You can't come up against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk.

There are cyber threats out there, this is a dangerous world, and we have to be safe, we have to be secure no matter the cost.

Terrorism kills far fewer people than cigarettes, or alcohol, or car accidents. But we don't see ourselves restructuring society and lives in order to make those threats go away.

I know that fundamentally, changes to the fabric of the internet, and sort of our methods of communication, can enforce our rights.

People at civil-liberties organizations say it's a sea change, and that it's very clear judges have begun to question more critically assertions made by the executive. Even though it seems so obvious now, it is extraordinary in the context of the last decade, because courts had simply said they were not the best branch to adjudicate these claims - which is completely wrong, because they are the only nonpolitical branch. They are the branch that is specifically charged with deciding issues that cannot be impartially decided by politicians.

Every time somebody on the internet sort of glances at us sideways, we launch an attack at them. That's not going to work out for us long term, and the U.S. have to get ahead of the problem if we're going to succeed.

In the United States, there hasn't been much legislative change on the surveillance issue, although there are some tepid proposals.