'State of Surveillance' with Edward Snowden and Shane Smith (VICE on HBO: Season 4, Episode 13)

Summary

The video script from VICE explores the pervasive issue of surveillance, featuring an interview with Edward Snowden. It delves into the capabilities of government agencies like the NSA to hack and monitor personal devices, the use of IMSI catchers for metadata collection, and the implications of mass surveillance on privacy and civil liberties. Snowden warns of the potential for 'turnkey tyranny,' emphasizing the risks of unchecked surveillance powers in the hands of future administrations.

Takeaways

• 📱 The script discusses the capability of hackers and surveillance programs to remotely control and monitor devices like phones and laptops, raising privacy concerns.
• 🕵️‍♂️ It suggests that even if a person buys a device, if it's hacked, the hacker essentially becomes the owner, able to operate the device's features independently.
• 🔍 The script highlights the difficulty in detecting if a phone has been hacked, emphasizing the invisible nature of modern surveillance.
• 🗣️ The conversation between Edward and Shane explores the extent to which government agencies can spy on individuals, including accessing all personal information on a phone.
• 🌐 The script mentions the use of technology like IMSI catchers that can intercept metadata without hacking the phone, indicating how easily surveillance can be conducted.
• 🔑 The script reveals the 'Shenanigans' program, showing how surveillance technology can be transferred from war zones to domestic use, raising questions about civil liberties.
• 🛑 It points out the ineffectiveness of mass surveillance in preventing terrorist attacks, referencing independent commissions that found no evidence of success in stopping attacks.
• 📉 The script criticizes the lack of implementation of recommended reforms for surveillance programs, suggesting a resistance to change within the government.
• 🔒 Edward Snowden's perspective is presented, warning about the potential for future abuse of surveillance systems, even if the current government is trusted.
• 👮‍♂️ The script touches on the use of surveillance technology by police forces worldwide, including its use in monitoring protesters and everyday citizens.
• 📝 The final takeaway is about the importance of having a legal framework to protect privacy and the dangers of 'secret law' that operates without public knowledge or consent.

Q & A

What is the main concern expressed by Edward regarding the ownership of a phone after it has been hacked?

Edward's main concern is that once a phone is hacked, the person who hacked it effectively becomes the owner of the device, capable of operating it independently without the user's knowledge.

What capability does Shane suggest might be possible after hacking into a phone?

Shane suggests that after hacking into a phone, it might be possible to remotely turn on the phone's camera, indicating a breach of privacy.

Why does Edward say it's terrifying if your phone has been hacked?

Edward finds it terrifying because if your phone has been hacked, you would likely never know, leaving you unaware of the potential privacy invasions and surveillance.

What is the significance of the hotel Metropol in Moscow in the context of the script?

The hotel Metropol in Moscow is significant because it was historically the designated hotel for foreigners, rumored to have every room bugged, symbolizing the pervasive nature of surveillance.

What was the controversy that raged for three years regarding the US government's surveillance?

The controversy was about the US government's surveillance of its own people, which was brought to a tipping point after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, CA, and the subsequent legal battle between Apple and the FBI over accessing a shooter's phone.

What was the outcome when the FBI attempted to force Apple to help break into a phone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters?

Apple refused to comply, stating that no court could order them to do so. However, it was later revealed that the FBI was able to crack the iPhone without Apple's help.

How does Edward Snowden's whistleblowing impact the perception of surveillance capabilities of the government?

Edward Snowden's whistleblowing proved that the government already had the capability to conduct mass surveillance, which polarized public opinion about him, with some considering him a hero and others a traitor.

What is an IMSI catcher, and how does it relate to the surveillance discussed in the script?

An IMSI catcher is a device that can intercept a phone's metadata remotely by masquerading as a legitimate cellphone tower. It is relevant to the surveillance discussed in the script as it exemplifies the technology that can be used to spy on individuals without their knowledge.

What is the 'Shenanigans' program, and how does it illustrate the shift from war front to home front surveillance?

The 'Shenanigans' program is a joint CIA/NSA initiative that involved mounting IMSI catchers on airplanes to monitor cities. It illustrates the shift from war front to home front surveillance as the same technology initially tested in Yemen for targeting terrorists was later used domestically within the United States.

What is the significance of the statement 'We already knew about these guys in the databases' in the context of mass surveillance?

This statement highlights the ineffectiveness of mass surveillance in preventing terrorist attacks. Despite having extensive surveillance, the individuals involved in terrorist activities were already known to the databases, suggesting that mass surveillance does not necessarily lead to effective prevention.

What is the term 'turnkey tyranny' as mentioned by Edward, and what does it imply about future governance?

The term 'turnkey tyranny' refers to a situation where the infrastructure for mass surveillance and control is already in place and can be activated by a government at any time. It implies a future where citizens could be vulnerable to unchecked surveillance and control by the state, regardless of who is in power.

What does Edward suggest about the potential misuse of recorded data in the future?

Edward suggests a dangerous future where recorded data could be misused against individuals. For example, if someone's unguarded statement is recorded and later used against them when political circumstances change, it could lead to severe consequences.

Outlines

00:00

😨 Privacy Invasion and Surveillance

The video script begins with a chilling discussion on the ease with which phones can be hacked and controlled remotely, with Edward explaining that once a device is compromised, the hacker essentially owns it. Shane is alarmed to learn that the phone's camera can be activated without the user's knowledge. Edward emphasizes that the signs of a hacked phone are nearly undetectable. The conversation shifts to the broader implications of surveillance, with references to America's surveillance programs and the potential for abuse of power, especially when trust in government changes over time. The setting moves to Moscow's storied hotel Metropol, known for its history of bugging rooms, highlighting the ubiquity of surveillance even in places meant for privacy.

05:01

📡 The Reality of Mass Surveillance

The script delves into the transformation of surveillance practices within the NSA and other agencies, shifting from targeted to mass surveillance. Technology has enabled a passive form of constant observation through the devices we use daily. Metadata, while seemingly innocuous, provides a detailed trail of an individual's movements and activities. The ease of accessing this metadata through IMSI catchers is discussed, a technology that intercepts mobile data and is increasingly used by law enforcement. The conversation touches on the international use of such surveillance, including an incident in Norway where IMSI catchers were found near government facilities, and the CIA/NSA's 'Shenanigans' program, which uses planes to conduct surveillance without warrants.

10:04

🛡️ Hacking, Spyware, and Activism

Activist Ala'a Shehabi's experience with government surveillance is highlighted, revealing the use of spyware by oppressive regimes to maintain power. The spyware's capabilities are staggering, including activating microphones and cameras, logging keystrokes, and tracking locations. The script discusses the ease with which such software can be obtained and used, as demonstrated by a hacker who takes control of a reporter's phone to extract personal data, record calls, and track movements. The implications for journalism and source protection are dire, as the very tools that enable global communication also enable surveillance.

15:06

🔍 Uncovering Government Deception

The script uncovers the CIA's alleged hacking of Senate Intelligence Committee computers, an act that contradicts the CIA Director's public statements. The revelation comes from a FOIA request that inadvertently received an apology letter from John Brennan acknowledging the CIA's wrongdoing. Senator Ron Wyden discusses the challenges of overseeing an agency that conducts secret searches on its overseers, emphasizing the need for legal protections against such abuses of power.

20:08

🚨 The Ineffectiveness of Mass Surveillance

The conversation shifts to the effectiveness of mass surveillance, with Edward Snowden arguing that it has not prevented terrorist attacks and has instead created a false sense of security. He cites two independent commissions that found the mass surveillance programs ineffective and in need of reform. The reluctance of politicians to reform these programs is attributed to the fear of being blamed for any future attacks if they were to curtail surveillance powers.

25:09

🌐 The Future of Privacy and Surveillance

In the final paragraph, the script contemplates the future of privacy, raising the question of whether society will continue down a path of constant surveillance or recognize the importance of personal space and the potential dangers of unchecked surveillance. Edward Snowden warns of the potential for 'turnkey tyranny,' where the systems of surveillance can be weaponized by any government official, regardless of the public's trust in the current administration. The script concludes with a call to consider the implications of a world where every action and word could be recorded and used against individuals.

Keywords

💡Surveillance

Surveillance refers to the act of monitoring individuals or groups, often secretly, for the purpose of gathering information. In the context of the video, it is a central theme as it explores the extent to which technology enables widespread surveillance by government agencies and third parties. The script discusses how devices like phones and laptops can be hacked to turn on cameras and microphones without the user's knowledge, exemplifying the intrusive nature of modern surveillance.

💡Hacking

Hacking involves gaining unauthorized access to computer systems, networks, or devices to manipulate or extract data. The video script mentions hacking as a means through which phones can be compromised, allowing hackers to operate the device's camera and microphone independently. This highlights the vulnerability of personal devices in an era where hacking skills are becoming more accessible.

💡IMSI Catcher

An IMSI Catcher is a device that mimics a cell tower to intercept mobile phone traffic and collect data, such as call records and text messages. The script discusses IMSI catchers as tools that can be used for mass surveillance, noting their availability to law enforcement and the potential for abuse. The mention of IMSI catchers in the video underscores the reality of how metadata can be easily accessed without hacking into individual devices.

💡Metadata

Metadata refers to data that provides information about other data, such as the time and date of a communication, the participants, and the device used. In the video, metadata is highlighted as a valuable source of information for surveillance, as it can reveal patterns of behavior and associations. The script explains how even seemingly innocuous data points can paint a detailed picture of an individual's life, emphasizing the privacy concerns associated with metadata collection.

💡Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden is a former NSA contractor who leaked classified information about mass surveillance programs, becoming a central figure in discussions on privacy and government overreach. The video script references Snowden as it delves into the implications of surveillance technologies and the debate over their use. His role in the narrative serves to underscore the real-world consequences and ethical considerations of mass surveillance.

💡Encryption

Encryption is the process of encoding information in such a way that only authorized parties can access it. While not explicitly mentioned in the script, the concept is implicit in the discussion of secure communications and the need to protect data from unauthorized surveillance. Encryption is a key tool in the ongoing battle to maintain privacy in the digital age, as highlighted by the video's exploration of surveillance capabilities.

💡Privacy

Privacy refers to the state of being free from unauthorized intrusion or attention, particularly in one's personal matters. The video script repeatedly touches on privacy as a fundamental right that is increasingly threatened by advanced surveillance technologies. The discussions around hacked phones and IMSI catchers emphasize the erosion of privacy and the need for individuals to be aware of and protect their digital footprints.

💡Terrorism

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation to achieve political aims. In the video, terrorism is often cited as the rationale behind mass surveillance programs, with the script highlighting the debate over the balance between security and civil liberties. The reference to terrorist attacks and the subsequent calls for increased surveillance illustrate the complexity of the issue and the challenges in formulating effective and ethical policy responses.

💡FISA

FISA stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a U.S. law that governs surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. The script mentions FISA in the context of secret courts and the authorization of domestic spying programs. The discussion of FISA in the video underscores the legal framework that enables mass surveillance and the controversy surrounding secret interpretations of the law.

💡Whistleblower

A whistleblower is an individual who exposes wrongdoing, typically within an organization or by a government. The video script features Edward Snowden as a prominent whistleblower, highlighting his role in revealing the extent of mass surveillance. The concept of whistleblowing is central to the narrative, as it raises questions about the moral responsibility to inform the public about potentially unethical practices and the personal risks whistleblowers face.

💡Mass Surveillance

Mass surveillance refers to the monitoring of a large number of people, often entire populations, rather than individuals who are specifically suspected of wrongdoing. The video script discusses mass surveillance as a pervasive and controversial practice, with implications for individual privacy and civil liberties. The script's exploration of mass surveillance includes discussions of its effectiveness, legal justifications, and the potential for abuse of power.

Highlights

Devices can be hacked to operate independently, allowing hackers to control them remotely.

Phone cameras can be activated without the owner's knowledge, raising privacy concerns.

The possibility of phone hacking is so subtle that users are often unaware it has occurred.

Surveillance programs in the US have been a subject of controversy, especially after the San Bernardino attack.

Apple's resistance to the FBI's request to break into a phone used by a shooter sparked a debate on privacy vs. security.

Edward Snowden revealed that mass surveillance capabilities already exist within government agencies.

Snowden's disclosures have led to a polarized view of him in America, as both a hero and a traitor.

Government agencies like the NSA, CIA, and FBI have the capability to access personal devices and information.

Metadata can reveal a person's movements and interactions, essentially acting as a digital shadow.

IMSI catchers are used to intercept phone metadata, and their use is widespread and increasing.

Surveillance technology has been used to target activists and suppress opposition in countries like Bahrain.

Hacking software can take complete control of a device, accessing calls, messages, and location data.

Ambient recordings through hacked devices can capture conversations without the target's awareness.

The possibility of going dark or being untraceable in the digital age is becoming increasingly difficult.

Surveillance has become so ubiquitous that even government agencies are not secure from it.

Mass surveillance has not been proven effective in preventing terrorist attacks, according to two independent commissions.

The potential for 'turnkey tyranny' exists with current surveillance systems, where future administrations could misuse these tools.

The debate over surveillance is not just about legality, but also about its impact on society and individual privacy.

Transcripts

Edward -You might have bought the phone but whoever hacked it

they are the one who owns it.

Any device that is on here you can operate independently.

Shane - So it is true, you can get into the phone and turn the camera on?

E - Ya, absolutely.

S - Is there a way you can tell if your phone has been hacked?

E - Perhaps the most terrifying thing is if your phone had been hacked you would never know.

S - This week on VICE: The inside story of America's surveillance program.

E - I'm going to be detaching the camera.

The devices that you paid for, watch you, on our behalf.

S - It seems like technology allows, almost anyone to spy, on almost anyone.

E - Even if you trust the government today...

What happens when it changes?

When eventually we get an individual who says...

"You know what? Let's flip that switch."

S - First of all I'd like to say thank you for meeting us

today here at the storied hotel Metropol in Moscow.

I say storied because for the longest time it was the

designated hotel where foreigners were allowed to stay.

And it was rumoured that every room was bugged.

E - *Laughs* I would definitely presume that in any

world capital when you're in a major business hotel...

If the hotel rooms aren't pre-wired for surveillance

they can be wired almost immediately.

S - For the last 3 years, a controversy has raged about

the US governments surveillance of its own people.

The terrorist attack last December in San Bernardino, CA

brought this debate to a tipping point.

Reporter - 14 people are dead and 21 people have been

injured after a married couple opened fire at the Inland

Regional centre in San Bernardino.

Reporter #2 - A judge is ordering apple to help the FBI

break into a cellphone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

Reporter #3 - Apple is saying "Look this is something

that no court can order us to do.

Tim Cook - What is at stake here is...

Can the government compel Apple to write software

that would make hundreds of millions of customers

vulnerable around the world?

Obama - If it is possible to make an impenetrable

device. How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?

S - But according to the most famous whistleblower in the world,

the government already had this capability.

S - As it turns out, Snowden, was proved right.

Because the FBI was able to crack the iPhone,

without Apples help.

Now Edward Snowden remains a polarizing figure in America.

Politics. Because on one side he's considered a hero

on the level of Woodward and Bernstein

who broke the Watergate scandal.

But on the other, he is considered a traitor

who jeapardized American intelligence

and security around the world

Senator Burr - A Traitor! A traitor to the United States.

Senator Nelson - These records were

spread about publicly by Edward Snowden.

Intentionally.

Recklessly.

And I might say illegally.

S - So we went to Moscow to speak to this controversial

figure about the state of surveillance in America today.

So NSA, CIA, FBI...

Can they get into my phone?

E - Yes.

S - Can they get into my laptop?

E - Absolutely.

S - iPad...?

E - Anything. As long as they can dedicate

people, money and time to the target... they can get it.

S - And what kind of information can they get from my

phone for example?

E - Uh, everything in your contacts list.

Every SMS messenger that you use.

Every place that has ever been where the phone

is physically located. Even if you've got GPS disabled

because they can see which wireless access points are near you.

Every part of a private life, today, is found on someones phone.

We used to say a mans home is his castle.

Today, a mans phone is his castle.

S - My question to you is why don't more people care?

Because we've gone from cold war, pre-9/11

To effectively a police state that is watching your every

move and everyone went "meh". Why?

E - Part of it is the fact it happened invisibly.

If a politician had said we want to watch everybody in the Country.

People would have been up in arms about it.

In the wake of September 11th

the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney,

and his personal lawyer David Addington

conspired with a number of top level officials

In the NSA and other agencies to change not only

what they considered to be the legal restraints

but actually the culture of surveillance in the intelligence community.

They moved from the exceptional surveillance

to the surveillance of everyone.

Technology has changed, instead of sending people

to follow you; we use the devices that you pay for.

The services and the systems that surround you

invisibly every day to watch you, on our behalf.

Metadata, is the fact that a communication occurred.

S - So I called you

E - You called me, when you called me,

where you called me from.

This information is the same thing that's produced

when a private investigator follows you around all day.

They can't sit close enough to you in every cafe

to hear every word you're saying. But they can

be close enough to know when you left your house,

what the license plate of the car you're driving with,

where you went, who you sat with.

How long you were there, when you left, where you went after that.

That's metadata.

S - Now all of this metadata it turns out

is actually remarkably easy to get at.

In fact you don't even have to hack the phone at all.

All you need is technology that is readily available.

Called an IMSI catcher that can intercept your phones

metadata remotely.

E - Every phone has what's called an IMSI.

S - Uh huh.

E - Which is actually for the SIM card.

That's your subscriber information.

What your name is; What your phone number is.

All of our devices, as they travel throughout the day

are constantly broadcasting in sort of this radio orchestra.

IMSI catchers masquerade as the legitimate cellphone tower.

So when you're saying "Hey - cell phone tower"

"Can you hear me?" - Instead a man in the middle,

somebody with an IMSI catcher in the trunk of their car.

In a briefcase in their office

Has it send a louder signal back to you,

than the cell phone tower,

then say "I'm the cell phone tower".

S - Now this sounds pretty complex. How hard is it to

make or buy an IMSI catcher?

E - It's incredibly easy. You buy these things off the shelf.

Every police department in the United States

seems to be buying these things nowadays.

S - Really?

Now the use of IMSI catchers by police

recently caused international headlines

when a newspaper in Norway attempted to track the

amount of IMSI catchers in Oslo.

And actually found so many that they questioned

if their tracker was working properly.

After hiring a cyber security firm they discovered

not only were they indeed correct but that these devices

were actually being used to spy on their own government facilities.

Andreas - 5 places in Oslo the measurement was so serious

that they could say with high probability that there was

IMSI catchers. The most clear signs was in the area of

the Prime Ministers office and the Ministry of Defense.

We also got alerts up in the Embassies area.

And in front of the Parliament.

S - And while the police initially denied using IMSI

catchers extensively; In the face of overwhelming

evidence they were eventually forced to admit it.

A - The police stated that "We are using IMSI catchers

at minimum once a week."

That was the first time, ever, that the police had

gone out and stated how often they were using these kinds of equipment.

In all the areas that we detected signals, thousands of

people are flowing by every day.

So that's, I think that is some of the problem with these

kinds of technology because you are looking for one

number but you are, in the same phase, you are

collecting hundreds of numbers.

S - Now this technology is being used by police forces

all over the world. In fact in New York City alone

IMSI catchers have been used more than a thousand

times, by police, since 2008

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As they are now being used all around us... all the time

E - There is a joint CIA/NSA program called

appropriately enough, "Shenanigans".

Shenanigans was a project to mount on airplanes

an IMSI catcher and fly it around the city.

They can tell when you've travelled, they can tell when

you move and this all happens without warrants.

S - Right.

E - Shenanigans was happening in Yemen.

That is where it was being tested and you go

"Well look this is being used to aim missiles at terrorists."

I'm okay with that.

But these programs have a disturbing frequency,

a tendency...

to move from war front to home front.

S - Right.

E - And within six months of Shenanigans being reported,

the Wall Street Journal reported,

that the same technology was now being used

domestically inside the United States.

The FBI has a specific aviation unit

that is flying around cities

and frequently they are monitoring protesters instead of violent criminals.

The Black Lives Matter protests in Baltimore,

the FBI was flying surveillance over the protesters.

S - Now this has been cause for alarm

because modern surveillance technologies are

already being used by oppressive regimes

to suppress government opposition.

"Allahu akbar" (over and over)

Ala'a - Since 2011, Bahrain has witnessed some of the

largest protests in its history where

there are thousands of protesters taking to the streets.

Who are demanding more democratic reforms and

a change in regime.

S - Ala'a Shehabi is a Bahraini activist who found herself the target

of government surveillance.

A - In 2012 I was briefly arrested.

Immediately after I was released,

I received a string of 4 or 5 emails

that were very suspicious to me.

I suspected that this was a cyber attack so I

immediately sent the suspicious emails to my colleague

Morgan, at Citizen Lab, it actually turned out that

this spyware was produced and operated by a British

and German company called Finfisher.

This is a company that specializes in producing hacking

software. It claims it sells it to government regimes.

So that immediately fitted with my suspicion that

this was the Bahraini regime. The spyware is capable

of switching your microphone on, your camera,

it is capable of logging every single thing that you type.

There are a handful of key companies, in Europe,

that are openly marketing, promoting and selling these

tools in Arms Exhibitions.

In European capitals.

They are not being used in the name of tackling terrorism.

They are being used to keep these regimes in place

and in power.

S - Now to see exactly what type of information

a hacked phone can yield, we contacted the same

hacker who uncovered the Bahraini scandal

and asked him to hack one of our own reporters.

Using the same type of software that targeted Ala'a Shehabi.

We were able to completely commandeer Bens phone

and he never knew it.

So Ben was in Pakistan doing a shoot on Polio.

So you hacked his phone and you figured out who he called

Morgan - Right and so I mean what we've got here

is I can see who he is calling and when he called them

and how long the calls were. We can actually record

his calls, lets have a listen to them.

M - This will also keep a list of Bens web browsing history.

And so for instance you can see here he is google searching for

BBC. You can see news articles that he is writing.

Checking his twitter. It's sort of like reading someones mind.

Because you can sort of see what they're thinking while they're on the internet.

So we've been location tracking Ben.

You can even get it to animate and so it will show

where Ben is at various sort of times.

You can see him travelling around the city there

and you can tell exactly where he is. Which is obviously

you know in terms of keeping on someone a highly desirable thing.

Think about anything that the phone can do.

Right, like once you've actually installed this malicious software

on the phone, then it's simply a matter of activating the phones capabilities.

So I mean the phone has a camera right? Well now we can turn on the camera.

S - What are these ambient recordings?

M - Ya so the ambient recording is kind of the invisible

microphone, the real sort of spy stuff.

S - So he's interviewing a Gitmo detainee - a former Gitmo detainee -

So I guess when you talk about protecting journalists,

protecting your source is a big issue.

M - Can you be said to be practicing journalism in a

traditional sense if you can't guarantee source protection?

You may be sort of actively endangering their livelihood,

welfare and life.

S - Now with software like this

and the other more commercially available software

it seems like technology allows...

almost anyone to spy on almost anyone

M - We live in a golden age of convenience enabled by technology.

So that means that you and I can be on other sides of

the planet and we can have a conversation in real time

for no money. Technology has enabled convenience of communication

but also convenience of surveillance.

S - Now this so called golden age of technology

has essentially made it possible for anyone to spy on anyone else

It begs the question - Can people, for example journalists,

ever go dark? Is that even possible now with these new advancements?

How do we go black?

E - Well so going black is a pretty big ask.

For me for example, I really know what I'm doing.

S - Ya.

E - But if the NSA wants to pop my box.

You know they're totally going to do it.

But if you know you're actively under threat,

if you know your phone has been hacked,

these are ways that you can ensure that your phone

works for you rather than working for somebody else.

You might have bought the phone but whoever hacked it

they are the one who owns it.

S - That's because third parties can actually turn on your

phones microphones and cameras without you knowing it.

E - Any device that is on here you can operate independently.

S - So it's true you can get into the phone and turn the camera on?

E - Ya, absolutely. So you would turn this guy on

and you'll just heat that guy until the solders molten.

Because I'm going to be detaching the rhythm cables...

that are connecting the camera...

As a surface mount device you'll be able to just pull it off like that.

S - So this is the camera?

What's that?

E - This is the other camera.

You got 2 cameras in your phone, you got your front

facing camera, for sort of the selfies.

And you got your rear facing camera, that's it.

I think this one has a multi microphone array

which is going to be this guy

this guy and this guy.

S - But if you take out the microphones then

how do you use it as a phone?

E - You would add your own external microphone.

For example the iPod type earbuds that have the mic

integrated on the lanyard.

S - Is there a way you can tell if your phone has been hacked?

E - Perhaps the most terrifying thing is, if your phone

had been hacked you would never know.

S - And as VICE news reporter Jason Leopold found

surveillance has become so ubiquitious

that even the government agencies responsible for

policing it are not secure.

You got a FOIA request recently in the mail

that is causing quite a stir.

J - The way that this all surfaced, Dianne Feinstein,

she made this extraordinary floor speech.

S - As the head of the senate intelligence committee

Feinstein delivered some shocking allegations.

Senator Feinstein - On 2 occasions CIA personnel

electronically removed committee access

to CIA documents.

J - She said that the CIA

had hacked into Senate computers

while these staffers who worked for her were

writing a report about the CIA's torture program.

John Brennan, the director of the CIA

said that is proposterous.

Our only way to look deeper into it was to

file a Freedom of information act request.

So these documents absolutely backed up everything

that Dianne Feinstein said.

What's most interesting though, what I would call a smoking gun,

John Brennan wrote a letter and he said that the CIA

staff had improperly accessed your computers.

But John Brennan never sent this letter to Dianne Feinstein.

They said that this letter was mistakenly turned over to us.

It was an accident and it actually should not have

been released to us and they asked us not to, uh, post it.

S - Because it's embarrassing?

J - Completely embarrassing for them. And we declined

that request because there was no National

security concerns in this letter. This is simply

something that John Brennan did not want the public

to see after making after making all of these statements

about what the CIA did not do.

S - We now know that the CIA officers were in fact

spying on the committee charged with keeping them in line.

So we spoke to one of those committee members

Senator Ron Wyden

about the letter than Brennan never meant to send.

Senator Ron Wyden - This will be the first time I've ever said this publicly.

My sense is there were clearly people

at the CIA who understood

that what Mister Brennan had done was flat out wrong.

And they drafted an apology letter.

And yet, Mr Brennan was just unwilling to publicly acknowledge wrongdoing.

This is basically re-writing the law.

We are the agency that is required by law

to conduct vigorous oversight over the CIA.

We can't do vigorous oversight over the agency

if the agency we're supposed to be overseeing

is in fact secretly searching our files.

S - Now Senator Wyden has become a leader

in attempting to reign in our intelligence community.

W - Director Clapper, I want to ask you...

E - Senator Ron Wyden said "is the NSA collecting any

kind of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

And James Clapper sort of scratched his head

James Clapper - No sir.

E - And he said no... Senator Wyden - It does not? E - ...they do not

Clapper - Not wittingly.

E - The most senior intelligence official in the United

States of America raised his hand and swore an oath

to tell the truth to congress. And he lied on camera.

He wasn't charged, despite the fact that is a felony;

he didn't even lose his job, he's still doing the same thing today.

Within a few months he admitted that he had lied.

He said his answer was too cute by half

and the least untruthful statement that he felt he could

have made at the time.

W - My view is that if you're going to protect

the American people

you've got to embed those protections into law.

And we of course have been very concerned about

with what I call "Secret Law"

S - And at the heart of that secret law

is FISA

the foreign intelligence surveillance act.

Which authorised secret courts

to greenlight domestic spying programs

W - The government persuaded

the court to say it was okay

to collect metadata.

When you read the fundamental law you didn't hear

anything about metadata and collecting millions of

records on law abiding people.

That was all done in secret.

And in fact I went to the floor of the senate

and I warned that when the American people found out

how that law had been secretly interpreted

they would be very angry. And that in fact was the case.

S - Now public anger hasn't been enough to end many of

these programs. But increasingly the question isn't

whether or not they can be justified under law

but whether they're actually effective

in the first place.

Recently there were attacks in Paris.

What happens when you have a terrorist attack like that-

Within security agencies, the NSA for example?

E - I was working at the NSA during the Boston Marathon

bombing investigation.

And as it was playing on the news

myself and colleagues were in the cafeteria

and we turned to each other

and said...

I'll bet you anything...

We already knew about these guys in the databases.

And in Paris, I'm certain that the same conversation happened.

This is really the legacy of mass surveillance.

It's the fact that when you are watching everyone

you know who these individuals are, they're in the banks,

you had the information you needed

to stop, to prevent even the worst atrocities.

But the problem is when you cast the net too wide,

when you're collecting everything,

you understand nothing.

We know for a fact

that it is not effective

for stopping terrorist attacks and it never has been.

The White House appointed 2 independent commissions

in the wake of my disclosures in 2013

to review mass surveillance programs

and go "Alright do these have value?

Should they be changed? Should they be reformed?"

They looked at the evidence, the classified evidence,

and they found wow, despite the fact that this been

going since 2001, it had never stopped a single terrorist

attack in the United States.

And that's after monitoring the phone calls

of everyone in the Country.

S - So that's a huge point. So two independent

commissions, started by the White House,

said "Mass surveillance has not stopped a terrorist attack."

E - And both of them found that these programs

should be ended

and then they came up with forty two different points

for reform that they recommended should happen to

restrict the use of these powers.

The last time that I saw a review of this, the President

only adopted three of the forty two points.

S - Why?

E - Because they would limit the exercise of executive power.

This is something that you have to understand is

not about this president...

it's about...the Presidency.

It's clear that the public opposes

a majority of these policies.

And yet politicians, because the word terrorism is involved,

They can't justify being the one to stand

and mount the vote, because they know there will be another terrorist attack.

S - Because if they say "No we're not doing this"

and then there is a terrorist attack, they get painted with that brush.

E - They know they'll be blamed by their political opponents

and they're right.

Of course their political opponents will do this

it's the easiest thing in the world to do.

And unfortunately it's quite effective.

Because we live in a time where the

politics of fear are the most

persuasive thing on the table.

S - Now while the debate over surveillance

continues to rage here in the US,

Edward Snowden remains a fugitive

for his revelations about the NSA.

And he had a cautionary statement about what's at stake.

When the world was first introduced to you,

you made a statement about turnkey tyranny...

What did you mean by that?

E - It means that even if you trust the government today

what happens when it changes?

In our democracy we're never more than 8 years away

from a total change of government.

Suddenly, everybody is vulnerable to this individual

and the systems are already in place.

What happens tomorrow,

in a year, in 5 years, in 10 years,

when eventually we get an individual who says

"You know what?

Lets flip that switch... and

use the absolute full extent

of our technical capabilities

to ensure the political stability

of this new administration."

When we think about the future and where we go from here

the question is are we going to change?

And enter sort of a quantified world

where everywhere you've been,

everyone you talk to, it's indexed

it's analyzed, it's stored and it's used.

Maybe against you.

Cop - Within our technologies here we have our license

plate reader system, which we can capture

dozens of license plates in a matter of a second.

E - Or will we recognize the danger of that

and embrace the fact that people should have

space to make mistakes,

without judgement, to have sort of

the unconsidered thought or conversation

with your friend. But if that was recorded in a database

Where you know,

you say "I think Donald Trump should be kicked off a cliff"

And Donald Trump becomes President someday,

and then everybody who said that ends up getting thrown off a cliff.

That's a very dangerous world.

And I think this really is...

the question that...

our political structures...

are not yet comfortable even discussing.

But whether they like it or not,

it's a world that is coming and

we're going to have to confront.