i guarantee you that's exactly what the nsa analysts have the capability, and the evidence -- don't rely on my word or his. a program which we reported on shows an analyst training manual, walking them through and say when you want to eavesdrop on a particular e-mail, here's the screen where you do it, and you enter the e-mail and the justification. nobody checks what it is you're doing. you simply then start getting the e-mails exactly as mr. snowden said, and the question of whether there's really any so ifguards.

and it shows them where these people live. not defenders of this kind of unconstitutional dragnet surveillance might say there's no room for abuse because we have policies in place to address these concerns. but policies that change with every new president and every new congress and every new director of the nasa, -- nsa, really direct the threat building inside of our country this kind of architecture of oppression. what about other countries that don't abide by our policies? is reefing our communications insecure so that the nsa can monitor them and those of our adversaries, really work the cost? and you have to remember the policies are not perfect, and despite policies, i, sitting at my desk had the tick neck cal authority to wire tapp anyone. from a federal judge and the president. and that's not a boast.

essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional court orders," which is my answer to professor dershowitz about how else we can target people and find out what we need to know. three democratic senators in president obama's own party who are on the intelligence committee and have access to all classified information wrote an op-ed november 25th in the new york times, and they wrote, quote, "the usefulness of the collection program has been greatly exaggerated. we have yet to see any proof that it provides real, unique value in protecting national security." they hope that they will blind you with emotion, and i hope you will focus on the evidence and the facts. >> now it's my turn.

>> okay, yeah, keep going. nsa gets from american telephone providers the billing records of american citizens. what happens to the billing records is actually really important. i didn't make this phrase up but i'm going to use it. they're put in a lockbox, all right? they're put in a lockbox at nsa. twenty-two people at nsa are allowed to access that lockbox. the only thing nsa is allowed to do with that truly gajillion record datafield sitting there is that when they have what's called a seed number, a seed number about which they have reasonable articulable suspicion that that seed number is affiliated with al qaeda, you roll up a safe house in yemen, he's got pocket litter and it says here's his al qaeda membership card, he's got a phone you've never seen before - gee, i wonder how this phone might be associated with any threats in the united states? so i'll be a little cartoonish about this: nsa gets to walk up to the transom and yell through the transom and say, "hey!

please listen now to edward snowden especially for the munk debate. >> this is a poll what today's state surveillance looks like. it's important to remember it doesn't stop with phone calls. it covers your e-mails, your text messages, your web history, every google search you ever made and every plane ticket you bought. the books you buy at amazon.com. the transactions are sent in plain text and unencrypted and anyone whether the nasa or some other foreign service can collect and it store it. it includes who your friends are and how you communicate with them. shows where you go and what you want to do. it also shows people in charge of state surveillance who you love. and it shows them where these people live. not defenders of this kind of unconstitutional dragnet surveillance might say there's no room for abuse because we

[applause] >> u.s. national security state officials are very adept and skillful at presenting a public image that is wildly different than the reality. the whole nsa scandal ban when james clapper went before the senate and was asked whether or not the nsa is mass collecting data about millions of americans, and he looked senators in the eye and said, no, sir. and then the very next -- the very first story we reported from snowden archives two months later prove the nsa was doing exactly that, which, the top national security official in the united states government, falsely denied to the nat and the public. so when you hear things like mr. snowden. -- not telling the truth when he says sitting at his desk he could have wire tapped anyone. i guarantee you that's exactly what the nsa analysts have the capability, and the evidence -- don't rely on my word or his. a program which we reported on

the e-mails exactly as mr. snowden said, and the question of whether there's really any so ifguards. he said it's in a lock box. we're collecting all your data but it's very well-protected. aside from the fact that history proves you cannot trust government to collect nat information and not abuse it. think about this fact. the nsa is an agency where edward snowden sat for many months and downlead all of their most sensitive documents. they had no idea he was doing it. [applause] to this day, they have no idea what he took. they say that all the time. even though they spent tens of millions of dollars trying to figure it out. does that sound like a very well-managed system to you, that you can trust with all of your data not to be abused?

as far as whether or not this surveillance is actually about terrorism, let me share with you what people inside the u.s. government have said on that question so that you don't have to take either our word for it or theirs. the federal court i referenced earlier that ruled that the nsa was violating the rights of americans said about the claim that it was for terrorism, quote, "the government does not cite a single case in which analysis of the nsa's bulk metadata collection actually stopped a terrorist attack." a presidential review panel appointed by president obama of his closest aides, on december 18th issued a report saying, "our review suggests that the information contributed to terrorist investigations by the use of metadata was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner

system of liberties to protect ourselves from, and hayden keep -- general hayden keeps asking for facts in 2009, the global new york service characterized the threat of terrorism this way, quote, undoubtedly more american citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intel until illnesses than terrorism. harvard, march 2011, the number of americans who died in terrorist attacks last year, eight. the minimum number two died after being struck by lightning, 29. terrorism is a role threat. it is not anything to make light of. but there are all sorts of threats that we guard against and keep ourselves safe from, not by dismantling our fundmental liberty like the right to privacy and the limitation on the government's ability know what we're saying but by balancing them and affirming the values we're trying to protect in the first place. thank you. [applause]