Search

The NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has condemned the new surveillance bill
being pushed through the UK's parliament this week, expressing concern about the
speed at which it is being done, lack of public debate, fear-mongering and what he
described as increased powers of intrusion.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian in Moscow, Snowden said it was very
unusual for a public body to pass an emergency law such as this in circumstances other
than a time of total war. "I mean we don't have bombs falling. We don't have U-boats in
the harbour."

Suddenly it is a priority, he said, after the government had ignored it for an entire year.
"It defies belief."

He found the urgency with which the British government was moving extraordinary
and said it mirrored a similar move in the US in 2007 when the Bush administration
was forced to introduce legislation, the Protect America Act, citing the same concerns
about terrorist threats and the

NSA

losing cooperation from telecom and internet

companies.

"I mean the

NSA

could have written this draft," he said. "They passed it under the same

sort of emergency justification. They said we would be at risk. They said companies
will no longer cooperate with us. We're losing valuable intelligence that puts the nation
at risk."

His comments chime with British civil liberties groups who, having had time to read
the small print, are growing increasingly sceptical about government claims last week
that the bill is a stop-gap that will not increase the powers of the surveillance agencies.

David Cameron, searching for cross-party support, assured the Liberal Democrats and

Edward Snowden condemns Britain's
emergency surveillance bill

Exclusive: NSA whistleblower says it 'defies belief' that bill must
be rushed through after government ignored issue for a year

Ewen MacAskill
Follow @ewenmacaskill Follow @guardian
The Guardian, Sunday 13 July 2014 12.33 EDT

Labour that there would be no extension of the powers.

But internal Home Office papers seen by the Guardian appear to confirm that there
would be an expansion of powers. Campaigners argue that the bill contains new and
unprecedented powers for the UK to require overseas companies to comply with
interception warrants and communications data acquisition requests and build
interception capabilities into their products and infrastructure.

The interview with Snowden, in a city centre hotel, lasted seven hours. One of only a
handful of interviews since he sought asylum in Russia a year ago, it was wide-ranging,
from the impact of the global debate he unleashed on surveillance and privacy to fresh
insights into life inside the NSA. The full interview will be published later this week.

Edward Snowden

with a framed piece of a computer that was destroyed in the Guardian basement at the
request of the British government. Photograph: Alan Rusbridger
His year-long asylum is due to expire on 31 July but is almost certain to be extended.
Even in the unlikely event of a political decision to send him to the US, he would be
entitled to a year-long appeal process.

During the interview, Snowden was taken aback on learning about the speed at which
the British government is moving on new legislation and described it as "a significant
change". He questioned why it was doing so now, more than a year after his initial
revelations about the scale of government surveillance in the US, the UK and elsewhere
around the world, a year in which the government had been largely silent.

He also questioned why there had been a move in the aftermath of a ruling by the
European court of justice in April that declared some of the existing surveillance
measures were invalid.

He said the government was asking for these "new authorities immediately without
any debate, just taking their word for it, despite the fact that these exact same
authorities were just declared unlawful by the European court of justice".

He added: "Is it really going to be so costly for us to take a few days to debate where
the line should be drawn about the authority and what really serves the public
interest?

"If these surveillance authorities are so interested, so invasive, the courts are actually
saying they violate fundamental rights, do we really want to authorise them on a new,
increased and more intrusive scale without any public debate?"

He said there had been government silence for the last year since he had exposed the
scale of surveillance by the NSA and its British partner

GCHQ

. "And yet suddenly we're

told there's a brand new bill that looks like it was written by the National Security
Agency that has to be passed in the same manner that a surveillance bill in the United
States was passed in 2007, and it has to happen now. And we don't have time to debate
it, despite the fact that this was not a priority, this was not an issue that needed to be
discussed at all, for an entire year. It defies belief."

It is questionable how much impact his comments will have on parliamentarians, even
though he is an expert witness, with inside knowledge of the surveillance agencies.

Snowden has become a champion for privacy campaigners. But, though his revelations
prompted inquiries by two parliamentary committees, he has won little vocal support
among parliamentarians.

The Conservatives deny there is any need for a debate on surveillance versus privacy.
Labour and Liberal Democrats have been hesitant too about joining the debate, fearful
of a backlash in the event of a terrorist attack.

Even backbench MPs who think the intelligence agencies have a case to answer hold
back from public expressions of support for a whistleblower sought by the US
government.

The British government is justifying the proposed new legislation on the grounds not
only of the European court ruling but of US intelligence fears of a terrorist attack, in
particular concerns of an attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner said to be
emanating from an alleged al-Qaida bombmaker in Yemen linked to hardline Islamist
groups in Syria and Iraq.

Snowden said the Bush administration had used the threat of another terrorist attack
on America after 9/11 to push through the Protect America Act. The bill had to be
brought in after the New York Times disclosed the surveillance agencies had been
secretly engaged in wiretapping without a warrant.

Snowden said: "So what's extraordinary about this law being passed in the UK is that it
very closely mirrors the Protect America Act 2007 that was passed in the United States
at the request of the National Security Agency, after the warrantless wire-tapping

programme, which was unlawful and unconstitutional, was revealed."

He said the bill was introduced into Congress on 1 August 2007 and signed into law on
5 August without any substantial open public debate. A year later it was renewed and
the new version was even worse, he said, granting immunity to all the companies that
had been breaking the law for the previous decade.

More from the guardian

More from around the web

Promoted content by Outbrain

Recommended by

Ads by Google

Build an Online Store
The Easiest Way To Sell Online! Start Fully-Featured Free Trial Now
www.bigcommerce.com
Foreclosed Homes for Sale
Foreclosed Home Listings by ZIP. Find a Cheap Foreclosed Home Now!
www.freeforeclosureslisting.net

Get the Guardian's daily US email

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and
commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.

Sign up for the daily email

Anthony Hopkins and Evan
Rachel Wood to star in
remake of Westworld

23 Jul 2014

Louis van Gaal gets tough
before Manchester United
play LA Galaxy

23 Jul 2014

Airbus's folding saddle seat
could be the cattle-class
future for cheap flights

17 Jul 2014

MH17: Australia and
Netherlands join in pledge
'to bring our people home'

22 Jul 2014

Inside Europe's Most Jaw-
dropping Architecture

(The New York Times: Paid
Post)

The Queen Of Mean: 15
Times Michelle Obama
Was A Very Angry First Lady
-- Tantrums, Feuds, Fights
& More!

(Radar Online)

How to Get Tax Credit for
Your Retirement Savings
(Yes, You Can!)

(etrade.com)

GOP candidate says single
“knocked-up” women don’t
get weddings

(Blue Nation Review)