Gddboygb

People frequently group you together with Edward Snowden because you've both released classified American documents. But your motivations and philospophies couldn't be more different.

Snowden claims to fight for privacy. He's called privacy the bedrock of freedom, that one cannot be free without privacy.

You have called privacy obsolete and unsustainable. You've said that privacy has no inherent value. You appear to believe privacy and freedom are incompatible, that you cannot be free if others can keep secrets from you. You've published the credit card numbers, social security numbers, medical information, and sexual preferences of individuals of zero public interest. Two of your most recent publications are the personal Gmail inboxes of civilians, exactly the sort of thing Snowden has tried to protect.

Can you convince me that you're right and Snowden's wrong?

In 2010 you thanked people for donating money to help decrypt the "Collateral Murder" video after having sollicited donations for "supercomputer time."

PFC Manning claims that the video was "was never really encrypted." Her court martial proceedings confirm that.

I know you can't confirm or deny anything regarding Manning, but do you stand by your claim that the video you received was encrypted and that you depended on donations to decript it? Secondly, how importantly do you value honesty when it comes to fundraising?

As someone who's followed WikiLeaks for a long time, what's most remarkable to me about the US election publications is that this is the only time (with the possible exception of Aaron Swartz) that you've ever confirmed or denied a source. You'd been asked previously on multiple occasions to deny a state party was the source for these releases but refused, saying it would be "dangerous" and "irresponsible" to do so.

I found it very suspicious that, just weeks later, the first time you ever denied a source was in a heavily-edited interview aired on RT, an organization that obviously benefits from you denying they're the source, regardless of whether they are. You've reaffirmed the other day that you're uncomfortable having so.

Your denial, in particular, seems to be spliced together from three separate responses (masked by cuts to reaction shots), in response to a question removed in the cutting room (though the cut happens a few frames after he starts to open his mouth to ask it). With zero follow-up from you or Pilger.

My question is twofold. Do you think the edited interview accurately reflects the answers you gave? If so, did your previous business arrangement with RT in any waeny influence your decision to break WikiLeaks's most sacred rule in an interview exclusivley aired on their network?

Last week WikiLeaks offered $30,000 to any leaker who can provide evidence of the Obama administration deleting records. You've offered similar bounties for evidence that the UK Labour party mis-treated Jeremy Corbyn or for the text of the TPP and other trade agreements. WikiLeaks has a crowdfunding site to solicit particular information you consider important for the public interest.

Why did you not use this mechanism to solicit Trump's tax returns or other damaging information relating to him or his campaign? At the very least it would've assuaged concerns you were acting one-sidedly.

You've frequently tried to distance your television show from the Russian government by saying that, RT is only one of twelve networks also licensed the show from your production company.

How many of those networks are subsidiaries of RT (e.g. RT UK, RT America, RT en español, RT Documentary)? Could you enumerate all twelve?