John Oliver interviews Edward Snowden

Turkey · April 06, 2015, 11:59:15 AM

YouTube

Full episode. Skip to 15:00.

So a bit of humor up front, but I feel like John asked some poignant questions that a lot of people would have liked to ask. He didn't just pander to either side, though I feel like he could've hit harder. He frequently cut off Snowden from explaining himself to put on the mask of a typical dumb American that doesn't care about technical answers.

I would've preferred an actual journalist do the interview, though. John put too much time into making it funny instead of asking about the real controversy behind his actions. Ultimately, half the interview is about dick pic analogies and it feels like he's wasting everyone's time.

cxfhvxgkcf-56:7 · April 06, 2015, 01:06:32 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Word Wizard · April 06, 2015, 01:11:03 PM

I just watched it a couple hours ago and yeah, cutting him off to say he/americans don't care was annoying. He complained about him being late but then only had a short interview, which as you already said, revolved too much on dick pic analogies.

Turkey · April 06, 2015, 01:16:45 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on April 06, 2015, 01:11:03 PM

I just watched it a couple hours ago and yeah, cutting him off to say he/americans don't care was annoying. He complained about him being late but then only had a short interview, which as you already said, revolved too much on dick pic analogies.

I get that he's trying to restructure a complicated issue into something that an average person could understand, by equating all of their information with dick pics, but it just came off as condescending, like the Last Week Tonight viewership is too stupid to understand anything more than basic examples. Not to mention that the biggest controversy about Snowden isn't the revelation that the NSA has legal access to some private data (no shit, this has been a topic for over a decade), but the ethical consequences of releasing so much information and then taking refuge with America's most overt intelligence rival.

aREALgod · April 06, 2015, 01:21:04 PM

>Video is removed

Why am I not surprised

On an aside, Snowden should be seen as a hero for his actions and whistle blowing. If only people would actually seek some change to the illegal things going on.

Turkey · April 06, 2015, 01:25:28 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 01:21:04 PM

>Video is removed

Fixed.

Quote

On an aside, Snowden should be seen as a hero for his actions and whistle blowing. If only people would actually seek some change to the illegal things going on.

Yeah, he should be a hero for leaking evidence of perfectly legal activities that have been known about, and reported on, since the PATRIOT Act was instituted, in addition to leaking information on active overseas surveillance programs that demonstrably aided the enemy, hindering intelligence operations and likely putting American and allied personnel at risk.

What a fucking joke.

aREALgod · April 06, 2015, 01:28:47 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 06, 2015, 01:25:28 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 01:21:04 PM
>Video is removed
Fixed.
Quote
On an aside, Snowden should be seen as a hero for his actions and whistle blowing. If only people would actually seek some change to the illegal things going on.
Yeah, he should be a hero for leaking evidence of perfectly legal activities that have been known about, and reported on, since the PATRIOT Act was instituted, in addition to leaking information on active overseas surveillance programs that demonstrably aided the enemy, hindering intelligence operations and likely putting American and allied personnel at risk.

What a fucking joke.

Except the PATRIOT Act is/was a violation of Constitutional rights no matter how you want to spin it, and it's continuation an ongoing violation of our rights. Given that, the NSA is on illegal bounds with the Constitution and it should not stand.

The only joke here is people who somehow defend a clearly illegal act.

maverick · April 06, 2015, 01:31:45 PM

I think the interview fit the overall point of his video, which is that America should know more about this issue.

Word Wizard · April 06, 2015, 01:36:46 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 06, 2015, 01:16:45 PM

It did a little bit, he tried to hard to force humor and it took away from what the interview should have been.

I actually didn't know he gave all the documents to journalists, I was under the impression he himself was revealing the info in bits. I thought it was odd that he just gave all that info to "journalists". I'm not sure if he knew them well and gave it to them because he trusted them or he just passed around the documents like party fliers before running off.

From what I remember, he didn't have a whole lot of choice in where he sought asylum, Russia was the only place to offer.

Turkey · April 06, 2015, 01:47:39 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 01:28:47 PM

Except the PATRIOT Act is/was a violation of Constitutional rights no matter how you want to spin it, and it's continuation an ongoing violation of our rights. Given that, the NSA is on illegal bounds with the Constitution and it should not stand.

See, you can have a personal opinion on whether something should be legal or not, but whether the PATRIOT Act is currently legal is without question. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. To say that what they're doing is illegal is to willfully ignore this fact. Stating its legality is in no way tantamount to saying it is right, or should exist. And the privacy issues aren't even very significant, in my opinion. I think the way they handled metadata demonstrated that they're actively trying to protect privacy. It can be argued that the FISA court is too liberal in its issuing of warrants, but that has yet to be demonstrated to any significant degree, and the point remains that as part of the contract all customers agree to upon using communication services, very little of what you transmit actually belongs to you; rather, it's the property of the carriers.

It's easy to defame this as insipid violations of privacy, yet we're more than happy to agree to this in contracts to use the latest and greatest technology. You can't stand on a soapbox and claim the sanctity of your cell phone data while demanding to have near unlimited access to channels of communication and information. Oliver's example is hardly relevant, too. It's not that the NSA is digging for dick pics, it's that they're autonomously sifting through billions of messages to connect links of terrorist information networks, taking that link to a court to be evaluated, then upon issuance of a warrant they finally have access to actually see that data. And at the end of the day, to say that the most important revelation from Snowden's leaks is the ability of the NSA to obtain communications records, something that police have been able to do through the exact same methods for decades, is to completely miss the significance of all the terrorist surveillance programs he compromised.

Forgewolf · April 06, 2015, 01:57:28 PM

I wouldn't care if someone saw my nudes. I'd just accuse them of being gay for looking at them

rC · April 06, 2015, 02:01:14 PM

Quote from: Forgewolf on April 06, 2015, 01:57:28 PM

I wouldn't care if someone saw my nudes. I'd just accuse them of being gay for looking at them

What's wrong with being gay? Why do you hate gay people? Do you honestly believe that gays should be gassed? How could you hold such disgusting views?

Isara · April 06, 2015, 02:07:12 PM

Terrible, simply terrible, and this is supposed to be funny? Fuck off, Oliver. Die in a car crash.

aREALgod · April 06, 2015, 02:09:33 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 06, 2015, 01:47:39 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 01:28:47 PM
Except the PATRIOT Act is/was a violation of Constitutional rights no matter how you want to spin it, and it's continuation an ongoing violation of our rights. Given that, the NSA is on illegal bounds with the Constitution and it should not stand.

See, you can have a personal opinion on whether something should be legal or not, but whether the PATRIOT Act is currently legal is without question. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court. To say that what they're doing is illegal is to willfully ignore this fact. Stating its legality is in no way tantamount to saying it is right, or should exist. And the privacy issues aren't even very significant, in my opinion. I think the way they handled metadata demonstrated that they're actively trying to protect privacy. It can be argued that the FISA court is too liberal in its issuing of warrants, but that has yet to be demonstrated to any significant degree, and the point remains that as part of the contract all customers agree to upon using communication services, very little of what you transmit actually belongs to you; rather, it's the property of the carriers.

It's easy to defame this as insipid violations of privacy, yet we're more than happy to agree to this in contracts to use the latest and greatest technology. You can't stand on a soapbox and claim the sanctity of your cell phone data while demanding to have near unlimited access to channels of communication and information. Oliver's example is hardly relevant, too. It's not that the NSA is digging for dick pics, it's that they're autonomously sifting through billions of messages to connect links of terrorist information networks, taking that link to a court to be evaluated, then upon issuance of a warrant they finally have access to actually see that data. And at the end of the day, to say that the most important revelation from Snowden's leaks is the ability of the NSA to obtain communications records, something that police have been able to do through the exact same methods for decades, is to completely miss the significance of all the terrorist surveillance programs he compromised.

The same Supreme Court that ruled on the ACA? I suppose if they ruled murder was legal you'd support it? I mean its the Supreme Court, they can never be wrong.

And that's the thing, in your opinion. The seizure of private information has potential to be used in corrupt ways. They can try to run under the guise of protecting your rights and freedom and whatever bullshit, but they're still doing something illegal against the Law of the Land. Nothing is above that, not even your precious Supreme Court.

gats · April 06, 2015, 02:21:05 PM

>Video isn't available in your country
>THANK YOU BASED HOLA CHROME EXTENSION

But seriously though why was this comedian given the opportunity to interview Snowden? I'm still on the fence about government surveillance, I think the time used here should have been serious. I usually find this guy funny but the fact that he was acting like this in an interview with Snowden just made cringeworthy to watch.

Turkey · April 06, 2015, 02:25:44 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 02:09:33 PM

I suppose if they ruled murder was legal you'd support it? I mean its the Supreme Court, they can never be wrong.

Might help to actual read the post you're responding to:

Quote

Stating its legality is in no way tantamount to saying it is right, or should exist.

Quote

And that's the thing, in your opinion.

Do you think saying "that's your opinion" somehow invalidates my statements? Of course that post was my opinion. Your post is your opinion. I'm providing far more justification for mine than you are for yours.

aREALgod · April 06, 2015, 02:29:43 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 06, 2015, 02:25:44 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 02:09:33 PM
I suppose if they ruled murder was legal you'd support it? I mean its the Supreme Court, they can never be wrong.

Might help to actual read the post you're responding to:
Quote
Stating its legality is in no way tantamount to saying it is right, or should exist.

Quote
And that's the thing, in your opinion.
Do you think saying "that's your opinion" somehow invalidates my statements? Of course that post was my opinion. Your post is your opinion. I'm providing far more justification for mine than you are for yours.

So if you know it's wrong why do you defend it? Let's assume you're a person of authority and one of your superiors orders you to arrest someone that you know hasn't done anything wrong and the arrest would be unfounded, would you still do it?

But here's the thing, I am more justified. I have the Constitution on my side, you have an opinion. When it comes to something like the NSA's spying, the Constitution trumps opinion.

Not Comms Officer · April 06, 2015, 02:31:32 PM

Too bad Edward Snowden fell into a trap and became a useful idiot for Russia.

Turkey · April 06, 2015, 02:33:41 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 02:29:43 PM

So if you know it's wrong why do you defend it?

First I say that stating its legality isn't tantamount to supporting or defending it. Then I go on to explain why I don't consider it wrong, in great detail.

Quote

But here's the thing, I am more justified. I have the Constitution on my side, you have an opinion. When it comes to something like the NSA's spying, the Constitution trumps opinion.

You've got the Constitution, huh? Apparently you don't, unless you're somehow more of a Constitutional scholar than the Supreme Court justices. Feel free to argue your opinion, but don't claim you have the legal consensus on your side. If you're just going to repeat the nonsensical "I've got the Constitution, and you have have an opinion" without any compelling argument, then save yourself the trouble.

Forgewolf · April 06, 2015, 02:44:04 PM

Quote from: ARSE5908 on April 06, 2015, 02:01:14 PM

Quote from: Forgewolf on April 06, 2015, 01:57:28 PM
I wouldn't care if someone saw my nudes. I'd just accuse them of being gay for looking at them
What's wrong with being gay? Why do you hate gay people? Do you honestly believe that gays should be gassed? How could you hold such disgusting views?

Lol. I don't hate gay people. I hate people that judge someone who decides to take a naked picture of themself and send it to someone else. Calling those who look at my naked pictures gay for trying to shame me is a way of making them look like a fool.

Mordo · April 06, 2015, 02:46:33 PM

ITT: Statist shills.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 06, 2015, 02:51:17 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

aREALgod · April 06, 2015, 03:20:10 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 06, 2015, 02:33:41 PM

Quote from: ANGER on April 06, 2015, 02:29:43 PM
So if you know it's wrong why do you defend it?
First I say that stating its legality isn't tantamount to supporting or defending it. Then I go on to explain why I don't consider it wrong, in great detail.
Quote
But here's the thing, I am more justified. I have the Constitution on my side, you have an opinion. When it comes to something like the NSA's spying, the Constitution trumps opinion.
You've got the Constitution, huh? Apparently you don't, unless you're somehow more of a Constitutional scholar than the Supreme Court justices. Feel free to argue your opinion, but don't claim you have the legal consensus on your side. If you're just going to repeat the nonsensical "I've got the Constitution, and you have have an opinion" without any compelling argument, then save yourself the trouble.

Oh, I guess Supreme Court justices are perfect and godly and not privy to mistakes or corruption, and the common people shouldn't have a say in any matters they rule on. Face it, it's illegal and wrong and you KNOW it, there's nothing legal about what the NSA does. The Law of the Land says so, and that's more legal consensus than some corrupt justices. Throw out whatever legal loopholes you like, but manipulating the system doesn't make it right.

Incan · April 06, 2015, 03:48:18 PM

Quote from: Isara on April 06, 2015, 02:07:12 PM

Terrible, simply terrible, and this is supposed to be funny? Fuck off, Oliver. Die in a car crash.

That's a bit of an extreme reaction.

Mad Max · April 06, 2015, 03:57:12 PM

Quote from: Isara on April 06, 2015, 02:07:12 PM

Terrible, simply terrible, and this is supposed to be funny? Fuck off, Oliver. Die in a car crash.

Whoa now.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · April 06, 2015, 04:00:58 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

big sponge · April 06, 2015, 04:08:50 PM

Quote from: Incan on April 06, 2015, 03:48:18 PM

Quote from: Isara on April 06, 2015, 02:07:12 PM
Terrible, simply terrible, and this is supposed to be funny? Fuck off, Oliver. Die in a car crash.
That's a bit of an extreme reaction.

TB · April 06, 2015, 04:14:21 PM

Quote from: Isara on April 06, 2015, 02:07:12 PM

Terrible, simply terrible, and this is supposed to be funny? Fuck off, Oliver. Die in a car crash.

Quote from: Isara on April 04, 2015, 02:52:40 PM

I'd rather believe that more deaths should be avoided on either side. The disease would be a good timing to come up with some sort of compromise for the exchange of medicines, and care. If they want to ditch a helping hand, and not turn their criminals to justice over dying for their beliefs then they can as well rot in the desert.

DAS B00T x2 · April 06, 2015, 04:57:37 PM

Oh you guys...

Hyperbole for 200, Alex.

April 06, 2015, 05:07:49 PM

ITT: Turkey continues to bend over for Uncle Sam