 This is right up your alley, Amy. Some people think exposing government documents that prove corruption and war crimes and tyranny is wrong. Are Assange, Snowden, and Manning heroes? This is in our program notes. Again, programnotes.don'tletitgo.com. I have a link to the story about the Julian Assange arrest. Because of this worried, because we're the ones that are indicting him and extraditing him, right? I worried that perhaps Snowden would be next. And why? Because I don't think that Trump sees a difference between Assange and Snowden. And I see a difference between Assange and Manning and Snowden. We know both the Secretary of State doesn't see a difference. And John Bolton, his chief, what do you call it? His national security adviser doesn't see a difference. I debated Bolton. I had that opportunity right after the Snowden revelations. And Bolton is all over Fox News saying that Snowden should be tried for treason and hung and all these. And I debated him about Snowden then just weeks after the Snowden revelations in 2013. Snowden, in my view, is very different. Snowden did two things. First of all, he exposed a systematic violation of citizens' rights by our government that was occurring through the NSA and everything else, right? The things that Manning was revealing are things, some of which I might say, at least it's okay, it's within a proper purview. The other thing is I do believe that Snowden worked within the chain of command to try to complain about the things that he thought and that were morally objectionable that our government was doing. And I don't think that Manning did that. Third, I believe that Snowden took precautions to make sure that he was not endangering innocent people, either who were citizens who worked for the government or whatever. So he would redact materials when he would give him the journalist or he would give him the journalist he thought he could trust to redact in order to not endanger people. Whereas Assad just, you know, Manning just released it all, put all sorts of people at risk, endanger people who are stationed overseas, could get killed and things like, you know, exposed and everything. So there's a lot of distinctions. But to me, Snowden did something that in the context was necessary. Of course, what have been the fruits of it? Unfortunately, it's not nearly what I would hope that it would be. But there was at least at the time when he exposed these things. Yeah, there was This is the problem with concretes that without any principle behind them is without any principle in the populace. You know, people got upset about the concretes around Snowden, but they didn't rally around the principle. And therefore, the politicians had no motivation. They spun it differently. Well, I mean, in my view, it's hard for people to understand the actual principle thing that needs to happen, which is we need to get rid of the constitutional doctrine that supposedly makes all the stuff the government was doing in the Snowden revelations, all this data collecting and stuff legal. And I have a story actually that is tied into, you know, this ongoing thing about when is it that a private company collecting information about you is justified in turning it over to the government? These stories come up all the time. Google's collecting data about you or these cameras are all over the place and they're collecting data about you and it's going to the government. And, you know, in the case that I've got in the program notes, where is it? Oh, it's the one that the New York Times just had this one today says we built an unbelievable but legal facial recognition machine. And the idea is with these cameras and stuff that they have out there that they're issuing warrants that will allow data about anybody who was in the area at a certain time to be given without any more particular suspicion about the individuals. And to me, I would say, well, there's, you know, there's two principles for a valid warrant. Well, there's actually, you know, there's three really criteria, but you have to have probable cause. And yeah, you'd say, okay, we know that a crime was committed in a certain place. And so that anything within a certain area, it's probable that somebody who was in that area in a certain timeframe did it. So you've got probable cause. But if you are, you know, kind of drag netting information about everybody who was in that area in a certain timeframe, depending on how big the timeframe is and how large the geographic area and everything else, you are not, you know, applying the principle of particularized suspicion. And that was a question I had for you, Yaron, because, you know, something as I'm going into the privacy book and trying to give people concrete examples that they should worry about. Do you think it's fine, you know, that this is enough particularized suspicion that, oh, you know, within two hours of the crime in a certain, you know, 10 mile radius or whatever, anybody that the cell phone companies say was in that area, they're going to put in this database and start searching about them. Or do you think you have to have more in order to apply this principle of particularized suspicion such that government shouldn't be getting data about you unless they have that? Yeah, I mean, I don't think the government should be collecting data on you in any kind of form unless there's a reason to collect the data. It's not one day we'll need it. So we're just going to collect the data. Now, the thing about the New York thing is that they managed to identify people purely based on publicly available information with no government data, right? Just by through Facebook and places like that, photos and they, you know, match. And it's pretty amazing that technology and it's only going to get better. And in some regards, I think when it comes to private actors, we have to accept the fact that we're going to have less and less and less in some domains, less and less privacy. That is when you walk out in the street, you're going to have to assume and I think you really should assume that everything you do is being watched by somebody, not necessarily the government, by somebody and that, you know, my worry is that somebody can easily hand over that information to the government. Right. And that's the linchpin for me as well. You know, the concern is on, you know, what will the government have to do or should do? Because, you know, I'm worried about the whole deterioration and the rule of law. So even if you say they need a warrant, well, I don't know what it's, in the future, it might be much easier to get warrants than it is today because the courts have been co-opted by the statists and the government is going to want to monitor us and therefore, you know, it'll be much easier to get warrants in the future than it is today as the state becomes more intrusive and more powerful and more demanding. I want to go back to that comparison between Snowden and Manning and WikiLeaks. I mean, I think it's important. I think Snowden is indeed heroic in that he revealed these violations of individual rights. But I don't think Assajj and WikiLeaks have been, you know, WikiLeaks has been willing to basically share anything, whether it had national security consequences or not. WikiLeaks has also been willing, quite willingly, to release private information and to steal information, corporate information, to go into corporate databases and steal them and expose them. The Panama Papers, for example, the Panama Papers are an example of, you know, legal law firms, a law firm in Panama that had all these private accounts for individuals that had arranged all kinds of corporate structures for them, yeah, to evade taxes, good for them. But WikiLeaks released all the Panama Papers or people affiliated with WikiLeaks did that, which I think is a massive violation of the rights of the company in Panama and the rights of the individuals who hired the company in Panama to do what they did. I think Manning was not scanning the documents to see, as you said, whether people's lives were endangered or not. He wasn't scanning to see whether there were real national security issues that he was revealing here or not. He was just in a, he was much more, I think, nihilistic in that just go, you know, slam the government, slam the military, release everything, damn the consequences. And so I think there's a huge difference between them and and Snowden and they should not be confirmed. Well, and part of our military activities, whether they're legitimate or not, are things that you and I would disagree about with Manning and also Snowden. I mean, you know, this is the thing, as far as we know, there were a lot of sort of allegations by our government that Snowden's revelations did have national security consequences that they did sort of impair certain government programs. But in my mind, the any, any sort of impairment that had resulted from what Snowden did is something the government wasn't entitled to avoid. The government was engaged in systematic violations of our rights. And as Snowden's attorney explained so well a while ago, that it was not possible to challenge these programs otherwise people had tried to challenge these programs in court, but they couldn't get what's called standing in the court of law because they couldn't provide evidence that they had undergone certain types of injuries because of these programs. And what Snowden's revelations allowed is finally for these programs to be challenged in a court of law. Now that's no guarantee that we couldn't even challenge them at all. Most of you are still there. Although the NSA has reformed certain things, they've got a whole new department of new toys. Well, they've got a whole series of bureaucrats now that they've appointed to authorize, you know, when there's controversial issues to screen them and to authorize them and to question them. So this has been some changes to the NSA, but my suspicion is that those changes primarily are going to hamper their actual legitimate function and it will not do much to protect us from the other stuff. All right, we've got it.