02x08 - Government surveillance

[bunniefuu]

[intro music playing]

Welcome, welcome, welcome
to "Last Week Tonight"!

I'm John Oliver.
A slightly longer edition
of my show tonight

for reasons that will
become clear later.

But just time
for a quick recap of the week.

And we begin tonight
with Iran,

the greatest threat
to Salman Rushdie

since Padma Lakshmi's
divorce attorney.

All week long--
all week long,

the world's attention
was focused on the Iranian
nuclear talks

taking place
in Switzerland.

And for much of the week,
we only had tantalizing
glimpses

of some of
the main players.

I want to show you
some BuzzFeed video

of John Kerry taking a walk

This is the first time we've
seen the Secretary of State

in quite a long time.
And you can see the distance.

He's across the street
there from the hotel,
getting some air.

Tourists here are chanting,
"I love you, John Kerry."

Wait. "I love you,
John Kerry"?

Let's be clear.
No lucid human

has ever said those words.

Even his wife
has at most said,

"Certain aspects
of your personality

are not displeasing,
John."

That's as far as anyone
can physically go.

Talks actually extended
well past their initial
deadline,

which is hardly surprising,
given that they took place

in the Hotel
Beau-Rivage Palace.

And if you think
it looks spectacular
from the outside,

wait till you see
their promotional video.

Announcer:
Welcome to the Hotel
Beau-Rivage Palace.

This 15,000 square-foot spa

is the first
of its kind in Switzerland.

The hotel's restaurants
include Anne-Sophie Pic
au Beau-Rivage Palace.

The 169 elegant rooms
and sumptuous suites

are spacious, elegant,
and exquisitely appointed.

Okay,
I'm just gonna say it--

I want to have sex
with that hotel.

Not in that hotel--
with it.

I want to f*ck that hotel,
is what I'm saying.

My point is,

why would any diplomat
rush to close a deal
in that place?

We went on their website
and found that they offer--

and this is true--
not just Japanese
bath treatments,

but also an upcoming
hotel bar show

featuring funk-rock band,
"The Inglorious Fonkers."

Oh, I'm sorry.
You hadn't heard
of the Inglorious Fonkers?

Well, prepare to have
that changed forever.

♪ Have you heard
about this affair? ♪

♪ Listen to the Fonkers,
I'm sure you'll be amazed ♪

♪ I said...

That is the quintessential
sound and look

of Swiss hotel funk.

But incredibly, despite
all the hotel's attractions,

Thursday brought
a huge announcement.

Today nearly round-the-clock
negotiations with Iran

on how to curb
its nuclear program

finally produced
the framework of a deal.

Wow.
Now if this holds,

that is a genuinely
massive achievement.

And the very next day,
the Iranians proved
how excited they were.

Reporter:
After marathon negotiations,

Iran's foreign minister,
Javad Zarif arrived home
a hero,

especially among the young
who hoped the nuclear deal

would bring their country
in from the cold.

At Friday prayers,
there was the usual chant
of "Death to America,"

but more habit
than conviction.

Oh, that's good, I guess.

More habit
than conviction.

You know, like an atheist
saying "God bless you"
when you sneeze,

or Billy Joel
singing "Piano Man."

You know that song
is just mouth noises
to him at this point.

Now but before we all
get too excited,

I should point out
that this deal

is not technically
a deal yet.

Our work
is not yet done.

The deal has not been signed.

Between now
and the end of June,

the negotiators will continue
to work through the details

of how this framework
will be fully implemented,

and those details matter.

And look,
that won't be easy.

But just think of how
incredible it'll be
if they do it.

Just picture the scene.
They're at the Hotel
Beau-Rivage Palace.

They've just signed
a historic deal.

It's May the 7th,
and drifting up
from the hotel bar

is this sound.

♪ Ah ah ah!
Ba de ya ♪

♪ Say, do you remember

♪ Ba de ya,
dancing in September? ♪

We have peace!
Peace in our funking time!

Moving on to Nigeria,

the country whose prince
is going to be sending you

some of that money he owes
any day now.

After weeks of delay
due to Boko Haram,

last weekend, Nigeria
finally held their election.

Nigeria has a new president--
the opposition candidate,

retired major general
Muhammadu Buhari,

defeating incumbent
Goodluck Jonathan.

Jonathan issued a statement
thanking Nigerians for the,

quote, "great opportunity
to lead the country."

Okay, thanking people
for the great opportunity

is a weird tone
for a world leader,

'cause he sounds more
like a temp who's leaving

after covering
someone's maternity leave.

"Thanks for
this great opportunity.

"Keep my resume on file
in case Linda gets pregnant
again.

Now who here
can tell me my name?"

Goodluck Jonathan
leaves behind a mixed legacy.

The very fact he conceded
is actually

a major step forward
for Nigerian democracy,

because this election
was something of a milestone
for them.

Reporter:
This was the first real contest
in Nigeria's history,

which is riddled with coups
and rigged elections.

But with a truly independent
electoral commission,

and the introduction
of electronic voter
registration,

a lid was kept
on any fraud

and the power of the people
won through.

That's absolutely fantastic.

Because whilst they've
supposedly had democratic
elections before,

and they did look
a lot like the real thing,

they weren't quite it.

Much like imitation crab
or Dave Franco--

just not quite
what you were promised.

So Nigeria's new leader

will be Muhammadu Buhari.

And we actually have
some inkling of how
he may be as a leader,

because he's done it before.

Reporter:
After Buhari last took power
in a coup in 1983,

he brutally att*cked
corruption,

setting up
military tribunals,

executing drug dealers
publicly,

and punishing bureaucrats
who arrived late for work,

forcing them
to do squats.

That's actually true.

His government literally
forced civil servants,

young and old,
to do squat jumps
as punishment--

something that
looks like this.

Which means in the past
he's basically been

the military dictator version
of Jillian Michaels.

Bend your -- knees
or I'm gonna break 'em
with this pole.

You're not acting
-- strong.

You're acting pathetic!

Get the -- up!

Unless you faint,
puke, or die,

keep walking!

Okay, I take it back.
It's pretty clear

the military dictator version
of Jillian Michaels

is Jillian Michaels.

But finally this week,

President Obama,
America's 44th
not my president--

he's-- he's selling
jobs initiatives on the road
at the moment,

and this week he landed
in unfriendly territory.

President Obama
is heading to Utah
late tonight.

Deep-red Utah,
a state in which he only
managed to get


back in 2012.

Ooh! Only 25%?

Ouch. It cannot be easy
to go back somewhere

where 3/4 of the people
don't really care for you.

Which is why I spend
most of my time
in this country.

That's a hard fact.

This-- this was actually
his first trip to Utah
as president ,

which drew people's attention
to a potentially insulting fact.

He's hit 49 of the 50 states
as president.

The only one missing?
South Dakota.

Yes, much like Uber
and sweatshirts without
glitter on them,

the president has not yet
made it to South Dakota.

And-- and it's not like
the people who live there

have not noticed.

Well, it's official.
South Dakota will become
the only state

without a visit
from President Barack Obama.

South Dakota
is the only state

President Obama has not visited
since taking office.

He's just saving
the best for last.
Exactly, right?

Obama came close when
he was on the Standing Rock
reservation last year.

Part of the reservation
extends into South Dakota,

but Obama
stayed north of the border.

Oh, come on!

He was in the neighborhood
and he didn't drop by?

That feels like
he's doing this on purpose.

The only thing
more insulting than that
would be if he does go,

but does it inside
a giant plastic bubble.

"I'm not technically here.
I'm not touching anything.

This doesn't count
as a visit."

But maybe my favorite detail
from South Dakota's coverage

is how one anchor tried
to segue into some more
positive news.

Reporter:
It's unclear how soon
Obama will visit South Dakota,

but with 21 months left
on his term,

he does have
plenty of time.

Last week, the Denny Sanford
PREMIER Center officials

announced Rod Stewart
will perform Saturday,

July 25th,
in Sioux Falls.

That doesn't make it better,
South Dakota.

A night with Rod Stewart
is only a proper
consolation prize

if your original goal
was to have sex
with Peter Gabriel.

And-- and it's not like
the people of South Dakota

haven't been trying
to lure the president.

Their secretary of tourism
even wrote to him in 2013

inviting him to visit,

pointing out his wife
and daughters had visited
Mount Rushmore

and saying ominously,
"Now it is your turn."

This-- this is all
just getting so desperate.

And you haven't even seen
their latest tourism ad.

Woman:
Mr. President, South Dakota
is a beautiful, historic state.

So why on earth
won't you visit us?

You can see all
South Dakota's
amazing attractions--

The Corn Palace,
Wall Drug,

that crazy horse monument
that we're going to try
to finish real soon,

the Corn Palace again,

we got some reptile gardens
people seem to like,

and of course,
the Corn Palace.

That's like
six different things.

Plus if you come,
you can meet some
real nice people.

There's Gus, who closes
the buffalo gate at dusk.

Stay put,
you crazy buffaloes.

There's Tony,
who rides his bike
and points at squirrels.

And we got hobo
George R. R. Martin.

Come on, Mr. President.
Sure, we didn't vote for you
either time,

but we love presidents
so much,

we carved them
into a mountain

and even have a whole
wax museum devoted
to you guys.

You can see a Jimmy Carter
that will haunt your dreams,

George W. Bush at Ground Zero,
which I guess we thought
was appropriate,

and we think
this is Bill Clinton,
but no one's entirely sure.

And don't forget,
you can see Rod Stewart!

So we got that
going for us.

Come on, Mr. President.
I mean, for crying out loud,

you've been to Montana.

That state's nothing but
barbed-wire fences
and goat f*ckers.

Oh, I'm sorry,
we shouldn't have said that.

It's definitely true,
but we still shouldn't
have said it.

The point is, please come
to South Dakota,
Mr. President.

South Dakota.
If you close your eyes,

you can pretend
it's North Dakota.

Moving on,
moving on.

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 smart phone
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 date
to circle on the calendar

when it comes to
a very controversial subject--

the reauthorization
of the Patriot Act

and all of the controversial
provisions therein.

June 1st, they've got to
come to an agreement
to reauthorize

or curtail this program.

Yes, some controversial
provisions within
the Patriot Att--

Patriot Act-- are set
to expire on June 1st.

So circle that date
on your calendars, everyone.

And while you're at it,
circle June 2nd 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 XKeyscore,
MUSCULAR, PRISM and MYSTIC,

which are, coincidentally,
also the names

of some of Florida's
least popular strip clubs.

"Welcome to XKeyscore!
Our dancers are fully
unredacted

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

by focusing 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-- 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, quote,
"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 check.

It's like letting
a teenager borrow the car
on 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 the 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 Sheryl
has been gravely
mischaracterizing

in the activities
of her needlepoint club.

"It's a sleeper cell,
isn't it, Aunt Sheryl?

"You will hang for this,
Aunt Sheryl!

"You're a traitor
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 people's names

and they're 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 called your ex


between 1:00 and 4:00 AM

for a duration
of 15 minutes each time,

they can fairly sure
that you left some pretty
pathetic voice-mails.

"I don't care who's
monitoring this call, Vicky!

"We should be together!
Pick up the phone, damn it!

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 reauthorized

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,
traveling with the president
in Deauville, France.

Also in France, by the way,
President Obama

assigned into law
a four-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, sweetie.

"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.

Man:
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 have
recorded your phone calls

and stored them
for up to a month.

Yeah, 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 its name.

Clearly that was not
great for them,

because the only place
where it should be that easy

for employees in their 20s
to steal

is a Lids 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 has consistently
tried to reassure 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.

And 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-Qaeda
in Mosul,

a group now known as !sis.

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
is happy anymore

when we now know
at least half the water
in her t*nk

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 two 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 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
passersby

who Edward Snowden was
and what he did.

And these are the responses
that we got.

I have no idea
who Edward Snowden is.

I have no-- 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?

I think he leaked documents
about the US Army's
operations in Iraq.

Edward Snowden revealed
a bunch of secrets, I guess,

or information into Wiki--
WikiLeaks?

Edward Snowden leaked--
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 critical.

Julian Assange is not
a likable man.

Even Benedict Cumberbatch
could not make him likable.

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
two 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 two things
cannot coexist.

It's like how you can't have
a bad-ass 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 35,000 applications

and only rejected 12.

Yes, much like
Robert Durst's second wife,

the FISA Court
is alarmingly accepting.

"Listen, Robert,

"I'm not going to ask you
too many questions,

I'm just going to give you
the benefit of the 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 is 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 to understand,

but because
there is widespread 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 Caroll

seeing the Tea Cups ride
at Disneyland and saying,

"This has to be reigned in!
No fair reading of my text

"would allow for this ride.

"You've turned my perfectly nice
tale of psychedelic pedophilia

"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
Telephone Records Programs
has disrupted is one.

And it's worth noting
that one particular plot

involved a cab driver
in San Diego

who gave $8500
to a terror group.

And that is the shittiest
t*rror1st plot I've ever seen

other than the plot
of "A Good Day to Die Hard."

But here--
here's the big problem here.

If we let section 215
get renewed in its 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 going to
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 what 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 just changing--
Andrea Mitchell:
Uh, Congresswoman Harman?

Let me interrupt you.
Congresswoman, let me
interrupt you for a moment.

We've got some breaking news
out of Miami.

Stand by
if you will.

Right now in Miami,
Justin Bieber

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.

Oh, oh, actually,
you know what?

Bad news-- we're going to
have to interrupt
your interruption

of the Bieber news
for a new interruption,

this time featuring
a YouTube video of a tortoise

having sex
with a plastic clog.
Let's watch.

[tortoise wheezing]

[woman giggling]

That is essentially
the current tone

of this vitally important
debate.

"Heee!"

And again, I'm not saying
this is an easy conversation,

but we have to have it.
I know this is confusing.

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.

Oliver:
Yes, last week, I spent


arguably the last place
on Earth where you can find

an overweight Joseph Stalin
impersonator

arguing with an unconvincing
fake Lenin.

And after experiencing
Russia's famously warm
hospitality,

I went to meet
Edward Snowden,

who was supposed to show up
in this room at noon.

However, at five minutes
after the interview was
scheduled to begin,

I had a troubling thought.

I don't know.
You think he's coming?

Man:
Yeah, he's coming.

'Cause my argument is,
why would he, when you
think about it.

I've got 2,000 rubles

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
there may be a bit
of a problem,

because our Russian producer

booked us in a room
directly overlooking

the old KGB building

and the home of the current
Federal Security Bureau.

And we've just been told
they know we're here.

So, um, so that happened.

Um, just if the Russian--
Russian KGB is listening,

ring the fire alarm
if he's not coming.

Oh, shit.

Oh, God.

So sorry for the delay.
It's fine,
don't worry about it.

Oliver:
Holy shit!
He actually came.

Edward f*cking Snowden!
The most famous hero

and/or traitor
in recent American history.

And I'm starting 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 geography--

That's already
a way-too-complicated answer.

The 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, um,
the entire state of Florida?

Let's just let that silence
hang in the air.

Um, truck nuts?
Do 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 two balls of liberty
in a freedom sack.

You really thought ahead.

Well, at least
one of us did.

You know,
'cause of the--

the quandary--
the Kafkaesque nightmare
that you're in.

Okay, let's dive in.

Why did you do this?

The NSA has the greatest
surveillance capabilities

that we have 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 have a g*n
pointed at your head,

I'm not gonna pull the trigger.
Trust me."

So what's the NSA you want
look like?

Because 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 if they're off the leash,
they can end up coming
after us.

But just to be clear--
we're talking about
two 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--

Uh, no one cares.
No one--
In terms--

They don't give a shit.
We spied on UNICEF,
the children's fund.

Sure.
We spied on lawyers

negotiating, uh--
What was UNICEF doing?

I mean, that's the question
there, isn't it?

The question is
are these programs 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
will 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.

Oliver:
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?

Well, I do understand
what I turned over.

But there's a difference
between understanding

what's in the documents
and reading what's in
the documents.

I recognize the concern--

Well, 'cause when-- 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're 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

to make sure
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 they do understand,
just like you and I do,

just how important it is
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-Qaeda.

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 information you know
could be harmful,

which could get out there.

Yes.

If people act
in bad faith--

We're not even talking
about bad faith.

We're talking
about incompetence.

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.

Oliver:
While the risks
were significant,

Snowden himself
has made it clear

he feels the rewards
have been worth it.

You said in your letter
to Brazil,

"I was motivated by a belief
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 three-day story,

everybody was going
to forget about it.

But when I saw that
everybody around the world

said, "Whoa,
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.

Man:
I have no idea
who Edward Snowden is.

I've heard the name.
I just can't picture--
think right now

exactly what it is.

Well, he-- he sold
some information to people.

Woman:
He revealed some information

that shouldn't
have been revealed.

Woman:
Uh, Edward Snowden
revealed a lot of documents

through WikiLeaks?

Uh, Edward Snowden
revealed a bunch of secrets,
I guess,

or information
into Wiki-- WikiLeaks?

Edward Snowden leaked--
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,
because it seems like

no one knows who the f*ck
you are or what the f*ck
you did.

You can't expect everyone
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

the American people
deserve to decide.

Oh, there's no doubt
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 phone number--

Okay, let-- 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, "Oh, shit."

In fairness--
"Oh, 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 photos 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 d*ck pictures.

If the government was looking
at a picture of Gordon's penis,

I definitely feel
it would be an invasion
of my privacy.

Uh, yeah, the government
looking at pictures
of my penis?

That would upset me.
Man: They should never ever,

the US government,
have a picture of my d*ck.

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 d*ck-pic program changed.

I would also want
the d*ck-pic program changed.

I think it would be terrific
if the program could change.

I would want it to be tweaked.
I would want it to have--

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 they were being kept.

Interviewer:
Do you think
that program exists?

I don't. I don't think
that program exists at all.

Women and men:
No. No. No. No.

If I had knowledge
that the US government

had a picture of my d*ck,

I would be very pissed off.

Well, the good news

is there's no program
named "the d*ck-Pic" program.

The bad news
is they are still collecting
everybody's information,

including your d*ck pics.

What's the over/under
on that last guy having sent
a d*ck-pic recently?

You don't need to guess.
I'll show you.

I did.
I did take a picture
of my d*ck.

And I sent it to a girl
recently.

[laughs]

This is the most visible
line in the sand for people.

"Can they see my d*ck?"

So with that in mind,
look inside that folder.

That is a picture
of my d*ck.

So let's go through
each NSA program

and explain to me
its capabilities

in regards
to that photograph

of my penis.

So 702 surveillance--
can they see my d*ck?

Yes.

The FISA Amendment 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 d*ck.

You get it.
It's not--

You get it though, right?
I do.

Right, because it--
anyway...

So if you have your email
somewhere like Gmail,

hosted on a server overseas
or transferred overseas,

or at any time crosses
outside the borders
of the United States,

your junk ends up
in the database.

So it doesn't have to be
sending your d*ck to a German?

Uh, 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 12333,
d*ck or no d*ck?

Uh, yes.
EO 12333 is what
the NSA uses

when the other authorities
aren't aggressive enough

or they're not catching
as much as they'd like.

For example--
So how are they going
to see my d*ck?

I'm only concerned
about my penis.

When you send your junk

through Gmail, for example--
Yeah.

--that's stored
on Google's servers.

Google moves data
from data center
to data center,

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 Gmail,

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 sheriff.

Their d*ck sheriff?
Correct.

Um, Upstream?

Upstream is how
they snatch your junk
as it transits 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 do you need
to remind yourself--

No, I'm just not sure
what to do with this.

It's--
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.

Uh, 215 metadata.

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 called
a penis-enlargement center
at 3:00 in the morning

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
a 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-- the context
of your junk.

Would a good take-away
from this be,

until such time as we've
sorted all of this out,

don't take pictures
of your d*ck?

Just don't do it anymore.

No, if--
if we do that, if--

Wait, hold on.
Wait, you're saying no?

You should keep taking
pictures of your d*ck?
Yes.

You shouldn't change
your behavior because
a government agency

somewhere is doing
the wrong thing.

If we 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 picture
of your d*ck?"

[laughs]

"Because I love America,
that's why."

Oliver:
So there you have it, America.

All of us should now
be equipped to have
this vital debate.

Because by June 1st,
it is imperative

we have a rational,
adult conversation

about whether our safety
is worth living in a country

of barely-regulated,
government-sanctioned
d*ck sheriffs.

Whoo-hoo!
[firing]

And with my work here done,
there was just time

to take care
of one more thing.

Finally, congratulations
on "Citizenfour" winning
the Oscar.

I know you couldn't be
at the ceremony for
obvious reasons,

so, huh?
Wow.

I thought we'd celebrate
ourselves. Cheers.

Wow, that's--
that's really, really something.
Thank you.

You're welcome.
What's the over/under on me

getting back home safely?

Well, if you weren't
on the list before,
you are now.

Is that--
is that like, um,

is that--
is a that a joke

or is that
actually plausible?

No, it's a real thing.
You're associated now.

Oliver:
Okay, just to be clear, NSA,

I never met this guy,
so take me off
your f*cking list.

'Cause I do not want
to get stuck in Russia.

I want to go home,
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 d*ck-pic
capabilities

of each of the programs
Edward Snowden just discussed,

which, incidentally, were some
very fun emails to write
to government agencies.

They did not wish
to comment on the record,

and I can see why,
for every possible reason.

But that's it.
That's our show.
Thank you so much for watching.

Thank you to Edward Snowden.
We'll see you again next week.

Good night!

[tortoise wheezing]