United states since the snowden story broke because they fear arrest or subpoena. This is 45 minutes. Hello, please take your seats. And welcome back. This next event, i promise, is going to be interesting. Its a skyped interview on the snowden revelations, and it involves actually four skypes. Thats a miracle of modern technology and it will either work or not work. Its very tricky. So somebody may go down, somebody may have a time delay, which is happening with one of our three guests. I guess its analogous to the quadruple somersault ringling brothers done by Miguel Vasquez in 1982. So please bear with us, well have problems from time to time, but we have an Excellent Team of techies, i know, because i cant understand anything they say. And it is now my pleasure to introduce our interview ir, roger cohen, the op ed columnist for the New York Times. Thank you. [applause] good morning, ladies and gentlemen. So were going to rely on much maligned technology to try and bring this about. And ignore who ever may or may not be listening. I think its fair to say that in the media landscape there is before and after Edward Snowden, his revelations about global n. S. A. Data vacuuming, backed with concrete evidence, the feeling, i think, that many of us have had since 9 11 that something had gotten seriously skewed in the appropriate balance between National Security and press freedom, the state, the surveillance state to some, and civil liberties. And as a result of this, Edward Snowden is a rock star to some. To others of course he is a tray for. A traitor. Here today by skype we have the three journalists who were entrusted by snowden, chosen by snowden to be the recipients of top secret n. S. A. Archives. Here with us are an Award Winning documentary filmmaker and journalist, finishing a trilogy of movies on the post 9 11 america and this last movie focuses on snowden. And along with Glenn Greenwald she traveled to hong kong last may to interview snowden. Bart gellman is a senior fellow at the century foundation, author and Pulitzer Prize winning reporter over many years on National Security issues. Glenn greenwald is an investigative journalist, author, and columnist now at First Look Media which is the new journalistic venture, which as you know is backed by the ebay founder. Hes also a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer. Hi, everyone. The most obvious fact about the three of you right now is that you are not here. And i remember glenn when i met you in rio, you saying that there was a nontrivial chance that if you traveled to the United States you would be arrested. So could i begin by asking you if you still feel that way and why you do . I feel that way even more now since you were here, which i dont recall exactly when it was, but it was a couple months ago, there have been other episodes where interNational Security officials have made it clear that they view what were doing as being not just improper or dangerous but actually criminal. James clapboard the senior National Security official in the u. S. Government has been running around calling the reporters who work on this story accomplices, perpetrating the term. The house of the Intelligence Committee said that he thought that what i was doing in particular was criminality and thievery. He propounded this theory that those of us freelancing around the world have been selling documents, which is what a lot of people have been doing for decades. So i think theres been an attempt to create these theories that could criminalize the journalism that were doing. But as i said to you back then and i believe more so now, i think it would be wrong to allow that kind of intimidation to prevent us from doing what we have the right to do, including returning to the country were citizens in. I do still think its a nontrivial risk. Im sure there are factions that dont want that on the legacy. So my belief is still that they would do the right thing. So are you going to come back . Yes, definitely. I mean its inevitable that i will, were still figuring out exactly when that will be. Obviously we were honored, the three of us, there was a ceremony on april 11 that will be an interesting opportunity to go back to. Theres other opportunities like that that were still figuring out. But certainly at some point relatively soon i intend to have the proposition that the United States guarantees press freedom through the constitution. Laura, youve been much harassed at airports and elsewhere over several years, and im sure you share some of the same concerns and maybe you could tell us also how you feel about coming back. But let me add in question. Edward snowden appeared recently via skype at south by southwest, with a backdrop of the american constitution. Is mr. Snowden an american patriot, in your view . Thank you for having me and for having this event, its great to be here with my colleagues. Let me take this in stages, so in terms of coming back, i mean its been well documented that ive, across from the border that ive been sought for several years, for things like having my notebooks copied and computers confiscated. Actually im not worried that id be arrested, i was worried that they would subpoena me or take my electronics, so i dont think its trivial, and its real. Yes i will come back for sure and right now i made the choice to stay out of the country for source protection reasons. As much as journalists, the real topic, the urgency of what we need to do is talk about the resources it takes to bring information forward. In that context, we put our lives on the line to reveal illegal government spying perhaps or spying programs that were being done in secret, and that were collecting, that could have entire countries information. So i think he put his life on the line and i think we all owe a debt of gratitude to him. Bud, are there legitimate government secrets . Sure there are. If i could just step back for a second and talk about the legal environment, it is significant that director used the word accomplices, that the Inspector General of the United States uses the word agent in reference to us reporters. Since those are terms that have criminal law implications. But weve had the legal framework, and the in the espionage act of 97 years ago with which a government could prosecute journalists. And its been a political culture thats created the barriers to that. The question is whether, what was clearly a debate inside the u. S. Government is going to begin to shift that. As far as secrets, sure, i think there are legitimate National Security secrets. I think the government is charged with protecting security of its people against external threats. And the question is whether that concept is the question is whether the boundaries will be drawn by the people to some extent at the level of principle, that the government represents, or whether the government gets to do all on its own in secret. Do you systematically run by the government response on these stories youve done on the snowden revelations or other stories about the n. S. A. . Do you feel that is still an essential part of what we do as journalists . I talked to the subject of my stories about every story and always have in my career, and certainly a National Security story, which i spend most of my years reporting on, ive done the same. So there are times when im confident, i understand what the documents say and what my independent reporters say, and i tell them what the story is going to be, sometimes you learn things, often i do. Every now and again i discover that something i thought i knew might not be right, i have to go back to the drawing board. And sure, its an opportunity for them to say we would ask you not to publish this or that, for the following reasons. First of all, my sense is that we need to require them to stipulate the authenticity and the truthfulness of the fact before we have that conversation. And second of all id like to know the reason. And i and more importantly the executive editor of the Washington Post toes have to be persuaded that there actually would be damage, that is meaningful that outweighs the public end of the story. Do you feel the same way, glenn . I think in all of the n. S. A. Reporting that ive done, i havent, but people with whom i have worked, editors, have gone to the n. S. A. The same way as bart said they would go to anybody else and say this is what we intend to report about you, what is your comment, i think it would be ridiculous not to do that. Why as a journalist would you want less information rather than more. I have though been critical in the past of the process where by journalists spent lots of time sort of collaborating with the government and almost negotiating what it is that can and cant be published. I think he often spent months with senior officials talking about the stories he wants to publish. That to me seems like were crossing a line between an adversarial press and one that becomes collaborative where you put the government on your editorial board. I dont think that the Washington Post and other papers have done any of that, but i think there have been cases in the past, and i do think that newspapers erred on the side of surpressing information, the most infamous case being the New York Times holding onto the bush n. S. A. Wash eavesdropping story for 15 months and finally publishing because it was about to be published in a book. So in general i think that process is important legally, lawyers will tell you that you give the government an tub to have their input. But i think its really important that it not become a means by which the government can overly influence the reporting. And in the case of the stories i worked on, 99. 5 of the time when the government said we dont think you should publish that, those views have been disregarded and we published it anyway because they didnt have any convincing rationale. Glenn, theres a strong feeling among some people that Edward Snowden has threatened the security of the United States, that he took an oath and then reneged on it. And there have been stories since his revelations revealing n. S. A. Intercepts of transmissions between taliban fighters or intercepts of email recording regarding intelligence assessment on iran. Thats not domestic surveillance, its not spying on allies. Its what Intelligence Services all around the world do. So how is that illegal or immoral, and how is it not damaging to the United States of america . Well two things about that. First of all the oath that snowden took is actually an oath that a member of the Intelligence Community through the constitution and he i think its really important to understand the process that he used to do this as a book. To get it so distorted. Edward snowden has not published a single document in the last nine months. But you have. I have. Bart has, laura has. Dozens of others reporters have. Whats the difference . Because he did not think that he should be in a position to decide which documents ought to be published and which ones ought to be suppressed. He came to well established well regarded newspapers and asked the journalists in those institutions within he was working to make those judgments about what is in the Public Interest to publish and what is not. Specifically a lot of what is giving the u. S. For back ground, for contact, for understanding, but i dont think all of this should be published, if i just wanted all this published i wouldnt need you, i could just upload it through the internet myself. So stories about things like, think of a story that has been published that shouldnt be, i think the question about why was this publish ought to be posed to the journalist who decided to publish it and not necessarily to snowden. But i will say that things that countries do to one another are incredibly newsworthy. The New York Times reported that the israelis and the americans were engaged in cyber warfare against the iranians using sophisticated viruses. Glenn, do you in your head draw a line somewhere between newsworthy and endangering . Sure, and the reason why nine or 10 months into the story we published many hundreds of top secret documents but not all the ones in our possession is because were constantly engaged as our source demand that we do in that analytical process. To avoid harming innocent people. And i think weve done a very good job of that, and the proof is that there is zero evidence, zero, not a little bit, but zero that a single story with snowden material has harmed any individual or endangered National Security. All we get are the very familiar vague scripted rituals that government officials always use, but Nothing Specific or concrete about any harm being done. Laura, please feel free to jump in on any of that that youd like to. But id also like to ask but the question you raised and i know its very dear to your heart, of how our sources to be protected, the Obama Administration which was earlier described as the most hostile to the free free ever, has embarked on a very aggressive antileak campaign targeting leakers, and the technology is there to trace them. So going forward, whats to be done about that . Sure. Thats why i thought we were gathered here today, and i would love to talk about those issues. I think first of all our job as journalists are to protect sources and that we have to do that. That we know from the experience we can use in james rise case and james rosen that the government is using technology to find out who terrorists are talking to. So we have an obligation to use means to protect our sources. And not only that, i think that mainstream news organizations also need to learn about how to use these tools if they actually want to get sources to come to them. One of the things thats been most shocking to me is the lack of technological Awareness Among news organizations in terms of using basic things like encryption, which are not that complicated to use if you want to protect your communication, and there are tools we use every day when we log into our bank account, were using encryption, and for journalists to have tools so they can speak privately to sources. But laura, the most familiar accusation for any Foreign Correspondent certainly in a sense tough situation like a war is that youre not a journalist, youre a spy. And if we start using encryption or even elaborate encryption, somebody that just going to reenforce the perception of those who might be detaining you that in fact youre an agent, youre not a journalist . Well, we use encryption every day when you connect to the internet. I think a result of this is that encryption will be easier to use. I think thats going to become you big which us the, because people do expect privacy. The email is not meant for the government, its to their friend, and i think there will be repercussions. Now that we learn what the government decembering with our information. So i dont think that will endanger or flag people. I think we need more encryption. Bart, you wanted to jump in . Yes, i do. Its a cartoon issue that the n. S. A. Wants to know everything about everybody, thats not accurate. It wants to be able to know anything about anybody. And so it regards encryption as a threat, specifically uses the word threat when it talks about encryption products, antivirus products, anonymity products. It acknowledges no realm, no state in Human Communications which is prepared to be denied access to. It wants all of your secrets, it wants anybody that it wants. The problem is that does include journalists in a number of cases, not only in the n. S. A. , but the u. S. In general. Thats because leaks, which by definition are anything that the government is doing that it does not have a press conference about, the counterintelligence threat, having intelligence is one of the principal missions of the u. S. Intelligence committee. When you start regarding journalists as a Counter Intelligence threat and you do open up all of the criminal most extreme kinds of surveillance tools become available to you, and you start using that sort of technology, and also i completely agree with laura about the necessity of learning the products, and that includes encryption and anonymity which makes it hard to tell who is talking to whom, there are some problems that cant be solved that way. And the one that comes to mind is First Contact problem, which is to say almost all the sources ive developed over the years have been people ive met, say, in iraq, i ran into a group of military folks looking for weapons of mass destruction. Or at a promotion ceremony in washington. And maybe that leads to a conversation or a coffee or a phone calm. So for the first five, 10 conversations its all normal, and gradually you develop a relationship of trust and interest, and you start straying closer to the line at which they are not supposed to be talking because their bosses dont want to talk about that subject in public. By then youve got a long digital trail to connect to that person. I would say Edward Snowden is one of a very small has beenful of people in my entire career whose very First Contact with me through laura was entirely nonen crypted. There is some progress here. Theres a terrific program, a Terrific Technology that is beg developed at the freedom of press foundation called secure drop, which makes it easier to make a First Contact with a reporter through anonym