Snowden Demystified: Can the Government See My Junk? 200
An anonymous reader writes Comedian and journalist John Oliver set out to understand US Government surveillance in advance of the June 2015 expiration of section 215 of the Patriot Act. What resulted was a humorous but exceptionally journalistic interview of Edward Snowden which distilled the issues down in a (NSFW) way everyone can understand. Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The McClure's magazine of Twitter Generation (Score:5, Funny)
The government can see my junk?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Uh...I just got out of some very cold water, but normally, it would be HUGE, I swear.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The government can see my junk?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
So we'd be DDOSing (Distributed Dick Overload Strategy) the NSA?
Turning their day jobs into Chatroulette?
Re: (Score:2)
nah just send goatse
Overrated (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
I didn't think so.
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues, and asserted that it's Snowden's job to make the facts easily digestible and relatable for the general public. It's not. In the first place, it's the media's job to do that. That is their raison d'etre. In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media. Why fuel that race to the bottom? Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, not prophecy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I have to agree with you. I understand that Oliver is supposed to be a comedian and is not attempting to push himself as a legit reporter, but he really needed to just shut up and let Snowden speak instead of constantly interrupting (and usually with something that wasn't even funny).
Though, I do have to give him credit for being brutally honest.
Educating Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Educating Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Snowden, for all his bravery and balls of steel, has a speaking style that doesn't connect with the man on the street. Asked simple questions he gives long, complex answers that are full of nuance, appeals to the Constitution and attempts to be reasonable. If I knew every word I uttered could one day play a part in deciding my freedom I'd speak pretty damn carefully too, so maybe he's like that in "real life" and maybe he's not. But Oliver forced him to give short answers in laymans terms. I hope ES remembers.
It's a specific case of a more general problem though. The civil rights movement has really struggled to give clear explanations for why people should care. The best explanation is We should all have something to hide [thoughtcrime.org] by Moxie Marlinspike. He sums up arguments I was developing myself before I found that blog post. Sure, the man on the street feels he is boring and the world of political intrigue is far away from his life. So talk about how this stuff affects issues like gays going to jail (lots of people have gay friends), or how marijuana could never be legalised if there was perfect enforcement of anti-drug laws (which is enabled by this type of surveillance). Heck, for conservative parents who might find both issues irrelevant, point out that their darling teenagers are very likely to be guilty of producing and distributing child pornography. All it takes is for them to send a nude selfie to their new boyfriend/girlfriend between the years of 16-18 and they're guilty of sex crimes. Lots and lots of people either have had teenage children or will have.
Re:Educating Snowden (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps not brave by your definition, but certainly *smart*. In history we often call people 'brave', when they actually were just extremely foolhardy -- throwing their lives away spactacularly might make a point, but other means might have let them achieve a goal yet not get themselves killed in all sorts of gory ways.
Is Snowden a coward because he decided he would try to achieve his goal, yet not to get put in solitary for decades and tortured? I don't think I can call him a coward for that, since I don't think I would be willing to submit myself to that.
Are you brave enough to plan a course of action that you fully know will likely cause you to be an exile for the rest of your life, or, failing in some way along that plan, land you in a military prison for the rest of your useful life? Snowden knew that was the risk with his plan, yet he still proceeded.
Are you willing to make such a sacrifice? Casting stones and all that...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When one is taking on objectionable policy in the US and the ones that administered it, it would not be dumb to do in on the soil of US adversaries. The problems in the US are complicated, thus is why 'dumbing' down the public has been happening for decades for the simple purpose of a power grab at the cost of your rights and science programs under Bush and cancellation of the space program. When one observes policy being dictated by draconian hands obviously brain damaged by absolute power and what has
Re: (Score:3)
brave is kind of silly.
There's a saying:
Oh wait, there isn't. But there should be.
Re: Educating Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is frequently not a choice we make for ourselves, but a choice made for us by others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignorance is frequently not a choice we make for ourselves, but a choice made for us by others.
If you're a capable adult with internet access, most ignorance is willful.
I remain ignorant of a great many things, by choice (most of popular culture to begin with). I remain ignorant of some things because my time is limited (e.g., I'm slowly learning quantum mechanics properly, with all the math, but it will take years). But all of these are choices. I've chosen my priorities, I've chosen how much time to spend learning vs other activities
The only thing I'd consider "a choice made by others" is the bi
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with ignorance is that you have no good basis on which to choose what not to be ignorant about.
Re: Educating Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
If they don't understand what Snowden is telling them well... their fault.
Their fault, but my problem. It's in my self-interest to make sure people are not ignorant, because those ignorant jackasses have a vote that is equal to mine. The only way to recruit people away from "Team R" or "Team D" is to make them into educated voters.
Re: Educating Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is where I disagree:
If they don't understand what Snowden is telling them well... their fault. Let them face the consequences of their choices. Call it Darwinism or whatever you prefer.
If not enouh people understand this and get on board, then we ALL suffer the consequences. This nonsense isnt going to change from just bit of nerd rage that we have in the community. As any public speaker will tell you, you have to speak to people in a way that they can understand. The point of disseminating information to the public isnt to show them that you know the intricacies of it. It is to get them to understand what it is so they can make educated decisions about it.
You forget that the majority of the population and/or workforce is not involved in IT, computers or information security. they have little if nay understanding of surveillance and governing laws. They probably do not have much reason to ever think about what facebook is doing with their quips and baby pictures. But if you speak to them in a way that they can understand you, then they will more likely share your concern.
Re: Educating Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
Let them face the consequences of their choices.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that their vote counts the same as yours. In the end, we don't need to worry about the terrorists or the Russians- we've seen the enemy and the enemy is us. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Snowden needed the interruptions/lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Snowden needed the interruptions/lesson (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. At first I thought Oliver was being a real jerk. He's always opinionated and blunt, but he seemed determined to be an asshole about it. It wasn't until he pulled out the dick pics that I actually figured out what he was doing. After that I thought it was a great interview, kept on-topic by constantly bringing it back to that one absurd fear -- "They" can see your dick. Literally and metaphorically. We're all exposed.
We've got people like Bruce Schneier interviewing Edward Snowden [youtube.com] for all us geeky types who understand the technical issues. I think Oliver's interview boiled it down to something understandable by non-geeks. Lack of privacy means the NSA gets to look at your privates. That's something anyone can grasp.
Re:Overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
If he shut up and let Snowden speak, we would get another generic Snowden interview reiterating what has been already stated, which only people who already get Snowden would grasp.
I'm glad Oliver kept interrupting Snowden and pointed him towards the different type of conversation. That's what made this interview interesting and viral.
Re:Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative is to what? Take a 'high ground' approach where you're ignored by the populace at large? Rule #1 of effective speaking is to talk to your audience. If you can't be willing to meet people even half way, you'll never convince them to take action.
Re:Overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. His audience is everyone. The intellectual minority and the nerd ragegasm that has been going on since this first happened has had little to no affect on actual policy. The only way these things are going to change is if the public at large understands what is going on. A few intellectuals and a basket of pseudo-intellectuals can easily be ignored and/or silenced. People need to be able to identify with what is going on and understand in a personal way how it affects them personally.
For those of us who do get what is going on, we have already known most of this for the past year and half. In order to get others on board, you need to speak to them in a way they can understand.
LW-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Overrated (Score:5, Informative)
I think the "dick pics" line actually really works well. If you think about it from the perspective of the average person, a lot of people buy the NSA's statements that they don't care about the communications of most Americans and that PRISM is necessary to maintain security. After all, a lot of people post everything they do on Facebook or Twitter where anyone can see it.
One of the articles I read on this mentioned that even people who support or don't care about the NSA suddenly cared when they realized that the NSA can see the things they don't post on Facebook (nude pics, sexting, etc).
If framing the NSA's data collection programs as "dick pics" makes more people understand, then I'm all for it.
Technobabble can help the argument too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for the fact that it doesn't stop at just metadata collection. Apparently the Bahamas is a hotbed of terrorist activity as all your calls are recorded and retained there.
The thing I don't understand in the whole debate is lack of historical context when this crap is justified. Go back in history, look at the attack on Pearl Harbor and you realize that we had enough info to prevent the attack but we were so busy with other details that we didn't put all the pieces together.
Fast forward to 9/11 and y
Re: (Score:3)
For example is you say the NSA is collecting telephone metadata that sounds benign as they don't know what metadata is. If you simplify it and say the NSA is having AT&T share the info on their phone bills; date, number called, duration ... then people would understand and probably rate the collection of much higher importance as they understand their privacy is being invaded.
Re: Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the "dick pics" line actually really works well. If you think about it from the perspective of the average person, a lot of people buy the NSA's statements that they don't care about the communications of most Americans and that PRISM is necessary to maintain security. After all, a lot of people post everything they do on Facebook or Twitter where anyone can see it.
One of the articles I read on this mentioned that even people who support or don't care about the NSA suddenly cared when they realized that the NSA can see the things they don't post on Facebook (nude pics, sexting, etc).
If framing the NSA's data collection programs as "dick pics" makes more people understand, then I'm all for it.
Do not confuse apathy with stupidity.
The government is monitoring every single path that innocent civilians are taking to communicate these days, under the guise of national security, which is not only unethical, but also illegal under our Constitution.
Do I really need to re-word that simple shit to the point where the pre-school kid gets it? Anyone with a 4th grade education understands.
Re: Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line, it's not just a way to get them to understand, it's a way to get them to care about it because it impacts their otherwise blissfully ignorant lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, I can't stand people with that attitude. Ask them if they're comfortable with the government tracking everything they do, from phone conversations, to infrared monitoring of their house, and random photographing of them and their children going about their day.
If anything, the average American deserves whatever is coming to them for their apathy. It stinks, as it seems the only solution is to get out of the country. I don't want to be here when the rest of the world decides they want to sack Rome or
Re: (Score:3)
Do I really need to re-word that simple shit to the point where the pre-school kid gets it? Anyone with a 4th grade education understands.
The lesson here is: Yes, yes you do.
Re:Overrated (Score:5, Interesting)
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues
I don't think that the interview was, in the end, very critical of Snowden. If anything, I think he came across as someone who, whether or not you agree with his decisions, had the best interests of the general public at heart. If anything, it made me feel very sorry for Snowden, especially when he had to watch video of people who didn't understand what he had done.
And I'd agree that it's the media's job to make the whole thing easily digestible, which is exactly what I think Oliver was doing in reducing the issue to "dick pics". He forced Snowden to explain the different programs in terms of "dick pics" because he knew that, otherwise, people wouldn't really understand or appreciate Snowden's explanations.
Re:Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because someone you admire was challenged by the interviewer doesn't mean it isn't worth a watch. He didn't criticize Snowden for "complex descriptions", he criticized him for ducking the questions and responsibility. That is a journalist's raison d'etre. That fact that you clearly didn't understand what you were listening to is why folks like Oliver have to "dumb it down"... and I guess he didn't do it enough for you.
Delegation does not remove responsibility (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Overrated (Score:4, Interesting)
If Snowden wasn't made aware of the angle Oliver was taking before the interview, it's pretty obvious is on board with it by the end of it. Being a dick to him and asking "hard questions" was part of the schtick. If you don't perceive that, you probably shouldn't be holding up Idiocracy as your banner.
What I think is funny, especially in light of your "that's the media's job" complaint, is that I thought he was going to take the angle "you don't trust the government with our privacy, but you just trust less competent journalists with our secrets... hypocrite much?" Oliver didn't go quite that far, maybe because it would implicate himself, though the entire exercise is him doing precisely what you claim should be his job and not Snowden's.
Re:Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Oliver is a master of taking a terrible, boring and critically important subject and making it palatable. Net Neutrality, predatory lending--we've seen people cover these topics for years and get no traction. But John Oliver keeps us watching for the whole thing.
I find it sad that nobody knew who he was to begin with. I do, and I live in Canada. I think it's a really important piece of news. But then again, I'm a nerd, and I'm bombarded with this information, relatively speaking. I guarantee my non-geek friends only have the most meagre understanding of who he is.
Snowden's information is important, and he has the right idea of what should be done with it. But John Oliver is one of the best ways to communicate the information. He managed to get Snowden to summarise things into really relatable chunks of data--it was brilliant.
You missed the point (Score:2)
The fact John Oliver seemed a bit biased against Snowden's "method of delivery", and the complexity of the information he decided to make public being out of his "jurisdiction", were clearly outbalanced by his concise, honest and morally sound answers. Snowden proved in more than enough ways his intentions were good, and the only place where it's still up for debate if the consequences paid off is in closed-minded, nationalist-following individual opinion.
And criticizing the childish tone the conversation t
Re: (Score:2)
These are the same sort of complaints you hear from older politicians. The quality of the media has absolutely decreased significantly over the last 20 years. That's come with a drastic decrease in how much time they have to work stories, budgets, salaries, etc. It's telling that we're discussing a comedian interviewing Snowden for a subscription-only television channel's fake news program, rather than someone on broadcast network news or something like 60 minutes. Two years ago, 60 minutes did a report
Re: (Score:3)
The quality hasn't declined - it's just that the media's effort in 24-hour news channels is being deployed to make money rather than inform the public. They're very good at what they do: engage eyeballs and prepare them to absorb commercial messages. CNN and FoxNews (and other news channels) are knowingly crafting over-the-top material and - far from being concerned that they'll be called out by comedians - they're thrilled every time one of their segments makes it to the Daily Show. Beyond that, they retur
Re:Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whether you view Snowden as a despicable traitor or an honorable whistleblower, it's worth a watch.
I didn't think so.
Oliver criticized Snowden for his complex descriptions of complex issues, and asserted that it's Snowden's job to make the facts easily digestible and relatable for the general public. It's not. In the first place, it's the media's job to do that. That is their raison d'etre. In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media. Why fuel that race to the bottom? Idiocracy was supposed to be satire, not prophecy.
[facepalm] Oliver, via his comedy, was simplifying the issue, making a commentary on the media, and the comprehension level of the American people. It was layered and pointed and even managed some balance all wrapped in humour. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A reporter's job is to relay information suitably to THEIR demographic and get them interested enough to dig deeper. John Oliver's demographic is not tech savvy computer types, it's young people who also probably liked the Colbert report or The Daily Show. Boiling down the entire debate into dick pics is probably exactly correct for him. That the problem is much more serious than dick pics, and that people like my mom from another generation would say "well you shouldn't be sending pictures of your dick aro
Re: (Score:2)
In the second place, distilling issues down to "dick pics" is part of the problem with the modern media.
It also diminishes the issue. I don't give a shit if the government gets a look at my dick. That is the absolute least of my concerns with the NSA spying.
What I do care about is the government building a profile on me of everyone that I communicate with and storing all of those communications. If one of my facebook friends teams up with one of my cellphone contacts and goes all rogue crockpot bombing Islamic terrorist, I don't want to get roped into that by association.
Re: (Score:2)
(BTW... it's the US media's job to sell advertising. They are not beholden to anything else.)
Re: (Score:2)
I was also bothered by this coverage. Not all attention is good attention in this case. To turn this into a joke isn't helpful to the cause in the slightest. I don't think the public is as stupid as Oliver makes them out to be, though studies have shown that far too many are too stupid to understand why government surveillance is an issue. I'd site the Pew Study from 2013, but most of the links fail for me currently. We certainly do have to keep discussing the issues as a nation and we have to keep finding
Re:Overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Adding-
As with much comedy today, it is a sad commentary that comedy is more informed and can better deconstruct the issues. Hell, there was more actual journalism in the comedy bit than has been in most media accounts of Snowden.
That irreverence was the tone is to be expected. It's comedy. But that itself implicates most media as being near worthless when something done for laughs has more weight than the 24/7 news cycle, who have constitutional protections I might add, and whose job it is to cover this in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden's deception (really Greenwalds) is in deliberately misleading people to believe that which the agency is using the technical capabilities on everyone, everywhere. It's a subtle, but deliberate lie.
Snowden addressed this in his interview with his gun analogy.
Those in the know are still very frustrated that the NSA has consistently under-used resources and been hesitant to collect and disseminate information. However, that doesn't sell newspaper ads.
Merely collecting and having the information is crossing the line. It is undisputed Irrefutable public knowledge NSA possess call records of EVERYONE who uses a phone in this country.
Nobody has any idea or can know what NSA does with it nor do they have any reason to trust the government. The point of view "oh but we don't use it" is simply irrelevant. The word "collect" does not mean "unless I use" anymore than stealing money from a bank only c
Damn Youtube/uploader (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this is some irony right here.
Seems like Snowden's views on censorship are not held by the interviewer.
Re: (Score:2)
Try this link, fullscreen only: https://www.youtube.com/v/XEVl... [youtube.com]
Anyone have a torrent yet?
Re:Damn Youtube/uploader (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Damn Youtube/uploader (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, much appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
the real traitors (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually, it has not. The omni-present surveillance itself, though uncomfortable, is neither a required nor sufficient condition for "Police State" [wikipedia.org] term to apply.
As long as the NSA only records (or even forwards to police but only to prosecute actual crimes), it is not a representative of "police state".
(Also note too, that, according to Snowden, for NSA to record your conversation, it has to cross the national border.)
it's not "only" (Score:2)
There no only here, it's just one brick in a big shithouse.
"...or even forwards...actual crimes" DA's have bragged for decades about their ability to indict a ham sandwich.
Various less advertised provisions for "collection" and "sharing" already make broad surveillence an internal US affair. We already have internal checkpoints under various sweeps and searches of the public e.g. Immigration and Customs broadly stopping interior highway traffic without probable cause, wanting to
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you regarding the sad state of affairs and government's overreach, the NSA — and its propensity to collect our border-crossing pictures (including those of the impolite body-parts) — has nothing to do with it.
I'm a lot more worried about the IRS being in a position to deny "non-profit" status to an anti-government political group (thus reducing the size of their bullhorn compared to that of pro-government groups) or the FCC's self-proclaimed power to dictate, how ISPs treat c
Re:the real traitors (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll keep that in your permanent record.
Re: (Score:3)
As the NSA regularly "tipps off" the DEA and the FBI (with their agents then lying under oath in court about it), you argument is deeply flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the practice, that I referred to as: "forwards to police but only to prosecute actual crimes [emphasis added]".
No, I don't believe, this alone qualifies for "Police State".
Re: (Score:2)
Neither have been prosecuted for anything either. Yes, NSA has eavesdropped on them. No, as long as no undeserved molestation has resulted from such surveillance, it does not qualify for "Police State".
Snowden does not mention it, but you may be better informed, of
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but having Big Brother observe each and every one of us through the telescreen is absolutely Police State. Being put on "a list" is unquestionably a threat, even if nobody is at liberty to say just what being on that list does. (It does do something, right? I mean, you're not just supporting Big Government spending your tax dollars to make lists and throw them away and then making m
Re: (Score:2)
++this. The "Three hops" rule, using a connection factor of 190 (the average number of friends on facebook), you're not a target of surveillance if none of the 5 million people that are friends of friends of friends of you are foreign nationals. http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
(You'll have to drag the slider to 190 to get the 5 million figure.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you tell people "we know who you called" people will think "I have nothing to hide". Once you say "We saw your dick" then suddenly it becomes real and understandable.
Yeah, and I think part of the whole thing is, it needs to be put into concrete terms. A lot of people (at least middle-class white people) aren't actually that frightened of the idea that law enforcement might possibly intercept one of their communications. You can say that it's impinging on our freedom, and that it has the possibility of creating an oppressive police state, but most people aren't actually afraid of that. The possibility seems too distant, and they assume it must be, "The police are moni
Oliver's Worst Jokes YHet (Score:4, Insightful)
TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I thought they went a bit far for a first date. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden Did His Part as An American (Score:2)
Just because the government has a certain power, does not make that power rightly American.
Your Constitutional rights are guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, your personal safety is not, Brenda Make
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. An Informative post straight from the source is what's sorely missing from most of these debates.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you close the bathroom door when home alone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, Do you also close the bathroom door when you are home by yourself, and know for certain that nobody is there to see? Again, I'll bet the answer is "Yes". Why? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE? Oh, right, you have nothing to hide, so why are you hiding? The guilty hide when none pursueth! How easy it is to infer guilt!
The last 10min were excellent (Score:3)
In my opinion, the last 10min of the presentation, using the analogy of taking pictures of your junk, and which systems would capture, store, and track it, were excellent.
The NSA Needs Your Junk Pics (Score:2)
Or some terrorists could use these as a method [wikipedia.org] of passing encoded messages.
Wikileaks (Score:2)
Most interesting part for me was all the wikileaks references in the "random" non-cherry picked interviews. Had all but forgotten about intersection of Wikileaks and Snowden. Reminded me of all the people who thought Iraq war was about Terrorism... wonder how these things happen?
Pedantic but Needed Suggestion (Score:5, Informative)
There is no "Patriot Act". It's called the USA PATRIOT Act and it must be remembered for what it is because what it stands for and what it spells out demonstrates the absolute inanity of the document and the (lack of) discussion when it was voted on.
USA PATRIOT stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
It was proposed on October 23, 2001, passed by the House on October 24, passed by the Senate on October 25, and signed into law by President Bush on October 26. The Act amended 11 previously passed acts, 108 US Codes, and created 9 new US Codes. The bill itself was 342 pages long and it was passed in 3 days.
I don't think we have since learned our lesson, but at least there will be a historical record of our errors and how quickly we can be bullied into a political frenzy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Uniting and
Strengthening
America by
Pictures of
A
Turgid
Rod on the
Internet
Or
Telephone
Re: (Score:2)
People do bad things all the time, and yes its important to remember and rationalize Eg.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot... [infoplease.com]
Whatever turns you on: (Score:2)
"Can the government see my junk"
If the NSA people are that into seeing the junk of a 50 something fat geek, they can have all the look they want.
Frankly, I and much of Slashdot would prefer Natalie Portman (even after becoming a mom), but I guess there's no accounting for taste.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the old Usenet adage still applies: "There is no ironic humor so blatant that someone on the net wont take it seriously."
Isn't John Oliver fucking awesome!?! (Score:2)
These 15 minute "in depth" pieces are amazing AND effective.
But an actual interview with Snowden was amazing.
And oliver covered every angle from what I could see. He brought some reality to Snowden. And He brought some reality to us.
His humor is the sugar that makes the medicine go down.
I'm still pissed off about police officers confiscating people's houses and cars and using the money to buy margherita machines.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you pissed off enough to take the time to hand-write a letter to your congressional rep? Are you pissed off enough to get 20 people to sign it? These aren't monumental tasks, nor are they expensive.
They also aren't terribly *useful*. I'm pissed off too, but I'm not so pissed off that I'm going to hire a bunch of people to go door to door to get the signatures that would be required to get something on the ballot, which even if it passed, they'd probably just sneakily ignore it anyway.
Public opinion
I'm impressed! (Score:2)
My question about international data collection (Score:3)
One thing that wasn't clear. ES said that if my gmail account was moved overseas on an international server, then the NSA could have a copy of my account even if there were no international sources/targets. Is that true or false?
Also, that look on Oliver's face when Snowden told him 'you're already on the list' as an associate was priceless.
Re: (Score:3)
ES said that if my gmail account was moved overseas on an international server, then the NSA could have a copy of my account even if there were no international sources/targets. Is that true or false?
That's true. While theoretically the NSA is not allowed to monitor communications between two american citizens, in practice, any communication leaving the country is simply assumed to involve a foreigner and is thus up for grabs. This "inadvertent" capture of american communications is in fact standard operating procedure [aclu.org]:
The government has set a dismally low bar for concluding that a potential surveillance target is, in fact, a foreigner located abroad. By default, targets are assumed to be foreign. That's right, the procedures allow the NSA to presume that prospective targets are foreigners outside the United States absent specific information to the contrary—and to presume therefore that those individuals are fair game for warrantless surveillance.
What if I think both? (Score:3)
What if I think he's a despicable traitor who just happened--in the course of his treasonous endeavors--to shed light on the NSA's probably extralegal practices.
But which practices didn't *really* surprise anyone.
Re:Both? (Score:5, Insightful)
You think he'd have a soapbox in prison? I rather think not. He'd be in solitary and that would be that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He'd have a soap box during trial, if they brought charges, which they would. Litigation would allow discovery, which would really open up the world of the CIA/NSA/FBI. He could have a field day with it. If they denied discovery, that is grounds for dismissal of any/all charges against him, and would be a tacit implication he was right. THAT would make him a hero IMHO.
Sitting in Moscow, is a prison of sorts. Probably worse than American Jail in a lot of respects.
Fair trial wanted (Score:5, Insightful)
A fair trial is what he asked for since the beginning. But under current U.S law, almost all evidence would be hidden under the claim of "national security" - essentially a secret trial, apart from knowing that it took place. That is, if it was even a trial as opposed to a "tribunal" as happened to Manning - no discovery of evidence, no jury, no impartial judge, just a panel of officers, all hidden from view.
The government wouldn't even have to charge him with anything related to the issues involved. Chances are he hasn't filed a U.S income tax return as required by all U.S citizens, even outside the country. For that matter, an obscure and rarely enforced law requires government papers to emigrate legally. He could be charged with any number of laws which don't allow any "public interest" defence to bring up the issues he wants to raise.
Re:Both? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only question is whether they'd break him like they did Manning (Edward becomes Edwina), lock him away for life, or find an excuse to execute him under the Espionage Act.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Both? (Score:2)
You wouldn't have ever heard of him and his obituary would say he "died suddenly" like all the other suicide victims that needed to be removed because they are a threat to national security.
Yep. He wanted to commit suicide so badly that he shot himself TWICE in the head from a distance of 5 feet. Or maybe died in a car crash where the .45 shaped holes in his chest are from the uhhh... steering wheel. Shoulda worn his seatbelt.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, then why the hell aren't you in full rebellion against the tyrannical state? Have we become so passive that we just accept it now?
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to Manning, who got thrown straight in jail and never got to make serious public statements?