Our main story tonight
is government surveillance.
And I realize most people
would rather have a conversation
about literally any other topic.
Including: 'Is my smartphone
giving me cancer?'
To which the answer is: Probably.
Or: 'Do goldfish suffer from depression?'
To which the answer is:
Yes, but very briefly.
But the fact is:
It is vital
that we have a discussion about this now.
Because an important date
is just around the corner.
One big day to circle on the calendar
when it comes to
a very controversial subject.
The re-authorization of the Patriot Act
and all of the
controversial provisions therein.
June 1 they've got to come to an agreement
to re-authorize
or curtail those programs.
Yes. Some controversial provisions
within the Patriot Act
are set to expire on June 1.
So circle that date
on your calendars, everyone.
And while you're at it:
Circle June 2 as well.
Because that's Justin Long's birthday.
You all forgot last year...
and he f*cking noticed.
Now, over the last couple of years,
you've probably heard a lot about
strange-sounding programs. Such as:
X-Keyscore, Muscular, Prism, and Mystic.
Which are, coincidentally, also the names
of some of Florida's
least popular stripclubs.
"Welcome to X-Keyscore!
Our dancers are fully un-redacted
and Tuesday is wing-night!"
But if you don't mind, I would like
to refresh your memory over some of this.
And let's start our focussing on the most
controversial portion of the Patriot Act
that is up for renewal:
Section 215.
Which, I'm aware, sounds like the name
of an Eastern European boy-band.
"We are Section 215."
"Prepare to have your hearts...
throbbed."
There's the cute one, the bad-boy,
the one who strangled a potato-farmer,
and the one without an iron-deficiency.
They're incredible.
But the content of the real Section 215
is actually even more sinister.
It's called Section 215.
Nicknamed: the library records provision.
Which allows the government to require
businesses to hand over records of any
"any tangible things"
including: books, records, papers,
documents, and other items.
If that sounds broad, it's because
it was very much written that way.
Section 215 says the government can ask
for "any tangible things" so long as it's
"for an investigation to protect
against international terrorism".
Which is basically a blank cheque.
It's letting a teenager borrow the car,
under the strict condition that they
only use it for 'car-related activities'.
"Okay, mom and dad, I'm gonna use this
for a hand-job in a Wendy's parking lot,
but that is car-related,
so I think I'm covered."
Section 215 is overseen
by a secret intelligence-court,
known as the FISA-court.
And they've interpreted it to mean
the government could basically
collect and store phone-records for
every American.
The vast majority of whom, of course,
have no connection to terrorism.
Unless, Aunt Cheryl has been gravely
mis-characterizing the activities
of her needle-point club.
"It's a sleeper-cell,
isn't is, Aunt Cheryl?"
"You will hang for this, Aunt Cheryl.
You're a traiter and a terrible aunt.
Not in that order."
Now, the government will point out
that under 215, they hold phone-records,
and not the calls themselves.
What the intelligence-community is doing,
is looking at phone-numbers,
and durations of calls,
they are not looking at peoples names,
and they are not looking at content.
Yes, but that's not entirely reassuring.
Because you can extrapolate a lot
from that information.
If they knew that you'd called your ex
12 times last night, between 1 and 4 AM,
for a duration of 15 minutes each time,
they can be fairly sure that you left
some pretty pathetic voice-mails.
"I don't care
whose monitoring this call, Vicky."
"We should be together!"
Pick up the phone, dammit!
I'm a human being, not an animal!"
Now, the Patriot-act was written
just after 9-11.
And for years it was extended
and re-authorized
with barely a passing thought.
In fact, it became so routine,
that when it was extended in 2011,
one newscast just tacked it
onto the end of a report
about a Presidential trip abroad.
Chip Reid. CBS-news.
Travelling with the President
in Deauville, France.
Also in France, by the way,
President Obama signed in a law,
4-year extension
of the terrorism fighting Patriot-Act.
Also in France, by the way?
By the way?
He threw that in,
like a mother telling her grown daughter
that her childhood pet just died.
"Oh, nice talking to you, sweety.
Also, by the way, Mr. Peppers is dead.
See you at Christmas." BANG
But all of that,
was before the public was made aware
of what the government's capabilities
actually were.
'Cause that all ended in June of 2013.
Edward Snowden has just
taken responsibility for one of the
biggest government leaks in US history.
We learned that the government has
the capacity to track
virtually every American phone-call
and to scoop up impossibly vast
quantities of data across the internet.
Revelations that the NSA eavesdropped
on world leaders.
If you've ever been to the Bahamas,
the NSA could've recorded your phone-calls
and stored them for up to a month.
All that information was exposed
by Edward Snowden.
And it is still kind of incredible,
that a 29-year-old contractor
was able to steal top-secret documents
from an organization
that LITERALLY has the word 'security'
in it's name.
Clearly, that was not great for them.
The only place where it should be THAT
easy for employees in their 20ies to steal
is a Lid store.
"Dude, you sure I should take this?"
"Relax, dude, it's a Miami Marlins-cap,
we're not exactly selling
Fabergé eggs here."
It is still unclear,
exactly how many documents
Edward Snowden stole.
Although he is consistently trying
to re-assure people that he put them
in good hands.
Honestly, I don't want to be the person
making the decisions on what should
be public and what shouldn't.
Which is why
rather than publishing these on my own
or putting them out openly,
I'm running them through journalists.
Well, that sounds great.
But of course it's not a fail-safe plan.
As was proven when the New York Times
published this slide,
but did such a sloppy job
of blocking out redacted information,
that some people were able to read
the information behind that black bar,
which concerned how the US was monitoring
Al Qaida in Mosul.
A group now known as ISIS.
So essentially,
a national security secret was leaked,
because no-one at the Times
knows how to use Microsoft Paint.
And look, you can think
that Snowden did the wrong thing, or
did it in the wrong way.
But the fact is:
we have this information now,
and we no longer get the luxury
of pleading ignorance.
It's like you can't go to Sea World
and pretend that Shamu's happy anymore.
When we now know
at least half the water in her tank
is whale-tears.
We know that now.
You can't un-know that information.
So you have to bear that in mind.
But here's the thing:
It's now 2 years later,
and it seems like we've kind of
forgotten to have a debate
over the content of what Snowden leaked.
A recent Pew-report found that nearly
half of Americans say that they're
'not very concerned'
or 'not at all concerned'
about government surveillance.
Which is fine.
If that's an informed opinion.
But I'm not sure that it is.
Because we actually sent a camera-crew
to Times Square to ask
some random passers by
who Edward Snowden was
and what he did.
And there are the responses that we got.
I have no idea who Edward Snowden is.
Have no idea who Edward Snowden is.
I've heard the name, I just can't picture,
think right now exactly what it is.
Edward Snowden...
No. I do not.
Just for the record,
that wasn't cherry picking.
That was entirely reflective
of everyone we spoke to.
Although, to be fair:
some people did remember his name,
they just couldn't remember why.
He sold some information to people.
He revealed some information
that shouldn't have been revealed.
I think from what I remember is
the information that he shared
was detrimental to our military secrets?
And keeping our soldiers and our country
safe?
He leaked documents what the US Army's
operations in Iraq.
Edward Snowden revealed a bunch of
of secrets, I guess, or information
into Wiki, Wikileaks?
Edward Snowden leaked...
Ah, he's in charge of Wikileaks?
Edward Snowden revealed a lot of
documents through Wikileaks...?
Okay, so here's the thing:
Edward Snowden is NOT the Wikileaks guy.
The Wikileaks guy is Julian Assange.
And you do not want
to be confused with him.
Partly because he was far less careful
than Snowden in what he released,
and how.
And partly because he resembles
a sandwich-bag full of biscuit-dough
wearing a Stevie Nicks-wig.
And that is, that is ciritical.
Julian Assange is not a like-able man.
Even Benedict Cumberbatch could not
make him like-able.
He's un-Cumberbatch-able.
That was supposed to be
physically impossible.
But I don't blame people
for being confused.
We've been looking at this story
for the last 2 weeks,
and it is hard to get your head around.
Not just because there are so many
complicated programs to keep track of,
but also because
there are no easy answers here.
We all naturally want perfect privacy,
and perfect safety.
But those 2 things cannot coexist.
It's like how you can't have
a badass pet falcon...
and an adorable pet vole named Herbert.
Either you have to lose one of them,
which obviously you don't want to do.
Or you have to accept some reasonable
restrictions on both of them.
Now to be fair, the NSA will argue
that just because they CAN do something
doesn't mean they DO do it.
And, that there are restrictions
on their operations,
such as the FISA-court,
which must approve requests for
foreign surveillance.
But.
In 34 years, that court has approved
over 35000 applications,
and only rejected 12.
Yes. Much like Robert Durst's second wife.
The FISA-court is alarmingly accepting.
"Listen, Robert"
"I'm not gonna ask you too many questions.
I'm just gonna give you the benefit of a
doubt that you clearly don't deserve."
At least tell him to blink and burp less.
The burping might be the most troubling
thing about that show.
So, so maybe it's time for us to talk.
About where the limits should be.
And the best place to start would be
Section 215.
Not just because it's the easiest one
to understand,
but there is wide-spread agreement
it needs to be reformed.
From the President, to Ted Cruz,
to both the ACLU and the NRA,
to even the guy
who wrote the thing in the first place.
I was the principal author
of the Patriot Act.
I can say that without qualification
Congress never did intend to allow
bulk-collections
when it passed Section 215.
And no fair reading of the text
would allow for this program.
Think about that.
He was the author.
That's the legislative equivalent
of Lewis Carroll seeing the tea-cups ride
at Disney Land, and saying:
"This has got to be reined in.
No fair reading of my text
would allow for this ride."
"You've turned my perfectly nice
tail of psychedelic paedofilia
into a garish vomitorium."
"This is not what I wanted!"
And even the NSA has said
that the number of terror-plots
in the US, that the Section 215
phone-records program has disrupted is 1.
And it's worth noting:
that one particular plot
involved a cabdriver in San Diego
who gave $8500 to a terror-group.
And that is the shittiest terrorist-plot
I've ever seen,
other than the plot of
A Good Day To Die Hard.
But here's the big problem here:
If we let Section 215 get renewed
in it's current form,
without serious public debate,
we're in trouble.
Because Section 215
is the canary in the coal-mine.
If we cannot fix that,
we're not gonna fix any of them.
And the public debate so far,
has been absolutely pathetic.
A year ago, a former congresswoman
was discussing the 215 program on the news.
Watch wat happened.
This vast collection of data
is not that useful
and infringes substantially
on personal privacy.
I think at this point we should
seriously consider not continuing...
Congress woman Harmen, let me interru..
Let me interrupt you just for one moment.
We've got some breaking news out of Miami.
Stand by if you will.
Right now in Miami
Justin Beiber
has been arrested on a number of charges.
The judge is reading the charges,
including resisting arrest
and driving under the influence.
He's appearing now before the judge
for his bond-hearing.
Let's watch.
Actually, you know what?
Bad news, we're gonna have to interrupt
your interruption of the Beiber news,
for a new interruption.
This time featuring a YouTube video of a
tortoise having sex with a plastic clog.
Let's watch.
That. Is essentially the current tone
of this vitally important debate.
And again: I'm not saying this is
an easy conversation.
But we have to have it.
I know this is confusing.
And unfortunately, the most obvious
person to talk to about this,
is Edward Snowden.
But he currently lives in Russia.
Meaning, if you wanted
to ask him about any of these issues,
you'd have to fly all the way there
to do it, and it is not a pleasant flight.
And the reason I know that...
is that last week, I went to Russia
to speak to Edward Snowden.
And this is what happened.
Yes, last week I spent 48 paranoid hours
in Moscow.
Arguably the last place on earth
where you can find
an overweight Josef Stalin impersonator
arguing with an unconvincing fake Lenin.
And after experiencing Russia's
Russia's famously warm hospitality,
I went to meet Edward Snowden.
Who is supposed to show up in this room
at noon.
However, after 5 minutes after
the interview was scheduled to begin,
I had a troubling thought.
I don't know.
You think he's coming?
Yeah, he's coming.
'Cause my argument is:
Why would he?
When you think about it.
I got 2000 roebels that says
he doesn't make it.
Without understanding how much that is.
All I'm saying is...
a 10-hour flight for an empty chair...
I'm gonna lose my shit.
Okay, it turns out that there may be
a bit of a problem.
'Cause our Russian producer...
booked us in a room
directly overlooking...
the old KGB-building.
And the home of the current
Federal Security Bureau.
And I'm just been told that they know
we're here.
So uhm...
So that happened.
Uhm, just if the Russian...
Russian KGB is listening:
we'll ring the fire-alarm
if he's not coming.
Oh shit.
Oh God.
-So sorry for the delay.
It's fine.
HOLY SHIT.
He actually came.
Edward f*cking Snowden.
The most famous here and/or traitor
in recent American history!
And I've started with a question designed
to test his loyalties.
How much do you miss America?
-You know, my country is something
-that travels with me, you know.
-It's not just a geogro...
Well that's already
a way too complicated answer.
The right answer is:
I miss it a lot, it's the greatest
country in the world.
-I do miss my country.
-I do miss my home, I do miss my family.
Do you miss hot pockets?
-Yes.
-I miss hot pockets. Very much.
Okay. The entire state of Florida?
Let's just let that silence
hang in the air.
Truck nuts?
You miss truck nuts?
-I don't know what they are.
Lucky for you, Edward...
Not just truck nuts.
Stars and stripes truck nuts.
That is 2 balls of liberty
in a freedom sack.
-You really thought ahead.
Well, at least one of us did.
You know, 'cause of the... uhm...
the quandary... the...
Kafka-esque nightmare that you're in.
Okay. Let's dive in.
Why did you do this?
-The NSA has the greatest surveillance
capabilities that we've ever seen
in history.
Now, what they will argue
is that they don't use this
for nefarious purposes against
American citizens.
In some ways that's true.
But the real problem is that
they're using these capabilities
to make us vulnerable to them,
and then saying:
While I've got a gun pointed at your head,
I'm not going to pull the trigger.
Trust me.
So, what does the NSA you want look like?
'Cause you applied for a job at the NSA.
So you clearly see an inherent value
in that shadowy organization.
I worked with mass-surveillance systems
against Chinese hackers.
I saw, that you know, these things
do have some purpose.
And you want your spies to be good
at spying.
To be fair.
Right.
What you don't want...
is you don't want them spying inside
their own country.
Spies are great when they're on our side.
But we can never forget that they're
incredibly powerful,
and incredibly dangerous,
and when they're off the leash...
they can end up coming after us.
But just to be clear, we're talking about
2 different things here.
Domestic surveillance,
and foreign surveillance.
Right.
'Cause domestic surveillance...
Americans give some of a shit about.
Foreign surveillance...
they don't give any remote shit about.
Well the second question is
when we talk about foreign surveillance
are we applying it in ways that are
beneficial...
No-one cares.
In terms...
No. They don't give a shit.
We spied on UNICEF.
The children's fund.
Sure.
We spied on lawyers negotiating...
What was UNICEF doing?
I mean, that's the question there.
Isn't it?
The question is:
are these projects valuable?
Are we going to be safer when we're spying
on UNICEF and lawyers who are talking about
the price of shrimp and clove cigarettes.
I don't think people say that's good.
I think they'll say:
I definitely don't care.
Americans do not give a shit.
I think you're right.
About foreign surveillance.
What some people do care about
is whether Snowden considered
the adverse consequences of leaking
so much information at once.
How many of those documents
have you actually read.
I've evaluated all the documents
that are in the archive.
You've read every single one?
I do understand what I've turned over.
But there's a difference between
understanding what's in the documents
and reading what's in the documents.
I recognized the concern.
'Cause when you're handing over
thousands of NSA documents,
the last thing you want to do
is read them.
I think it's fair to be concerned about,
'did this person do enough?
were they careful enough?'
Especially when you're handling material
like we know you are handling.
Well, in my defense:
I'm not handling anything anymore.
That's been passed to the journalists,
and they're using extraordinary
security measures that this is reported
in the most responsible way.
But, those are journalists
with a lower technical skill-set than you.
That's true,
but then they do understand
just like you and I do.
Just how important it
to get this right.
So the New York Times took a slide,
didn't redact it properly...
and...
in the end it was possible
for people to see that something
was being used in Mosul.
On Al'Qaida.
That is a problem.
Well, that's a f*ck-up.
It is a f*ck-up.
And these things do happen in reporting.
In journalism we have to accept
that some mistakes will be made.
This is a fundamental concept of liberty.
Right.
But you have to own that then.
You're giving documents with imformation
you know could be harmful...
which could get out there.
Yes.
If people act in bad faith.
You're not even talking about bad faith.
You're talking about incompetents.
We are.
But you will never be
completely free from risk,
if you're free.
The only time you can be free from risk
is when you're in prison.
While the risks were significant,
Snowden himself has made it clear.
He feels the rewards have been worth it.
You've said in you letters to Brasil:
"I was motivated by a believe that
the citizens of the world deserve to
understand the system in which they live.
My greatest fear was that no-one
would listen to my warning.
Never have I been so glad
to have been so wrong."
How did that feel?
I was initially terrified that this
was going to be a 3 day story,
everybody was going to forget about it.
But when I saw that...
everybody around the world said:
"Wow, this is a problem.
We have to do something about this",
it felt like vindication.
Even in America?
Even in America.
And I think we're seeing
something amazing.
Which is if you ask... the American people
to make tough decisions,
to confront tough issues,
to think about hard problems...
they'll actually surprise you.
Okay.
Here's the problem:
I did ask some Americans.
And, boy did it surprise me.
I have no idea who Edward Snowden is.
You've never heard of Edward Snowden?
No.
I have no idea who Edward Snowden is.
I've heard the name...
I just can't picture and think right now
exactly who it is.
Well, he's... uhm...
He sold some information to people.
He revealed some information
that shouldn't have been revealed.
Edward Snowden revealed a lot of documents
through Wikileaks.
Edward Snowden revealed a bunch
of secrets, I guess...
or information into Wikileaks.
Edward Snowden leaked... uhm...
he's in charge of Wikileaks.
I'm in charge of Wikileaks.
Not ideal.
I guess, on the plus side...
you might be able to go home.
'Cause it seems like no-one knows
who the f*ck you are.
Or what the f*ck you did.
We can't except everybody to be uniformly
informed.
So, did you do this to solve a problem?
I did this to give the American people
a chance to decide for themselves
the kind of government they want to have.
That is a conversation that I think that
the American people deserve to decide.
There is no doubt that it is
a critical conversation.
But is it a conversation that we have
the capacity to have?
Because it's so complicated.
We don't fundamentally understand it.
It is a challenging conversation.
I mean, it's difficult for most people
to even conceptualize.
The problem is,
the internet is massively complex,
and so much of it is invisible.
Service providers, technicians, engineers,
the phonenumbers....
Let me stop you right there, Edward.
'Cause this is the whole problem.
Right.
This is the whole problem.
I just, I glaze over.
'Cause it's like the IT-guy
comes into your office,
and you go: "Ooh shit."
In fairness...
"Ooh shit, don't teach me anything."
"I don't want to learn."
"You smell like canned soup."
It's a real challenge to figure out
how do we communicate
things that require sort of years and years
of technical understanding.
And compress that into seconds of speech.
So, I'm sympathetic to the problem there.
But the thing is,
everything you did only matters
if we have this conversation properly.
So let me help you out there.
You mentioned in an interview
that the NSA was passing around
naked photo's of people.
Yeah. This is something where it's...
it's not actually seen as a big deal.
In the culture of NSA.
Because you see naked pictures
all of the time.
That.
Terrifies people.
'Cause when we asked people about THAT...
this is the response you get.
The Government should not be able
to look at dick-pictures.
If the Government was looking at
a picture of Gordon's penis,
I definitely feel it would be an invasion
of my privacy.
Ah, yeah, if the Government was looking at
pictures of my penis, that would upset me.
They should never, ever,
the US Government have a picture,
of my dick.
If my husband sent me
a picture of his penis,
and the Government could access it,
I would want that program to be shut down.
I would want the Dick-pic Program changed.
I would also want
the Dick-pic Program changed.
I think it would be terrific,
if the program could change.
I would want it to be tweeked,
I would want it to have
clear and transparent laws
that we knew about.
And that were communicated to us.
To understand what they
were being used for.
Or why the were being kept.
Do you think that program exists?
I don't.
I don't think that program exists at all.
No.
If I had knowledge that the US Government
had a picture of my dick...
I would be very pissed off.
Well...
The good news is that there's no
program named 'the Dick-pic Program'.
The bad news is that they're still
collecting everybody's information.
Including your dick-pics.
What's the over/under of that last guy
sent a dick-pic recently?
You don't need to guess.
I'll show you.
I did.
I did take a picture of my... dick.
And I sent it to a girl. Recently.
This is the most visible line in the sand
for people.
"Can they see my dick?"
So, with that in mind...
look inside that folder.
That.
Is a picture of my dick.
So let's go through each NSA program,
and explain to me it's capabilities
in regards to that photograph...
of my penis.
So.
702 Surveillance: can they see my dick?
Yes.
The Pfizen act of 2008,
which Section 702 falls under,
allows the bulk-collection of
internet communications that are
one-end foreign.
Bulk-collection:
now we're talking about my dick.
You get it.
I do.
Because it's, it's, yeah.
So, if you have you're email somewhere...
like G-mail, hosted over seas or
transferred somewhere over seas,
or any time crosses outside the borders
of the United States...
you're junk ends up in the database.
So it doesn't have to be
sending your dick to a German?
No.
Even if you sent it to somebody
within the United States,
your wholly domestic communication
between you and your wife
can go from New York...
to London and back.
And get caught up in the database.
Executive Order 12-333: Dick or no dick?
Yes.
EO 12-333 is what the NSA uses
when the other authorities aren't
aggressive enough,
or they're not catching as much
as they like.
For example...
How are they gonna see my dick?
I'm only concerned about my penis.
When you send your junk
through G-mail, for example,
that's stored on Google-servers.
Google moves data.
From datacenter to datacenter.
Invisibly to you, without your knowledge.
Your data could be moved outside
the borders of the United States.
Oh no.
Temporarily.
When your junk was passed by G-mail,
the NSA caught a copy of that.
Prism.
Prism is how they pull your junk
out of Google, with Google's involvement.
All of the different Prism partners,
people like Yahoo, Facebook, Google,
the Government deputizes them, to be,
sort of their little surveillance sherif.
They're a dick-sherif.
Correct.
Uhm, Upstream.
Upstream is how they snatch your junk
as it transes the internet.
Okay. Mystic.
If you're describing your junk
on the phone?
Yes.
But do they have the content
of that junk-call,
or just the duration of it?
They have the content as well,
but only for a few countries.
If you are on vacation in the Bahamas?
Yes.
Finally. And you need to remind yourself?
No, I'm just not sure...
what to do with this.
Just hold on to it.
It's a lot of responsibility.
Yeah. It is a lot of responsibility.
That's the whole point.
Should I...?
No, you should absolutely not.
And it's unbelievable
that you would do that.
Actually, it's entirely believable.
215 meta-data?
No.
Good.
But...
Come on, Ed.
They can probably tell who you're sharing
your junk pictures with.
Because they're seeing
who you're texting with,
who you're calling.
If you're calling
the penis enlargement centre at 3 AM
and that call lasted 90 minutes?
They would have a record
of YOUR phone-number
calling THAT phone-number.
(Which is a penis enlargement center).
They would say they don't know
it's penis enlargement center,
but of course they can look it up.
Edward, if the American people
understood this...
they would be absolutely horrified.
I guess I never thought about putting it
in the...
in the context of your junk.
Would a good take-away from this be...
'Until such time as we sorted
all of this out...
don't take pictures of your dick'.
Just don't do it anymore.
No.
If we do that.
Wait, hold on, you're saying 'no'?
Yeah.
You should be
taking pictures of your dick?
Yes.
You shouldn't change your behavior
because a Government agency somehwere
is doing the wrong thing.
If you sacrifice our values
because we're afraid...
we don't care
about those values very much.
That is a pretty inspiring answer
to the question:
"Hey, why did you just send me a picutre
of your dick?"
"Because I love America, that's why."
So there you have it, America.
All of us should now be equipped
to have this vital debate.
Because by June 1,
it is imperative we have a rational,
adult conversation
about whether our safety is worth
living in a country of barely regulated
Government sanctioned dick-sherifs.
And with my work here done,
there was just time to take care of
one more thing.
Finally, congratulations
on winning the Oscar.
I know you couldn't be at the ceremony
for obvious reasons, so...
Hah?
Wow.
I thought we'd celebrate ourselves.
Cheers.
Wow, that's...
that's really something.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
What's the over/under on me
getting home safely?
Well, if you weren't on the list before,
you are now.
Is that like, uhm...
is that like a figu... is that like a joke
or is that actually possible?
No, it's... it's a real thing.
You're associated now.
Okay.
Just to be clear NSA:
I never met this guy, so
take me off you're f*cking list.
I do not want to get stuck in Russia.
I want to go home I want to go home
Now, just for the record.
Just so you know.
We got in touch with the NSA,
the National Security Council,
and the White House,
and we asked them to comment
on the dick-pick capabilities
of each of the programs Edward Snowden
just discussed.
Which incidentally was some very fun
emails to write to Government agencies.
They didn't wish to comment on the record.
And I can see why,
for every possible reason.