We're Glenn Greenwald and Janine Gibson of the Guardian US, and we’ve been breaking stories on the NSA Files since June. AUA!

What are the names of the two encryption chips redacted here?

http://imgur.com/uZ7PcsC

What are the names of the two encryption chips redacted here?

This became the top-voted question only long after we both left, as a result of a Twitter campaign.

I answered every single question in order as it rose to the top. I came back to address this one because people alerted me it had become the top one.

Unfortunately, I can't speak for the Guardian because I wasn't involved in this redaction process and didn't work at all with this document. But as I understand it, though, both the NYT and ProPublica had and redacted the same information for the same reason.

There are hundreds of encryption standards compromised by the program the Guardian, NYT and PP all reported on. I have never seen any list of those standards and don't have it. If I did have it, I would publish it immediately. As a result, the reasoning went (as I understand it), publishing one or two examples would be unhelpful if not misleading as those are tiny fractions of the overall compromised standards.

To be clear: if encryption standards are compromised by the NSA, I do not think it's valid to conceal that on the ground that it will enable Terrorists or other Bad People to avoid using those standards. But as I understand it, that wasn't the rationale for the redactions; it was that publishing one or two would do not do any real good and could affirmatively create the misleading impression that other (unnamed) compromised standards are solid.

If I could inform the world about exactly which standards have been compromised by the NSA, I would.

Will there be any more groundbreaking leaks? Also, how do you feel about the response from the American people?
Thanks for doing this AMA, Mr. Greenwald.

Will there be any more groundbreaking leaks? Also, how do you feel about the response from the American people? Thanks for doing this AMA, Mr. Greenwald.

There are definitely huge new stories to come: many more. I've said that from the start every time I was asked and I think people see by now that it's true. In fact, as Janine said the other day, the documents and newsworthy revelations are so massive that no one news organization can possibly process them all.

As for public opinion, I'm incredibly gratified that Americans, and people around the world, have been so engaged by these issues and that public opinion polls show radical shifts in how people perceive that threats to their privacy/civil liberties from their own government are greater than threats to their safety from The Terrorists.

Why do you think the leak about forwarding data to Israel received relatively little attention compared to other leaks?

Why do you think the leak about forwarding data to Israel received relatively little attention compared to other leaks?

1) Because it involved "Israel", which sends some people into fear-based silence; 2) Because it happened in the middle of Syria, which took up most oxygen; 3) Because the New York Times published nothing about it, for ignominious and self-serving reasons highlighted by its own public editor; and 4) Because there is some NSA fatigue: a sense that nothing that is revealed can surprise any longer.

Janine Gibson:

• Ever since the Miranda incident and GCHQ destroying the Guardian's hard drives, the Guardian's reporting on GCHQ appears to have been chilled. While the Guardian is alleged to have some 50,000 GCHQ documents, outlets like Der Spiegel are the ones breaking the big UK spying stories such as the Belgacom attack. Is the Guardian afraid of investigation or legal action within the UK?

• Does the Guardian have any agreement whatsoever, formal or informal, with the UK government?

I run the US operation and have never had a conversation with GCHQ (TO MY KNOWLEDGE..). We're continuing to work through all the documents, finding stories we think are important; I hope we're doing that without fear or favour.

I gave a longer answer elsewhere about our process so I won't repeat and I can't speak for everyone, but I'm certainly not aware of any blanket agreement about publishing.

There are plenty of opportunities for both governments to give us input on our stories and they do, on each story individually. We take their advice/response into consideration before we publish. And this may not endear us to the more libertarian of our readers, but we take that process very seriously.

Mr. Greenwald, thanks for all you and your team have done (and are doing!), and thanks for keeping this whole thing much more of a "whistleblowing" and much less of a "leak" with your responsible reviewing of the information you're releasing. My questions:

1. So far, the NSA revelations have been obvious breaches of constitutional law to the eyes of many, but still not quite severe enough to convince some otherwise reasonable/rational folks of wrongdoing. Can we expect anything more obvious anytime soon; are there any "smoking guns" coming that could be considered undeniable proof the Government has broken any specific law or laws?

2. Is there any further data available on just how much interdepartmental sharing is going on; are any of the various databases ever accessible/accessed by agencies on a more "local" level, like a state or city, or is it strictly Federal?

3. Do you have any information about what role(s) the new NSA Datacenter in Utah may or may not play in all of this? (wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center )

4. Could you please tell Mr. Snowden "thanks from a fellow IT worker?"

So far, the NSA revelations have been obvious breaches of constitutional law to the eyes of many, but still not quite severe enough to convince some otherwise reasonable/rational folks of wrongdoing. Can we expect anything more obvious anytime soon; are there any "smoking guns" coming that could be considered undeniable proof the Government has broken any specific law or laws?

I think there already are things clearly showing the government broke the law, including (but not only) the Constitution, but there is much more to come on that score.

Could you please tell Mr. Snowden "thanks from a fellow IT worker?"

He has received endless, similar expressions of support from around the world and it is always great to see.

Is it too late to roll back the surveillance state?

I think this is the question we've all been asking. It's at the heart of this story. And we fundamentally think it's a debate best had in the open. It's going to come down to what citizens, users and voters think about how much they're prepared to give up in order to feel secure. It's not an easy question.

We had an event recently in NYC and the former general counsel for the NSA said this is a debate that has to be had once a generation -- that each generation needs to feel it has given consent. I think that's an interesting point. It certainly feels like there are a couple of generations who have been taken aback by the sheer size and scale of surveillance.

Out of the ones you have deemed to be worth releasing, what percentage of the Snowden documents have you released so far?

Out of the ones you have deemed to be worth releasing, what percentage of the Snowden documents have you released so far?

As I've said many times, there are thousands of documents, and the majority of ones that should (and will) be published still remain. Large numbers of people from around the world - including me and Laura Poitras - work every day as their primary or only occupation on getting these documents vetted, understood, and reported on as soon as possible.

With so many people working with these documents in so many locations, how do you keep these documents secure (in terms of both from less discerning journalistic operations and from antagonistic governments)?

With so many people working with these documents in so many locations, how do you keep these documents secure (in terms of both from less discerning journalistic operations and from antagonistic governments)?

We use highly advanced means of encryption.

Remember, the only ones whose op sec has proven horrible and who has lost control of huge numbers of documents is the NSA and GCHQ.

We have lost control of nothing. All of the documents we have remain secure.

So did the British lie when they claimed they decrypted some of the files carried by David Miranda through Heathrow?

/r/EndlessWar

/r/DescentIntoTyranny

So did the British lie when they claimed they decrypted some of the files carried by David Miranda through Heathrow?

They outright lied when they said he was carrying a password that allowed access to the documents. Indeed, on the same day they told that lie (to a gullible media that mindlessly repeated it as fact, as usual), the filed a separate affidavit saying it was urgent for them to keep possession of what they took from David because what he was carrying was "heavily encrypted" and they were able to only "reconstruct" 75 documents. Obviously, if he had a password that enabled access to the documents, then they would have been able to access them.

He did not, and thus they could not.

Aren't the Brits trying to crack all the equipment seized from David Miranda's airport detention? Didn't David reveal an encryption key under duress?

Aren't the Brits trying to crack all the equipment seized from David Miranda's airport detention? Didn't David reveal an encryption key under duress?

As he's said in interviews, he gave his password to his personal phone which allowed them access to his Facebook, Skype, email and photos. That's because they kept telling him that under the Terrorism Act, he could and would be arrested if he did not give that. He did not give any encryption keys that allow access to read documents because he did not have any such keys.

I have to ask why the leaks are piece fed to the public? Why cant it be one big release? Thanks in advance.

I have to ask why the leaks are piece fed to the public? Why cant it be one big release? Thanks in advance.

Many reasons:

1) It's irresponsible to dump documents without first understanding them and the consequences of publication.

2) It's 100% contrary to the agreement we made with our source when he came to us and talked about how he wanted us to report on them (if he wanted them all dumped, he wouldn't have needed us: he could have done it himself).

3) It would be impossible for the public to process a huge, indiscriminate dump, and media outlets would not care enough to read through them and report them because they'd have no vested interest in doing so (that's what WikiLeaks learned long ago, which is why they began partnering with media outlets on an exclusive basis for its releases).

4) The debate that we should be having would get overwhelmed by accusations that we were being irresponsible and helping the Terrorists; in other words, it would be strategically dumb to do.

5) There are already lots of risks for people reporting on these documents; there would be seriously heightened risks for anyone involved if they were just indiscriminately dumped.

I just realized you've done a good job keeping your source out of the limelight, it feels like he's slowly fading from public conciousness and the real story is gaining traction:-D

I just realized you've done a good job keeping your source out of the limelight, it feels like he's slowly fading from public conciousness and the real story is gaining traction

This is an astute point, and the credit for this is due to Snowden.

One of the most darkly hilarious things to watch is how government apologists and media servants are driven by total herd behavior: they all mindlessly adopt the same script and then just keep repeating it because they see others doing so and, like parrots, just mimic what they hear.

All whistleblowers are immediately demonized - they have to be "crazy" lest people think that there is something valid to their view that they saw injustices so fundamental that it was worth risking their liberty to expose. That's why Nixon wanted Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalysis files: degrading the psyche of whistleblowers is vital to defending the status quo.

The script used to do this to Snowden was that he was a "fame-seeking narcissist." Hordes of people who had no idea what "narcissism" even means - and who did not know the first thing about Snowden - kept repeating this word over and over because that became the cliche used to demonize him.

The reason this was darkly hilarious is because there is almost no attack on him more patently invalid than this one. When he came to us, he said: "after I identify myself as the source and explain why I did this, I intend to disappear from media sight, because I know they will want to personalize the story about me, and I want the focus to remain on the substance of NSA disclosures."

He has been 100% true to his word. Almost every day for four months, I've had the biggest TV shows and most influential media stars calling and emailing me, begging to interview Snowden for TV. He has refused every request because he does not want the attention to be on him, but rather on the disclosures that he risked his liberty and even his life to bring to the world.

He could easily have been the most famous person in the world, on TV every day and night. But he chose not to, selflessly, so that he would not distract from the substance of the story.

How the people who spent months screaming "fame whore" and "narcissist" at him don't fall on the ground in shame is mystifying to me. Few smear campaigns have ever proven more baseless than this one.

This addresses a question I asked elsewhere, so I'll restate it here: Snowden has said he wants to be "part of the debate" over global surveillance. Can you speak to when and how he can best rejoin that debate? You seem to suggest that it's best if he just stays out of it from now on, to avoid personalizing the story or giving grist to people who want to portray him as a megalomaniac.

I understand the argument that keeping him removed from the spotlight is productive; on the other hand, in his limited interviews with you and in his Guardian Q&A, he was cogent, knowledgeable, and compelling. I don't feel guilty for wanting to hear more from him.

Snowden has said he wants to be "part of the debate" over global surveillance. Can you speak to when and how he can best rejoin that debate? You seem to suggest that it's best if he just stays out of it from now on, to avoid personalizing the story or giving grist to people who want to portray him as a megalomaniac.

He has participated in the debate when he thought doing so was fruitful. He's given a couple interviews to me about some of the substance, has given statements about surveillance and privacy when accepting awards, and may start doing interviews at some point if he's convinced that the focus will be on the substance of the disclosures and not the personality issues involving him.

[deleted]

So...Michael Hastings....any comment?

Michael was a good friend and someone whose journalism I admired greatly. His death is a huge loss to the profession and the country, and something I still mourn.

I appreciate your courage for going “against the grain” and asking the tough questions all journalists should be asking. My question pertains to your upcoming story on the US assassination program. Can you give us any sneak peeks? Any earth shattering revelations? Obviously it’s a very dangerous story so take care.

PS: Drive an older vehicle.

I appreciate your courage for going “against the grain” and asking the tough questions all journalists should be asking. My question pertains to your upcoming story on the US assassination program. Can you give us any sneak peeks? Any earth shattering revelations? Obviously it’s a very dangerous story so take care.

There's this woman called "Janine Gibson" who will literally murder me if I do.

Seriously, I learned the hard way a couple months ago that previewing stories before they're ready to be published is a mistake that only leads to problems, even though it's motivated by a desire to be as transparent as possible and to share with the world all of these materials as quickly as possible.

Glenn has nothing further to say on this topic.

Recently, the "NSA sharing raw intelligence about US Citizens to Israel" leak pointed out that not only does the NSA have programs that collect data on elected officials and Supreme Court justices, but they also hand that data (along with other data on US citizens) over to Israel in trust that they will dispose of it.

The NSA likely has files on every person in the position of power to stop their surveillance/economic espionage operation. Do you agree with this statement, and if that is the case how do you think America can take steps towards limiting the power and abuses of the NSA?

Thank you... For everything.

The NSA likely has files on every person in the position of power to stop their surveillance/economic espionage operation. Do you agree with this statement, and if that is the case how do you think America can take steps towards limiting the power and abuses of the NSA?

That document did not state definitively that the NSA provided the communications of members of Congress and judges to Israel, though it did reference such communication. Other reports, as we indicated (including from the New York Times in 2009), have previously reported on efforts to wiretap even members of Congress.

A major reason why those in power always try to use surveillance is because surveillance = power. The more you know about someone, the more you can control and manipulate them in all sorts of ways. That is one reason a Surveillance State is so menacing to basic political liberties.

But there are all sorts of examples, including from recent history, demonstrating that even the most seemingly insurmountable institutions can be weakened or uprooted when they become abusive enough. The tide is clearly turning against the US National Security State in general and the NSA in particular in terms of their ability to dictate terms and control the debate, and they know it.

What will ultimately determine the outcome here is how much pressure citizens continue to apply in defense of their privacy rights and against massive, ubiquitous, secret spying systems aimed at them.

What can we, the people of Reddit, do to make the most of all this new insight and information?

What can we, the people of Reddit, do to make the most of all this new insight and information?

Figure out what your available resources and talents are and devote them to stopping the parts of NSA surveillance that you think are wrong. What Edward Snowden showed more than anything else is that even ordinary individuals have within them great power to stand up to and subvert real injustices by seemingly invulnerable institutions.

You mobilized a response from Hunton & Williams, Palantir et al with close ties to the DOJ that was normally reserved for countries and companies: You were targeted and an offer to discredit your reputation was made to representatives of The Bank of America.

Do you see this type of assault on individual journalists as ongoing? Do you have any recourse that might dissuade similar methods of targeting investigative journalism?

You mobilized a response from Hunton & Williams, Palantir et al with close ties to the DOJ that was normally reserved for countries and companies: You were targeted and an offer to discredit your reputation was made to representatives of The Bank of America. Do you see this type of assault on individual journalists as ongoing?

If you want to challenge the world's most powerful factions, you're going to get attacked in all sorts of ways. That's the nature - the essence - of power: it is capable of exacting a cost for defying it. That's hardly unique to me: it's true of huge numbers of people who, in all sorts of ways, are trying to find ways to even the playing field and expose the secret bad acts of powerful entities.

You two are revealing a lot of groundbreaking secrets. Do you ever worry about your safety?

Do you ever worry about your safety?

All good journalism entails risk, by definition, because all good journalism makes someone powerful angry. It's important to be rationally aware of those risks and take reasonable precautions, but not fixate on them or, under any circumstances, allow them to deter you in doing what you thin should be done. Fearlessness can be its own form of power.

I'm curious about the offensive cyberactions of the US. Will you write more about it? Can you tell us about aggressions made by the US?

I'm curious about the offensive cyberactions of the US. Will you write more about it? Can you tell us about aggressions made by the US?

In my view, the two most overlooked stories we've published are the one you reference (about the secret presidential directive signed by Obama to prepare for offensive cyber operations: essentially the militarization of the internet) and the document we recently published showing NSA gives unminimized commuincations of US persons to Israel with very few binding safeguards.

I hope we'll have more on the topic you asked about, though so far the information is limited.

Thanks for doing this. At the university I work at, we are putting together a workshop for Media Professionals, including journalists regarding IT security. We plan on covering: PGP, truecrypt, TOR, OTR, and strongbox. What tools, concepts, or techniques should we be teaching aspiring journalists?

Thanks for doing this. At the university I work at, we are putting together a workshop for Media Professionals, including journalists regarding IT security. We plan on covering: PGP, truecrypt, TOR, OTR, and strongbox. What tools, concepts, or techniques should we be teaching aspiring journalists?

That's so great to hear. One of the most gratifying things I've seen since this all started is how many journalists now communicate using PGP, Pidgen, OTR, TOR and similar instruments of encryption.

Just as was true for me, so many national security journalists - including some of the most accomplished ones at large media outlets, the ones who work on the most sensitive materials - had no idea about any of that and used none of it.

Now they do. In this age of a War on Whistleblowers and sources and ubiquitous surveillance, it's absolutely vital that journalists learn advanced encryption methods and use it.

When I started out AHEM years ago, knowing how to use Word was a cutting edge skill.

If I was starting out now as an investigative journalist I'd want to be across all the things you listed. We use all of them plus a couple of other things for good measure.

It would be fair to say that encrypted communications are messy and awkward and do not lend themselves to unimpeded free flow conversations. It can be very hard to confine yourselves to them. Also - as you will have noticed - Glenn types a lot faster than I do. I can't get a bloody word in....

On a related note, Glenn and Janine, what's your assessment of the likely effectiveness of the aforementioned tools given what you know?

On a related note, Glenn and Janine, what's your assessment of the likely effectiveness of the aforementioned tools given what you know?

Nothing is perfect, but GPG, Pidgen/OTR and Tor are all fundamentally sound, provided that the user/individual computer isn't compromised.

Glenn, as you may have heard, Linux development leader Linus Torvalds has already been requested (salon.com) to build backdoors into the Linux kernel. Do you have any information pertaining to NSA's open source project SELinux, which contributes to the Linux kernel? Has the NSA tried to subvert Linux kernel security?

Edit: First, many thanks to Glenn for replying. I await your future publications with interest. Good luck. To avoid misunderstandings: (Thanks to AnkhMorporkian for the heads up) Linus Torvalds has clarified to mashable.com that he was joking. Unfortunately, the joke wasn't immediately clear to The Register, Slashdot, Techdirt, Hackernews and Salon, so although it's good to hear it was a joke, some measure of bafflement and confusion about it in the current climate is entirely understandable.

Moreover, that doesn't settle the question of whether or not NSA contributions to Linux (SELinux or other) are worth continuing considering that the NSA's intent is to destroy privacy around the world.

to build backdoors into the Linux kernel. Do you have any information pertaining to NSA's open source project SELinux, which contributes to the Linux kernel? Has the NSA tried to subvert Linux kernel security?

I wish I could address questions like this, but I just can't talk about documents that we haven't reported and published yet for the reasons above.

[deleted]

Is Seymour Hersh right? Is the Osama death story "one big lie"?

I don't know, but I know that Seymour Hersh is responsible for some of the bravest and most important journalism of the last 40 years; has incredibly good sources; and gave one of the best interviews I've ever heard on the nature of the US media last week. That doesn't mean he's infallible, but I trust him far more than most US journalists deemed Serious and Important (ie DC courtiers of the royal court).

I've been waiting for this.

Glenn Greenwald:

• How do you answer the accusations that Snowden is a Chinese or Russian spy, or that they stole the secrets from him?

• Snowden initially stated he could wiretap anyone from a federal judge to the President so long as he had a "personal email address" for them. The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, who is responsible for overseeing these programs and has been briefed on them, stated:

"He was lying," Rogers said. "He clearly has over-inflated his position, he has over-inflated his access and he's even over-inflated what the actually technology of the programs would allow one to do. It's impossible for him to do what he was saying he could do."

Which of them lied, and how do you know?

<<How do you answer the accusations that Snowden is a Chinese or Russian spy, or that they stole the secrets from him?>>

Ask any person making this absurd, ludicrous accusation for a single shred of evidence that it's true, and then marvel as they stutter and spew fabrications.

As for Snowden v. Rogers, there is no question that the latter lied. There is no technical limitation whatsoever on the NSA's power to read whatever emails which analysts with a terminal target.

Hi Glenn,

First, I want to say thank you for your fearless and relentless reporting during all of this. You're a true reporter.

As a journalist, how should I communicate with sources in a way that shields then from NSA surveillance?

And one of my goals is to one day write for The Guardian. What advice would you give me to stand out from other applicants?

As a journalist, how should I communicate with sources in a way that shields then from NSA surveillance?

See above: use GPG, Pidgen/OTR, Silent Circle, Tails, Tor, and other anonymity/encryption tools that experts recommend, but realize, too, that securing one's personal computer and connection is also vital.

one of my goals is to one day write for The Guardian. What advice would you give me to stand out from other applicants?

Figure out a handful of topics that you're genuinely passionate about, develop an expertise in them; and find ways to demonstrate a commitment to doing real, adversarial journalism.

Mr. Greenwald and Ms. Gibson, thank you for doing this AMA and everything you've done so far regarding the NSA.

Knowing what you know, how bad does it get, relative to how much information is public? Also, do you think there's even a chance in stopping it?

Knowing what you know, how bad does it get, relative to how much information is public? Also, do you think there's even a chance in stopping it?

I think the public - not just in the US but worldwide - now has a basic idea of the objective of the NSA: to eliminate privacy worldwide, literally, by ensuring that every human electronic communication is subject to being collected, stored, analyzed and monitored by the NSA and its allies (UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia).

Still, even with the general understanding, there are still many specific revelations that I think will surprise most people, coming imminently.

As for whether in can be stopped: I have zero doubt that it can be. All institutions built by human beings can always be restrained, or even torn down and replaced, by other human beings, when the right will and strategy are found. See below for a more specific discussion of that.

Often times, it seems like stories in the Guardian are shadowboxing with the Obama administration. They say X, you respond with Y, that shows where X is an untruth. They respond with Z, and on it goes.

Do you have that feeling as well? To what extent does the timing of when you plan on running a story affected by the news cycle? Do you still give the administration an opportunity to comment on stories before they are published -- and have you withheld details to protect operational security at their request?

Interesting that it seems like that to you. It can feel a lot like that. We have a process that we run with every story where we approach the administration, tell them what we're doing and identify any documents that we might quote from or publish. We invite them to share any specific national security concerns that would result from those disclosures. What happens next varies. Sometimes they respond with redaction requests (and sometimes we agree and sometimes not). Sometimes just a statement. Sometimes we ask questions. Sometimes they answer. Much of the time, we've already made some decisions ourselves on redactions of obviously sensitive operational detail or people's names etc. As we've gone on, working this story has become closer to journalistic standard practice (or at least, how we practice it). In terms of the news cycle - obviously we try and make sure each story has as much impact as possible, but we tend to publish when we've found a story, worked it up to our satisfaction, determined that it's in the public interest and it's ready. I've read some spectacular theories about how we're deciding to publish and when. They're all bollocks.

When you say you approach the administration to invite specific national security concerns, how does that work? Are you talking to high level officials? Has NSA assigned a desk jockey to respond to your queries?

Again it varies -- we approach through the press office and we talk to whoever they put up to talk to us. Remember, we are total outsiders. In this case, I think it's probably been an advantage.

Do you see the US Democratic Party as hopelessly corrupt in terms of orchestrating progressive change? If so, what can we to do roll back abuses of surveillance state and take back system from the rich?

Do you see the US Democratic Party as hopelessly corrupt in terms of orchestrating progressive change?

I never see any political questions as hopeless or unchangeable, but consider this:

When I first began writing in 2005, I was focused primarily on the Bush NSA program, and I was able to build a large readership quickly because so many Democrats, progressives, liberal bloggers, etc, were so supportive of the work I was doing. That continued to be true through 2008.

Now, a mere four later, Democrats have become the most vehement defenders of the NSA and the most vicious attackers of my work on the NSA - often, some of the very same people cheering so loudly in 2006 and 2007 are the ones protesting most loudly and viciously now.

Gee, I wonder what changed? In the answer lies all you need to know about the Democratic Party.

Do you feel that the protections that journalists count on are disappearing?

Is journalism as a whole in danger?

Can we in the US trust our major publications for the true story or is there to much manipulation?

Is Rupert Murdoch the Anti-Christ?

This is a critical time for journalistic freedom and there are two major shifts which are threatening important work. One is the attempt to categorise "who is a journalist" which we are in danger, as an industry, of enabling. I feel profoundly uncomfortable about any line drawn around pay, employer, hours or volume of work which will define a "real" journalist. And then only the "real" journalists will be protected.

I don't think that's how the world works anymore, so that's problematic.

The second is the attempt to define journalism as outside the national interest and the Guardian has felt the impact of that in the UK, when the government demanded we destroy some of the material we were working on. That's much less problematic here in the US where we enjoy the protection of the first amendment. Let's hope we can all continue to use that protection to do good reporting.

Is Rupert Murdoch the Anti-Christ? Is there only one?

Thank you for your courage, intelligence, and extraordinary work ethic. I have followed you since your days at Salon.

Please recommend other news sources, in addition to the Guardian, that world citizens can follow. The Main Stream Media does nothing to educate us and seems to be a factory that spews mostly propaganda.

Please recommend other news sources, in addition to the Guardian, that world citizens can follow.

There are a huge number of independent journalists and intrepid news sites that are very worth reading. Follow my Twitter feed where I often link to them.

The internet is primarily responsible for enabling a massive diversification of media voices and democratization of our political discourse. That's one big reason I consider the cause of defending internet freedom from state control to be such a vital political priority.

Are there any documents that you personally think should remain unreleased because of National Security?

Are there any documents that you personally think should remain unreleased because of National Security?

I personally would not publish documents that could help other states learn how better to spy on their own citizens. I also would not publish the names of covert agents or agency employees (except for publicly identified high-ranking political officials), or documents that could unfairly smear/defame someone.

[deleted]

What would you say is the single most shocking revelation that Snowden has leaked and why?

The general revelation that the objective of the NSA is literally the elimination of global privacy: ensuring that every form of human electronic communication - not just those of The Terrorists™ - is collected, stored, analyzed and monitored.

The NSA has so radically misled everyone for so long about its true purpose that revealing its actual institutional function was shocking to many, many people, and is the key context for understanding these other specific revelations.

Since all of this has happened has it changed anything about your view of groups such as Anonymous?

Since all of this has happened has it changed anything about your view of groups such as Anonymous?

I've long thought that Anonymous does some important and productive work, and nothing has changed my view, except to the extent that it has bolstered it.

Glenn, thanks for all you do.

On a scale of 0-10, with the following scale:

• 0: Literally no one will care. Even you, after publishing the news, will think, "Wow, that was a stupid exercise."
• 10: The President may resign within 24 hours of it's release. Violent civil unrest in multiple parts of the USA and world. Groups like the United Nations and even NATO turn against the USA.

What number would you assign to the biggest, most critical as-of-yet undisclosed thing you have currently in reserve?

<What number would you assign to the biggest, most critical as-of-yet undisclosed thing you have currently in reserve?

I honestly can't prediction reactions like this. Some of our biggest stories produced less reaction than I anticipated, while others produced far more. I think the reaction to these stories has built incrementally though inexorably. The reaction builds differently in different countries based on a whole variety of factors.

The vote in Congress where they came very close to doing something completely unthinkable even 5 months ago - de-funding a major NSA program, based on an incredible coalition of liberals and conservatives and everything in between - shows how consequential and enduring these revelations have been. That will keep building.

Thank you for your reporting so far.

What do you think best explains the gap between Snowden's claim that major internet companies (e.g. Google, Apple, etc) are providing blanket quantities of data to the NSA, and those companies responding that they only respond to queries about specific individuals? Do you believe that the companies are lying (perhaps due to government pressure), or that the NSA has subverted their systems without their knowledge? Someone isn't telling the truth...

It's not so much Snowden's claim as the NSA's own documents. This gap between everyone's realities is apparent to everyone and your conclusion that they can't all be correct is hard to avoid.

From the beginning (or at least the Prism story), when we first went to the tech companies for a response, it became clear that at the very least this knowledge was not widespread within the companies. I think there is much much more to come out on these questions, but I don't know whether the answers are contained within the documents.

Hi Glenn and Janine. What do we do now?

Shots?

@Glenn and Janine: In what way have all the NSA revelations changed your personal behavior while communicating with people other than Snowden?

@Glenn: I was surprised to read that you had so much trouble getting e-mail encryption set up. In what way do such tools need to change -in your opinion- to make them ready for the masses?

Oh matt. I write from a sealed room, blinds drawn, on a boxfresh computer that has never before connected to the internet.

Not sure if sarcasm or the only smart way to connect to the internet these days if you care about privacy.

We've done all those things and more. But you can't do all of those things all the time. Or at least if you can, you're a lot more disciplined than I am..

Hello Janine,

I know you can't answer this in public but just wanted to say that NYT has time and again held back information to please the administration.

Don't you think the Guardian should have gone with either WaPo or WSJ? Both are doing excellent NSA-related reporting.

Thanks

Hi Well, the NYT has been going a long time under a number of editors. I can tell you categorically that they didn't hold back information on the story we worked on together. Jill Abramson was rock solid in pursuit of the story and determined to deal with a number of quite frankly insane obstacles in order to get it done.

I know it isn't seemly to compliment other news organisations. It goes against the grain. But I can only be honest about what happened.

As for the others - I think the WSJ, the Washington Post, but also Reuters, the AP and specialist sites such as Cnet have done some fantastic reporting. It has been truly a marvellous thing to see other news organisations really run with this story - both scoops and facts that we don't have, but also the explanatory reporting that's necessary to increase everyone's understanding. The US press have really risen to it, I think. And (it pains me to say it) look at the UK press, by contrast....

What are your thoughts on the movie The Fifth Estate?

I've only seen the trailers. But I think everyone should go and see it. Because currently the only sustainable funding model for investigative journalism that I can see is movie rights.

Also no one that works for the Guardian looks like that IRL. But you knew that, right?

If Snowden is an American whistleblower, shouldn't you only release documents that serve the interest of the American public?

For example, it very well might be in the American interest to spy on the Brazilian government, and that's well within NSA's legal mandate. How do you justify releasing those documents?

If Snowden is an American whistleblower, shouldn't you only release documents that serve the interest of the American public?

No.

Snowden answered this in the online interview with him. He doesn't believe that the only privacy rights that matter are those of Americans. He's an American, but not a jingoist, and he's also other things besides an "American", including a human being. That privacy is being destroyed globally matters, but to him and journalistically.

Moreover, even if you do jingoistically care only about Americans: the internet is a global means of communication. There is no viable way to segregate the communications of Americans from foreigners. If you allow the NSA to run rampant over the internet and turn it into a means of control, monitoring and oppression, it will affect everyone.