You work for the Rand corporations when you release the Pentagon papers, the Snowden work for Bose Allen's Hamilton. So what is the role of defense contractors in the surveillance state? Can you talk about that? In my day, Rand was one of the very few nonprofit private corporations that worked for the National Security establishment. Others like Westseger, IDA, were much closer associated and West Independent than we were. Now, of course, Bose Allen is one of hundreds, if not thousands, of corporations that control some of the most sensitive intelligence data. 70% of the intelligence budget goes to private contractors. I don't think that was true for a single dollar 40 years ago. And it wasn't true as a Rand corporation. What that means is that Snowden himself, I think very credibly, said, why should I, as a mid-level analyst in Bose Allen, have access to information that on the one hand invades the privacy of every American? And on the other hand, is not available to the Congress. Well, I had a comparable feeling 40 years ago. Why should I have access to a 7,000-page top secret study that Senator Fobre of the Foreign Relations Committee can't get and is refused four times, actually, by Secretary Lear on the grounds that he didn't have access to it. I gave it to Senator Fobre. But he didn't do anything with it because he would be claimed of violating security. And they wouldn't prosecute him, but they would embarrass him. And they might take some appropriations away from him. So other people shied away from that. But of course, it's absurd for private contractors to have this kind of capability. It really smells of fascism, of corporatism, of the Mussolini sort, the collaboration of corporations and government, and the almost indistinguishable barrier between the collaboration between them. So I think the Snowden is quite right to object to that. On another topic, you were, in the case of Bradley Manning, the government did not pay for the court reporters stating that a lack of funds you actually went out and raised money for. But even in our case, we had to raise money, as I recall, for our own copy of the transcript. But there was a transcript, which is copy and cost a lot of money. In this case, the judge ruled that they didn't even have to provide a transcript. They held it as closely as possible as a closed trial, which is, of course, antithetical to the rule of law, not a public trial. They wouldn't give public documents. They wouldn't give a transcript. So a group that I was associated with, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, crowdfunded money to be channeled to a reporter with port capabilities to be present and to provide a transcript without which we simply would rely on the scribble notes of the few reporters in the trial. Well, Mr. Ellsberg, so on one hand, the government, that's not at the resources to monitor our federal courses, the resources to monitor every single trial communication across all the innocence of it. Well, it's a matter of priorities. And of course, that applies right across the board to human. This is a government that pretends it doesn't have money to repair crumbling bridges or to provide schools or health capability, but does have money for attacks some of the years with no other summaries to attack, basically, any more, and so on. And all these kinds and ABM systems against countries that don't have ICBMs. So it's absolutely absurd, except for you. Final question, Mr. Ellsberg. Do you identify yourself with snow and Bradley Manning? What advice do you have for the poor souls working at the NSA or working at one of these defense contractors, seeing injustice and humanity being carried out every day? What incentive do they have after the trial of Bradley Manning and snowed and fleeing to Russia to step in and do what you did? What would you tell that person? I would tell them, don't do what I did, which was to go to Congress first or go to my superiors and the defense department. Don't do that. What people advise them to do is the right way to do it because that does nothing but identify them as troublemakers and potential leakers and to get them cut off, retaliated against, stigmatized by the people as happened to the NSA people who did exactly that. As they said, they did it wrong, snowed and did it right. So, and then the next point is, don't do like Manning and allow yourself to be snatched up and put in Kinyukato and torture yourself. Snowden in this respect did it exactly like that. Gather the documents and if necessary, do everything you can to keep invisibility here, anonymity. Now, actually Wikileaks did provide anonymity and was not broken on that, but Bradley Manning himself couldn't resist discussing it with a, would turn out to be a government informant. So, don't trust any government informants or anybody. And do it like Snowden. He's done it, I think exactly right. Now, Snowden didn't do perfectly. He obviously had the judgment that Hong Kong would be a safe place for it. Wrong. China had more influence over that than he seemed to have expected. So, and maybe not go to Russia at all. So, he could have gone directly to Venezuela or Ecuador, that would have been better. Although he felt that that would identify him to the NSA quicker. Now, in regards to Millennium Generation, what advice do you have for them? Why should they care to go in the footsteps of Daniel Ellsberg, Snowden, Zemanix? Why should they care? Not because there is any guarantee that telling the truth will bring about change. When Snowden says his greatest fear was that nothing was changed and Manning also, that is the likelihood. That's likely, but no one can say that there is no chance of change. That's some do say, and they're wrong. They have no proof of that. The odds are against us, but the possibility is there and the stakes are enormously high. Their humanity is a whole. In the first instance, there's an individual war like Afghanistan or Iraq to be ended. In the second place, there's democracy in the United States to be ended. The third thing that Snowden has brought out is that the entire world is seeking this interference with the privacy of their own citizens. Not just the US, they're all doing it. It's just that the US has a thousand times more capability to do it, but the others will get that. So we have to realize that we live in a new world and we have, and it may be too late to change, but it may not. We can't tell. So the answer is to tell the truth, to take the risks, I can't tell individuals to do that. I can't tell your family doesn't come for anything. Your children's education is of no importance. That's for them to judge. But I can say everybody who knows that the truth is being concealed should consider whether this is not the time for them to speak out and to do it in ways they will both capture public attention, especially with documents and protect themselves from retaliation. That's what I would tell them. Mr. Al-Sberk, thank you so much for a lifetime of activism. It's a great pleasure and honor to see you. Thank you.