6月17日，棱镜哥与卫报读者在线问答（已整理到首楼）

6月17日，棱镜哥与卫报读者在线问答：

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ ... files-whistleblower

1、Let's begin with these:

1) Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?

2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?

问：请先回答两个问题。
第一，为什么你选择前往香港，然后告诉港人：美国正对你们的研究中心和大学发动黑客袭击？
第二，你泄露的资料有多少备份？分别有多少人持有？万一你遭遇不测，这些资料还有吗？

棱镜哥答：1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.

第一个问题：首先，正如同他们对付其他曝料者那样，美国政府果不其然地立即打碎任何在国内进行公正审判的可能性，公开宣布我是叛国者，宣称揭发隐秘犯罪事实甚至违宪行为都是不可饶恕的罪行。这不是正义，如果我在监狱外能够发挥更大的公益作用，那么自投罗网就是愚蠢的。

Second, let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.

其次，我们要弄清一个事实：我并没有泄露美国对合法军事目标采取的任何行动。我只是揭发国安局针对民用基础设施的黑客行为，诸如大学、医院、私人企业等，因为这种行为具有危险性。无论针对哪些目标，这些赤裸裸的侵略行为都是错误的。此外，国安局的掠夺行动若有失误，重要的系统就会瘫痪。国会尚未对其它国家宣战，而且其中的大多数还是我们的盟友，在未获许可的情况下，国安局就对这些系统实施攻击，受影响的人群以百万计。这一切为了什么？为了潜入非交战国的电脑吗？为了揭露恐怖分子吗？他们杀的人还不如我们的警察多。公众必须知道政府以他们的名义犯下的罪行，否则＂经由大众同意＂就毫无意义。

2) All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
我目前能够透露的是，美国政府不能通过囚禁或暗杀我的方式来掩盖这一切。真相就要曝光，无法阻止。


Guardian staff
ewenmacaskill
17 June 2013 3:07pm
I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?
卫报记者：我们碰面时就应该问你的，如果冰岛是你的理想避难地，那你为什么没有直接飞到冰岛？

Answer:

Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

回答：离开美国的风险极大，国安局人员如想出国必须提前30天打报告，而且还要受到监控。因为中途有被拦截的危险，我必须在没有提前订票的情况下飞往一个能够允许我开展工作、不被立即逮捕的文化和法律环境。香港具备这一条件。美国对冰岛的压力可能会更强烈更快捷，公众甚至没有机会发声，我不怀疑美国本届政府的手段。


ActivistGal
17 June 2013 2:15pm
You have said HERE that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army private...
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?

问：你曾在此表示你欣赏Ellsberg （越战文件）和 Manning（维基解密），但声称你与那个美军士兵有一个重要的区别：＂我仔细评估每一份曝光的文件，以确保每一份都与公共利益相关，许多能够激起千层浪的文件我并没有透露，因为我的本意并非伤害别人，我只是为了追求透明度。＂
你是否在暗示曼宁不加区分地把秘密向维基解密全盘托出，他的本意是伤害别人？
Answer:

No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.

回答：否。维基解密是合法的新闻媒体，他们以公共利益为准则，在披露的文件中进行仔细的删节。有些未经删节的电文是由于一名当事记者未能控制好密码。然而，许多媒体用＂和盘托出＂这一说法来抹黑曼宁，在此，我要澄清这种说法站不脚。


D. Aram Mushegian II
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

问：你是否在年薪问题上撒谎？其中有什么问题？你告诉Glenn Greenwald（卫报记者）你年入20万美元，而你的前雇主说只有12万2千。

Answer:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.

回答：我有好多天没有和Glenn及其同事联系了，有些谈话内容没有录下来。20万是我的最高年薪。找新工作时，薪水水平降低了。Booz(承包商）不是给得最多的。


Gabrielaweb
17 June 2013 2:17pm
Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?

问：你说你在奥巴马当选总统之前就想向全世界揭发国安局，为什么你等了这么久才披露这些文件？

Answer:

Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.

答：奥巴马的竞选承诺及其当选给了我信心：他将带领我们解决那些他在追逐选票过程中指出的问题。许多美国人有着类似的感受。不幸的是，他上台后不久就关闭了调查系统性犯罪的大门、扩大并加深了好几个滥用权力的项目、拒绝利用他的政治资本停止诸如关塔那摩等侵犯人权的行为，关押在那里的犯人仍在等待审判。

Anthony De Rosa
17 June 2013 2:18pm
1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.

2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

问：1、请尽量说明＂直接接触＂的含义。
2、分析人员能否在没有搜查令的情况下监听国内通话？

Answer:

1）More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

回答：更多关于直接接触国安局的细节就要发表了，大体上讲，如果NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA的分析人员可以进入SIGINT数据库，他们就可以获取想知道的一切，电话号码、电子邮件、用户名、手机ID等。现有的限制是政策性的而不是技术性的，随时可以改变。此外，审核工作草率且不完整，很容易用用虚假的理由蒙混过去。对于英国GCHQ，审核量只有监听数量的5%

2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

由于一些原因，国安局很喜欢用＂国内＂这个狡猾的词。其实，根据《外国情报监控法》修正案及702条授权，只要有分析人员的许可而非搜查令就可以对美国人之间的通话进行日常收集和分析。他们的理由是：这是附带性的收集，但追根到底，国安局得到了你的通话内容。即使有所谓的搜查令，情报系统所称的＂搜查令＂与警察局的真家伙不同，这些＂搜查令＂不过是填好的表格，递到法官面前敲个章走走形式。

Anthony De Rosa
17 June 2013 2:18pm
1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.

2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

问：1、请尽量说明＂直接接触＂的含义。
2、分析人员能否在没有搜查令的情况下监听国内通话？

Answer:

1）More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

回答：更多关于直接接触国安局的细节就要发表了，大体上讲，如果NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA的分析人员可以进入SIGINT数据库，他们就可以获取想知道的一切，电话号码、电子邮件、用户名、手机ID等。现有的限制是政策性的而不是技术性的，随时可以改变。此外，审核工作草率且不完整，很容易用用虚假的理由蒙混过去。对于英国GCHQ，审核量只有监听数量的5%

2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

由于一些原因，国安局很喜欢用＂国内＂这个狡猾的词。其实，根据《外国情报监控法》修正案及702条授权，只要有分析人员的许可而非搜查令就可以对美国人之间的通话进行日常收集和分析。他们的理由是：这是附带性的收集，但追根到底，国安局得到了你的通话内容。即使有所谓的搜查令，情报系统所称的＂搜查令＂与警察局的真家伙不同，这些＂搜查令＂不过是填好的表格，递到法官面前敲个章走走形式。

Glenn Greenwald follow up: When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?

记者Glenn追问：你说＂国安局的人仍然掌握着你的通话内容＂，这是什么意思？你是说他们有一个记录，还是实际内容？

Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

回答：两者亦有。比方说，如果我以某个电子邮箱为目标，根据FAA702条，这个邮箱向你发送信息。分析人员可以获知一切：IP地址、原始数据、内容、标题、附件，一切。而且这份记录会被保存很长时间，而且无需捜查令就可延期。

HaraldK
17 June 2013 2:45pm
What are your thoughts on Google's and Facebook's denials? Do you think that they're honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they're compelled to lie?

Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you're presented with a secret order that you're forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?

问：对于谷歌和脸谱的否认你有何看法？你认为他们的确不知道棱镜吗？或许他们是被迫撒谎？

这许这个问题由Greenwald这样的律师来回答更好，但是如果你收到禁止你透露其存在的秘密命令，如果你拒不执行，他们会怎么样？

Answer:

Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.

They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?

答：他们否认的误导性越发明显，这些声明也就经过了好几次修改，而且各家公司的特定用词都是一模一样的。由于揭秘以及这些公司的实力，我们在国安局项目启动以来首次有机会看到更多的透明度和细节。

法律要求这些公司遵照执行并对项目细节保持沉默，但这不能免除他们的道德义务。比如说，如果脸谱、谷歌、微软、苹果等拒绝配合情报部门，你想政府有什么办法？关闭这些公司？

MonaHol
17 June 2013 4:37pm
Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country.

Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this:

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?

问：棱镜哥，谢谢你对国家作出的贡献。
对你的发言还有一些疑问，比如这个：＂我坐在桌前，绝对有权监听任何人，你、你的会计、联邦法官、甚至总统，只要我有一个私人邮箱。＂
你还坚持这一观点吗？如还坚持，能否详细说明？

Answer:

Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

回答：是的，我依然坚持这一观点。美国人的确享有一些政策性保护（重申一下，认识到＂政策性保护等于没有保护＂这一点很重要，因为政策是单方向的板手，只能越来越松）和极弱的技术性保护——消化节点的前端有过滤器。但该过滤器一直处于过时状态，设定在＂最开放＂的一档，并随时可以取消。即使在有过滤器的情况下，美国国内的通话仍被消化，境外通话更是如此。受保护的通话不应该由于IP地址的改变而失去保护。

更重要的是，对＂美国人＂的保护在总体上是掩盖国安局系统之威力和危险性的烟雾弹。不能因为无故监听只损害了世界95%的人口而非100%，就认为它是合理的。美国的建国者又没写＂理所当然，所有『美国』人生而平等＂。

（译：美国独立宣言里是＂所有人生而平等＂，没有＂美国＂二字。）

Guardian staff
Spencer Ackerman
17 June 2013 4:16pm
Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you?
问：棱镜哥，现在流言四起，说你已经或打算将美国机密情报交给中国或其它国家的政府，以换取庇护，真是这样吗？

Answer:

This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk "RED CHINA!" reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.

答：我在曝料之前就猜到会出现这样的抹黑。对于任何与香港或中国有关的事物，美国媒体总有＂红色中国＂的条件反射。这是为了转移人们对美国政府错误行为的注意力。扪心自问：如果我是中国间谍，为什么不直飞北京？说不定现在可以住在宫殿里逗弄凤凰了。

US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond? http://t.co/WlK2qpYJki #AskSnowden

— Kimberly Dozier (@KimberlyDozier) June 17, 2013

问：美国官员说因为你的泄密，恐怖分子已经改变策略，他们把你称为＂叛徒＂，你有什么回应？

Answer:

US officials say this every time there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.

回答：每当公开讨论有可能限制他们的权力，美国官员就会这样讲。对于这些项目的价值，美国官员给出误导性甚至完全虚假的论断，就像ZAZI一案，法庭记录清楚地表明这不并是棱镜的功劳。

Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.

新闻记者应当提出这么一个特定问题：这些项目在911之后很快实施，有多少恐怖袭击完全是因为棱镜才被制止，且无其它替代情报手段？再问问为了达到这一目标有多少个人通信被消化？是否值当？在浴缸里摔死的或被警察打死的美国人比在恐袭中遇难的多多了，我们却被要求牺牲最神圣的权利，以求不受恐袭所害。

Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.

此外还有一点很重要，我被前副总统切尼等人斥为叛徒。正是此人以无捜查令窃听活动作为暴政热身，进而狡猾地制造冲突，导致4400美国人丧生、3万2千受伤，以及超过十万名伊拉克人遇难。被切尼骂为叛徒是美国人的最高荣誉，切尼、Feinstein、King（后面两人是大牌议员）等人骂得越欢，我们的日子越好过。如果高中有＂如何成为令切尼慌张的公民＂这门课，我应该可以毕业了。

（棱镜哥言辞犀利，又是电脑怪才，居然高中未毕业，不可思议）


Mathius1
17 June 2013 2:54pm
Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? Id my data protected by standard encryption?
问：对我的电子邮件加密能否有助于抵御国安局的监控？普通加密能否保护我的数据？

Answer:

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.

回答：加密是有作用的。妥善利用强捍的加密系统是少数几个可行方法之一。不幸的是，末端保安极其弱小，国安局经常可以绕过去。

Do you believe that the treatment of Binney, Drake and others influenced your path? Do you feel the "system works" so to speak? #AskSnowden

Binney, Drake及其他人的遭遇对你有影响吗？你对＂系统有用＂这种说法的意见？

— Jacob Appelbaum (@ioerror) June 17, 2013
Answer:

Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response.

回答：对公共利益曝料人过于严酷的回应只能加大未来曝料的规模、范围和技巧，Binney, Drake, Kiriakou和Manning等人就是例子。有良心的公民不会由于自身因此受难就对犯罪行为视而不见，良心不允许他们这么做。反之，暴戾的镇压只能造就更为精明的曝料者。如果奥巴马政府对我采取更严厉的手段，那么请放心，公众对政府的回应必然同样严厉。

This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.

这场曝光给奥巴马提供了一个机遇，即呼吁回归理性、合宪政策、法治而非人治。他仍有足够的时间在史书上留下一笔：做个悬崖勒马的总统，而不是纵身一跃，堕入深渊。我建议他亲自要求组建特别委员会，评审这些监听项目；弃绝危险的＂国家机密＂特权；在离职之际为未来总统树立一项传统：任命特别调查人审核其在位期间的政策，找出错误所在，以宣示对法律的尊重。如果我们的最高领袖们不受监督，人民对政府的信心将荡然无存，他们应当成为透明度的典范。


Ryan Latvaitis
17 June 2013 2:34pm
What would you say to others who are in a position to leak classified information that could improve public understanding of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and its effect on civil liberties?

What evidence do you have that refutes the assertion that the NSA is unable to listen to the content of telephone calls without an explicit and defined court order from FISC?
问：对于那些有条件泄露机密信息、以帮助大众理解美国情报部门及其对人民自由之影响的人士，你有什么话想说？

Answer:

This country is worth dying for.

回答：这个国家值得为之献出生命。

（小哥对美国还是一曲忠诚赞的）

AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm
My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

问：曝光引起各方强烈反应，能否描绘一下你是什么时候下定决心准备不计后果地曝料？曝料后的感受如何？是否有一系列的关键时刻累积成最终的行动？如果能够知道什么是关键时刻，我想对于那些考虑成为曝料者的人们会有所帮助。再次感谢你的胆量和英雄气概。

Answer:

I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

答：我想每个人的经历有所不同，对于我个人而言，并不存在某个特定时刻。目睹高级官员们对国会也就是美国人民不停地撒谎，意识到国会尤其是所谓的八人帮全力支持这些谎言迫使我不得不采取行动。国安局主任克拉珀之流公然向公众撒谎却不引起任何反响，这是民主已被篡夺的证据。人民如果被蒙在鼓里，他们如何能＂同意＂？

12.37pm ET
Follow-up from the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman:

Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn't answer clearly - can you give a flat no?

问：关于你是否将机密情报偷偷递交给中国的问题，有人认为你没有正面回答。你能明确否认吗？

Answer:

No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.
答：否。我与中国政府没有联系。正如卫报和华盛顿邮报的例子，我只与记者合作。

12.41pm ET
Question:

So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala

问：关于公开辩论，目前事态发展是否如你所料？

Answer:

Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

答：刚开始我很受鼓舞，但现在主流媒体似乎对我在17岁说了什么，我女朋友长什么样更感兴趣，对人类历史上最大规模的无故监控反而不是那么关心。

12.43pm ET
Final question from Glenn Greenwald:

Anything else you’d like to add?
最后一个问题来自卫报记者：你还有什么想补充吗？

Answer:

Thanks to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person / foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

回答：谢谢大家的支持，请记住，你不是监控对象并不意味着它就是合理的。美国人与外国人的区别并不是＂个体可疑性＂的合理替代，他们只是利用这一区别来增强对该项目的支持。这也是国安局对国会免于监控的真正原因。


6月17日，棱镜哥与卫报读者在线问答：

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ ... files-whistleblower

1、Let's begin with these:

1) Why did you choose Hong Kong to go to and then tell them about US hacking on their research facilities and universities?

2) How many sets of the documents you disclosed did you make, and how many different people have them? If anything happens to you, do they still exist?

问：请先回答两个问题。
第一，为什么你选择前往香港，然后告诉港人：美国正对你们的研究中心和大学发动黑客袭击？
第二，你泄露的资料有多少备份？分别有多少人持有？万一你遭遇不测，这些资料还有吗？

棱镜哥答：1) First, the US Government, just as they did with other whistleblowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal, and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it.

第一个问题：首先，正如同他们对付其他曝料者那样，美国政府果不其然地立即打碎任何在国内进行公正审判的可能性，公开宣布我是叛国者，宣称揭发隐秘犯罪事实甚至违宪行为都是不可饶恕的罪行。这不是正义，如果我在监狱外能够发挥更大的公益作用，那么自投罗网就是愚蠢的。

Second, let's be clear: I did not reveal any US operations against legitimate military targets. I pointed out where the NSA has hacked civilian infrastructure such as universities, hospitals, and private businesses because it is dangerous. These nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target. Not only that, when NSA makes a technical mistake during an exploitation operation, critical systems crash. Congress hasn't declared war on the countries - the majority of them are our allies - but without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people. And for what? So we can have secret access to a computer in a country we're not even fighting? So we can potentially reveal a potential terrorist with the potential to kill fewer Americans than our own Police? No, the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the "consent of the governed" is meaningless.

其次，我们要弄清一个事实：我并没有泄露美国对合法军事目标采取的任何行动。我只是揭发国安局针对民用基础设施的黑客行为，诸如大学、医院、私人企业等，因为这种行为具有危险性。无论针对哪些目标，这些赤裸裸的侵略行为都是错误的。此外，国安局的掠夺行动若有失误，重要的系统就会瘫痪。国会尚未对其它国家宣战，而且其中的大多数还是我们的盟友，在未获许可的情况下，国安局就对这些系统实施攻击，受影响的人群以百万计。这一切为了什么？为了潜入非交战国的电脑吗？为了揭露恐怖分子吗？他们杀的人还不如我们的警察多。公众必须知道政府以他们的名义犯下的罪行，否则＂经由大众同意＂就毫无意义。

2) All I can say right now is the US Government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing or murdering me. Truth is coming, and it cannot be stopped.
我目前能够透露的是，美国政府不能通过囚禁或暗杀我的方式来掩盖这一切。真相就要曝光，无法阻止。


Guardian staff
ewenmacaskill
17 June 2013 3:07pm
I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?
卫报记者：我们碰面时就应该问你的，如果冰岛是你的理想避难地，那你为什么没有直接飞到冰岛？

Answer:

Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

回答：离开美国的风险极大，国安局人员如想出国必须提前30天打报告，而且还要受到监控。因为中途有被拦截的危险，我必须在没有提前订票的情况下飞往一个能够允许我开展工作、不被立即逮捕的文化和法律环境。香港具备这一条件。美国对冰岛的压力可能会更强烈更快捷，公众甚至没有机会发声，我不怀疑美国本届政府的手段。


ActivistGal
17 June 2013 2:15pm
You have said HERE that you admire both Ellsberg and Manning, but have argued that there is one important distinction between yourself and the army private...
"I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed to ensure that each was legitimately in the public interest," he said. "There are all sorts of documents that would have made a big impact that I didn't turn over, because harming people isn't my goal. Transparency is."
Are you suggesting that Manning indiscriminately dumped secrets into the hands of Wikileaks and that he intended to harm people?

问：你曾在此表示你欣赏Ellsberg （越战文件）和 Manning（维基解密），但声称你与那个美军士兵有一个重要的区别：＂我仔细评估每一份曝光的文件，以确保每一份都与公共利益相关，许多能够激起千层浪的文件我并没有透露，因为我的本意并非伤害别人，我只是为了追求透明度。＂
你是否在暗示曼宁不加区分地把秘密向维基解密全盘托出，他的本意是伤害别人？
Answer:

No, I'm not. Wikileaks is a legitimate journalistic outlet and they carefully redacted all of their releases in accordance with a judgment of public interest. The unredacted release of cables was due to the failure of a partner journalist to control a passphrase. However, I understand that many media outlets used the argument that "documents were dumped" to smear Manning, and want to make it clear that it is not a valid assertion here.

回答：否。维基解密是合法的新闻媒体，他们以公共利益为准则，在披露的文件中进行仔细的删节。有些未经删节的电文是由于一名当事记者未能控制好密码。然而，许多媒体用＂和盘托出＂这一说法来抹黑曼宁，在此，我要澄清这种说法站不脚。


D. Aram Mushegian II
17 June 2013 2:16pm
Did you lie about your salary? What is the issue there? Why did you tell Glenn Greenwald that your salary was $200,000 a year, when it was only $122,000 (according to the firm that fired you.)

问：你是否在年薪问题上撒谎？其中有什么问题？你告诉Glenn Greenwald（卫报记者）你年入20万美元，而你的前雇主说只有12万2千。

Answer:

I was debriefed by Glenn and his peers over a number of days, and not all of those conversations were recorded. The statement I made about earnings was that $200,000 was my "career high" salary. I had to take pay cuts in the course of pursuing specific work. Booz was not the most I've been paid.

回答：我有好多天没有和Glenn及其同事联系了，有些谈话内容没有录下来。20万是我的最高年薪。找新工作时，薪水水平降低了。Booz(承包商）不是给得最多的。


Gabrielaweb
17 June 2013 2:17pm
Why did you wait to release the documents if you said you wanted to tell the world about the NSA programs since before Obama became president?

问：你说你在奥巴马当选总统之前就想向全世界揭发国安局，为什么你等了这么久才披露这些文件？

Answer:

Obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes. Many Americans felt similarly. Unfortunately, shortly after assuming power, he closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.

答：奥巴马的竞选承诺及其当选给了我信心：他将带领我们解决那些他在追逐选票过程中指出的问题。许多美国人有着类似的感受。不幸的是，他上台后不久就关闭了调查系统性犯罪的大门、扩大并加深了好几个滥用权力的项目、拒绝利用他的政治资本停止诸如关塔那摩等侵犯人权的行为，关押在那里的犯人仍在等待审判。

Anthony De Rosa
17 June 2013 2:18pm
1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.

2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

问：1、请尽量说明＂直接接触＂的含义。
2、分析人员能否在没有搜查令的情况下监听国内通话？

Answer:

1）More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

回答：更多关于直接接触国安局的细节就要发表了，大体上讲，如果NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA的分析人员可以进入SIGINT数据库，他们就可以获取想知道的一切，电话号码、电子邮件、用户名、手机ID等。现有的限制是政策性的而不是技术性的，随时可以改变。此外，审核工作草率且不完整，很容易用用虚假的理由蒙混过去。对于英国GCHQ，审核量只有监听数量的5%

2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

由于一些原因，国安局很喜欢用＂国内＂这个狡猾的词。其实，根据《外国情报监控法》修正案及702条授权，只要有分析人员的许可而非搜查令就可以对美国人之间的通话进行日常收集和分析。他们的理由是：这是附带性的收集，但追根到底，国安局得到了你的通话内容。即使有所谓的搜查令，情报系统所称的＂搜查令＂与警察局的真家伙不同，这些＂搜查令＂不过是填好的表格，递到法官面前敲个章走走形式。

Anthony De Rosa
17 June 2013 2:18pm
1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.

2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?

问：1、请尽量说明＂直接接触＂的含义。
2、分析人员能否在没有搜查令的情况下监听国内通话？

Answer:

1）More detail on how direct NSA's accesses are is coming, but in general, the reality is this: if an NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, etc analyst has access to query raw SIGINT databases, they can enter and get results for anything they want. Phone number, email, user id, cell phone handset id (IMEI), and so on - it's all the same. The restrictions against this are policy based, not technically based, and can change at any time. Additionally, audits are cursory, incomplete, and easily fooled by fake justifications. For at least GCHQ, the number of audited queries is only 5% of those performed.

回答：更多关于直接接触国安局的细节就要发表了，大体上讲，如果NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA的分析人员可以进入SIGINT数据库，他们就可以获取想知道的一切，电话号码、电子邮件、用户名、手机ID等。现有的限制是政策性的而不是技术性的，随时可以改变。此外，审核工作草率且不完整，很容易用用虚假的理由蒙混过去。对于英国GCHQ，审核量只有监听数量的5%

2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans’ communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.

由于一些原因，国安局很喜欢用＂国内＂这个狡猾的词。其实，根据《外国情报监控法》修正案及702条授权，只要有分析人员的许可而非搜查令就可以对美国人之间的通话进行日常收集和分析。他们的理由是：这是附带性的收集，但追根到底，国安局得到了你的通话内容。即使有所谓的搜查令，情报系统所称的＂搜查令＂与警察局的真家伙不同，这些＂搜查令＂不过是填好的表格，递到法官面前敲个章走走形式。

Glenn Greenwald follow up: When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?

记者Glenn追问：你说＂国安局的人仍然掌握着你的通话内容＂，这是什么意思？你是说他们有一个记录，还是实际内容？

Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.

回答：两者亦有。比方说，如果我以某个电子邮箱为目标，根据FAA702条，这个邮箱向你发送信息。分析人员可以获知一切：IP地址、原始数据、内容、标题、附件，一切。而且这份记录会被保存很长时间，而且无需捜查令就可延期。

HaraldK
17 June 2013 2:45pm
What are your thoughts on Google's and Facebook's denials? Do you think that they're honestly in the dark about PRISM, or do you think they're compelled to lie?

Perhaps this is a better question to a lawyer like Greenwald, but: If you're presented with a secret order that you're forbidding to reveal the existence of, what will they actually do if you simply refuse to comply (without revealing the order)?

问：对于谷歌和脸谱的否认你有何看法？你认为他们的确不知道棱镜吗？或许他们是被迫撒谎？

这许这个问题由Greenwald这样的律师来回答更好，但是如果你收到禁止你透露其存在的秘密命令，如果你拒不执行，他们会怎么样？

Answer:

Their denials went through several revisions as it become more and more clear they were misleading and included identical, specific language across companies. As a result of these disclosures and the clout of these companies, we're finally beginning to see more transparency and better details about these programs for the first time since their inception.

They are legally compelled to comply and maintain their silence in regard to specifics of the program, but that does not comply them from ethical obligation. If for example Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Apple refused to provide this cooperation with the Intelligence Community, what do you think the government would do? Shut them down?

答：他们否认的误导性越发明显，这些声明也就经过了好几次修改，而且各家公司的特定用词都是一模一样的。由于揭秘以及这些公司的实力，我们在国安局项目启动以来首次有机会看到更多的透明度和细节。

法律要求这些公司遵照执行并对项目细节保持沉默，但这不能免除他们的道德义务。比如说，如果脸谱、谷歌、微软、苹果等拒绝配合情报部门，你想政府有什么办法？关闭这些公司？

MonaHol
17 June 2013 4:37pm
Ed Snowden, I thank you for your brave service to our country.

Some skepticism exists about certain of your claims, including this:

I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you, or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President if I had a personal email.

Do you stand by that, and if so, could you elaborate?

问：棱镜哥，谢谢你对国家作出的贡献。
对你的发言还有一些疑问，比如这个：＂我坐在桌前，绝对有权监听任何人，你、你的会计、联邦法官、甚至总统，只要我有一个私人邮箱。＂
你还坚持这一观点吗？如还坚持，能否详细说明？

Answer:

Yes, I stand by it. US Persons do enjoy limited policy protections (and again, it's important to understand that policy protection is no protection - policy is a one-way ratchet that only loosens) and one very weak technical protection - a near-the-front-end filter at our ingestion points. The filter is constantly out of date, is set at what is euphemistically referred to as the "widest allowable aperture," and can be stripped out at any time. Even with the filter, US comms get ingested, and even more so as soon as they leave the border. Your protected communications shouldn't stop being protected communications just because of the IP they're tagged with.

More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal."

回答：是的，我依然坚持这一观点。美国人的确享有一些政策性保护（重申一下，认识到＂政策性保护等于没有保护＂这一点很重要，因为政策是单方向的板手，只能越来越松）和极弱的技术性保护——消化节点的前端有过滤器。但该过滤器一直处于过时状态，设定在＂最开放＂的一档，并随时可以取消。即使在有过滤器的情况下，美国国内的通话仍被消化，境外通话更是如此。受保护的通话不应该由于IP地址的改变而失去保护。

更重要的是，对＂美国人＂的保护在总体上是掩盖国安局系统之威力和危险性的烟雾弹。不能因为无故监听只损害了世界95%的人口而非100%，就认为它是合理的。美国的建国者又没写＂理所当然，所有『美国』人生而平等＂。

（译：美国独立宣言里是＂所有人生而平等＂，没有＂美国＂二字。）

Guardian staff
Spencer Ackerman
17 June 2013 4:16pm
Edward, there is rampant speculation, outpacing facts, that you have or will provide classified US information to the Chinese or other governments in exchange for asylum. Have/will you?
问：棱镜哥，现在流言四起，说你已经或打算将美国机密情报交给中国或其它国家的政府，以换取庇护，真是这样吗？

Answer:

This is a predictable smear that I anticipated before going public, as the US media has a knee-jerk "RED CHINA!" reaction to anything involving HK or the PRC, and is intended to distract from the issue of US government misconduct. Ask yourself: if I were a Chinese spy, why wouldn't I have flown directly into Beijing? I could be living in a palace petting a phoenix by now.

答：我在曝料之前就猜到会出现这样的抹黑。对于任何与香港或中国有关的事物，美国媒体总有＂红色中国＂的条件反射。这是为了转移人们对美国政府错误行为的注意力。扪心自问：如果我是中国间谍，为什么不直飞北京？说不定现在可以住在宫殿里逗弄凤凰了。

US officials say terrorists already altering TTPs because of your leaks, & calling you traitor. Respond? http://t.co/WlK2qpYJki #AskSnowden

— Kimberly Dozier (@KimberlyDozier) June 17, 2013

问：美国官员说因为你的泄密，恐怖分子已经改变策略，他们把你称为＂叛徒＂，你有什么回应？

Answer:

US officials say this every time there's a public discussion that could limit their authority. US officials also provide misleading or directly false assertions about the value of these programs, as they did just recently with the Zazi case, which court documents clearly show was not unveiled by PRISM.

回答：每当公开讨论有可能限制他们的权力，美国官员就会这样讲。对于这些项目的价值，美国官员给出误导性甚至完全虚假的论断，就像ZAZI一案，法庭记录清楚地表明这不并是棱镜的功劳。

Journalists should ask a specific question: since these programs began operation shortly after September 11th, how many terrorist attacks were prevented SOLELY by information derived from this suspicionless surveillance that could not be gained via any other source? Then ask how many individual communications were ingested to acheive that, and ask yourself if it was worth it. Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.

新闻记者应当提出这么一个特定问题：这些项目在911之后很快实施，有多少恐怖袭击完全是因为棱镜才被制止，且无其它替代情报手段？再问问为了达到这一目标有多少个人通信被消化？是否值当？在浴缸里摔死的或被警察打死的美国人比在恐袭中遇难的多多了，我们却被要求牺牲最神圣的权利，以求不受恐袭所害。

Further, it's important to bear in mind I'm being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are. If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school.

此外还有一点很重要，我被前副总统切尼等人斥为叛徒。正是此人以无捜查令窃听活动作为暴政热身，进而狡猾地制造冲突，导致4400美国人丧生、3万2千受伤，以及超过十万名伊拉克人遇难。被切尼骂为叛徒是美国人的最高荣誉，切尼、Feinstein、King（后面两人是大牌议员）等人骂得越欢，我们的日子越好过。如果高中有＂如何成为令切尼慌张的公民＂这门课，我应该可以毕业了。

（棱镜哥言辞犀利，又是电脑怪才，居然高中未毕业，不可思议）


Mathius1
17 June 2013 2:54pm
Is encrypting my email any good at defeating the NSA survelielance? Id my data protected by standard encryption?
问：对我的电子邮件加密能否有助于抵御国安局的监控？普通加密能否保护我的数据？

Answer:

Encryption works. Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on. Unfortunately, endpoint security is so terrifically weak that NSA can frequently find ways around it.

回答：加密是有作用的。妥善利用强捍的加密系统是少数几个可行方法之一。不幸的是，末端保安极其弱小，国安局经常可以绕过去。

Do you believe that the treatment of Binney, Drake and others influenced your path? Do you feel the "system works" so to speak? #AskSnowden

Binney, Drake及其他人的遭遇对你有影响吗？你对＂系统有用＂这种说法的意见？

— Jacob Appelbaum (@ioerror) June 17, 2013
Answer:

Binney, Drake, Kiriakou, and Manning are all examples of how overly-harsh responses to public-interest whistle-blowing only escalate the scale, scope, and skill involved in future disclosures. Citizens with a conscience are not going to ignore wrong-doing simply because they'll be destroyed for it: the conscience forbids it. Instead, these draconian responses simply build better whistleblowers. If the Obama administration responds with an even harsher hand against me, they can be assured that they'll soon find themselves facing an equally harsh public response.

回答：对公共利益曝料人过于严酷的回应只能加大未来曝料的规模、范围和技巧，Binney, Drake, Kiriakou和Manning等人就是例子。有良心的公民不会由于自身因此受难就对犯罪行为视而不见，良心不允许他们这么做。反之，暴戾的镇压只能造就更为精明的曝料者。如果奥巴马政府对我采取更严厉的手段，那么请放心，公众对政府的回应必然同样严厉。

This disclosure provides Obama an opportunity to appeal for a return to sanity, constitutional policy, and the rule of law rather than men. He still has plenty of time to go down in history as the President who looked into the abyss and stepped back, rather than leaping forward into it. I would advise he personally call for a special committee to review these interception programs, repudiate the dangerous "State Secrets" privilege, and, upon preparing to leave office, begin a tradition for all Presidents forthwith to demonstrate their respect for the law by appointing a special investigator to review the policies of their years in office for any wrongdoing. There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.

这场曝光给奥巴马提供了一个机遇，即呼吁回归理性、合宪政策、法治而非人治。他仍有足够的时间在史书上留下一笔：做个悬崖勒马的总统，而不是纵身一跃，堕入深渊。我建议他亲自要求组建特别委员会，评审这些监听项目；弃绝危险的＂国家机密＂特权；在离职之际为未来总统树立一项传统：任命特别调查人审核其在位期间的政策，找出错误所在，以宣示对法律的尊重。如果我们的最高领袖们不受监督，人民对政府的信心将荡然无存，他们应当成为透明度的典范。


Ryan Latvaitis
17 June 2013 2:34pm
What would you say to others who are in a position to leak classified information that could improve public understanding of the intelligence apparatus of the USA and its effect on civil liberties?

What evidence do you have that refutes the assertion that the NSA is unable to listen to the content of telephone calls without an explicit and defined court order from FISC?
问：对于那些有条件泄露机密信息、以帮助大众理解美国情报部门及其对人民自由之影响的人士，你有什么话想说？

Answer:

This country is worth dying for.

回答：这个国家值得为之献出生命。

（小哥对美国还是一曲忠诚赞的）

AhBrightWings
17 June 2013 2:12pm
My question: given the enormity of what you are facing now in terms of repercussions, can you describe the exact moment when you knew you absolutely were going to do this, no matter the fallout, and what it now feels like to be living in a post-revelation world? Or was it a series of moments that culminated in action? I think it might help other people contemplating becoming whistleblowers if they knew what the ah-ha moment was like. Again, thanks for your courage and heroism.

问：曝光引起各方强烈反应，能否描绘一下你是什么时候下定决心准备不计后果地曝料？曝料后的感受如何？是否有一系列的关键时刻累积成最终的行动？如果能够知道什么是关键时刻，我想对于那些考虑成为曝料者的人们会有所帮助。再次感谢你的胆量和英雄气概。

Answer:

I imagine everyone's experience is different, but for me, there was no single moment. It was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials to Congress - and therefore the American people - and the realization that that Congress, specifically the Gang of Eight, wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act. Seeing someone in the position of James Clapper - the Director of National Intelligence - baldly lying to the public without repercussion is the evidence of a subverted democracy. The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.

答：我想每个人的经历有所不同，对于我个人而言，并不存在某个特定时刻。目睹高级官员们对国会也就是美国人民不停地撒谎，意识到国会尤其是所谓的八人帮全力支持这些谎言迫使我不得不采取行动。国安局主任克拉珀之流公然向公众撒谎却不引起任何反响，这是民主已被篡夺的证据。人民如果被蒙在鼓里，他们如何能＂同意＂？

12.37pm ET
Follow-up from the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman:

Regarding whether you have secretly given classified information to the Chinese government, some are saying you didn't answer clearly - can you give a flat no?

问：关于你是否将机密情报偷偷递交给中国的问题，有人认为你没有正面回答。你能明确否认吗？

Answer:

No. I have had no contact with the Chinese government. Just like with the Guardian and the Washington Post, I only work with journalists.
答：否。我与中国政府没有联系。正如卫报和华盛顿邮报的例子，我只与记者合作。

12.41pm ET
Question:

So far are things going the way you thought they would regarding a public debate? – tikkamasala

问：关于公开辩论，目前事态发展是否如你所料？

Answer:

Initially I was very encouraged. Unfortunately, the mainstream media now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicionless surveillance in human history.

答：刚开始我很受鼓舞，但现在主流媒体似乎对我在17岁说了什么，我女朋友长什么样更感兴趣，对人类历史上最大规模的无故监控反而不是那么关心。

12.43pm ET
Final question from Glenn Greenwald:

Anything else you’d like to add?
最后一个问题来自卫报记者：你还有什么想补充吗？

Answer:

Thanks to everyone for their support, and remember that just because you are not the target of a surveillance program does not make it okay. The US Person / foreigner distinction is not a reasonable substitute for individualized suspicion, and is only applied to improve support for the program. This is the precise reason that NSA provides Congress with a special immunity to its surveillance.

回答：谢谢大家的支持，请记住，你不是监控对象并不意味着它就是合理的。美国人与外国人的区别并不是＂个体可疑性＂的合理替代，他们只是利用这一区别来增强对该项目的支持。这也是国安局对国会免于监控的真正原因。