But whistleblower says 2013 surveillance ‘child’s play’ compared to technology today Edward Snowden has warned that surveillance technology is so much more advanced and intrusive today it makes that used by US and British intelligence agencies he revealed in 2013 look like child’s play. In an interview on the 10th anniversary of his revelations about the scale of surveillance – some of it illegal – by the US National Security Agency and its British counterpart, GCHQ, he said he had no regrets about what he had done and cited positive changes. But he is depressed about inroads into privacy both in the physical and digital world. “Technology has grown to be enormously influential,” Snowden said. “If we think about what we saw in 2013 and the capabilities of governments today, 2013 seems like child’s play.” He expressed concern not only about dangers posed by governments and Big Tech but commercially available video surveillance cameras, facial recognition, artificial intelligence and intrusive spyware such as Pegasus used against dissidents and journalists. Looking back to 2013, he said: “We trusted the government not to screw us. But they did. We trusted the tech companies not to take advantage of us. But they did. That is going to happen again, because that is the nature of power.” Snowden has been in exile in Russia since 2013 after fleeing Hong Kong, where he handed over tens of thousands of top-secret documents to journalists. His detractors denounce him for being in Russia, though it appears to be the only realistic option available to him other than jail in the US. Criticism has intensified since the invasion of Ukraine and his acquisition of Russian citizenship last year, two years after he applied. But despite his personal predicament, Snowden does not dwell on the past. “I have no regrets,” he said. Snowden has reduced his public profile over the last two years, giving fewer speeches, and retreating from press interviews and social media. This is partly because of family commitments: he and his wife have two young sons. But he has remained in contact over the last decade with the three journalists who met him in Hong Kong, including this reporter. Friday marks exactly 10 years since Snowden revealed himself as the source of the leaks. Snowden views the widespread use of end-to-end encryption as one of the positive legacies of the leaks. The Big Tech companies had been embarrassed by revelations that they had been handing personal data over to the NSA. That embarrassment turned to anger when further leaks revealed that, in spite of that cooperation, the NSA had been helping themselves to data from the Big Tech companies through backdoor vulnerabilities. In response, in spite of opposition from the agencies, companies rushed in end-to-end encryption years earlier than planned. End-to-end encryption “was a pipe dream in 2013 when the story broke”, Snowden said. “An enormous fraction of global internet traffic traveled electronically naked. Now, it is a rare sight.” But Snowden is worried by technological advances that eat into privacy. “The idea that after the revelations in 2013 there would be rainbows and unicorns the next day is not realistic. It is an ongoing process. And we will have to be working at it for the rest of our lives and our children’s lives and beyond.” The intelligence agencies in the US and the UK acknowledge there was benefit from the debate on privacy that Snowden provoked but still argue this is outweighed by the damage they claim was done to their capabilities, including MI6 having to close down human-intelligence operations. Their other complaint is that the narrative in 2013 portrayed the NSA and GCHQ as the sole malign actors, ignoring what Russia and China were doing on the internet. Snowden disputes such claims. He said no one at the time thought Russia and China were angels. As for damage, he said the agencies have never cited any evidence. “Disruption? Sure, that is plausible,” he said. “But it is hard to claim ‘damage’ if, despite 10 years of hysterics, the sky never fell in.” I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism. From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives. And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against racism and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble. Betsy Reed

In France, the Senate just approved a controversial provision to a justice bill that would allow law enforcement to secretly activate cameras and microphones on a suspect’s devices. This type of surveillance would be activated without notifying the owner of the device. The same provision would also allow agencies easier access to geolocation data to track suspected criminals. Even though officials say they would only use the new update to the so-called “Keeper of the Seals” justice bill to capture sound and images of suspects of certain crimes such as delinquency, organized crime, and terrorism, the critics say this would still be disproportionate. And it’s not only politicians – widespread concern has engulfed civil rights advocates and organizations, too. For instance, the Observatory of Digital Freedoms has denounced such a “security overkill” – it says any subject would risk being turned into a potential snitch. La Quadrature du Net, another French advocacy group promoting digital rights and freedoms, has also expressed concern about the threat to privacy. According to the organization, investigators could, in theory, be allowed to remotely activate all connected devices, such as televisions or baby monitors. “If this text were definitively adopted, it would dangerously increase the possibilities of police intrusion by transforming all our IT tools into potential spies,” the group warned in a press release. Lawyers are also unhappy. The Paris Bar, representing almost 30 000 lawyers, said in a statement that it “deplored” the fact that the initiators of the provision – the government – didn’t consult them. “This new possibility of remotely activating any electronic device constitutes a particularly serious breach of respect for privacy which cannot be justified by the protection of the public order,” said the Paris Bar. “In addition, the project does not prohibit listening to conversations between the lawyer and her client in the lawyer’s office – even if it is prohibited. This is an inadmissible breach of professional secrecy and the rights of defense.” Critics are urging French parliamentarians to dismiss the controversial provisions. And it’s not too late – the update to the bill must still be approved in the National Assembly, the more powerful lower house of the Parliament. Eric Dupond-Moretti, the justice minister, argues that all the necessary safeguards are in place – for example, every surveillance operation would have to be approved by a judge. Since 2015, when terrorist attacks rocked France, the country has increased its surveillance powers, and the “Keeper of the Seal” bill has been likened to the infamous US Patriot Act. Activating cameras and microphones on a suspect’s device might not be allowed for now. But the French law allows the government to monitor phone calls and emails of terrorism suspects without obtaining a warrant. Paris is now planning to go one step further.