:18. > :28:22.You can intercept the mail, telephone calls. Do people believe
:28:22. > :28:25.that is happening? No. Why should they think that in a situation where
:28:25. > :28:30.you have enormous expansion of communications, which requires, for
:28:30. > :28:36.purposes of protection, to have comparable powers of collection, in
:28:36. > :28:41.order to intercept and find the tiny bits that matter, that all the rest
:28:42. > :28:48.of it is being read. It is not. It is only there to catch the few. It
:28:48. > :28:51.is not about tiny bits. I spent a political lifetime telling people,
:28:51. > :28:55.mainly on the left, not to be paranoid. Thatcher was not
:28:55. > :28:57.introducing fascism, Tony Blair was not creating dictatorship. We now
:28:57. > :29:00.introducing fascism, Tony Blair was face the greatest threat to our
:29:00. > :29:08.liberties since the Second World War. Because of the amount of
:29:08. > :29:10.material that is being collected. Because these databases, which are
:29:10. > :29:14.not about tiny items of Because these databases, which are
:29:14. > :29:17.information, will be used, and not just by governments. Snowden was
:29:18. > :29:22.working for a corporation. They will be accessed by others in
:29:22. > :29:27.government. And because, most important, people will start to self
:29:27. > :29:32.censor. We will find that the very fact of the total surveillance of
:29:32. > :29:35.our activities means that we bash it is not a question, as the Foreign
:29:35. > :29:38.Minister said, of if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to
:29:38. > :29:44.fear, but the structure of events will stop us doing things which we
:29:44. > :29:48.think are right. You think we are sleepwalking into this. Do you think
:29:48. > :29:51.people actually understand the nature of the meta data and how it
:29:51. > :29:58.operates, and the connections that are made? No, and that is partly the
:29:58. > :30:04.fault of the BBC reporting. Meta data, we do not talk about meta data
:30:04. > :30:10.because everyone will fall asleep. It is very important. There is a
:30:10. > :30:14.pattern. We have an electronic life, from the GPS in our telephone to our
:30:14. > :30:22.text messages, to the web wages we access. And what the intelligence
:30:22. > :30:27.services are doing, they are gathering 20 billion items of
:30:27. > :30:32.information, and they are creating a pattern of how we live. It is not
:30:32. > :30:37.about reading the content of the e-mail. It is not about getting the
:30:37. > :30:42.content, it is about mapping of who we are. But Glenn Greenwald is
:30:42. > :30:52.right, terrorists are smart. They have known this has been happening.
:30:52. > :30:58.RCEDCYAN Of course. They take risks. They are listening to the
:30:58. > :31:04.communication of terrorists. You have to find them in the first
:31:04. > :31:08.place. You have to go through the data in order to get the clues that
:31:08. > :31:13.enable you to get the information. What does it matter what the
:31:13. > :31:17.Brazilians are doing? What does it matter? The problem is, isn't it,
:31:17. > :31:25.that you might be going after terrorists, but there are lots of
:31:25. > :31:29.other interesting things. It's out of control. I entirely accept and I
:31:29. > :31:33.agree that there needs to be control over the system and there needs to
:31:33. > :31:37.be accountability. Do you think there's enough control? What I do
:31:37. > :31:41.believe is they're acting according to law and I do believe that given
:31:41. > :31:46.the public anxiety that's been aroused by this, that we need to
:31:46. > :31:55.have actually a body like the information and security committee
:31:55. > :32:00.doing a review. Is that a good thing? Metadata is not under the
:32:00. > :32:04.law. It is acting beyond the law at the moment. This is a crucial point
:32:04. > :32:15.and the idea that the intelligence services are saying, "Give us all
:32:15. > :32:20.the raw data, we need a clue." It's absurd. Can I put you something from
:32:20. > :32:24.the film, that there has been a deliberate undermining by the
:32:25. > :32:31.security services of encryption. There has always been a tension,
:32:31. > :32:37.which is not new, between the need for security and the ability also to
:32:37. > :32:42.intercept communications. This is not a new tension. Could you say
:32:42. > :32:47.hand on heart, in a way, because you think there should be a review, that
:32:47. > :32:52.Glenn Greenwald was right? No, absolutely not. No. There's no
:32:52. > :32:59.question that he has done a huge public service. What the ISC needed
:32:59. > :33:02.to do is actually - In the House of Commons? It's a joint committee of
:33:02. > :33:11.both Houses of senior MPs. There is to reason to suppose - If you were
:33:12. > :33:20.to - Any more than the judges who act who are hand maidens for the
:33:20. > :33:23.executive. What would you have said to Glenn Greenwald? There is no way
:33:23. > :33:28.that that young man will have been able to resist. Can I put that to
:33:28. > :33:33.you, that here is a senior intelligence expert in this country
:33:33. > :33:37.saying there is no way on Earth that Edward Snowden has not had to give
:33:37. > :33:42.us something in Russia or before that in China? The innor rans of
:33:42. > :33:51.those comments is truly astounding to me. First, you would think that a
:33:51. > :33:56.racial person -- a rational person, would have at least a little bit of
:33:56. > :34:03.evidence before saying that. There is none. What is the basis for this?
:34:03. > :34:11.But please let me make the point. I listened for a long time. She said
:34:11. > :34:15.they got the data on his laptop. That isn't how data works. It's not
:34:15. > :34:20.1998. It's stored on thumb drives and on those drives are very
:34:20. > :34:23.sophisticated means of encryption shells that as I said before and I
:34:23. > :34:28.know this because I've read the documents that I have, not even the
:34:28. > :34:32.NSA can break the encryption codes of 4,000 characters long. He doesn't
:34:32. > :34:41.even have them. Let me just put that to her. That is a clarification. He
:34:41. > :34:46.doesn't even have them? I don't believe any of that. The Russians
:34:46. > :34:52.have got sophisticated capability. Thank you all of you.
:34:52. > :34:57.Today, the Gambia announced it was leaving the Commonwealth much to the
:34:57. > :35:04.surprise of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth. The Gambian Government
:35:04. > :35:09.says it doesn't want to be part of a Ne-yo colonial establishment. If the
:35:09. > :35:14.Commonwealth is a club what are the rules and why would anyone want to
:35:14. > :35:19.be a member? There is some flash photography in this report. We hold
:35:19. > :35:26.our breath here in the islands of Figi, as Her Majesty steps ashore.
:35:26. > :35:31.When the Queen arrived here in 1953 she may have been struck by cultural
:35:31. > :35:37.differences. She was met with respectful silence. It was her very
:35:37. > :35:41.first tour and a beginning of a role she is said to love. Because our
:35:41. > :35:49.sovereign is a woman she is to be honoured first by women. Especially
:35:49. > :35:56.in this old and treasured custom of ours, the placing of a whale tooth
:35:56. > :35:59.upon our sacred canoe. For decades the Commonwealth has been trying to
:35:59. > :36:04.show it's more than a collection of former colonial powers. In March,
:36:04. > :36:10.the Queen signed the charter, which has respect for human rights and
:36:10. > :36:15.democracy at its core. I hope the carefully chosen words of the
:36:15. > :36:22.charter will reinvigorate efforts already begun to make the
:36:22. > :36:30.Commonwealth fit and agile for the years ahead. Gambia's President says
:36:30. > :36:34.he left the Commonwealth because he doesn't want to be lectured about
:36:34. > :36:38.human rights by the Ne-yo colonial west. It's not obvious they'll miss
:36:38. > :36:43.him very much. He thinks homosexuality is one of the three
:36:43. > :36:48.biggest threats to human existence and prayer beads and centre in hand
:36:49. > :36:54.he has offered to cure AIDS by boiling herbs. The Gambia was one of
:36:54. > :36:58.the 54 states. The exit means there are 18 countries from Africa.
:36:58. > :37:02.Roughly one in three people in the world belong to the Commonwealth, so
:37:03. > :37:07.it's a club with two billion people, with the Queen at the head and the
:37:07. > :37:11.monarch of 16 realms. Five members have their own monarchs, the
:37:11. > :37:16.remaining 32 are republics. Every member has equal status, so the
:37:16. > :37:22.little guy country get to rub shoulders with the big nations.
:37:22. > :37:28.Robert Mugabe took Zimbabwe out of the club ten years ago. Critics said
:37:28. > :37:32.he should have been ex-spelled years before. To them, the Commonwealth
:37:32. > :37:38.talks the talk on human rights, but does little to uphold them. Why,
:37:38. > :37:42.they ask, is the Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka in six weeks'
:37:42. > :37:47.time, where the Government is accused of killing thousands of
:37:47. > :37:51.civilians during its civil war? So what will Gambia lose? Well, not
:37:51. > :37:55.much. You don't get any trade privileges or any influence on
:37:55. > :38:00.economic and defence policy and there's no aid budget. You would be
:38:00. > :38:02.better off trying all the other clubs out there, like the G20. The
:38:02. > :38:05.Commonwealth club is a talking shop clubs out there, like the G20. The
:38:05. > :38:12.then, but look at who you get to talk to and you do get to play games
:38:12. > :38:17.all over the world. If you're still not convinced then think about who
:38:17. > :38:25.you could get to visit. The Windsors are such good sports. They do like
:38:25. > :38:32.dancing. And they don't mind dressing up. With me is the former
:38:32. > :38:40.UN deputy general Lord monthly lark brown and a member from the sect
:38:40. > :38:46.tear yacht. Do you think it's a Ne-yo colonial institution? No, I
:38:46. > :38:50.don't think it is. The track records in helping Zimbabwe obtain
:38:50. > :38:55.independence, the track record in helping South Africa get majority
:38:55. > :39:06.rule, so there are accomplishments in themselves. Surely there was an
:39:07. > :39:11.umbrella under which all sorts of dubious practises go on. Why hasn't
:39:11. > :39:15.it been able to reform some of the more appalling things happening?
:39:15. > :39:20.Gambia's retirement is an indication that the Commonwealth does have some
:39:20. > :39:24.teeth, because clearly Gambia was trying to pre-empt criticism at the
:39:24. > :39:28.summit and it's been criticised already by lots of other human
:39:28. > :39:32.rights organisations, so while the Commonwealth is not up there in
:39:32. > :39:38.bright light with the EU or the UN or strong regional organisations in
:39:38. > :39:41.Africa, it is an important club and association of countries that do
:39:42. > :39:47.share some kind of common standards. But, why do you think it is that
:39:47. > :39:52.Rwanda for example and most pose earlier on, but Rwanda, wants to
:39:52. > :39:57.join at this late stage, which in fact they're allowed in and they've
:39:57. > :40:01.now got a child solder army? There are lots of difficulties within the
:40:02. > :40:06.present Commonwealth. It's a mixture of contradictions, but also a
:40:06. > :40:09.ceiling on just how contraditory a country can be, so that there are
:40:09. > :40:13.certain limits that even the President of Rwanda would be very,
:40:13. > :40:18.very conscious of not breaking. I think it's to try to allude having
:40:18. > :40:22.the invitations apply to him and the President has taken this country out
:40:22. > :40:28.of the Commonwealth. But moving forward, the problem is, isn't it,
:40:28. > :40:32.that you say it's stopping the worst things happening, but as a result of
:40:32. > :40:38.the way it was born, Britain, for example, is reluctant to criticise,
:40:38. > :40:42.because it looks like an imperial power criticising? Don't
:40:42. > :40:46.underestimate the British role. It's quite behind the scenes a strong
:40:46. > :40:52.leader on this. It took a lead on making Pakistan go out under
:40:52. > :40:55.military rule and used the various committees effectively, but you
:40:55. > :41:00.cannot get away from the fact this is not an organisation built around
:41:00. > :41:03.geography or common interest and therefore it's a little bit of
:41:03. > :41:06.Septemberment in there -- sentiment, which means it's not quite
:41:06. > :41:12.effective. Therefore, do you think it has a limited shelve life? I
:41:12. > :41:15.think all the things around it with the sports and association of
:41:15. > :41:20.businesses and things that form around it are quite dynamic. But
:41:20. > :41:29.they are exclusive of others? The point is they are much more like the
:41:29. > :41:34.Olympics. Why have the Commonwealth Games not more often? It's a benign
:41:34. > :41:38.club that lets in those who want it. It won't be a first-tier
:41:38. > :41:40.organisation, but I suspect it has a lot of life left in it. Gentlemen,
:41:40. > :41:48.thank you. With one of the world's most
:41:48. > :41:55.important and cultural theorists, he has even been called the Elvis of
:41:55. > :42:01.cultural theory. Slavoj Zizek is a sworn enemy of capitalism. To his
:42:01. > :42:07.fans he's a hero of a dying radical left and critics a dangerous icon
:42:07. > :42:11.class who is responsible, but whatever you think it's hard to deny
:42:11. > :42:19.his entertainment value. Here is a clip from his new fill, The
:42:19. > :42:24.Pervert's guide to Ideology. That is the iceberg hitting the ship and it
:42:24. > :42:29.plays in the development of the lore story. When the ship docks I'm
:42:29. > :42:36.getting off with you. This is crazy. I know. It's slightly cynical. This
:42:36. > :42:42.would have been the true catastrophe. We can imagine how
:42:42. > :42:49.maybe after two or three weeks of intense sex in New York the love
:42:49. > :42:55.affair would somehow fade away. He joins me now. There is a great deal
:42:55. > :43:01.of irony promoting your thesis through the prism of Hollywood
:43:01. > :43:07.films? Why? I think Hollywood films offer in the disstilled form, an
:43:07. > :43:16.insight into where are we today. And I don't mean by ideology, this
:43:16. > :43:18.notion of some system which gives us a world view for countries and
:43:18. > :43:24.socialism or whatever, but simply a world view for countries and
:43:24. > :43:30.how do we make our life meaningful every day? It's the air we are
:43:30. > :43:36.breathing. But your theory seems to suggest that you think we are kind
:43:36. > :43:41.of dazed and enslaved. You were talking about enjoyment, that we
:43:41. > :43:46.don't have free will and we think - we are forced to think the only
:43:46. > :43:52.thing we can have is new lab raleism. Wait a minute. I'm
:43:52. > :43:57.absolutely not any kind of a sworn enemy of capitalism and democracy.
:43:57. > :44:02.What I think and it makes me sad, is that the two of them no longer go
:44:02. > :44:08.automatically together. My challenge to partisans of that is to look at
:44:08. > :44:13.China and Singapore and many others who show today the most dynamic
:44:13. > :44:17.forms of capitalism. Obviously to longer need democracy. A lot of
:44:17. > :44:20.Chinese people would say the lack of democracy is something they're
:44:20. > :44:26.having to put up with the explosion that they are not having the
:44:26. > :44:30.democracy they want. They don't have entire fr speech. Then you seem to
:44:30. > :44:35.suggest revolution should be coming from a dynamic, the leader and you
:44:35. > :44:41.think there should be a leader who shows the way, but we know from 20
:44:41. > :44:44.century history that a lot of the leaders have been flawed terror
:44:44. > :44:48.spreaders. Absolutely, but what I mean by leader, I would have to
:44:48. > :44:52.explain, but I don't have time now. Think about it, when people
:44:52. > :44:57.spontaneously organise themselves and so on, they always have a
:44:57. > :45:04.leader, about an authentic leader is not the one who gives the order, do
:45:04. > :45:10.this, don't do that. An authentic leader and basically there was an
:45:10. > :45:15.echo of this in Obama's first campaign, the famous yes we can, a
:45:15. > :45:20.leader lets you know it's not hopeless, you can do it, you can
:45:20. > :45:24.break the limitations and do what appears to be impossible. A leader
:45:24. > :45:29.sets you free. In order for that freedom to be given, there must be
:45:29. > :45:31.or may och be an element of violence? . You seem to suggest
:45:31. > :45:46.there is a nucleus of violence there is a nucleus ofviolence
:45:46. > :45:51.violence. You call it enans payings. What a minute, I'm clear. By
:45:51. > :45:58.violence I don't mean physical violence. Let's take an example with
:45:58. > :46:02.which we agree, that was a nice sublime moment, hundreds of
:46:02. > :46:05.thousands of people demonstrating there. What they did was violence
:46:05. > :46:12.that I don't know what violence is. What did they do? They brought the
:46:12. > :46:17.whole state to a standstill. And the whole point of Mubarak's police,
:46:17. > :46:22.physical violence was to restore normal run of things. The violence
:46:22. > :46:25.I'm for is not the physical violence of hitting people and so on, but
:46:25. > :46:30.it's the right of the people when they have enough to say stop, we
:46:30. > :46:35.don't participate. On one story that's been running here about the
:46:35. > :46:43.vilification of Ralph Miliband in the Daily Mail and the objection to
:46:43. > :46:47.it obviously by his son. Do you think that Marxism has the ability
:46:47. > :46:56.to scare and upset people? Mostly no. I'm the first to agree. Let's be
:46:56. > :47:01.frank I was only repeating this. The markist experience - by this states
:47:01. > :47:05.who legitimate their rule by reference to Marxism. They might
:47:05. > :47:12.have done something good, education and industrialisation and healthcare
:47:12. > :47:16.or whatever, but if it was one big ethical political catastrophe. I
:47:16. > :47:19.agree. We have run out of time to bring the interview with the compose
:47:19. > :47:21.agree. We have run out of time to you are hance Zimmer. We hope to
:47:21. > :47:23.show it tomorrow.