Citizenfour Page #2

are being intercepted.

In gathering evidence of wrongdoing,

I focused on the wronging

of the American people,

but believe me when I say that

the surveillance we live under

is the highest privilege

compared to how we treat

the rest of the world.

This I can also prove.

On cyber operations,

the government's public position

is that we still lack

a policy framework.

This too is a lie.

There is a detailed policy framework,

a kind of Marshall Law

for cyber operations

created by the White House.

It's called Presidential

Policy Directive 20

and was finalized

at the end of last year.

This I can also prove.

I appreciate your concern for my safety,

but I already know

how this will end for me,

and I accept the risk.

If I have luck and you are careful,

you will have everything you need.

I ask only that

you ensure this information

makes it home to the American public.

Does the NSA routinely intercept

American citizens' emails?

No.

Does the NSA intercept Americans'

cell phone conversations?

No.

- Google searches?

- No.

- Text messages?

- No.

- Amazon.com orders?

- No.

- Bank records?

- No.

What judicial consent

is required for NSA

to intercept communications...

and information

involving American citizens?

Within the United States,

that would be the FBI lead.

If it was a foreign actor

in the United States,

the FBI would still have the lead

and could work that with...

with NSA or other intelligence

agencies as authorized.

But to conduct that kind of...

of collection in the United States,

it would have to go through a court order,

and the court

would have to authorize it.

We are not authorized to do it,

nor do we do it.

All rise.

The United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit is now in session.

Please be seated.

Good morning, and welcome

to the Ninth Circuit.

The first case for argument is

Jewel versus National Security Agency.

You may proceed.

May it please the court, Kevin Bankston,

for Carolyn Jewel and her fellow plaintiff

appellants in Jewel v. NSA.

Your Honors, plaintiffs

have specifically alleged

that their own communications

and communications records

have been acquired by the government.

But the District Court found that

we had failed to allege facts

that differentiated the injury

that our plaintiffs suffered

from the injuries suffered

by every otherAT&T user

whose communications and records

have been acquired by the government,

basically concluding that

so long as everyone is being surveilled,

no one has standing to sue.

However, to deny standing to persons

who are injured simply because

many others are also injured

would mean that the most injurious

and widespread government actions

could be questioned by nobody.

Do you have anything

concrete that in fact

a specific communication

of your client was intercepted?

We have evidence

that all the communications

passing between AT&T's network

and other networks

in their Northern California

facility have been intercepted.

And so that would necessarily include

the Internet communications

of our Northern California plaintiffs.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Your Honors.

May it please the court, I am Thomas Byron

from the Department of Justice

here on behalf

of the government defendants.

We think this litigation

need not be resolved in federal court

in light of the oversight

of the political branches,

both legislative and executive,

which provides a better opportunity

for oversight and resolution

of the concerns raised

concerning nationwide policies

of alleged surveillance,

uh, in these complaints.

Even if it's revealed that

one or more of the plaintiffs

had email or telephone

conversations intercepted

that had nothing to do

with national security?

Your Honor, I don't know

that anyone necessarily

would have standing to raise

the particular claims at issue

in these two cases.

We think instead that the kinds

of claims at issue here

against these defendants

are those that are better suited

to resolution

before the... the representative

branches of our government.

So what role would the judiciary have

if your approach is adopted?

Judge Pregerson, I think that...

I mean, we just

get out of the way, is that it?

Well, Judge Pregerson, I think

that there is a narrow category,

a subset of cases, in which

it may be appropriate to step aside

for that narrow category of cases.

But the judiciary plays a role...

To be sure, Judge Pregerson...

- ...in our system.

- Yes, Your Honor.

And we don't mean to diminish that.

You know, you're asking us

to abdicate that role.

No, Your Honor, um, but it is

a question of this court's discretion

whether to reach that issue.

We do think that there is simply no way

for the litigation to proceed

without risk of divulging

those very questions of privileged

information that would cause,

as the Director of National

Intelligence has explained,

exceptionally grave damage

to national security if disclosed.

Um, thanks for having me.

If anybody has any questions, like I said,

basically just raise your hand

and I'll try to call on you

as soon as I possibly can.

So who here actually feels like

they are under surveillance

pretty regularly?

Everyone inside of Occupy.

How many people have been

arrested and had their,

at their court date, they had

their phone taken into the back room?

How many people in here

had their retina scanned?

Wow.

Um, so you guys are actually in a sense

the canaries in the coal mine.

Right, because the incentives

are all lined up against you.

Anybody see on the subway,

"Link your MetroCard

to your debit card," right?

Like, auto-refill?

This is a concept which is key

to everything we'll talk about today.

And it's called linkability:

Take one piece of data and link it

to another piece of data.

So, for example,

if you have your MetroCard

and you have your debit card,

you have those things

and you can draw a line

between them, right?

So that's, like, not a scary thing,

except your bank card is tied

to everything else that you do

during the day.

So now they know where you're going,

when you make purchases.

So when they decide to target you,

they can actually

recreate your exact steps.

With a MetroCard

and with a credit card, alone,

like literally where you go

and what you buy,

and potentially by linking

that data with other people

on similar travel plans,

they can figure out who you talk to

and who you met with.

When you then take cell phone data,

which logs your location,

and you link up purchasing data,

MetroCard data, and your debit card,

you start to get

what you could call "metadata"

in aggregate over a person's life.

And metadata, in aggregate, is content.

It tells a story about you

which is made up of facts,

but is not necessarily true.

So for example, just because

you were on the corner

and all those data points point to it,

it doesn't mean you committed the crime.

Rate this script:5.0 / 1 vote