Serious Warning From Edward Snowden 2021
How The Government Is Spying On You And What You Need To Know
We believe the government is completely out of control in 2021 and is exactly what Orwell wrote about in his book “1984”
It’s Getting REALLY Serious” | Edward Snowden WARNING (2021)
278,705 views
Aug 20, 2021
Serious Warning From Edward Snowden 2021
Check Out Our Crypto Privacy Site: CryptoGrizz.com
Check Out Our Crypto Trading Site: CryptoGrizzTrader.com
Check Out Our Prepper Site: PrepperGrizz.com
FULL TRANSCRIPT
00:00
i think we see
00:02
something that is less about whether
00:03
you’re in government uh whether you’re
00:05
in industry
00:06
uh
00:08
and more in terms of
00:09
are you a member of this
00:12
sort of elite influential class
00:16
we see they don’t really care uh
00:18
nowadays of the high echelons of society
00:21
about whether you’re a particular
00:22
religion or this that or the other
00:25
it’s about do you have clout right do
00:26
you have access to resources do you have
00:28
access to influence if you do you’re in
00:31
uh when we look at what actually
00:32
happened for those who are not familiar
00:36
with the nsa’s uh sort of programs that
00:38
we saw
00:40
um
00:41
there is
00:43
in 2013.
00:45
uh the
00:46
cia’s uh
00:48
cto a guy named gus fund
00:51
who i actually had many meetings with
00:53
when i worked on
00:55
the cia account for dell
00:57
said
00:58
uh sort of accidentally
01:00
at a trade show
01:02
what had become the new strategy we want
01:04
to collect everything and hang on to it
01:06
forever
01:07
when you think about these digital uh
01:09
domain companies it’s not about
01:10
competition
01:12
it’s about co-opting them and
01:14
indoctrinating them and we see this
01:15
quite clearly when we look at the
01:16
timeline of what are called prism
01:18
partners these are of course the largest
01:20
internet companies in the united states
01:23
that voluntarily
01:25
began providing the government
01:28
with access to their customers records
01:30
beyond what the law required
01:34
and you see there’s a very clear
01:35
timeline where each of these guys was
01:37
targeted on the basis of their impact
01:39
and their influence in sort of the
01:41
internet uh
01:43
economy and infrastructure
01:45
and it goes on and on and on it wasn’t
01:47
just uh the providers themselves right
01:51
uh it’s also this is called upstream
01:53
collection i know you can’t see it very
01:54
well but this is a slide that
01:57
was the first public mention of it
02:00
upstream communication is your
02:02
communications
02:04
not just going to facebook specifically
02:05
or google specifically going anywhere as
02:08
it crosses internet service providers as
02:11
it crosses telecommunications companies
02:13
groups like fairview like blarney these
02:16
are the cia code names for groups like a
02:19
t
02:20
and verizon
02:22
uh and the the question is
02:25
what were they what was sort of
02:26
happening uh with this type of
02:29
information this type of material excuse
02:31
me i’m just trying to find a particular
02:33
slide here
02:34
um what what was the usefulness of this
02:38
stuff and why was it happening
02:40
in many cases it was actually profit
02:42
driven the government said we’ll
02:43
reimburse costs we’ll provide a new line
02:45
of business we’ll shelter you from
02:47
liability claims this was the central
02:49
argument in uh surveillance reform in
02:52
2008 it was pushed through
02:54
uh in response to the bush warrantless
02:56
wiretapping program
02:58
at t
02:59
had basically been unconstitutionally
03:01
spying on everybody in the united states
03:02
and around the world secretly on behalf
03:04
of the government
03:06
not just in the post-9 11 era
03:08
but you know
03:10
as long as they’ve existed
03:12
but that’s a felony in the united states
03:14
and also has civil penalties so their
03:16
customers could now sue them for the
03:18
largest corporate damages in history
03:21
uh
03:22
but in
03:23
2008 they got a new law called the
03:26
protect america act which should have
03:28
been a red flag for everybody
03:30
that gave them retroactive immunity it
03:32
said for all the laws they had already
03:34
broken the government would be sure they
03:36
could not be sued
03:38
uh shortly thereafter
03:40
the 18t changed their uh program you see
03:43
here the reference in the second
03:44
paragraph is july 2008 which is related
03:47
to the passage of this bill
03:49
where they had been collecting
03:51
everything you had done on their
03:53
infrastructure and stored records of it
03:54
going back to 1987.
03:56
so if you’re an att customer you’ve
03:58
always been an 18c customer you’re
03:59
younger you’re born in 1987 or after
04:02
everything you’ve ever said they have a
04:03
copy of they still have a copy of it
04:06
and they’re beginning to sell this to
04:07
the government as a service right
04:09
without requiring a warrant
04:12
lower standards of sharing uh simple
04:15
subpoena authorities and things like
04:17
that this is getting the legalism that
04:18
you know we don’t need to drill down
04:19
into but the idea here is
04:23
it’s not about competition
04:25
it’s about collaboration
04:27
these guys see themselves in large part
04:30
as all players on the same team
04:33
uh for influence and control this is not
04:36
to say you know that google is
04:37
specifically out to get you
04:39
uh but their interests are not the same
04:41
as yours
04:42
that that’s what the that’s what the
04:44
upstream uh agreement is about
04:46
uh is look they see this stuff
04:48
transiting the internet right and rather
04:50
than getting it at the end points where
04:52
it’s your computer or facebook’s server
04:54
right they try to catch it as it crosses
04:57
they get somebody in the middle right
04:59
whether it’s the isps the telcos and
05:01
they all sort of play side against side
05:03
group off group to do this
05:06
there is a specific example
05:08
of where nsa had lawful access uh of
05:11
course through subpoena authorities to
05:13
warrants and everything else
05:14
to submit demands to these companies uh
05:18
where a judge signs a warrant and get
05:19
anything they want even without these
05:21
new special fancy surveillance laws that
05:23
don’t use real ports they use rubber
05:24
stamp ports
05:27
but
05:29
regardless of this
05:31
what they were doing was they were going
05:33
beyond that
05:34
and they were starting to look at the
05:35
links
05:37
in google’s own network right between
05:39
their data centers so they have a data
05:40
center in the united kingdom they have a
05:42
data center of the united states one in
05:44
hong kong one in switzerland wherever
05:47
and these links between these data
05:48
centers were not encrypted right so
05:51
rather than asking google for
05:52
information what they would do is they
05:54
would just purge
05:55
on these links and they would get it for
05:57
free
05:58
they would get it under different legal
05:59
authorities they wouldn’t have any
06:00
restrictions they wouldn’t have to ask
06:02
permission right and this is a dangerous
06:04
thing in a a broader point we need to
06:06
end this question just so we can get to
06:07
other people uh
06:09
but people talk about you know
06:13
privacy versus security and they say
06:16
that’s what this is about this is not
06:17
what that’s about
06:19
this has never been a controversy of
06:21
privacy and surveillance because privacy
06:23
and or sort of privacy and security
06:26
because they are not competing values
06:28
uh when privacy increases a person their
06:32
security increases
06:34
if no one knows what you’re up to no one
06:35
can take action against you uh no one
06:38
can can basically
06:39
uh make you vulnerable when you’re being
06:41
watched and recorded everywhere you go
06:43
uh not only are you becoming less
06:45
private you’re becoming less
06:46
secure what this is really about
06:50
is this is about liberty
06:53
uh versus surveillance not versus
06:55
security or anything else like that
06:58
surveillance preys on vulnerability
07:00
surveillance preys on the lack of
07:02
privacy and when we get into this and
07:04
all these sort of end run games where
07:06
they don’t want to go to companies
07:07
unless they absolutely have to and if
07:09
they do they’ll try to get a company on
07:11
board rather than fighting them and only
07:13
as last resort will they actually
07:15
actively fight the company if the
07:16
company has any backbone
07:18
uh
07:20
the idea is what is liberty
07:23
you know if you ask a bunch of different
07:24
people in the room they might have
07:25
different ideas
07:27
but in a large way liberty and what has
07:29
made the american tradition
07:31
so powerful in our project so successful
07:35
is the ability to act without permission
07:38
liberty is freedom from permission
07:41
when the government is seeking to expand
07:43
its own liberties
07:45
at the expense of the publics
07:48
that should be something that alarms all
07:49
of us
07:51
but there’s two broad types of
07:53
surveillance that are in broad use today
07:55
mass
07:56
surveillance which is what i have
07:58
criticized what i have revealed in the
08:00
united states uh we have the fourth
08:02
amendment in the united states right
08:04
which prohibition against unreasonable
08:06
search of your private documents and
08:08
things like that seeing what you’re
08:09
doing what you’re up to
08:10
but also the
08:13
seizure of them in the first place right
08:16
which means grabbing them
08:18
now
08:19
this
08:20
uh
08:22
issue has never been settled in the
08:23
courts of modern day
08:25
the entire reason mass surveillance is
08:27
happening right now is because the court
08:29
decision happened in 1970s in a case
08:32
called smith versus maryland
08:34
where one guy
08:36
was making harassing phone calls to one
08:38
woman
08:40
she saw him drive past her house or
08:42
something like that got his license
08:44
plate
08:45
uh shortly before after one of these
08:47
calls was made
08:48
went to the police
08:49
uh the police went to the phone
08:51
companies and said look in this case we
08:54
don’t have a warrant
08:55
we do have this guy’s license plate we
08:57
did see him going past will you just
08:59
give this information to us voluntarily
09:02
and the phone company said yeah sure
09:03
whatever fine uh we’ll give it to you
09:06
in that case uh the supreme court said
09:09
this guy didn’t have a right to privacy
09:12
because they didn’t actually wiretap and
09:14
they didn’t listen to his calls they
09:15
just got the records of who he had
09:17
called and when
09:20
um
09:21
and it didn’t come from him
09:23
it came from the phone company so the
09:25
phone company said these aren’t his
09:26
records they’re our records this is
09:28
called the third party doctrine
09:31
since then it has never been revisited
09:33
uh at this level in the context of mass
09:35
surveillance but the problem is this
09:37
in that court decision they were talking
09:39
about a lone individual in a specific
09:41
instance in a specific case
09:43
the government has interpreted that in
09:45
the past 40 years to mean will if one
09:48
person in one case where they had eyes
09:51
on this guy he was doing all this stuff
09:53
and the company did in a very narrow
09:55
specific way with just this range of
09:56
calls here we can do it to everyone
09:59
everywhere
10:00
all the time forever