Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Snowden Demystified: Can the Government See My Junk?

Posted by timothy on from the aside-from-the-hidden-cameras dept.

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.

31 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Overrated by StikyPad · · 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.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    1. Re:Overrated by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Overrated by ADRA · · 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.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:Overrated by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re: Overrated by geekmux · · 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.

    5. Re:Overrated by Dixie_Flatline · · 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.

    6. Re:Overrated by quintessencesluglord · · 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.

    7. Re:Overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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. 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.

    8. Re:Overrated by JMJimmy · · Score: 4, 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.

    9. Re:Overrated by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    10. Re: Overrated by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that a lot of people buy the whole "I have nothing to hide" line of crap. "Oh, I don't care if they read my email, I have nothing to hide." You're not going to nearly as much traction by convincing them of the principle that it shouldn't matter, that the government could abuse this someday, as you will by pointing out that, yes, they DO have something they want to keep private, even from the government, and provoking a visceral reaction on those grounds.

      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.

    11. Re:Overrated by Last+Warrior · · 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-

  2. Funny because it is true by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was very interesting to see that people indeed where worried if the gov could see their junk.

    I think this is because people have no idea what 'security' or 'privacy' actually is or do not understand the implications.

    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.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. Oliver's Worst Jokes YHet by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like John Oliver, but his attempts at humor early in the interview just came off as awkward at best. However, he did finally hit his stride when he started in with his survey results, which showed Americans have no clue and even less concern with educating themselves on todays issues much less wanting to do anything about it. Hopefully Snowden got the message -- that coming here to "Face Trial" as he has supposedly been mulling over would not serve any sort of public debate or discourse that could create change, but only be ratings fodder for Fox and CNN. Because yes -- American's don't care, Americans don't want to know, Americans just want to be given shiny things.

  4. TSA by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The TSA sure can. They get to feel it up as well.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  5. Educating Snowden by Immerial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think John Oliver did an excellent job of educating Snowden on how to speak. I think it's something that many people her on slashdot struggle with. Put it in layman's terms. As John Oliver pointed out to Snowden... most people don't get what you are saying. All the geeks do... and are rightfully freaked-out/outraged by it ...but most regular people don't. But mention how the current programs captures all your 'dick pics'... and people start to get it. Hopefully this will help him in the future with how he communicates this with the American public ...and hopefully enough of the American public will be freaked out about it and push for roll-back/limits on these things.

    1. Re: Educating Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Education is a choice. You can spend your time following a ball, or you can choose to do something constructive with your time. If you choose the former and you don't understand what I an talking about when I try to warn you about something nasty that is happening to you and your family then it is your fault. It is the result of a lifetime of your choices and it is not up to me to educate you or to make the things simple for you as if you were a toddler.

      It is sad that most people can't understand what Snowden is telling them, it even hurts people who do actually understand, but it is plain unfair to blame Snowden for people's stupidity and incompetence.

      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.

    2. Re: Educating Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignorance is frequently not a choice we make for ourselves, but a choice made for us by others.

    3. Re:Educating Snowden by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think John Oliver did an excellent job of educating Snowden on how to speak.

      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 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.

    4. Re:Educating Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    5. Re:Educating Snowden by MobSwatter · · 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 been going on is contrary to the founding principles the US was established on, then I think Snowden's actions were justified. In short Snowden was in the position to see this and called bullshit on the contract of citizenship afforded by the Bill of Rights to the US. I highly doubt standing in front of the White House picketing would have gotten any response other than maybe a night in jail. He sparked the debate, and that was spoken as his intention. Understand it for what it is, your rights are being attacked, options for livelihood are being limited, entire industries are being strangled, we are having between the cheeks style surveillance shoved down our throats and at our own expense, and they have the FEMA camps already in place, the local boys are being militarized. These clowns are walking in Hitler's path, we all saw how that ended. It is this that I think Snowden has a problem with, and what you should as well.

    6. Re: Educating Snowden by MightyYar · · 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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re: Educating Snowden by Last+Warrior · · 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.

    8. Re: Educating Snowden by mccrew · · 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."

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    9. Re: Educating Snowden by lgw · · Score: 2, 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 big chunk of human knowledge hidden behind journal paywalls (and not adequately covered elsewhere).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Do you close the bathroom door when home alone? by DutchUncle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My usual response to anyone of the "I have nothing to hide" mindset: Do you close the bathroom door when you go to the toilet? I'm betting the answer is "Yes." Why? Modesty? Propriety? Custom? Doesn't matter. The question is: Does it mean you have something to hide? Not something evil or wrong, just private? So maybe it's OK to have things to hide . . . or at least not flaunt in public.

    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!

  7. Re:Both? by Dixie_Flatline · · 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.

  8. Re:the real traitors by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nice hair splitting.
    We'll keep that in your permanent record.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  9. Re:Both? by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You think if he came back home he'd get a soapbox? He'd get a show trial with the spin machine in the media cranked up to 11.

    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.

  10. Fair trial wanted by John+Bayko · · Score: 4, 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.

  11. Re:Technobabble can help the argument too by Anonymous Coward · · 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 you realize that we already had all the info necessary to learn of the attack and prevent it but again, we didn't put the pieces together in time to do anything about it. So we're making the same problem worse and worse by collecting more and more making it take longer and longer to correlate the data.

    Maybe they should focus more on quality instead of quantity. Then we wouldn't have false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, then we probably would have behaved differently in Benghazi.