Slashdot Mirror
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.
Uh...I just got out of some very cold water, but normally, it would be HUGE, I swear.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 think he'd have a soapbox in prison? I rather think not. He'd be in solitary and that would be that.
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.
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
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-
hi. im Troy McClure. you might remember me from such shows as the simpsons. also Death.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same