In his keynote speech at the recent Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville, which he gave from his exile in Russia, he said that most of the transactions made using Bitcoin are fully exposed, even though they are not made public. He said that because all of the transactions that take place on the network are permanent, it is possible for them to be publicly verified.

Moreover, he pointed out that legacy exchanges typically share their users’ information with regulators, who he said possess significant power and can determine multiple aspects of users’ lives with their transaction histories, including everything from political affiliations to their personal preferences. This, he says, enables them to understand a person’s life without the need to obtain a warrant.

Snowden cautioned: “They know what you read, what you buy, who you send [bitcoin] to, who you support politically, like where your donations went, all of that is available to them. They can infer your thinking, they can infer your affiliations…”

He also explained how governments and businesses can track people’s digital transactions, whether it is through Bitcoin or any other type of digital payment, and exploit it using artificial intelligence to create highly detailed profiles of individuals without their consent. He added that he has been speaking out about this for a decade, but his warnings have largely been falling on deaf ears. Now, he believes time is running out.

Bitcoin conference experiencing growing political presence

This year’s conference had a more political tone than usual, with presidential hopeful and former president Donald Trump appearing at the conference and pledging to remove Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler. The SEC head is a very unpopular figure among crypto proponents and is currently involved in a legal battle with the biggest regulated crypto exchange in the U.S., Coinbase.

Numerous other politicians attended, including several other Republican politicians, a few Democratic lawmakers and independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., highlighting the fact that Bitcoin is no longer considered a fringe interest group.

Referring to the heightened political representation at the event, Snowden noted: “They fight us, then they try to get us to love them.”

He also warned people to “Cast a vote, but don’t join a cult,” reminding them of the importance of being critical and independent.

“They are not our tribe. They are not your personality. They have their own interests, their own values, their own things they’re chasing. Try to get what you need from them, but don’t give yourselves to them, even if you have to vote for them,” he said.

In the first speech by a major party presidential candidate at the yearly conference, Trump promised conference attendees that he will make the U.S. “the bitcoin superpower of the world.”

Sources for this article include:

• Bitcoinist.com
• News.Bitcoin.com
• Finance.Yahoo.com

At the time, William Fitzgerald, a 27-year-old policy employee at Google, knew he wanted to assist but was uncertain about how he could contribute. Snowden was undoubtedly one of the most wanted individuals globally, as the confidential documents he shared with Greenwald, Poitras, and the Guardian’s Ewen MacAskill exposed an expansive US government surveillance program with global reach, involving major tech companies. Working at Google since 2008, based in its Hong Kong office, Fitzgerald impulsively emailed Greenwald from his personal Gmail account.

The email, retrieved by the Guardian, stated, “If looking for alternative options to protect Edward within Hong Kong, I am on hand to assist.” Hours later, Fitzgerald found himself waiting in the lobby of the Hong Kong W Hotel, prepared to meet Greenwald and introduce him to Robert Tibbo and Jonathan Man – the men who became Snowden’s legal representatives and sheltered him in the homes of Tibbo’s Sri Lankan refugee clients.

Now, 10 years since the initial publication of the Snowden files by the Guardian, Fitzgerald, who remained at Google until 2018, feels ready to share his small role in the story. Described merely as a “longtime reader” of Greenwald’s in the book recounting Greenwald’s week-long stay in Hong Kong, meeting with Snowden and handling the aftermath of the disclosures, Fitzgerald acknowledges that his motivation for sharing his story isn’t entirely selfless. He desires his involvement to be recognized in history as the “longtime reader” who was willing to risk everything, much like Snowden himself.

According to Fitzgerald, the internet and tech industry, including his employer, felt vastly different in 2013 compared to today. Following the Arab Spring, there was hope and optimism that the tools connecting the world could be a force for social good. However, the Snowden files painted a darker picture, exposing mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency (NSA), which used these very tools to spy on the users of the tech companies supposedly empowering them.

The NSA files suggested that certain tech firms, including Google, Facebook, and Apple, were aware of the surveillance. Although these companies vehemently denied involvement and even took a stand against government spying, partnering with organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to enhance internet encryption, Fitzgerald found it challenging to reconcile Snowden’s disclosures with his optimism about the internet’s potential. Nevertheless, he believed the authenticity of the documents. When he discovered that Greenwald was in Hong Kong, Fitzgerald eagerly requested a meeting, despite indications that Google knew about the NSA’s direct access to its servers for user data. By the time Snowden revealed his identity, Fitzgerald and Greenwald had already planned to meet.

When Fitzgerald offered his assistance to protect Snowden, Greenwald asked if he was a lawyer. Although Fitzgerald was not, he had connections to a prominent human rights lawyer through a master’s program at Hong Kong University. Greenwald trusted his intuition and accepted Fitzgerald’s offer. At the time, Greenwald didn’t remember knowing if Fitzgerald worked for Google; he only knew that Snowden needed help. Snowden himself had urged Greenwald to focus on reporting rather than protecting him, leading to his decision to reveal himself as the source without legal counsel. Despite not having met Fitzgerald before, Greenwald believed in his intentions. Given the skepticism surrounding the situation, Greenwald acknowledged that they didn’t know what the US government, CIA, or Hong Kong authorities were doing, so when someone like Fitzgerald offered to help, suspicion was natural.

However, Greenwald wasn’t surprised that a Google employee would support Snowden, as it aligned with the original ethos of Silicon Valley – a commitment to preserving free expression and privacy. For instance, Google had established a “free expression” team in various regions to advise on policies promoting a free and open internet. Nonetheless, Fitzgerald noticed a gradual shift in the company culture as time went on. Google stopped promoting its transparency report to the media, free expression advocates were replaced by business-focused executives, and the controversial Project Maven, a Department of Defense drone project, raised concerns when Google signed on to build artificial intelligence for it (later withdrawing under employee pressure in 2018).

Fitzgerald observed a slow erosion of the values Google claimed to care about, and this led him to found The Worker Agency, an advocacy and communications firm that represents a Google worker union among its clients. He believes that Google is not alone in pursuing government contracts, as other tech giants such as Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM have also sought or secured multimillion-dollar deals to develop surveillance tools for various entities, including the Pentagon.

While opinions differ on the extent of the tech industry’s evolution since Snowden’s revelations, Fitzgerald and Greenwald argue that it has increasingly succumbed to government pressures to share user data or censor content. On the other hand, the director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, Ben Wizner, credits tech companies for strengthening their legal defense against government data requests. Before Snowden, companies typically complied with such orders, but now there is evidence of pushback.

Nonetheless, everyone agrees that one of Snowden’s most significant legacies is the public’s awareness of the limits of privacy and the widespread adoption of encryption for online communication. The leaked NSA files prompted tech companies to implement end-to-end encryption, securing communications so that only the sender and recipient can access them. Encryption has become the default in many messaging apps, such as Signal, WhatsApp, and iMessage. According to Wizner, Snowden is most proud of the fact that “secure and encrypted communications are no longer the weird province of computer-savvy geeks but are tools that are used by and available to the masses.”

Ten years after Snowden revealed himself, Fitzgerald has dedicated his time to holding tech firms accountable through his communications firm. He remains proud of his minor role in Snowden’s story, as he believes his actions contributed to preventing Snowden from facing legal repercussions and ensured that he did not end up in custody.

As Reuters reported on the 15th of November, “Global banking giants are starting a 12-week digital dollar pilot with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Citigroup Inc , HSBC Holdings Pl, Mastercard Inc and Wells Fargo & Co are among the financial companies participating in the experiment alongside the New York Fed’s innovation center, they said in a statement. The project, which is called the regulated liability network, will be conducted in a test environment and use simulated data, the New York Fed said. The pilot will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.”

Shockingly enough, essentially zero attention was paid to the story. Most media outlets mentioned it in passing and offered little to no context that would make the unsuspecting reader aware of the implications of this development. There was no mainstream discussion or debate about what this means or about how it can affect the average citizen, and no politicians, Fed officials or other institutional figures called any attention to it and argued either for or against it. There was one notable exception, though, one high-profile individual that noticed what could mark the start of a tectonic shift and thought the rest of the world should notice too: Edward Snowden.

The aforementioned context that should have been provided to the average news reader that is not necessarily familiar with the concept of CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) would include at least a brief explanation what they are, what purposes they serve and how they compare to existing fiat paper money. As I outlined in previous articles, the stakes are too high for people to ignore this development. Whoever controls the money, controls everything and the rise of CBDCs threatens to make that control absolute, closing whatever little “loopholes” of freedom may still exist today.

To most citizens, savers and taxpayers, the transition to a digital dollar might seem harmless, or even beneficial, given that most of the population today associates digitalization with convenience and speed. Indeed, if one doesn’t understand the ins and outs of monetary history, of fiat money and of digital currencies, this concept appears totally innocuous. But even for many who do understand these things, it might seem like such a step would really make no difference. Junk money is junk money after all, be it physical or digital, it’s still backed by nothing, right?

Well, that is right indeed, but there’s a lot more to it. While the currency itself will continue to be worthless, its digital form will come with a bunch of perks and advantages for central planners. As Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy and economics at Cornell University, puts it:

One should recognize that the CBDC creates new opportunity for monetary policy. If we all had CBDC accounts instead of cash, in principle it might be possible to implement negative interest rates simply by shrinking balances in CBDC accounts. It will become a lot easier to undertake helicopter drops of money. If everybody had a CBDC account, one could easily increase the balance in those accounts.

What this essentially means is that any choice that remains and any degree of financial sovereignty that is left in the present system could be easily wiped out by CBDCs. And its not only financial freedom that’s at stake: these centralized digital currencies can be used by governments to monitor, to control and even to directly punish dissenters, by blocking transactions, freezing their accounts or seizing they assets. Some might find that farfetched, but those are probably the same people who thought that China’s “Social Credit System” was implausible too, right up to the moment it was actually implemented.

About the Author

Claudio Grass is a Mises Ambassador and an independent precious metals advisor based out of Switzerland. His Austrian approach helps his clients find tailor-made solutions to store their physical precious metals under Swiss law. ClaudioGrass.ch.

Article cross-posted from Mises.