I'm ultimately satisfied that we know a little bit more about how the world really works.

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

I believe strongly that Occupy Wall Street had such limits because the local authorities were able to enforce, basically in our imaginations, an image of what proper civil disobedience is - one that is simply ineffective.

We have a media that goes along with the government by parroting phrases intended to provoke a certain emotional response - for example, "national security." Everyone says "national security" to the point that we now must use the term "national security." But it is not national security that they're concerned with; it is state security. And that's a key distinction.

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

I acted on my belief that the NSA's mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts. Today, a secret program authorized by a secret court was, when exposed to the light of day, found to violate Americans' rights. It is the first of many.

Properly implemented strong crypto systems are one of the few things that you can rely on.