JULIAN ASSANGE: I think it's embarrassing for a head of state to go on like that for 45 minutes and say almost nothing. Unfortunately, one has to deconstruct a little of what is being said in the points that you have raised.



First of all, let's look for some positive in what has come out of here. Well, it's clear that the president would not be speaking today, were it not for the actions of Edward Snowden and whistleblowers before him like Frank Drake. Although those national whistleblowers have forced this debate, this president has been dragged, kicking and screaming to today's address. He is being very reluctant to make any concrete reforms. And unfortunately today we also see very few concrete reforms. What we see is kicking off the ball into the Congressional grasps, into panels of lawyers that he will report oh -- he will instruct to report back at some stage in the future.



My greatest concern, I think, looking at this broader package, is what was not said. There was no restriction on secret law. The Fisa court, which he named as the court that will review some of this process, is known to be the most secret captive court in the United States that's producing secret judge-made law.



There was a law, section 215, that was designed to protect American citizens from these invasive searches and seizures. The Fisa court and the DOJ secretly reinterpreted that law to make it apply to the entire country.



CNN HOST: Let me ask you this. If I can interrupt just for a moment here. One of the things the president did talk about is at least some sort of public advocate who would work on behalf of individuals who they might have these -- the phone numbers -- there would be some process. There would be a way of actually protecting those individuals. you don't see that that is significant in any way in trying to at least establish some sort of benefit, someone who would act on this person's behalf, a citizen’s behalf?



ASSANGE: Look, the Fisa court itself was originally set up following recommendations from the Church Committee in the '70s. And overtime, it was quickly corrupted. So a public advocate constantly in the Fisa court in a secret manner is unlikely to produce a decent result. That said, of course, it is a small advance. We have to see whether being implemented, who would be this public advocate? There would have to be security-cleared, which means the NSA will have to approve of them in some way. There are some issues of the appointment of Fisa court judges.



The big problem with the Fisa court is the creation of secret judge-made law that is capable of reinterpreting anything that Congress passes in order to make it acceptable for the NSA to engage in bulk collection activity.



What we didn't hear from the president was any meaningful protection of U.S. business. And, you know, I’ve been involved in tech industry for a long time. I know my friends in the U.S. really are hurting as a result of the NSA -- what has happened in the NSA. As far as the outside world is concerned, the United States has become archipelago of coercion. Where any person you are dealing with in business at Facebook, Google or Yahoo!, any telecommunications company, might have been a secret agent of the National Security Agency, because they're ordered to do so by the Fisa court and they're forced to keep that secret. All through the mechanism of national security.



---



ASSANGE: Well, we heard a lot of lies here in this speech by Obama. He said, for example --



HOST: How so?



ASSANGE: That the National Security Agency has never abused what it has done. When the Fisa court has found -- even the Fisa court -- has found again and again that it has done just that. So if the National Security Agency is interpreting what national security means, the secret court, Fisa, is interpreting what national security means, of course, ambiguous terms. And in a secret institution, they gradually become corrupted over time. That’s precisely how we ended up in this process.



We’re not going to spy on Angela Merkel or David Cameron. Or the Australian prime minister. Sure. But let me just spy on everyone else they talk to. It doesn't mean anything to not spy on world leaders. Maybe you can save a bit of PR flack if another Edward Snowden comes along. I don't think actually the spying on world leaders would cause PR problems. I don't see that to me as a real concern. The real concern is that when you have an organization as powerful as National Security Agency has become and its Five Eyes allies and the cost of engaging in mass surveillance is decreasing about 50% every two years because of the cheapness of computers and the cheapness of bandwidth, that is a threat to constitutional government in the United States. And also in other countries.



What I wanted to see today was a mechanism that would retard that tendency, reducing a long-term threat to constitutional government. I don't see that. I don't see that individuals are protected from those surveillance abuses. I don't see any prosecutions. You know government is serious when it starts talking about someone is going to be prosecuted.