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?
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.
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.
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。
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?
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?
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.
提问斯诺登：请你清楚地回答是否将美国机密卖给中国？
斯诺登回答：我没有那么做，我没有接触中国政府，与卫报和华盛顿邮报一样，我只与记者合作。
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?
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.
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.
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?
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。
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。
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。
An important caveat: the live chat is subject to Snowden's security concerns and also his access to a secure internet connection. It is possible that he will appear and disappear intermittently, so if it takes him a while to get through the questions, please be patient.
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.
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。
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.
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。
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)?
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?
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."
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.
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:
回答：
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.
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.
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.
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.