×

Usamos cookies para ayudar a mejorar LingQ. Al visitar este sitio, aceptas nuestras politicas de cookie.

image

•TED TALKS•, Edward Snowden: Here's how we take back the Internet

Edward Snowden: Here's how we take back the Internet

Chris Anderson: The rights of citizens, the future of the Internet.

So I would like to welcome to the TED stage the man behind those revelations, Ed Snowden. (Applause) Ed is in a remote location somewhere in Russia controlling this bot from his laptop, so he can see what the bot can see. Ed, welcome to the TED stage. What can you see, as a matter of fact? Edward Snowden: Ha, I can see everyone.

This is amazing. (Laughter) CA: Ed, some questions for you.

You've been called many things in the last few months. You've been called a whistleblower, a traitor, a hero. What words would you describe yourself with? ES: You know, everybody who is involved with this debate has been struggling over me and my personality and how to describe me.

But when I think about it, this isn't the question that we should be struggling with. Who I am really doesn't matter at all. If I'm the worst person in the world, you can hate me and move on. What really matters here are the issues. What really matters here is the kind of government we want, the kind of Internet we want, the kind of relationship between people and societies. And that's what I'm hoping the debate will move towards, and we've seen that increasing over time. If I had to describe myself, I wouldn't use words like "hero." I wouldn't use "patriot," and I wouldn't use "traitor." I'd say I'm an American and I'm a citizen, just like everyone else. CA: So just to give some context for those who don't know the whole story -- (Applause) — this time a year ago, you were stationed in Hawaii working as a consultant to the NSA.

As a sysadmin, you had access to their systems, and you began revealing certain classified documents to some handpicked journalists leading the way to June's revelations. Now, what propelled you to do this? ES: You know, when I was sitting in Hawaii, and the years before, when I was working in the intelligence community, I saw a lot of things that had disturbed me. We do a lot of good things in the intelligence community, things that need to be done, and things that help everyone. But there are also things that go too far. There are things that shouldn't be done, and decisions that were being made in secret without the public's awareness, without the public's consent, and without even our representatives in government having knowledge of these programs. When I really came to struggle with these issues, I thought to myself, how can I do this in the most responsible way, that maximizes the public benefit while minimizing the risks? And out of all the solutions that I could come up with, out of going to Congress, when there were no laws, there were no legal protections for a private employee, a contractor in intelligence like myself, there was a risk that I would be buried along with the information and the public would never find out. But the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees us a free press for a reason, and that's to enable an adversarial press, to challenge the government, but also to work together with the government, to have a dialogue and debate about how we can inform the public about matters of vital importance without putting our national security at risk. And by working with journalists, by giving all of my information back to the American people, rather than trusting myself to make the decisions about publication, we've had a robust debate with a deep investment by the government that I think has resulted in a benefit for everyone. And the risks that have been threatened, the risks that have been played up by the government have never materialized. We've never seen any evidence of even a single instance of specific harm, and because of that, I'm comfortable with the decisions that I made. CA: So let me show the audience a couple of examples of what you revealed.

If we could have a slide up, and Ed, I don't know whether you can see, the slides are here. This is a slide of the PRISM program, and maybe you could tell the audience what that was that was revealed. ES: The best way to understand PRISM, because there's been a little bit of controversy, is to first talk about what PRISM isn't.

Much of the debate in the U.S. has been about metadata. They've said it's just metadata, it's just metadata, and they're talking about a specific legal authority called Section 215 of the Patriot Act. That allows sort of a warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the entire country's phone records, things like that -- who you're talking to, when you're talking to them, where you traveled. These are all metadata events. PRISM is about content. It's a program through which the government could compel corporate America, it could deputize corporate America to do its dirty work for the NSA. And even though some of these companies did resist, even though some of them -- I believe Yahoo was one of them — challenged them in court, they all lost, because it was never tried by an open court. They were only tried by a secret court. And something that we've seen, something about the PRISM program that's very concerning to me is, there's been a talking point in the U.S. government where they've said 15 federal judges have reviewed these programs and found them to be lawful, but what they don't tell you is those are secret judges in a secret court based on secret interpretations of law that's considered 34,000 warrant requests over 33 years, and in 33 years only rejected 11 government requests. These aren't the people that we want deciding what the role of corporate America in a free and open Internet should be. CA: Now, this slide that we're showing here shows the dates in which different technology companies, Internet companies, are alleged to have joined the program, and where data collection began from them.

Now, they have denied collaborating with the NSA. How was that data collected by the NSA? ES: Right.

So the NSA's own slides refer to it as direct access. What that means to an actual NSA analyst, someone like me who was working as an intelligence analyst targeting, Chinese cyber-hackers, things like that, in Hawaii, is the provenance of that data is directly from their servers. It doesn't mean that there's a group of company representatives sitting in a smoky room with the NSA palling around and making back-room deals about how they're going to give this stuff away. Now each company handles it different ways. Some are responsible. Some are somewhat less responsible. But the bottom line is, when we talk about how this information is given, it's coming from the companies themselves. It's not stolen from the lines. But there's an important thing to remember here: even though companies pushed back, even though companies demanded, hey, let's do this through a warrant process, let's do this where we actually have some sort of legal review, some sort of basis for handing over these users' data, we saw stories in the Washington Post last year that weren't as well reported as the PRISM story that said the NSA broke in to the data center communications between Google to itself and Yahoo to itself. So even these companies that are cooperating in at least a compelled but hopefully lawful manner with the NSA, the NSA isn't satisfied with that, and because of that, we need our companies to work very hard to guarantee that they're going to represent the interests of the user, and also advocate for the rights of the users. And I think over the last year, we've seen the companies that are named on the PRISM slides take great strides to do that, and I encourage them to continue. CA: What more should they do?

ES: The biggest thing that an Internet company in America can do today, right now, without consulting with lawyers, to protect the rights of users worldwide, is to enable SSL web encryption on every page you visit.

The reason this matters is today, if you go to look at a copy of "1984" on Amazon.com, the NSA can see a record of that, the Russian intelligence service can see a record of that, the Chinese service can see a record of that, the French service, the German service, the services of Andorra. They can all see it because it's unencrypted. The world's library is Amazon.com, but not only do they not support encryption by default, you cannot choose to use encryption when browsing through books. This is something that we need to change, not just for Amazon, I don't mean to single them out, but they're a great example. All companies need to move to an encrypted browsing habit by default for all users who haven't taken any action or picked any special methods on their own. That'll increase the privacy and the rights that people enjoy worldwide. CA: Ed, come with me to this part of the stage.

I want to show you the next slide here. (Applause) This is a program called Boundless Informant. What is that? ES: So, I've got to give credit to the NSA for using appropriate names on this.

This is one of my favorite NSA cryptonyms. Boundless Informant is a program that the NSA hid from Congress. The NSA was previously asked by Congress, was there any ability that they had to even give a rough ballpark estimate of the amount of American communications that were being intercepted. They said no. They said, we don't track those stats, and we can't track those stats. We can't tell you how many communications we're intercepting around the world, because to tell you that would be to invade your privacy. Now, I really appreciate that sentiment from them, but the reality, when you look at this slide is, not only do they have the capability, the capability already exists. It's already in place. The NSA has its own internal data format that tracks both ends of a communication, and if it says, this communication came from America, they can tell Congress how many of those communications they have today, right now. And what Boundless Informant tells us is more communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians. I'm not sure that's what an intelligence agency should be aiming for. CA: Ed, there was a story broken in the Washington Post, again from your data.

The headline says, "NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year." Tell us about that. ES: We also heard in Congressional testimony last year, it was an amazing thing for someone like me who came from the NSA and who's seen the actual internal documents, knows what's in them, to see officials testifying under oath that there had been no abuses, that there had been no violations of the NSA's rules, when we knew this story was coming.

But what's especially interesting about this, about the fact that the NSA has violated their own rules, their own laws thousands of times in a single year, including one event by itself, one event out of those 2,776, that affected more than 3,000 people. In another event, they intercepted all the calls in Washington, D.C., by accident. What's amazing about this, this report, that didn't get that much attention, is the fact that not only were there 2,776 abuses, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had not seen this report until the Washington Post contacted her asking for comment on the report. And she then requested a copy from the NSA and received it, but had never seen this before that. What does that say about the state of oversight in American intelligence when the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has no idea that the rules are being broken thousands of times every year? CA: Ed, one response to this whole debate is this: Why should we care about all this surveillance, honestly?

I mean, look, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to worry about. What's wrong with that point of view? ES: Well, so the first thing is, you're giving up your rights. You're saying hey, you know, I don't think I'm going to need them, so I'm just going to trust that, you know, let's get rid of them, it doesn't really matter, these guys are going to do the right thing. Your rights matter because you never know when you're going to need them. Beyond that, it's a part of our cultural identity, not just in America, but in Western societies and in democratic societies around the world. People should be able to pick up the phone and to call their family, people should be able to send a text message to their loved ones, people should be able to buy a book online, they should be able to travel by train, they should be able to buy an airline ticket without wondering about how these events are going to look to an agent of the government, possibly not even your government years in the future, how they're going to be misinterpreted and what they're going to think your intentions were. We have a right to privacy. We require warrants to be based on probable cause or some kind of individualized suspicion because we recognize that trusting anybody, any government authority, with the entirety of human communications in secret and without oversight is simply too great a temptation to be ignored. CA: Some people are furious at what you've done.

I heard a quote recently from Dick Cheney who said that Julian Assange was a flea bite, Edward Snowden is the lion that bit the head off the dog. He thinks you've committed one of the worst acts of betrayal in American history. What would you say to people who think that? ES: Dick Cheney's really something else.

(Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. (Laughter) I think it's amazing, because at the time Julian Assange was doing some of his greatest work, Dick Cheney was saying he was going to end governments worldwide, the skies were going to ignite and the seas were going to boil off, and now he's saying it's a flea bite. So we should be suspicious about the same sort of overblown claims of damage to national security from these kind of officials. But let's assume that these people really believe this. I would argue that they have kind of a narrow conception of national security. The prerogatives of people like Dick Cheney do not keep the nation safe. The public interest is not always the same as the national interest. Going to war with people who are not our enemy in places that are not a threat doesn't make us safe, and that applies whether it's in Iraq or on the Internet. The Internet is not the enemy. Our economy is not the enemy. American businesses, Chinese businesses, and any other company out there is a part of our society. It's a part of our interconnected world. There are ties of fraternity that bond us together, and if we destroy these bonds by undermining the standards, the security, the manner of behavior, that nations and citizens all around the world expect us to abide by. CA: But it's alleged that you've stolen 1.7 million documents.

It seems only a few hundred of them have been shared with journalists so far. Are there more revelations to come? ES: There are absolutely more revelations to come.

I don't think there's any question that some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come. CA: Come here, because I want to ask you about this particular revelation.

Come and take a look at this. I mean, this is a story which I think for a lot of the techies in this room is the single most shocking thing that they have heard in the last few months. It's about a program called "Bullrun." Can you explain what that is? ES: So Bullrun, and this is again where we've got to thank the NSA for their candor, this is a program named after a Civil War battle.

The British counterpart is called Edgehill, which is a U.K. civil war battle. And the reason that I believe they're named this way is because they target our own infrastructure. They're programs through which the NSA intentionally misleads corporate partners. They tell corporate partners that these are safe standards. They say hey, we need to work with you to secure your systems, but in reality, they're giving bad advice to these companies that makes them degrade the security of their services. They're building in backdoors that not only the NSA can exploit, but anyone else who has time and money to research and find it can then use to let themselves in to the world's communications. And this is really dangerous, because if we lose a single standard, if we lose the trust of something like SSL, which was specifically targeted by the Bullrun program, we will live a less safe world overall. We won't be able to access our banks and we won't be able to access commerce without worrying about people monitoring those communications or subverting them for their own ends. CA: And do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyberattacks from other sources?

ES: Absolutely.

One of the problems, one of the dangerous legacies that we've seen in the post-9/11 era, is that the NSA has traditionally worn two hats. They've been in charge of offensive operations, that is hacking, but they've also been in charge of defensive operations, and traditionally they've always prioritized defense over offense based on the principle that American secrets are simply worth more. If we hack a Chinese business and steal their secrets, if we hack a government office in Berlin and steal their secrets, that has less value to the American people than making sure that the Chinese can't get access to our secrets. So by reducing the security of our communications, they're not only putting the world at risk, they're putting America at risk in a fundamental way, because intellectual property is the basis, the foundation of our economy, and if we put that at risk through weak security, we're going to be paying for it for years. CA: But they've made a calculation that it was worth doing this as part of America's defense against terrorism.

Surely that makes it a price worth paying. ES: Well, when you look at the results of these programs in stopping terrorism, you will see that that's unfounded, and you don't have to take my word for it, because we've had the first open court, the first federal court that's reviewed this, outside the secrecy arrangement, called these programs Orwellian and likely unconstitutional.

Congress, who has access to be briefed on these things, and now has the desire to be, has produced bills to reform it, and two independent White House panels who reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack that was imminent in the United States. So is it really terrorism that we're stopping? Do these programs have any value at all? I say no, and all three branches of the American government say no as well. CA: I mean, do you think there's a deeper motivation for them than the war against terrorism?

ES: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, say again?

CA: Sorry.

Do you think there's a deeper motivation for them other than the war against terrorism? ES: Yeah.

The bottom line is that terrorism has always been what we in the intelligence world would call a cover for action. Terrorism is something that provokes an emotional response that allows people to rationalize authorizing powers and programs that they wouldn't give otherwise. The Bullrun and Edgehill-type programs, the NSA asked for these authorities back in the 1990s. They asked the FBI to go to Congress and make the case. The FBI went to Congress and did make the case. But Congress and the American people said no. They said, it's not worth the risk to our economy. They said it's worth too much damage to our society to justify the gains. But what we saw is, in the post-9/11 era, they used secrecy and they used the justification of terrorism to start these programs in secret without asking Congress, without asking the American people, and it's that kind of government behind closed doors that we need to guard ourselves against, because it makes us less safe, and it offers no value. CA: Okay, come with me here for a sec, because I've got a more personal question for you.

Speaking of terror, most people would find the situation you're in right now in Russia pretty terrifying. You obviously heard what happened, what the treatment that Bradley Manning got, Chelsea Manning as now is, and there was a story in Buzzfeed saying that there are people in the intelligence community who want you dead. How are you coping with this? How are you coping with the fear? ES: It's no mystery that there are governments out there that want to see me dead.

I've made clear again and again and again that I go to sleep every morning thinking about what I can do for the American people. I don't want to harm my government. I want to help my government, but the fact that they are willing to completely ignore due process, they're willing to declare guilt without ever seeing a trial, these are things that we need to work against as a society, and say hey, this is not appropriate. We shouldn't be threatening dissidents. We shouldn't be criminalizing journalism. And whatever part I can do to see that end, I'm happy to do despite the risks. CA: So I'd actually like to get some feedback from the audience here, because I know there's widely differing reactions to Edward Snowden.

Suppose you had the following two choices, right? You could view what he did as fundamentally a reckless act that has endangered America or you could view it as fundamentally a heroic act that will work towards America and the world's long-term good? Those are the two choices I'll give you. I'm curious to see who's willing to vote with the first of those, that this was a reckless act? There are some hands going up. Some hands going up. It's hard to put your hand up when the man is standing right here, but I see them. ES: I can see you.

(Laughter) CA: And who goes with the second choice, the fundamentally heroic act?

(Applause) (Cheers)

And I think it's true to say that there are a lot of people who didn't show a hand and I think are still thinking this through, because it seems to me that the debate around you doesn't split along traditional political lines.

It's not left or right, it's not really about pro-government, libertarian, or not just that. Part of it is almost a generational issue. You're part of a generation that grew up with the Internet, and it seems as if you become offended at almost a visceral level when you see something done that you think will harm the Internet. Is there some truth to that? ES: It is.

I think it's very true. This is not a left or right issue. Our basic freedoms, and when I say our, I don't just mean Americans, I mean people around the world, it's not a partisan issue. These are things that all people believe, and it's up to all of us to protect them, and to people who have seen and enjoyed a free and open Internet, it's up to us to preserve that liberty for the next generation to enjoy, and if we don't change things, if we don't stand up to make the changes we need to do to keep the Internet safe, not just for us but for everyone, we're going to lose that, and that would be a tremendous loss, not just for us, but for the world. CA: Well, I have heard similar language recently from the founder of the world wide web, who I actually think is with us, Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Tim, actually, would you like to come up and say, do we have a microphone for Tim? (Applause)

Tim, good to see you.

Come up there. Which camp are you in, by the way, traitor, hero? I have a theory on this, but -- Tim Berners-Lee: I've given much longer answers to that question, but hero, if I have to make the choice between the two.

CA: And Ed, I think you've read the proposal that Sir Tim has talked about about a new Magna Carta to take back the Internet.

Is that something that makes sense? ES: Absolutely.

I mean, my generation, I grew up not just thinking about the Internet, but I grew up in the Internet, and although I never expected to have the chance to defend it in such a direct and practical manner and to embody it in this unusual, almost avatar manner, I think there's something poetic about the fact that one of the sons of the Internet has actually become close to the Internet as a result of their political expression. And I believe that a Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values not just in writing but in the structure of the Internet, and it's something that I hope, I invite everyone in the audience, not just here in Vancouver but around the world, to join and participate in. CA: Do you have a question for Ed?

TBL: Well, two questions, a general question —

CA: Ed, can you still hear us?

ES: Yes, I can hear you.

CA: Oh, he's back. TBL: The wiretap on your line got a little interfered with for a moment.

(Laughter) ES: It's a little bit of an NSA problem.

TBL: So, from the 25 years, stepping back and thinking, what would you think would be the best that we could achieve from all the discussions that we have about the web we want?

ES: When we think about in terms of how far we can go, I think that's a question that's really only limited by what we're willing to put into it.

I think the Internet that we've enjoyed in the past has been exactly what we as not just a nation but as a people around the world need, and by cooperating, by engaging not just the technical parts of society, but as you said, the users, the people around the world who contribute through the Internet, through social media, who just check the weather, who rely on it every day as a part of their life, to champion that. We'll get not just the Internet we've had, but a better Internet, a better now, something that we can use to build a future that'll be better not just than what we hoped for but anything that we could have imagined. CA: It's 30 years ago that TED was founded, 1984.

A lot of the conversation since then has been along the lines that actually George Orwell got it wrong. It's not Big Brother watching us. We, through the power of the web, and transparency, are now watching Big Brother. Your revelations kind of drove a stake through the heart of that rather optimistic view, but you still believe there's a way of doing something about that. And you do too. ES: Right, so there is an argument to be made that the powers of Big Brother have increased enormously.

There was a recent legal article at Yale that established something called the Bankston-Soltani Principle, which is that our expectation of privacy is violated when the capabilities of government surveillance have become cheaper by an order of magnitude, and each time that occurs, we need to revisit and rebalance our privacy rights. Now, that hasn't happened since the government's surveillance powers have increased by several orders of magnitude, and that's why we're in the problem that we're in today, but there is still hope, because the power of individuals have also been increased by technology. I am living proof that an individual can go head to head against the most powerful adversaries and the most powerful intelligence agencies around the world and win, and I think that's something that we need to take hope from, and we need to build on to make it accessible not just to technical experts but to ordinary citizens around the world. Journalism is not a crime, communication is not a crime, and we should not be monitored in our everyday activities. CA: I'm not quite sure how you shake the hand of a bot, but I imagine it's, this is the hand right here.

TBL: That'll come very soon. ES: Nice to meet you, and I hope my beam looks as nice as my view of you guys does. CA: Thank you, Tim.

(Applause)

I mean, The New York Times recently called for an amnesty for you.

Would you welcome the chance to come back to America? ES: Absolutely.

There's really no question, the principles that have been the foundation of this project have been the public interest and the principles that underly the journalistic establishment in the United States and around the world, and I think if the press is now saying, we support this, this is something that needed to happen, that's a powerful argument, but it's not the final argument, and I think that's something that public should decide. But at the same time, the government has hinted that they want some kind of deal, that they want me to compromise the journalists with which I've been working, to come back, and I want to make it very clear that I did not do this to be safe. I did this to do what was right, and I'm not going to stop my work in the public interest just to benefit myself. (Applause)

CA: In the meantime, courtesy of the Internet and this technology, you're here, back in North America, not quite the U.S., Canada, in this form.

I'm curious, how does that feel? ES: Canada is different than what I expected.

It's a lot warmer. (Laughter) CA: At TED, the mission is "ideas worth spreading.

If you could encapsulate it in a single idea, what is your idea worth spreading right now at this moment? ES: I would say the last year has been a reminder that democracy may die behind closed doors, but we as individuals are born behind those same closed doors, and we don't have to give up our privacy to have good government. We don't have to give up our liberty to have security. And I think by working together we can have both open government and private lives, and I look forward to working with everyone around the world to see that happen. Thank you very much.

CA: Ed, thank you.

(Applause)


Edward Snowden: Here's how we take back the Internet إدوارد سنودن: إليك كيفية استعادة الإنترنت Edward Snowden: So holen wir uns das Internet zurück Έντουαρντ Σνόουντεν: Να πώς θα πάρουμε πίσω το Διαδίκτυο Edward Snowden: Así es como recuperaremos Internet Edward Snowden : voici comment reprendre l'Internet Edward Snowden: ecco come riprendersi Internet エドワード・スノーデン：インターネットを取り戻す方法がここにある 에드워드 스노든: 인터넷을 되찾는 방법은 다음과 같습니다. Edward Snowden: Oto jak odzyskać Internet Edward Snowden: Eis como vamos recuperar a Internet Эдвард Сноуден: Вот как мы вернем Интернет Edward Snowden: İşte interneti nasıl geri alacağımızın yolu Едвард Сноуден: Ось як ми повернемо Інтернет 爱德华·斯诺登：这是我们夺回互联网的方式 爱德华·斯诺登：这就是我们夺回互联网的方法 愛德華·斯諾登：這就是我們奪回互聯網的方式

Chris Anderson: The rights of citizens, the future of the Internet. كريس أندرسون: حقوق المواطنين ، مستقبل الإنترنت. 克里斯安德森：公民的权利，互联网的未来。

So I would like to welcome to the TED stage the man behind those revelations, Ed Snowden. لذا أود أن أرحب في منصة TED بالرجل الذي يقف وراء تلك الاكتشافات ، إد سنودن. Итак, я хотел бы поприветствовать на сцене TED человека, стоящего за этими откровениями, Эда Сноудена. (Applause) Ed is in a remote location somewhere in Russia controlling this bot from his laptop, so he can see what the bot can see. (تصفيق) إد موجود في مكان بعيد في مكان ما في روسيا يتحكم في هذا الروبوت من جهاز الكمبيوتر المحمول الخاص به ، حتى يتمكن من رؤية ما يمكن أن يراه الروبوت. (Beifall) Ed befindet sich an einem entfernten Ort irgendwo in Russland und steuert diesen Bot von seinem Laptop aus, so dass er sehen kann, was der Bot sieht. (Applaudissements) Ed est dans un endroit éloigné quelque part en Russie contrôlant ce bot depuis son ordinateur portable, afin qu'il puisse voir ce que le bot peut voir. (Applausi) Ed è in una località remota da qualche parte in Russia e controlla questo bot dal suo laptop, così può vedere cosa può vedere il bot. (Аплодисменты) Эд находится в удаленном месте где-то в России и управляет этим ботом со своего ноутбука, поэтому он может видеть то, что видит бот. Ed, welcome to the TED stage. What can you see, as a matter of fact? What can you see, as a matter of fact? Что вы видите на самом деле? Edward Snowden: Ha, I can see everyone.

This is amazing. (Laughter) CA: Ed, some questions for you.

You’ve been called many things in the last few months. За последние несколько месяцев вас много раз называли. You’ve been called a whistleblower, a traitor, a hero. On vous a qualifié de dénonciateur, de traître, de héros. Sei stato chiamato un informatore, un traditore, un eroe. What words would you describe yourself with? ES: You know, everybody who is involved with this debate has been struggling over me and my personality and how to describe me. ES : Vous savez, toutes les personnes impliquées dans ce débat se sont battues avec moi, ma personnalité et la façon de me décrire. ES: Вы знаете, все, кто участвует в этой дискуссии, борются за меня и мою личность и за то, как меня описать.

But when I think about it, this isn’t the question that we should be struggling with. Mais quand j'y pense, ce n'est pas la question qui devrait nous préoccuper. Но когда я думаю об этом, это не тот вопрос, с которым нам следует бороться. Who I am really doesn’t matter at all. If I’m the worst person in the world, you can hate me and move on. Если я худший человек в мире, ты можешь меня ненавидеть и двигаться дальше. What really matters here are the issues. What really matters here is the kind of government we want, the kind of Internet we want, the kind of relationship between people and societies. And that’s what I’m hoping the debate will move towards, and we’ve seen that increasing over time. И это то, к чему я надеюсь, что дебаты будут развиваться, и мы видим, что со временем это увеличивается. If I had to describe myself, I wouldn’t use words like "hero." I wouldn’t use "patriot," and I wouldn’t use "traitor." I’d say I’m an American and I’m a citizen, just like everyone else. CA: So just to give some context for those who don’t know the whole story -- (Applause) — this time a year ago, you were stationed in Hawaii working as a consultant to the NSA. CA : Pour donner un peu de contexte à ceux qui ne connaissent pas toute l'histoire - (Applaudissements) - il y a un an, à la même époque, vous étiez en poste à Hawaï en tant que consultant pour la NSA. КА: Просто чтобы дать некоторый контекст для тех, кто не знает всей истории - (Аплодисменты) - на этот раз год назад вы работали на Гавайях в качестве консультанта АНБ.

As a sysadmin, you had access to their systems, and you began revealing certain classified documents to some handpicked journalists leading the way to June’s revelations. As a sysadmin, you had access to their systems, and you began revealing certain classified documents to some handpicked journalists leading the way to June's revelations. Как системный администратор, у вас был доступ к их системам, и вы начали раскрывать определенные секретные документы некоторым специально отобранным журналистам, ведущим к откровениям Джун. Now, what propelled you to do this? Qu'est-ce qui vous a poussé à faire cela ? Итак, что побудило вас к этому? ES: You know, when I was sitting in Hawaii, and the years before, when I was working in the intelligence community, I saw a lot of things that had disturbed me. ЭС: Вы знаете, когда я сидел на Гавайях, и несколько лет назад, когда я работал в разведывательном сообществе, я увидел много вещей, которые меня беспокоили. We do a lot of good things in the intelligence community, things that need to be done, and things that help everyone. В разведывательном сообществе мы делаем много хороших вещей, вещей, которые необходимо сделать, и вещей, которые помогают всем. But there are also things that go too far. Но есть вещи, которые заходят слишком далеко. There are things that shouldn’t be done, and decisions that were being made in secret without the public’s awareness, without the public’s consent, and without even our representatives in government having knowledge of these programs. Есть вещи, которые нельзя делать, и решения, которые принимались тайно, без ведома общественности, без согласия общественности, и даже наши представители в правительстве не знали об этих программах. When I really came to struggle with these issues, I thought to myself, how can I do this in the most responsible way, that maximizes the public benefit while minimizing the risks? Lorsque j'ai commencé à me débattre avec ces questions, je me suis demandé comment je pouvais agir de la manière la plus responsable, en maximisant les avantages pour le public tout en minimisant les risques. Когда я действительно начал бороться с этими проблемами, я подумал, как я могу сделать это самым ответственным образом, чтобы максимизировать общественную пользу и минимизировать риски? And out of all the solutions that I could come up with, out of going to Congress, when there were no laws, there were no legal protections for a private employee, a contractor in intelligence like myself, there was a risk that I would be buried along with the information and the public would never find out. Et parmi toutes les solutions que j'ai pu trouver, sans aller au Congrès, alors qu'il n'y avait aucune loi, aucune protection juridique pour un employé privé, un contractant des services de renseignement comme moi, il y avait un risque que je sois enterré avec les informations et que le public n'en sache jamais rien. И из всех решений, которые я мог придумать, не поехать в Конгресс, когда не было законов, не было правовой защиты для частного сотрудника, такого разведчика, как я, был риск того, что я похоронен вместе с информацией, и публика никогда не узнает. But the First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees us a free press for a reason, and that’s to enable an adversarial press, to challenge the government, but also to work together with the government, to have a dialogue and debate about how we can inform the public about matters of vital importance without putting our national security at risk. Mais le premier amendement de la Constitution des États-Unis nous garantit la liberté de la presse pour une raison bien précise : permettre à la presse de s'opposer au gouvernement, mais aussi de collaborer avec lui, de dialoguer et de débattre de la manière dont nous pouvons informer le public sur des questions d'importance vitale sans mettre en péril notre sécurité nationale. しかし、合衆国憲法修正第1条は、ある理由で私たちに無料の報道機関を保証します。国家安全保障を危険にさらすことなく、極めて重要な事項について一般市民に知らせる。 Но Первая поправка к Конституции Соединенных Штатов гарантирует нам свободную прессу по определенной причине, а именно, чтобы позволить враждебной прессе бросать вызов правительству, но также и работать вместе с правительством, вести диалог и дебаты о том, как мы можем информировать общественность о жизненно важных вопросах, не подвергая риску нашу национальную безопасность. And by working with journalists, by giving all of my information back to the American people, rather than trusting myself to make the decisions about publication, we’ve had a robust debate with a deep investment by the government that I think has resulted in a benefit for everyone. En travaillant avec les journalistes, en donnant toutes mes informations au peuple américain, plutôt qu'en me confiant les décisions de publication, nous avons eu un débat solide avec un investissement profond du gouvernement qui, je pense, a été bénéfique pour tout le monde. そして、ジャーナリストと協力して、出版に関する決定を下すことを信じるのではなく、私のすべての情報をアメリカの人々に返すことで、政府による多大な投資との強力な議論がありました。皆のために。 И работая с журналистами, возвращая всю мою информацию американскому народу, вместо того, чтобы доверять себе принятие решений о публикации, у нас были серьезные дебаты с серьезными инвестициями со стороны правительства, которые, как я думаю, привели к польза для всех. And the risks that have been threatened, the risks that have been played up by the government have never materialized. Et les risques qui ont été menacés, les risques qui ont été joués par le gouvernement ne se sont jamais matérialisés. そして、脅かされたリスク、政府によって果たされたリスクは決して実現していません。 И риски, которым угрожали, риски, на которые играло правительство, так и не материализовались. We’ve never seen any evidence of even a single instance of specific harm, and because of that, I’m comfortable with the decisions that I made. Nous n'avons jamais vu de preuve d'un seul cas de préjudice spécifique, et pour cette raison, je suis à l'aise avec les décisions que j'ai prises. Мы никогда не видели никаких доказательств хотя бы одного случая конкретного вреда, и поэтому меня устраивают решения, которые я принял. CA: So let me show the audience a couple of examples of what you revealed. КА: Итак, позвольте мне показать аудитории пару примеров того, что вы рассказали.

If we could have a slide up, and Ed, I don’t know whether you can see, the slides are here. Si nous pouvions avoir une diapositive, et Ed, je ne sais pas si vous pouvez la voir, les diapositives sont ici. Если бы мы могли сделать слайд вверх, и Эд, я не знаю, видите ли вы, слайды здесь. This is a slide of the PRISM program, and maybe you could tell the audience what that was that was revealed. Это слайд программы PRISM, и, возможно, вы могли бы рассказать аудитории, что это было раскрыто. ES: The best way to understand PRISM, because there’s been a little bit of controversy, is to first talk about what PRISM isn’t. ЭС: Лучший способ понять ПРИЗМУ, потому что было немного разногласий, - это сначала поговорить о том, чем ПРИЗМА не является.

Much of the debate in the U.S. has been about metadata. They’ve said it’s just metadata, it’s just metadata, and they’re talking about a specific legal authority called Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Ils ont déclaré qu'il ne s'agissait que de métadonnées, qu'il ne s'agissait que de métadonnées, et qu'ils parlaient d'une autorisation légale spécifique appelée Section 215 du Patriot Act. Они сказали, что это просто метаданные, это просто метаданные, и они говорят о конкретном юридическом органе, который называется раздел 215 Патриотического акта. That allows sort of a warrantless wiretapping, mass surveillance of the entire country’s phone records, things like that -- who you’re talking to, when you’re talking to them, where you traveled. Cela permet une sorte d'écoute téléphonique sans mandat, une surveillance de masse des relevés téléphoniques de tout le pays, des choses comme ça - à qui vous parlez, quand vous leur parlez, où vous avez voyagé. Это позволяет осуществлять своего рода прослушивание без санкции, массовое наблюдение за телефонными записями по всей стране и тому подобное - с кем вы разговариваете, когда вы разговариваете с ними, где вы путешествовали. These are all metadata events. Это все события метаданных. PRISM is about content. ПРИЗМА - это контент. It’s a program through which the government could compel corporate America, it could deputize corporate America to do its dirty work for the NSA. Il s'agit d'un programme par lequel le gouvernement pourrait obliger les entreprises américaines à faire le sale boulot pour la NSA. Это программа, с помощью которой правительство могло бы заставить корпоративную Америку, оно могло бы поручить корпоративной Америке делать грязную работу для АНБ. And even though some of these companies did resist, even though some of them -- I believe Yahoo was one of them — challenged them in court, they all lost, because it was never tried by an open court. И хотя некоторые из этих компаний действительно сопротивлялись, хотя некоторые из них - я полагаю, Yahoo была одной из них - бросили им вызов в суде, все они проиграли, потому что это никогда не рассматривалось в открытом суде. They were only tried by a secret court. Их судил только тайный суд. And something that we’ve seen, something about the PRISM program that’s very concerning to me is, there’s been a talking point in the U.S. Et ce que nous avons vu, ce qui me préoccupe beaucoup dans le programme PRISM, c'est qu'il y a eu un point de discussion aux États-Unis. И кое-что, что мы видели, кое-что о программе PRISM, что меня очень беспокоит, это то, что в США была тема для обсуждения. government where they’ve said 15 federal judges have reviewed these programs and found them to be lawful, but what they don’t tell you is those are secret judges in a secret court based on secret interpretations of law that’s considered 34,000 warrant requests over 33 years, and in 33 years only rejected 11 government requests. Mais ce qu'ils ne disent pas, c'est qu'il s'agit de juges secrets dans une cour secrète basée sur des interprétations secrètes de la loi qui a examiné 34 000 demandes de mandats sur 33 ans, et en 33 ans, n'a rejeté que 11 demandes du gouvernement. правительство, где они заявили, что 15 федеральных судей рассмотрели эти программы и признали их законными, но они не говорят вам, что это тайные судьи в секретном суде, основанном на тайном толковании закона, которое считается 34000 запросов на ордер более 33 лет, а за 33 года было отклонено всего 11 запросов правительства. These aren’t the people that we want deciding what the role of corporate America in a free and open Internet should be. Ce ne sont pas ces personnes que nous voulons voir décider du rôle des entreprises américaines dans un Internet libre et ouvert. Это не те люди, которые нам нужны, чтобы решать, какой должна быть роль корпоративной Америки в свободном и открытом Интернете. CA: Now, this slide that we’re showing here shows the dates in which different technology companies, Internet companies, are alleged to have joined the program, and where data collection began from them. CA : Cette diapositive montre les dates auxquelles différentes sociétés technologiques, sociétés Internet, sont censées avoir rejoint le programme, et où la collecte de données a commencé auprès d'elles. CA：さて、ここで示しているこのスライドは、さまざまなテクノロジー企業であるインターネット企業がプログラムに参加したとされる日付と、そこからデータ収集が開始された日付を示しています。 КА: На этом слайде, который мы здесь показываем, показаны даты, в которые различные технологические компании, интернет-компании, как утверждается, присоединились к программе, и с которых начался сбор данных.

Now, they have denied collaborating with the NSA. Теперь они отрицали сотрудничество с АНБ. How was that data collected by the NSA? Как эти данные собирало АНБ? ES: Right.

So the NSA’s own slides refer to it as direct access. Les diapositives de la NSA parlent donc d'accès direct. Таким образом, на собственных слайдах АНБ это называется прямым доступом. What that means to an actual NSA analyst, someone like me who was working as an intelligence analyst targeting, Chinese cyber-hackers, things like that, in Hawaii, is the provenance of that data is directly from their servers. Ce que cela signifie pour un analyste de la NSA, quelqu'un comme moi qui travaillait en tant qu'analyste de renseignements ciblant des cyber-pirates chinois, des choses comme ça, à Hawaï, c'est que la provenance de ces données est directement issue de leurs serveurs. 実際のNSAアナリスト、つまり、ハワイの中国のサイバーハッカーなどを標的にしたインテリジェンスアナリストとして働いていた私のような人にとっては、そのデータの出所はサーバーから直接得られます。 Для настоящего аналитика АНБ, человека вроде меня, работавшего аналитиком разведки, нацеленного на китайских кибер-хакеров и тому подобное, на Гавайях, это происхождение этих данных непосредственно с их серверов. It doesn’t mean that there’s a group of company representatives sitting in a smoky room with the NSA palling around and making back-room deals about how they’re going to give this stuff away. Cela ne signifie pas qu'il y a un groupe de représentants d'entreprises assis dans une pièce enfumée avec la NSA, en train de passer des accords en coulisses sur la manière dont ils vont distribuer ce matériel. 会社の代表者のグループがスモーキーな部屋に座って、NSAがひっくり返り、このようなものをどのように提供するかについて密室取引をするという意味ではありません。 Это не означает, что есть группа представителей компании, сидящих в задымленной комнате, а АНБ бродит вокруг и заключает сделки о том, как они собираются раздавать эти вещи. Now each company handles it different ways. Теперь каждая компания решает это по-своему. Some are responsible. Some are somewhat less responsible. But the bottom line is, when we talk about how this information is given, it’s coming from the companies themselves. Mais en fin de compte, lorsque nous parlons de la manière dont ces informations sont données, elles proviennent des entreprises elles-mêmes. しかし、一番下の行は、この情報がどのように与えられるかについて話すとき、それは会社自身から来ているということです。 Но суть в том, что когда мы говорим о том, как предоставляется эта информация, она исходит от самих компаний. It’s not stolen from the lines. 行から盗まれていません。 Это не украдено из линий. But there’s an important thing to remember here: even though companies pushed back, even though companies demanded, hey, let’s do this through a warrant process, let’s do this where we actually have some sort of legal review, some sort of basis for handing over these users' data, we saw stories in the Washington Post last year that weren’t as well reported as the PRISM story that said the NSA broke in to the data center communications between Google to itself and Yahoo to itself. Mais il y a une chose importante à retenir ici : même si les entreprises ont riposté, même si elles ont demandé que cela se fasse par le biais d'une procédure de mandat, que cela se fasse avec une sorte d'examen juridique, une sorte de base pour la transmission des données de ces utilisateurs, nous avons vu des histoires dans le Washington Post l'année dernière qui n'ont pas été aussi bien rapportées que l'histoire de PRISM, selon laquelle la NSA s'est introduite dans les communications du centre de données entre Google et elle-même et Yahoo et elle a fait de même avec elle-même. ただし、ここで覚えておくべき重要な点があります。企業が押し戻したとしても、企業が要求したとしても、令状プロセスを介してこれを実行しましょう。これらのユーザーのデータについては、昨年のワシントンポストで、GoogleとYahooの間のデータセンター通信にNSAが侵入したというPRISMの記事ほどよく報告されていないストーリーを見ました。 Но здесь нужно помнить одну важную вещь: даже несмотря на то, что компании отталкивали, даже если компании требовали, эй, давайте сделаем это через процесс выдачи ордеров, давайте сделаем это там, где у нас действительно есть какой-то юридический анализ, какое-то основание для передачи Эти данные пользователей, мы видели статьи в Washington Post в прошлом году, которые не были так хорошо освещены, как история PRISM, в которой говорилось, что АНБ взломало связь центра обработки данных между Google с самим собой и Yahoo с самим собой. So even these companies that are cooperating in at least a compelled but hopefully lawful manner with the NSA, the NSA isn’t satisfied with that, and because of that, we need our companies to work very hard to guarantee that they’re going to represent the interests of the user, and also advocate for the rights of the users. Ainsi, même les entreprises qui coopèrent avec la NSA de manière contraignante et, espérons-le, légale, ne satisfont pas la NSA, et c'est pourquoi nous avons besoin que nos entreprises travaillent très dur pour garantir qu'elles représenteront les intérêts des utilisateurs et défendront également leurs droits. Таким образом, даже те компании, которые сотрудничают с АНБ хотя бы в принудительной, но, надеюсь, законной манере, АНБ не удовлетворено этим, и поэтому нам нужно, чтобы наши компании работали очень усердно, чтобы гарантировать, что они собираются представлять интересы пользователя, а также отстаивать права пользователей. And I think over the last year, we’ve seen the companies that are named on the PRISM slides take great strides to do that, and I encourage them to continue. Je pense qu'au cours de l'année écoulée, nous avons vu les entreprises citées dans les diapositives PRISM faire de grands progrès dans ce sens, et je les encourage à poursuivre dans cette voie. 昨年、PRISMのスライドで名前が挙げられている企業がそれを実現するために大きな進歩を遂げたのを見て、継続することをお勧めします。 И я думаю, что за последний год мы видели, как компании, перечисленные на слайдах PRISM, добились больших успехов в этом, и я призываю их продолжать. CA: What more should they do?

ES: The biggest thing that an Internet company in America can do today, right now, without consulting with lawyers, to protect the rights of users worldwide, is to enable SSL web encryption on every page you visit. ES : La plus grande chose qu'une société Internet américaine puisse faire aujourd'hui, dès maintenant, sans consulter de juristes, pour protéger les droits des utilisateurs du monde entier, c'est d'activer le cryptage web SSL sur chaque page que vous visitez. ES: Самое большое, что сегодня может сделать интернет-компания в Америке, прямо сейчас, без консультации с юристами, для защиты прав пользователей во всем мире, - это включить SSL-шифрование в Интернете на каждой странице, которую вы посещаете.

The reason this matters is today, if you go to look at a copy of "1984" on Amazon.com, the NSA can see a record of that, the Russian intelligence service can see a record of that, the Chinese service can see a record of that, the French service, the German service, the services of Andorra. La raison pour laquelle cela est important est qu'aujourd'hui, si vous allez voir une copie de "1984" sur Amazon.com, la NSA peut en voir une trace, le service de renseignement russe peut en voir une trace, le service chinois peut en voir une trace, le service français, le service allemand, les services d'Andorre. これが重要な理由は、今日、Amazon.comで「1984」のコピーを見ると、NSAはその記録を見ることができ、ロシアのintelligence報機関はその記録を見ることができ、中国のサービスはその記録、フランスのサービス、ドイツのサービス、アンドラのサービス。 Причина, по которой это имеет значение сегодня, заключается в том, что если вы посмотрите копию «1984» на Amazon.com, АНБ может увидеть запись об этом, российская разведка может увидеть запись об этом, китайская служба может увидеть запись об этом. запись о том, французская служба, немецкая служба, службы Андорры. They can all see it because it’s unencrypted. The world’s library is Amazon.com, but not only do they not support encryption by default, you cannot choose to use encryption when browsing through books. La bibliothèque du monde est Amazon.com, mais non seulement elle ne prend pas en charge le cryptage par défaut, mais vous ne pouvez pas choisir d'utiliser le cryptage lorsque vous parcourez des livres. Всемирная библиотека - Amazon.com, но они не только не поддерживают шифрование по умолчанию, но и не могут использовать шифрование при просмотре книг. This is something that we need to change, not just for Amazon, I don’t mean to single them out, but they’re a great example. C'est quelque chose que nous devons changer, et pas seulement pour Amazon, je ne veux pas les pointer du doigt, mais ils sont un bon exemple. これは、Amazonだけでなく、私たちが変更する必要があるものです。私はそれらを選び出すつもりはありませんが、それらは素晴らしい例です。 Это то, что нам нужно изменить, и не только для Amazon, я не хочу их выделять, но они отличный пример. All companies need to move to an encrypted browsing habit by default for all users who haven’t taken any action or picked any special methods on their own. すべての企業は、アクションを実行していないか、独自の特別な方法を選択していないすべてのユーザーに対して、デフォルトで暗号化されたブラウジング習慣に移行する必要があります。 Всем компаниям необходимо перейти на зашифрованную привычку просмотра по умолчанию для всех пользователей, которые не предприняли никаких действий или не выбрали какие-либо специальные методы самостоятельно. That’ll increase the privacy and the rights that people enjoy worldwide. Это повысит конфиденциальность и права, которыми пользуются люди во всем мире. CA: Ed, come with me to this part of the stage. КА: Эд, пойдем со мной на эту часть сцены.

I want to show you the next slide here. (Applause) This is a program called Boundless Informant. (Applaudissements) Il s'agit d'un programme appelé Boundless Informant. (Аплодисменты) Это программа под названием «Безграничный информатор». What is that? ES: So, I’ve got to give credit to the NSA for using appropriate names on this. ES：それで、これに適切な名前を使ったのはNSAの功績だと思います。 ЭС: Итак, я должен отдать должное АНБ за использование подходящих имен в этом вопросе.

This is one of my favorite NSA cryptonyms. Это один из моих любимых криптонимов АНБ. Boundless Informant is a program that the NSA hid from Congress. Boundless Informant - это программа, которую АНБ скрыло от Конгресса. The NSA was previously asked by Congress, was there any ability that they had to even give a rough ballpark estimate of the amount of American communications that were being intercepted. Le Congrès a déjà demandé à la NSA si elle était en mesure de donner une estimation approximative du nombre de communications américaines interceptées. NSAは以前に議会から要請されましたが、傍受されたアメリカの通信量の大まかな概算を提供しなければならない能力がありましたか。 Конгресс ранее спросил АНБ, есть ли у них возможность хотя бы приблизительно оценить количество перехваченных американских сообщений. They said no. They said, we don’t track those stats, and we can’t track those stats. Ils m'ont répondu que nous ne suivions pas ces statistiques et que nous ne pouvions pas le faire. 彼らは、私たちはそれらの統計を追跡しないし、それらの統計を追跡できないと言った。 Они сказали, что мы не отслеживаем эту статистику, и мы не можем отслеживать эту статистику. We can’t tell you how many communications we’re intercepting around the world, because to tell you that would be to invade your privacy. Nous ne pouvons pas vous dire combien de communications nous interceptons dans le monde, car cela reviendrait à porter atteinte à votre vie privée. Мы не можем сказать вам, сколько сообщений мы перехватываем по всему миру, потому что сообщить вам это означало бы нарушить вашу конфиденциальность. Now, I really appreciate that sentiment from them, but the reality, when you look at this slide is, not only do they have the capability, the capability already exists. J'apprécie vraiment ce sentiment de leur part, mais la réalité, lorsque vous regardez cette diapositive, c'est que non seulement ils en ont la capacité, mais que cette capacité existe déjà. 今、私は彼らからの感情に本当に感謝していますが、現実、このスライドを見ると、彼らは能力を持っているだけでなく、能力がすでに存在しています。 Я действительно ценю их мнение, но на самом деле, когда вы смотрите на этот слайд, у них не только есть возможности, но и возможности уже существуют. It’s already in place. Он уже на месте. The NSA has its own internal data format that tracks both ends of a communication, and if it says, this communication came from America, they can tell Congress how many of those communications they have today, right now. La NSA dispose de son propre format de données interne qui permet de suivre les deux extrémités d'une communication, et si elle indique que cette communication provient des États-Unis, elle peut dire au Congrès combien de ces communications sont en sa possession aujourd'hui, à l'instant même. У АНБ есть свой собственный внутренний формат данных, который отслеживает оба конца коммуникации, и если в нем говорится, что это сообщение пришло из Америки, они могут сообщить Конгрессу, сколько таких сообщений у них есть сегодня, прямо сейчас. And what Boundless Informant tells us is more communications are being intercepted in America about Americans than there are in Russia about Russians. Et ce que Boundless Informant nous dit, c'est qu'il y a plus de communications interceptées en Amérique à propos d'Américains qu'en Russie à propos de Russes. そして、Boundless Informantが私たちに語ったことは、ロシアではロシア人よりもアメリカでアメリカ人についてより多くのコミュニケーションが傍受されているということです。 А Boundless Informant сообщает нам, что в Америке перехватывают больше сообщений об американцах, чем в России о русских. I’m not sure that’s what an intelligence agency should be aiming for. Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit l'objectif d'une agence de renseignement. それがintelligence報機関が目指すべきものかどうかはわかりません。 Я не уверен, что это то, к чему должно стремиться спецслужба. CA: Ed, there was a story broken in the Washington Post, again from your data. CA : Ed, un article a été publié dans le Washington Post, toujours à partir de vos données. CA：エド、ワシントンポストで壊れた話がありました、あなたのデータから。 КА: Эд, в Washington Post была опубликована история, опять же из ваших данных.

The headline says, "NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times per year." Заголовок гласит: «АНБ нарушало правила конфиденциальности тысячи раз в год». Tell us about that. ES: We also heard in Congressional testimony last year, it was an amazing thing for someone like me who came from the NSA and who’s seen the actual internal documents, knows what’s in them, to see officials testifying under oath that there had been no abuses, that there had been no violations of the NSA’s rules, when we knew this story was coming. ES : Nous avons également entendu l'année dernière, lors d'un témoignage devant le Congrès, qu'il était stupéfiant pour quelqu'un comme moi qui venait de la NSA et qui avait vu les documents internes, qui savait ce qu'ils contenaient, de voir des fonctionnaires déclarer sous serment qu'il n'y avait pas eu d'abus, qu'il n'y avait pas eu de violations des règles de la NSA, alors que nous savions que cette histoire allait se produire. ES：昨年の議会の証言でも聞いたことがあります。NSAから来て、実際の内部文書を見て、何が入っているかを知っていて、当局が虐待がなかったと証言するのを見るのは驚くべきことでした、NSAのルールに違反していないことを、この物語がやってくることがわかったとき。 ES: Мы также слышали в показаниях Конгресса в прошлом году, это было удивительно для кого-то вроде меня, который пришел из АНБ и который видел настоящие внутренние документы, знает, что в них, видеть официальных лиц, свидетельствующих под присягой, что нарушений не было. , что не было никаких нарушений правил АНБ, когда мы знали, что эта история приближается.

But what’s especially interesting about this, about the fact that the NSA has violated their own rules, their own laws thousands of times in a single year, including one event by itself, one event out of those 2,776, that affected more than 3,000 people. Mais ce qui est particulièrement intéressant, c'est que la NSA a violé ses propres règles, ses propres lois des milliers de fois en une seule année, y compris un événement en soi, un événement parmi ces 2 776, qui a affecté plus de 3 000 personnes. しかし、これについて特に興味深いのは、NSAが1年に何千回も独自のルールや法律に違反しているという事実についてです。 Но что особенно интересно в этом, в том, что АНБ нарушало свои собственные правила, свои законы тысячи раз за год, включая одно событие само по себе, одно событие из тех 2776, которые затронули более 3000 человек. In another event, they intercepted all the calls in Washington, D.C., by accident. 別のイベントでは、ワシントンDCのすべての通話を偶然に傍受しました。 В другом случае они случайно перехватили все звонки в Вашингтоне, округ Колумбия. What’s amazing about this, this report, that didn’t get that much attention, is the fact that not only were there 2,776 abuses, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had not seen this report until the Washington Post contacted her asking for comment on the report. Ce qui est étonnant dans ce rapport, qui n'a pas reçu beaucoup d'attention, c'est que non seulement il y a eu 2 776 abus, mais que la présidente de la commission du renseignement du Sénat, Dianne Feinstein, n'avait pas vu ce rapport jusqu'à ce que le Washington Post la contacte pour lui demander un commentaire sur le rapport. これについて驚くべきことは、それほど注目されなかったこの報告書は、2,776件の虐待があっただけでなく、上院情報委員会のダイアン・ファインスタイン議長が、ワシントンポストが彼女に連絡するまでこの報告書を見ていないという事実ですレポートに関するコメントを求めます。 Что удивительно в этом отчете, который не привлек столько внимания, так это то, что было не только 2776 нарушений, но и председатель сенатского комитета по разведке Дайан Файнштейн не видела этот отчет, пока с ней не связалась газета Washington Post. просят прокомментировать отчет. And she then requested a copy from the NSA and received it, but had never seen this before that. そして、彼女はそれからNSAにコピーを要求し、それを受け取りましたが、それ以前にこれを見たことはありませんでした。 Затем она запросила копию у АНБ и получила ее, но никогда раньше этого не видела. What does that say about the state of oversight in American intelligence when the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee has no idea that the rules are being broken thousands of times every year? Qu'est-ce que cela dit de l'état de la surveillance des services de renseignement américains lorsque le président de la commission du renseignement du Sénat n'a aucune idée que les règles sont enfreintes des milliers de fois chaque année ? 上院Intelligence報委員会の委員長が規則が毎年何千回も破られていることを知らないとき、それはアメリカのintelligence報における監視の状態について何を言いますか？ Что это говорит о состоянии надзора в американской разведке, когда председатель сенатского комитета по разведке понятия не имеет, что правила нарушаются тысячи раз в год? CA: Ed, one response to this whole debate is this: Why should we care about all this surveillance, honestly? CA : Ed, une réponse à tout ce débat est la suivante : Pourquoi devrions-nous nous préoccuper de toute cette surveillance, honnêtement ? КА: Эд, один ответ на всю эту дискуссию таков: честно говоря, почему мы должны заботиться о всей этой слежке?

I mean, look, if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Я имею в виду, послушайте, если вы не сделали ничего плохого, вам не о чем беспокоиться. What’s wrong with that point of view? Что не так с этой точкой зрения? ES: Well, so the first thing is, you’re giving up your rights. ЭС: Ну, во-первых, вы отказываетесь от своих прав. You’re saying hey, you know, I don’t think I’m going to need them, so I’m just going to trust that, you know, let’s get rid of them, it doesn’t really matter, these guys are going to do the right thing. Вы говорите: эй, знаете, я не думаю, что они мне понадобятся, так что я просто буду этому доверять, знаете, давайте избавимся от них, это не имеет особого значения, эти ребята собираются поступить правильно. Your rights matter because you never know when you’re going to need them. Vos droits sont importants car vous ne savez jamais quand vous en aurez besoin. Ваши права имеют значение, потому что вы никогда не знаете, когда они вам понадобятся. Beyond that, it’s a part of our cultural identity, not just in America, but in Western societies and in democratic societies around the world. それを超えて、それは私たちの文化的アイデンティティの一部であり、アメリカだけでなく、世界中の西洋社会と民主社会でもそうです。 Помимо этого, это часть нашей культурной идентичности не только в Америке, но и в западных обществах и в демократических обществах по всему миру. People should be able to pick up the phone and to call their family, people should be able to send a text message to their loved ones, people should be able to buy a book online, they should be able to travel by train, they should be able to buy an airline ticket without wondering about how these events are going to look to an agent of the government, possibly not even your government years in the future, how they’re going to be misinterpreted and what they’re going to think your intentions were. Les gens devraient pouvoir prendre le téléphone et appeler leur famille, envoyer un SMS à leurs proches, acheter un livre en ligne, voyager en train, acheter un billet d'avion sans se demander comment ces événements seront perçus par un agent du gouvernement, peut-être même pas par votre gouvernement, des années plus tard, comment ils seront mal interprétés et ce qu'ils penseront de vos intentions. 人々は電話に出て家族に電話をかけ、愛する人にテキストメッセージを送信でき、オンラインで本を購入でき、電車で旅行できるようにすべきです。これらのイベントが政府の代理人にどのように見えるか、おそらくあなたの政府の年でさえも、彼らがどのように誤解されるのか、彼らが何を考えているのかを気にせずに航空券を購入できるあなたの意図はそうでした。 We have a right to privacy. We require warrants to be based on probable cause or some kind of individualized suspicion because we recognize that trusting anybody, any government authority, with the entirety of human communications in secret and without oversight is simply too great a temptation to be ignored. Nous exigeons que les mandats soient fondés sur une cause probable ou sur une forme de suspicion individualisée, car nous reconnaissons que la tentation de confier à n'importe qui, à n'importe quelle autorité gouvernementale, l'intégralité des communications humaines en secret et sans contrôle, est tout simplement trop grande pour être ignorée. 私たちは、可能性のある原因または何らかの個人的な疑いに基づく令状を必要とします。なぜなら、人間のコミュニケーション全体を秘密に、そして監督なしで、誰でも、あらゆる政府当局を信頼することは、無視できない誘惑にすぎないことを認識しているからです。 CA: Some people are furious at what you’ve done.

I heard a quote recently from Dick Cheney who said that Julian Assange was a flea bite, Edward Snowden is the lion that bit the head off the dog. J'ai récemment entendu une citation de Dick Cheney qui disait que Julian Assange était une piqûre de puce et qu'Edward Snowden était le lion qui avait arraché la tête du chien. 最近、ジュリアン・アサンジはノミに噛まれ、エドワード・スノーデンは犬の頭を噛むライオンだと言ったディック・チェイニーの言葉を聞きました。 He thinks you’ve committed one of the worst acts of betrayal in American history. What would you say to people who think that? ES: Dick Cheney’s really something else. ES : Dick Cheney est vraiment quelqu'un d'autre. ЭС: Дик Чейни - это действительно нечто другое.

(Laughter) (Applause) Thank you. (Laughter) I think it’s amazing, because at the time Julian Assange was doing some of his greatest work, Dick Cheney was saying he was going to end governments worldwide, the skies were going to ignite and the seas were going to boil off, and now he’s saying it’s a flea bite. (Rires) Je trouve cela incroyable, parce qu'à l'époque où Julian Assange accomplissait certains de ses plus grands travaux, Dick Cheney disait qu'il allait mettre fin aux gouvernements du monde entier, que les cieux allaient s'enflammer et que les mers allaient bouillir, et maintenant il dit qu'il s'agit d'une piqûre de puce. So we should be suspicious about the same sort of overblown claims of damage to national security from these kind of officials. But let’s assume that these people really believe this. I would argue that they have kind of a narrow conception of national security. Je dirais qu'ils ont une conception plutôt étroite de la sécurité nationale. The prerogatives of people like Dick Cheney do not keep the nation safe. The public interest is not always the same as the national interest. Going to war with people who are not our enemy in places that are not a threat doesn’t make us safe, and that applies whether it’s in Iraq or on the Internet. Faire la guerre à des gens qui ne sont pas nos ennemis dans des endroits qui ne constituent pas une menace ne nous rend pas plus sûrs, et cela vaut aussi bien pour l'Irak que pour l'internet. 脅威ではない場所で敵ではない人々と戦争を行っても、私たちを安全にすることはできません。それはイラクでもインターネットでも当てはまります。 The Internet is not the enemy. Our economy is not the enemy. American businesses, Chinese businesses, and any other company out there is a part of our society. It’s a part of our interconnected world. There are ties of fraternity that bond us together, and if we destroy these bonds by undermining the standards, the security, the manner of behavior, that nations and citizens all around the world expect us to abide by. Des liens de fraternité nous unissent, et si nous détruisons ces liens en sapant les normes, la sécurité, le mode de comportement que les nations et les citoyens du monde entier attendent de nous. 私たちを結び付ける友愛の絆があり、基準、安全、行動様式を損なうことによってこれらの絆を破壊すると、世界中の国家と市民が私たちが順守することを期待します。 CA: But it’s alleged that you’ve stolen 1.7 million documents. CA：しかし、170万件のドキュメントを盗んだと言われています。

It seems only a few hundred of them have been shared with journalists so far. Are there more revelations to come? さらなる啓示はありますか？ ES: There are absolutely more revelations to come. ES : Il y a absolument d'autres révélations à venir.

I don’t think there’s any question that some of the most important reporting to be done is yet to come. Je pense qu'il ne fait aucun doute que certains des rapports les plus importants sont encore à venir. CA: Come here, because I want to ask you about this particular revelation.

Come and take a look at this. Venez jeter un coup d'œil. I mean, this is a story which I think for a lot of the techies in this room is the single most shocking thing that they have heard in the last few months. Il s'agit d'une histoire qui, je pense, est pour beaucoup de techniciens présents dans cette salle la chose la plus choquante qu'ils aient entendue au cours des derniers mois. It’s about a program called "Bullrun." Can you explain what that is? ES: So Bullrun, and this is again where we’ve got to thank the NSA for their candor, this is a program named after a Civil War battle. ES : Bullrun, et nous devons à nouveau remercier la NSA pour sa franchise, est un programme qui porte le nom d'une bataille de la guerre de Sécession.

The British counterpart is called Edgehill, which is a U.K. civil war battle. And the reason that I believe they’re named this way is because they target our own infrastructure. They’re programs through which the NSA intentionally misleads corporate partners. Il s'agit de programmes dans le cadre desquels la NSA induit intentionnellement en erreur les entreprises partenaires. これらは、NSAが意図的に企業パートナーを誤解させるプログラムです。 They tell corporate partners that these are safe standards. Ils disent aux entreprises partenaires qu'il s'agit de normes sûres. これらは安全な基準であることを企業パートナーに伝えます。 They say hey, we need to work with you to secure your systems, but in reality, they’re giving bad advice to these companies that makes them degrade the security of their services. Ils disent que nous devons travailler avec vous pour sécuriser vos systèmes, mais en réalité, ils donnent de mauvais conseils à ces entreprises qui les poussent à dégrader la sécurité de leurs services. They’re building in backdoors that not only the NSA can exploit, but anyone else who has time and money to research and find it can then use to let themselves in to the world’s communications. Ils construisent des portes dérobées que non seulement la NSA peut exploiter, mais que toute autre personne ayant le temps et l'argent pour faire des recherches et les trouver peut ensuite utiliser pour s'introduire dans les communications du monde entier. 彼らは、NSAが悪用できるだけでなく、時間とお金を研究して見つけることができる誰もが、世界の通信に身を任せるために使用できるバックドアを構築しています。 And this is really dangerous, because if we lose a single standard, if we lose the trust of something like SSL, which was specifically targeted by the Bullrun program, we will live a less safe world overall. Et c'est vraiment dangereux, parce que si nous perdons une seule norme, si nous perdons la confiance en quelque chose comme SSL, qui était spécifiquement visé par le programme Bullrun, nous vivrons dans un monde moins sûr en général. We won’t be able to access our banks and we won’t be able to access commerce without worrying about people monitoring those communications or subverting them for their own ends. Nous ne pourrons plus accéder à nos banques ni au commerce sans craindre que des personnes surveillent ces communications ou les détournent à leurs propres fins. Мы не сможем получить доступ к своим банкам и к коммерции, не опасаясь, что кто-то будет следить за этими коммуникациями или подменять их в своих целях. CA: And do those same decisions also potentially open America up to cyberattacks from other sources? CA : Et ces mêmes décisions ne risquent-elles pas d'ouvrir l'Amérique à des cyberattaques provenant d'autres sources ?

ES: Absolutely.

One of the problems, one of the dangerous legacies that we’ve seen in the post-9/11 era, is that the NSA has traditionally worn two hats. L'un des problèmes, l'un des héritages dangereux de l'ère post-11 septembre, c'est que la NSA a toujours eu deux casquettes. They’ve been in charge of offensive operations, that is hacking, but they’ve also been in charge of defensive operations, and traditionally they’ve always prioritized defense over offense based on the principle that American secrets are simply worth more. Ils ont été chargés des opérations offensives, c'est-à-dire du piratage, mais aussi des opérations défensives et, traditionnellement, ils ont toujours donné la priorité à la défense plutôt qu'à l'attaque, partant du principe que les secrets américains valent tout simplement plus cher. Они отвечают за наступательные операции, то есть за хакерство, но они также отвечают и за оборонительные операции, и традиционно они всегда отдавали предпочтение обороне, а не нападению, исходя из принципа, что американские секреты просто стоят дороже. If we hack a Chinese business and steal their secrets, if we hack a government office in Berlin and steal their secrets, that has less value to the American people than making sure that the Chinese can’t get access to our secrets. So by reducing the security of our communications, they’re not only putting the world at risk, they’re putting America at risk in a fundamental way, because intellectual property is the basis, the foundation of our economy, and if we put that at risk through weak security, we’re going to be paying for it for years. En réduisant la sécurité de nos communications, ils ne mettent pas seulement le monde en danger, ils mettent l'Amérique en danger de manière fondamentale, car la propriété intellectuelle est la base, le fondement de notre économie, et si nous la mettons en danger par une sécurité insuffisante, nous en paierons le prix pendant des années. CA: But they’ve made a calculation that it was worth doing this as part of America’s defense against terrorism. CA : Mais ils ont calculé que cela valait la peine de le faire dans le cadre de la défense de l'Amérique contre le terrorisme.

Surely that makes it a price worth paying. C'est donc un prix qui vaut la peine d'être payé. ES: Well, when you look at the results of these programs in stopping terrorism, you will see that that’s unfounded, and you don’t have to take my word for it, because we’ve had the first open court, the first federal court that’s reviewed this, outside the secrecy arrangement, called these programs Orwellian and likely unconstitutional. ES : Et vous n'avez pas besoin de me croire sur parole, car le premier tribunal ouvert, le premier tribunal fédéral qui a examiné la question, en dehors de l'accord de secret, a qualifié ces programmes d'orwelliens et probablement d'anticonstitutionnels.

Congress, who has access to be briefed on these things, and now has the desire to be, has produced bills to reform it, and two independent White House panels who reviewed all of the classified evidence said these programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack that was imminent in the United States. Le Congrès, qui a accès à ces informations et qui souhaite désormais en être informé, a élaboré des projets de loi visant à les réformer, et deux groupes d'experts indépendants de la Maison Blanche, qui ont examiné toutes les preuves classifiées, ont déclaré que ces programmes n'ont jamais empêché une seule attaque terroriste imminente aux États-Unis. So is it really terrorism that we’re stopping? Do these programs have any value at all? Ces programmes ont-ils une quelconque valeur ? I say no, and all three branches of the American government say no as well. CA: I mean, do you think there’s a deeper motivation for them than the war against terrorism?

ES: I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you, say again?

CA: Sorry.

Do you think there’s a deeper motivation for them other than the war against terrorism? Как Вы думаете, есть ли у них более глубокая мотивация, чем война с терроризмом? ES: Yeah.

The bottom line is that terrorism has always been what we in the intelligence world would call a cover for action. En fin de compte, le terrorisme a toujours été ce que les services de renseignement appellent une couverture pour l'action. Суть в том, что терроризм всегда был тем, что мы в мире разведки называем прикрытием для действий. Terrorism is something that provokes an emotional response that allows people to rationalize authorizing powers and programs that they wouldn’t give otherwise. The Bullrun and Edgehill-type programs, the NSA asked for these authorities back in the 1990s. They asked the FBI to go to Congress and make the case. The FBI went to Congress and did make the case. Le FBI s'est rendu au Congrès et a fait valoir ses arguments. But Congress and the American people said no. They said, it’s not worth the risk to our economy. They said it’s worth too much damage to our society to justify the gains. But what we saw is, in the post-9/11 era, they used secrecy and they used the justification of terrorism to start these programs in secret without asking Congress, without asking the American people, and it’s that kind of government behind closed doors that we need to guard ourselves against, because it makes us less safe, and it offers no value. Mais ce que nous avons vu, c'est qu'après le 11 septembre, ils ont utilisé le secret et la justification du terrorisme pour lancer ces programmes en secret sans demander l'avis du Congrès, sans demander l'avis du peuple américain, et c'est contre ce type de gouvernement à huis clos que nous devons nous prémunir, parce qu'il nous rend moins sûrs et qu'il n'offre aucune valeur. しかし、私たちが見たのは、9/11以降の時代に、彼らは秘密を使用し、議会に尋ねることなく、アメリカ国民に尋ねることなく、これらのプログラムを秘密裏に開始するためにテロリズムの正当化を使用しました安全性が低下し、価値がないため、自分自身を守る必要があります。 CA: Okay, come with me here for a sec, because I’ve got a more personal question for you.

Speaking of terror, most people would find the situation you’re in right now in Russia pretty terrifying. 恐怖といえば、ほとんどの人は、あなたが今ロシアでいる状況がかなり恐ろしいと思うでしょう。 You obviously heard what happened, what the treatment that Bradley Manning got, Chelsea Manning as now is, and there was a story in Buzzfeed saying that there are people in the intelligence community who want you dead. Vous avez évidemment entendu ce qui s'est passé, le traitement qu'a reçu Bradley Manning, Chelsea Manning maintenant, et un article de Buzzfeed disant qu'il y a des gens dans la communauté du renseignement qui veulent votre mort. あなたは明らかに、何が起こったのか、ブラッドリー・マニングが受けた治療、現在のチェルシー・マニングが何であるかを聞きました。 How are you coping with this? Comment faites-vous face à cette situation ? これにどのように対処していますか？ How are you coping with the fear? ES: It’s no mystery that there are governments out there that want to see me dead. ES : Ce n'est pas un mystère qu'il y a des gouvernements qui veulent me voir mort. ES：私が死んでいるのを見たい政府がそこにあるのは謎ではありません。

I’ve made clear again and again and again that I go to sleep every morning thinking about what I can do for the American people. J'ai dit clairement, encore et encore, que je me couche tous les matins en pensant à ce que je peux faire pour le peuple américain. I don’t want to harm my government. I want to help my government, but the fact that they are willing to completely ignore due process, they’re willing to declare guilt without ever seeing a trial, these are things that we need to work against as a society, and say hey, this is not appropriate. Je veux aider mon gouvernement, mais le fait qu'il soit prêt à ignorer complètement les procédures légales, qu'il soit prêt à se déclarer coupable sans jamais avoir été jugé, ce sont des choses contre lesquelles nous devons travailler en tant que société, et dire que ce n'est pas approprié. We shouldn’t be threatening dissidents. We shouldn’t be criminalizing journalism. And whatever part I can do to see that end, I’m happy to do despite the risks. Et tout ce que je peux faire pour y parvenir, je suis heureux de le faire malgré les risques. そして、その目的を達成するために私ができることは何でも、リスクにもかかわらず、私は喜んでやる。 CA: So I’d actually like to get some feedback from the audience here, because I know there’s widely differing reactions to Edward Snowden. CA : J'aimerais connaître les réactions du public, car je sais que les réactions à Edward Snowden sont très diverses.

Suppose you had the following two choices, right? You could view what he did as fundamentally a reckless act that has endangered America or you could view it as fundamentally a heroic act that will work towards America and the world’s long-term good? Vous pouvez considérer ce qu'il a fait comme un acte fondamentalement imprudent qui a mis l'Amérique en danger ou vous pouvez le considérer comme un acte fondamentalement héroïque qui contribuera au bien à long terme de l'Amérique et du monde ? Those are the two choices I’ll give you. I’m curious to see who’s willing to vote with the first of those, that this was a reckless act? There are some hands going up. Des mains se lèvent. Some hands going up. It’s hard to put your hand up when the man is standing right here, but I see them. Il est difficile de lever la main quand l'homme se tient juste ici, mais je les vois. 男がここに立っているとき、手を上げるのは難しいが、私はそれらを見る。 ES: I can see you.

(Laughter) CA: And who goes with the second choice, the fundamentally heroic act?

(Applause) (Cheers)

And I think it’s true to say that there are a lot of people who didn’t show a hand and I think are still thinking this through, because it seems to me that the debate around you doesn’t split along traditional political lines. Et je pense qu'il est vrai de dire qu'il y a beaucoup de gens qui n'ont pas montré leur main et je pense qu'ils sont encore en train de réfléchir, parce qu'il me semble que le débat autour de vous ne se divise pas selon les lignes politiques traditionnelles.

It’s not left or right, it’s not really about pro-government, libertarian, or not just that. それは左や右ではなく、親政府、リバタリアン、あるいはそれだけではありません。 Part of it is almost a generational issue. You’re part of a generation that grew up with the Internet, and it seems as if you become offended at almost a visceral level when you see something done that you think will harm the Internet. Vous faites partie d'une génération qui a grandi avec Internet, et il semble que vous vous offusquiez à un niveau presque viscéral lorsque vous voyez quelque chose qui, selon vous, va nuire à Internet. Is there some truth to that? ES: It is.

I think it’s very true. This is not a left or right issue. Our basic freedoms, and when I say our, I don’t just mean Americans, I mean people around the world, it’s not a partisan issue. Nos libertés fondamentales, et quand je dis "nos", je ne pense pas seulement aux Américains, mais aussi aux gens du monde entier, ne sont pas une question partisane. Наши основные свободы, и когда я говорю "наши", я имею в виду не только американцев, но и людей во всем мире, - это не партийный вопрос. These are things that all people believe, and it’s up to all of us to protect them, and to people who have seen and enjoyed a free and open Internet, it’s up to us to preserve that liberty for the next generation to enjoy, and if we don’t change things, if we don’t stand up to make the changes we need to do to keep the Internet safe, not just for us but for everyone, we’re going to lose that, and that would be a tremendous loss, not just for us, but for the world. CA: Well, I have heard similar language recently from the founder of the world wide web, who I actually think is with us, Sir Tim Berners-Lee. CA : J'ai récemment entendu des propos similaires de la part du fondateur du World Wide Web, qui, je pense, est parmi nous, Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Tim, actually, would you like to come up and say, do we have a microphone for Tim? (Applause)

Tim, good to see you.

Come up there. Which camp are you in, by the way, traitor, hero? ところで、あなたはどのキャンプにいますか？裏切り者、ヒーロー？ I have a theory on this, but -- Tim Berners-Lee: I’ve given much longer answers to that question, but hero, if I have to make the choice between the two. Tim Berners-Lee : J'ai donné des réponses beaucoup plus longues à cette question, mais le héros, si je dois choisir entre les deux.

CA: And Ed, I think you’ve read the proposal that Sir Tim has talked about about a new Magna Carta to take back the Internet. CA : Et Ed, je pense que vous avez lu la proposition dont Sir Tim a parlé à propos d'une nouvelle Magna Carta pour reprendre l'Internet.

Is that something that makes sense? それは理にかなっていますか？ ES: Absolutely.

I mean, my generation, I grew up not just thinking about the Internet, but I grew up in the Internet, and although I never expected to have the chance to defend it in such a direct and practical manner and to embody it in this unusual, almost avatar manner, I think there’s something poetic about the fact that one of the sons of the Internet has actually become close to the Internet as a result of their political expression. Je veux dire que, dans ma génération, j'ai grandi non seulement en pensant à l'Internet, mais aussi dans l'Internet, et même si je ne m'attendais pas à avoir la chance de le défendre d'une manière aussi directe et pratique et de l'incarner de cette manière inhabituelle, presque comme un avatar, je pense qu'il y a quelque chose de poétique dans le fait que l'un des fils de l'Internet soit devenu proche de l'Internet en raison de son expression politique. 私の世代は、単にインターネットについて考えるだけでなく、インターネットで育ったので、このような直接的かつ実用的な方法でそれを擁護し、それをこの異常な形で具体化する機会は決してありませんでしたが、ほとんどアバターのように、私はインターネットの息子の一人が彼らの政治的表現の結果として実際にインターネットに近づいているという事実について何か詩的だと思います。 And I believe that a Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values not just in writing but in the structure of the Internet, and it’s something that I hope, I invite everyone in the audience, not just here in Vancouver but around the world, to join and participate in. CA: Do you have a question for Ed?

TBL: Well, two questions, a general question —

CA: Ed, can you still hear us?

ES: Yes, I can hear you.

CA: Oh, he’s back. TBL: The wiretap on your line got a little interfered with for a moment. TBL : La mise sur écoute de votre ligne a été un peu perturbée pendant un moment. TBL：回線の盗聴は少しの間干渉を受けました。 TBL: Прослушка на вашей линии на мгновение была немного нарушена.

(Laughter) ES: It’s a little bit of an NSA problem.

TBL: So, from the 25 years, stepping back and thinking, what would you think would be the best that we could achieve from all the discussions that we have about the web we want? TBL : En prenant du recul et en réfléchissant, que pensez-vous que nous pourrions obtenir de mieux de toutes les discussions que nous avons sur l'Internet que nous voulons ?

ES: When we think about in terms of how far we can go, I think that’s a question that’s really only limited by what we’re willing to put into it. ES : Lorsque nous réfléchissons à la distance que nous pouvons atteindre, je pense que c'est une question qui n'est vraiment limitée que par ce que nous sommes prêts à y consacrer.

I think the Internet that we’ve enjoyed in the past has been exactly what we as not just a nation but as a people around the world need, and by cooperating, by engaging not just the technical parts of society, but as you said, the users, the people around the world who contribute through the Internet, through social media, who just check the weather, who rely on it every day as a part of their life, to champion that. Je pense que l'internet dont nous avons bénéficié par le passé est exactement ce dont nous avons besoin, non seulement en tant que nation, mais aussi en tant que peuple du monde entier. En coopérant, en engageant non seulement les parties techniques de la société, mais aussi, comme vous l'avez dit, les utilisateurs, les personnes du monde entier qui contribuent à l'internet, aux médias sociaux, qui vérifient simplement la météo, qui en dépendent tous les jours comme d'une partie de leur vie, nous pouvons défendre cette cause. 私たちが過去に楽しんでいたインターネットは、まさに国ではなく、世界中の人々が必要としているものであり、協力することで、社会の技術的な部分だけでなく、あなたが言ったように、ユーザー、インターネットを通じて、ソーシャルメディアを通じて、天気を確認するだけで、毎日の生活の一部として天気に依存している人々が、それを支持しています。 We’ll get not just the Internet we’ve had, but a better Internet, a better now, something that we can use to build a future that’ll be better not just than what we hoped for but anything that we could have imagined. Nous n'obtiendrons pas seulement l'internet que nous avons eu, mais un meilleur internet, un meilleur maintenant, quelque chose que nous pourrons utiliser pour construire un avenir qui sera meilleur non seulement que ce que nous avons espéré, mais aussi que tout ce que nous aurions pu imaginer. 私たちは今までのインターネットだけでなく、より良いインターネット、より良いインターネットを手に入れます。 CA: It’s 30 years ago that TED was founded, 1984. CA：TEDが設立されたのは1984年の30年前です。

A lot of the conversation since then has been along the lines that actually George Orwell got it wrong. Depuis lors, une grande partie de la conversation a porté sur le fait que George Orwell s'était trompé. それ以降の会話の多くは、実際にジョージ・オーウェルが間違ったことに沿ったものでした。 It’s not Big Brother watching us. ビッグブラザーは私たちを見ていません。 We, through the power of the web, and transparency, are now watching Big Brother. Grâce à la puissance du web et à la transparence, nous observons aujourd'hui Big Brother. Your revelations kind of drove a stake through the heart of that rather optimistic view, but you still believe there’s a way of doing something about that. Vos révélations ont en quelque sorte enfoncé un pieu dans le cœur de cette vision plutôt optimiste, mais vous continuez à croire qu'il existe un moyen de faire quelque chose à ce sujet. あなたの啓示は、そのような楽観的な見方の核心を突き刺しましたが、それについて何かをする方法があるとまだ信じています。 Ваши откровения как бы вбили кол в сердце этого довольно оптимистичного взгляда, но Вы по-прежнему верите, что с этим можно что-то сделать. And you do too. Et vous aussi. ES: Right, so there is an argument to be made that the powers of Big Brother have increased enormously.

There was a recent legal article at Yale that established something called the Bankston-Soltani Principle, which is that our expectation of privacy is violated when the capabilities of government surveillance have become cheaper by an order of magnitude, and each time that occurs, we need to revisit and rebalance our privacy rights. Un récent article juridique publié à Yale a établi ce que l'on appelle le principe Bankston-Soltani, selon lequel notre attente en matière de vie privée est violée lorsque les capacités de surveillance du gouvernement sont devenues moins chères d'un ordre de grandeur, et chaque fois que cela se produit, nous devons revoir et rééquilibrer nos droits en matière de vie privée. イェールには最近、バンクストン・ソルタニの原則と呼ばれるものを制定した法的記事がありました。政府の監視機能が一桁安くなったとき、プライバシーの期待に反するということです。プライバシー権を再検討し、バランスを取り直すため。 Now, that hasn’t happened since the government’s surveillance powers have increased by several orders of magnitude, and that’s why we’re in the problem that we’re in today, but there is still hope, because the power of individuals have also been increased by technology. 今、政府の監視力が数桁増加したので、それは起こっていません、そしてそれが私たちが今日いる問題にある理由ですが、個人の力もまたあるので、まだ希望があります技術によって増加しました。 I am living proof that an individual can go head to head against the most powerful adversaries and the most powerful intelligence agencies around the world and win, and I think that’s something that we need to take hope from, and we need to build on to make it accessible not just to technical experts but to ordinary citizens around the world. Journalism is not a crime, communication is not a crime, and we should not be monitored in our everyday activities. CA: I’m not quite sure how you shake the hand of a bot, but I imagine it’s, this is the hand right here. CA : Je ne sais pas exactement comment on serre la main d'un robot, mais j'imagine que c'est, c'est la main juste ici.

TBL: That’ll come very soon. ES: Nice to meet you, and I hope my beam looks as nice as my view of you guys does. ES : Enchanté, et j'espère que ma poutre est aussi belle que la vue que j'ai de vous. CA: Thank you, Tim.

(Applause)

I mean, The New York Times recently called for an amnesty for you.

Would you welcome the chance to come back to America? ES: Absolutely.

There’s really no question, the principles that have been the foundation of this project have been the public interest and the principles that underly the journalistic establishment in the United States and around the world, and I think if the press is now saying, we support this, this is something that needed to happen, that’s a powerful argument, but it’s not the final argument, and I think that’s something that public should decide. Il n'y a vraiment aucun doute, les principes qui ont été à la base de ce projet ont été l'intérêt public et les principes qui sous-tendent l'establishment journalistique aux États-Unis et dans le monde entier, et je pense que si la presse dit maintenant, nous soutenons cela, c'est quelque chose qui devait arriver, c'est un argument puissant, mais ce n'est pas l'argument final, et je pense que c'est quelque chose que le public doit décider. But at the same time, the government has hinted that they want some kind of deal, that they want me to compromise the journalists with which I’ve been working, to come back, and I want to make it very clear that I did not do this to be safe. Mais en même temps, le gouvernement a laissé entendre qu'il voulait une sorte d'accord, qu'il voulait que je compromette les journalistes avec lesquels je travaillais, que je revienne, et je veux qu'il soit très clair que je n'ai pas fait cela pour être en sécurité. I did this to do what was right, and I’m not going to stop my work in the public interest just to benefit myself. J'ai fait cela pour faire ce qui était juste, et je ne vais pas arrêter mon travail dans l'intérêt public juste pour mon propre bénéfice. (Applause)

CA: In the meantime, courtesy of the Internet and this technology, you’re here, back in North America, not quite the U.S., Canada, in this form. CA : En attendant, grâce à Internet et à cette technologie, vous êtes ici, de retour en Amérique du Nord, pas tout à fait aux États-Unis, au Canada, sous cette forme.

I’m curious, how does that feel? ES: Canada is different than what I expected.

It’s a lot warmer. (Laughter) CA: At TED, the mission is "ideas worth spreading.

If you could encapsulate it in a single idea, what is your idea worth spreading right now at this moment? Si vous pouviez la résumer en une seule idée, qu'est-ce que votre idée vaut la peine d'être diffusée maintenant, à ce moment précis ? 単一のアイデアにカプセル化できる場合、現時点であなたのアイデアを広める価値はありますか？ ES: I would say the last year has been a reminder that democracy may die behind closed doors, but we as individuals are born behind those same closed doors, and we don’t have to give up our privacy to have good government. ES : Je dirais que l'année écoulée nous a rappelé que la démocratie peut mourir derrière des portes closes, mais que nous, en tant qu'individus, sommes nés derrière ces mêmes portes closes, et que nous n'avons pas besoin de renoncer à notre vie privée pour avoir un bon gouvernement. ES：昨年は民主主義が密室で死ぬかもしれないということを思い出させたと思いますが、私たち個人は同じ密室で生まれ、良い政府を得るためにプライバシーを放棄する必要はありません。 We don’t have to give up our liberty to have security. セキュリティを確保するために自由を放棄する必要はありません。 And I think by working together we can have both open government and private lives, and I look forward to working with everyone around the world to see that happen. Thank you very much.

CA: Ed, thank you.

(Applause)