Snowden Demystified: Can the Government See My Junk?

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.

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

The government can see my junk?!?!?

[NotDrWho]

Uh...I just got out of some very cold water, but normally, it would be HUGE, I swear.

Re:The government can see my junk?!?!?

[GameboyRMH]

So we'd be DDOSing (Distributed Dick Overload Strategy) the NSA?

Turning their day jobs into Chatroulette?

Overrated

[StikyPad]

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:Overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Overrated

[ADRA]

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

[timrod]

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.

Re:Overrated

[nine-times]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Overrated

[0xdeadbeef]

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

[geekmux]

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

[Dixie_Flatline]

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.

Re:Overrated

[quintessencesluglord]

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:Overrated

[JMJimmy]

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:Overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Fire_Wraith]

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.

Re:Overrated

[Last Warrior]

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-

Funny because it is true

[houghi]

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.

Oliver's Worst Jokes YHet

[l0ungeb0y]

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.

TSA

[wisnoskij]

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

a total failure.

[nimbius]

Speaking on behalf of the NSA, no, we cannot as youve asked, "see" your "junk." We have collected so much vast knowledge of your human anatomy from the comfort of our underground high security facilities that it would be difficult to explain to the lay-citizen how we experience their reproductive organs. In our patented high security JunkChamber the bits and pieces as you call them of nearly every human being who has ever entered or lived in the united states for more than 70 years is experienced at our leisure. Junk from the mid 19th century as well as african american junk which was at the time deemed 3/5ths junk, is painstakingly simulated and recreated in our private parts simulator.

now you may be asking, "what does this do? how does this keep me safe?" but let me assure you the details of which are so complex your poor mind would hardly have the fortitude to endure even a cursory explanation. Whats important is that you remember thanks to this compendium of human evolutionary anatomy (in 3d and projected oftentimes 6 stories tall) has kept us safe from terrorism for eons. Now return to the television, for the idols of america will begin soon and you'll not want to miss the opportunity to tweet and text your friends and ours about the events as they unfold, and the products you aspire to consume.

Educating Snowden

[Immerial]

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.

Re: Educating Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Educating Snowden

[IamTheRealMike]

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.

Re:Educating Snowden

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Educating Snowden

[MobSwatter]

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.

Re: Educating Snowden

[MightyYar]

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

[Last Warrior]

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

[mccrew]

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

[perpenso]

Actually Oliver was doing something very valuable with his interruptions. Forcing Snowden to refrain from technobabble that the general public would not get. Forcing Snowden to be more effective at his self appointed task, to put in the extra effort necessary to phrase things so the general public could understand.

Re:Snowden needed the interruptions/lesson

[Chelloveck]

Actually Oliver was doing something very valuable with his interruptions. Forcing Snowden to refrain from technobabble that the general public would not get.

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 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.

Technobabble can help the argument too

[perpenso]

Sometimes simplification is helpful, sometimes it is not. Technobabble can give the illusion of importance. For example is you say the NSA is collecting telephone metadata that sound ominous. If you simplify it and say the NSA is having AT&T share the info on your phone bill, date, number called, duration ... then people would understand and probably not rate the collection of much importance.

Do you close the bathroom door when home alone?

[DutchUncle]

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!

Re:Both?

[Dixie_Flatline]

You think he'd have a soapbox in prison? I rather think not. He'd be in solitary and that would be that.

Re:the real traitors

[Sir_Eptishous]

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

Re:Both?

[robinsonne]

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.

Re:Both?

[B. Maurice Gilhooley]

Uh, yeah. You know what the difference would have been if Snowden hadn't "chickened out" and fled the country? 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.

Re:Damn Youtube/uploader

[o_ferguson]

https://torrentz.eu/1791db990c...

Re:Damn Youtube/uploader

[o_ferguson]

Or the direct magnet, if you trust me: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1791db990ce2031d523e3d015ae8206c738bbd8d&dn=Last.Week.Tonight.With.John.Oliver.S02E08.HDTV.x264-BATV%5Bettv%5D&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.leechers-paradise.org%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969

Pedantic but Needed Suggestion

[eepok]

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:Pedantic but Needed Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Uniting and
Strengthening
America by
Pictures of
A
Turgid
Rod on the
Internet
Or
Telephone

Fair trial wanted

[John Bayko]

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:The McClure's magazine of Twitter Generation

[ganjadude]

hi. im Troy McClure. you might remember me from such shows as the simpsons. also Death.