John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

[realibrad]

How was Snowden leaking information about US surveillance of other governments required to remedy these abuses?

Keep in mind the context. Once Snowden made the choice to expose what was going on, he had a very narrow window. Snowden could not hold onto that info for very long. If he had remained the single source, all that would be needed is to have him removed, whatever that might mean.

So, he fed info to 2 people the trusted and acted quickly.

If you want an example of how the government can do things, look up Lava Bit and how the government went around the law. The government told the owner that if he did not release all info about his service that they would throw him in jail. The government was willing to throw this guy in jail under terrorist claims so they could fish through data to see if they could find anything. If Snowden had gone to this same government with the info they knew he had access to, what makes you think they would have done anything different?

The fact that the US government was willing to label a email service owner as a terrorist and remove him from the US legal system because they suspected he might have known Snowden shows how far they were willing to go around US laws.

I wish Snowden could have had more time to work things out, but it simply was not possible given the constraints.

 

[smackababy]

America frequently engages in drone attacks in which innocent bystanders are killed. I accept that benefit/loss argument made by the government in these situations.

Well, despite the vague claims made by the government, I have yet to hear of any huge losses - or ANY losses, for that matter - suffered by the U.S. government because of secrets exposed by Snowden. But I do know for sure of the huge benefit to America of Snowden's revelations about the collection of domestic information.

So as far as I'm concerned, Snowden's actions have resulted in a huge gain and virtually no loss. He's a hero to me.

No loss? So, a large part of our intelligence gather of foreign nations is no longer available, and there is no loss?

That, however, is not on Snowden. That is on the news groups.

I don't dump responsibility so easily. Did he have a reasonable expectation that the news groups wouldn't simply print all or most of it? I hardly think so. It is in their best interest to have as much stuff to report on and "US spies on China too!" is a great followup click bait story after "US spies on us!". Using the "well, after he dumped it all off on media, so it's no longer his fault" is the same as saying "well, he gave the alcohol to that guy after he was far too intoxicated; after the patron left to building, it is no longer his responsibility."

 

[fleshconsumed]

To all the people who are convinced that Snowden could have simply gone to proper authorities and reported the abuse. Really? It's like drug lord minion coming up to his boss and having a heart to heart talk with his boss about how what they're doing is illegal, ruins people's lives, and gets entire families murdered. A guy like that would have been offed before leaving the room.

Now, I don't think NSA would have offed Snowden, but at the very least he would have been let go, all of his access privileges removed, and quite likely he would have been placed under some sort of gag order/surveilance/travel restrictions. You're forgetting, the government has been setting up these programs to spy on US citizens without proper court orders for at least a decade before Snowden leaked the documents. Do you really think that in that decade nobody stopped and thought even for a second about the legality of what they were doing? Really? What was done by the government was done 100% intentionally and in secret because it knew that it was illegal. I seriously don't get how anyone could be naive enough to believe Snowden could have just reported it to his superiors and it would have sorted itself out.

You can blow whistle on an individual abuse within the system, but if the point of the entire system is to violate the constitutional rights of the people, then there is nothing to blow the whistle on, you can't, you have to blow the whole system up, which is precisely what Snowden did. The only problem I see is that the system is still well alive and standing, and Snowden is ruined.

 

[realibrad]

No loss? So, a large part of our intelligence gather of foreign nations is no longer available, and there is no loss?



I don't dump responsibility so easily. Did he have a reasonable expectation that the news groups wouldn't simply print all or most of it? I hardly think so. It is in their best interest to have as much stuff to report on and "US spies on China too!" is a great followup click bait story after "US spies on us!". Using the "well, after he dumped it all off on media, so it's no longer his fault" is the same as saying "well, he gave the alcohol to that guy after he was far too intoxicated; after the patron left to building, it is no longer his responsibility."

The problem is that both domestic and foreign data collection was mixed. The world is a complicated place, and you cannot collect just one and not the other. I don't think Snowden could have released one without the other, so if I am wrong, please let me know and explain.

Also, your analogy of the drunk person does not really work here. In that context, the drunk loses the ability to make rational decisions. The data given to the media did not compromise their judgement.

 

[smackababy]

To all the people who are convinced that Snowden could have simply gone to proper authorities and reported the abuse. Really? It's like drug lord minion coming up to his boss and having a heart to heart talk with his boss about how what they're doing is illegal, ruins people's lives, and gets entire families murdered. A guy like that would have been offed before leaving the room.

Now, I don't think NSA would have offed Snowden, but at the very least he would have been let go, all of his access privileges removed, and quite likely he would have been placed under some sort of gag order/surveilance/travel restrictions. You're forgetting, the government has been setting up these programs to spy on US citizens without proper court orders for at least a decade before Snowden leaked the documents. Do you really think that in that decade nobody stopped and thought even for a second about the legality of what they were doing? Really? What was done by the government was done 100% intentionally and in secret because it knew that it was illegal. I seriously don't get how anyone could be naive enough to believe Snowden could have just reported it to his superiors and it would have sorted itself out.

You can blow whistle on an individual abuse within the system, but if the point of the entire system is to violate the constitutional rights of the people, then there is nothing to blow the whistle on, you can't, you have to blow the whole system up, which is precisely what Snowden did. The only problem I see is that the system is still well alive and standing, and Snowden is ruined.

No one here has advocated that Snowden shouldn't have reported the abuse to whom he reported it to. Everyone so far has had issue with the "here are thousands of documents of who knows what, have fun" way in which he did it.

The problem is that both domestic and foreign data collection was mixed. The world is a complicated place, and you cannot collect just one and not the other. I don't think Snowden could have released one without the other, so if I am wrong, please let me know and explain.

And, there should have been a very clear understand of the data prior to releasing it. While some of it (monitoring phone messages and emails of foreign nationals while in America) would have been brought to light with the domestic spying, plenty of stuff that had zero to do with the American people could have been left out.

 

[realibrad]

No one here has advocated that Snowden shouldn't have reported the abuse to whom he reported it to. Everyone so far has had issue with the "here are thousands of documents of who knows what, have fun" way in which he did it.



And, there should have been a very clear understand of the data prior to releasing it. While some of it (monitoring phone messages and emails of foreign nationals while in America) would have been brought to light with the domestic spying, plenty of stuff that had zero to do with the American people could have been left out.

Again, he had to act quickly. Him being the only one to hold that data put him in great peril. As I explained with Lava Bit, they would have taken Snowden if he had been caught, and taken him out of the legal system because he would have become a terrorist. Snowden taking time to go over every document would have taken weeks if not months. Snowden trying to hold on to that data for that long means the government could get to him and solve their problem. Getting out the info quickly ensures his protection.

It was shitty in how it had to happen, but he could not hold onto that data to go over every detail. At some point, he had to make the call to get out what he could. He admitted there were mistakes and that he did hold many things back, so he attempted to balance, but to say he needed to review everything is unrealistic.

 

[smackababy]

Again, he had to act quickly. Him being the only one to hold that data put him in great peril. As I explained with Lava Bit, they would have taken Snowden if he had been caught, and taken him out of the legal system because he would have become a terrorist. Snowden taking time to go over every document would have taken weeks if not months. Snowden trying to hold on to that data for that long means the government could get to him and solve their problem. Getting out the info quickly ensures his protection.

It was shitty in how it had to happen, but he could not hold onto that data to go over every detail. At some point, he had to make the call to get out what he could. He admitted there were mistakes and that he did hold many things back, so he attempted to balance, but to say he needed to review everything is unrealistic.

Snowden was working more than 6 months after his initial contact with reports claiming he had sensitive information. Long before anyone knew his fucking name or that he had the data. He had plenty of time to either vet someone to go over the data or get the fuck outta dodge to go over it himself. Instead, he continued working and continued leaking information until he fled. He also stated some idiotic shit about reporters being assassinated if they released the documents like he was in a Tom Clancy novel.

 

[realibrad]

Snowden was working more than 6 months after his initial contact with reports claiming he had sensitive information. Long before anyone knew his fucking name or that he had the data. He had plenty of time to either vet someone to go over the data or get the fuck outta dodge to go over it himself. Instead, he continued working and continued leaking information until he fled. He also stated some idiotic shit about reporters being assassinated if they released the documents like he was in a Tom Clancy novel.

Do you know about LavaBit? Before you start saying that the government would not go too far, you should look that up.

LavaBit was an encrypted email system that Snowden was using. The owner was told that if he did not turn over all his data, they would label him as a terrorist and take him out of the country. He then thought about just shutting down his service, and they told him that would also get him in trouble.

Afterwards, Levison wrote that after being contacted by the FBI, he was subpoenaed to appear in federal court, and was forced to appear without legal representation because it was served on such short notice; in addition, as a third party, he had no right to representation, and was not allowed to ask anyone who was not an attorney to help find him one. He also wrote that in addition to being denied a hearing about the warrant to obtain Lavabit's user information, he was held in contempt of court. The appellate court denied his appeal due to no objection, however, he wrote that because there had been no hearing, no objection could have been raised. His contempt of court charge was also upheld on the ground that it was not disputed; similarly, he was unable to dispute the charge because there had been no hearing to do it in. He also wrote that "the government argued that, since the 'inspection' of the data was to be carried out by a machine, it was exempt from the normal search-and-seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment

They were putting this guy through hell and all they wanted was meta data. Imagine what they were willing to do to get Snowde, and imagine what they would have been willing to do to punish him.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Again, he had to act quickly. Him being the only one to hold that data put him in great peril. As I explained with Lava Bit, they would have taken Snowden if he had been caught, and taken him out of the legal system because he would have become a terrorist. Snowden taking time to go over every document would have taken weeks if not months. Snowden trying to hold on to that data for that long means the government could get to him and solve their problem. Getting out the info quickly ensures his protection.

It was shitty in how it had to happen, but he could not hold onto that data to go over every detail. At some point, he had to make the call to get out what he could. He admitted there were mistakes and that he did hold many things back, so he attempted to balance, but to say he needed to review everything is unrealistic.

The notion that Snowden had to release things immediately to American journalists or he never would have had the opportunity is somewhat belied by the fact that he just had a sit-down interview with an American journalist in a non-extradition country. This isn't the Dark Ages; you no longer have to be within shouting range of someone to communicate with them, and we still have journalists capable of getting within shouting range of Snowden anyway. This is a guy who spent years learning how the system operates to track data; I'm pretty sure he could have figured out a way to circumvent it and get classified documents into the hands of whoever he wanted to from anywhere on the globe. So, no, he didn't need to take the scattershot "everything I could get my hands on but not bother reading" approach to releasing sensitive information just because of a time crunch.

 

[BoberFett]

He didn't need to understand the programs in their entirety, but he clearly released large amounts of information to other people that it doesn't take a genius to see was hugely inappropriate. Easy example, the fact that the US was spying on other governments. That's not interesting or novel, yet it damaged relationships between countries.

It wasn't like he screened them, threw out the ones he thought were reasonable secrets, leaked the ones he knew were bad, and then looked for help on those he was unsure about. He just dumped a big pile of files on other people. It's wrong, and he needs to pay the price.

Wait a second, if the fact that we're spying on other countries isn't interesting or novel, how could it have damaged relationships? If everybody knows that everybody is spying on everybody, then nobody should have been surprised that we were spying on them, yet you claim they were aghast at the fact that we were spying on them?

Keep at the logical gymnastics, your form is getting better.

 

[realibrad]

The notion that Snowden had to release things immediately to American journalists or he never would have had the opportunity is somewhat belied by the fact that he just had a sit-down interview with an American journalist in a non-extradition country. This isn't the Dark Ages; you no longer have to be within shouting range of someone to communicate with them, and we still have journalists capable of getting within shouting range of Snowden anyway. This is a guy who spent years learning how the system operates to track data; I'm pretty sure he could have figured out a way to circumvent it and get classified documents into the hands of whoever he wanted to from anywhere on the globe. So, no, he didn't need to take the scattershot "everything I could get my hands on but not bother reading" approach to releasing sensitive information just because of a time crunch.

He was using a system, it was called LavaBit. That system, like all other systems was compromised.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email

As for the accusation that he gave everything away is wrong. He did hold many things back from what he said. He did attempt to edit things out, and admitted he missed some things. Again, at what point do you try and hold back information and increase your risk? The government showed a clear willingness to go to amazing lengths to get to him. He had been vetting the journalist for a while. People were starting to look into him because they suspected that he might be trying to get info he was not allowed to access. His timeline was moved up. You may try and argue he had more time than he felt he had, but put yourself in his situation. Had he been caught, he would not have gone through normal civilian courts. If I was in his situation, I would have been paranoid and made mistakes too.

 

[shira]

No loss? So, a large part of our intelligence gather of foreign nations is no longer available, and there is no loss?

Really? Please provide a credible source for this statement. I'm not aware that the NSA is no longer able to collect just as much information now as it did pre-Snowden.

 

[BoberFett]

It's fascinating that so many people are taking the propaganda bait and making this about Snowden and getting outraged about one little guy, rather than the fact that our government is run by a bunch of pieces of shit who have no problem with massive illegal surveillance programs.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

 

[shira]

They are huge but they were not loss of just or moral shit.

The loss of being able to collected unlimited information on Americans, which they weren't authorized to do in the first place. Thus, the government cannot credibly claim this as a "loss."

 

[Atomic Playboy]

He was using a system, it was called LavaBit. That system, like all other systems was compromised.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shut-down-snowden-email

As for the accusation that he gave everything away is wrong. He did hold many things back from what he said. He did attempt to edit things out, and admitted he missed some things. Again, at what point do you try and hold back information and increase your risk? The government showed a clear willingness to go to amazing lengths to get to him. He had been vetting the journalist for a while. People were starting to look into him because they suspected that he might be trying to get info he was not allowed to access. His timeline was moved up. You may try and argue he had more time than he felt he had, but put yourself in his situation. Had he been caught, he would not have gone through normal civilian courts. If I was in his situation, I would have been paranoid and made mistakes too.

He had already fled the country before he released any information; why not release a few pieces that you've already vetted and redacted yourself and hold off on releasing the rest until you've had a chance to review it? The complete information dump feels like a cop-out, although it's more likely a young man panicking as he realizes the scope of what he's doing. But it's still reckless and unnecessary.

 

[Subyman]

It's fascinating that so many people are taking the propaganda bait and making this about Snowden and getting outraged about one little guy, rather than the fact that our government is run by a bunch of pieces of shit who have no problem with massive illegal surveillance programs.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

Yup, any time I see a Snowden piece on Fox News its always about "Traitor or Patriot?" Instead of "NSA butt fucking US privacy."

Good thing there are actual advocacy groups that do the dirty work while we talk about the messenger.

 

[shira]

It's fascinating that so many people are taking the propaganda bait and making this about Snowden and getting outraged about one little guy, rather than the fact that our government is run by a bunch of pieces of shit who have no problem with massive illegal surveillance programs.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

I just hope that when the re-authorization bill for the Patriot Act comes up in June the Congress severely restricts data-collection of American sources. This ACLU page nicely summarizes key provisions of the Patriot Act that need to be changed.

On May 26, 2011, Congress passed a four-year extension of three expiring Patriot Act provisions without making much-needed changes to the overly broad surveillance bill. The extended provisions are set now set to expire on June 1, 2015. Despite bills pending in both the House and the Senate to amend the three expiring provisions and other sections of the Patriot Act, Congress decided instead to move ahead with a straightforward reauthorization.

Despite the many amendments to these laws since 9/11, Congress and the public have yet to receive real information about how these powerful tools are being used to collect information on Americans and how that information is being used. All of these laws work together to create a surveillance superstructure – and Congress must understand how it really works to create meaningful protections for civil liberties.

The ACLU's recent report, Reclaiming Patriotism, provides more information on parts of the Patriot Act that need to be amended. The three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act give the government sweeping authority to spy on individuals inside the United States, and in some cases, without any suspicion of wrongdoing. All three should be allowed to expire if they are not amended to include privacy protections to protect personal information from government overreach.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain "any tangible thing" relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the "thing" pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as "roving John Doe wiretap" provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.

Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called "Lone Wolf" provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.

The [2011 revision of the] bill also fails to amend other portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, most notably those relating to the issuance and use of national security letters (NSLs). NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. Numerous Department of Justice Inspector General reports have confirmed that tens of thousands of these letters are issued every year and they are used to collect information on people two and three times removed from a terrorism suspect. NSLs also come with a nondisclosure requirement that precludes a court from determining whether the gag is necessary to protect national security. The NSL provisions should be amended so that they collect information only on suspected terrorists and the gag should be modified to permit meaningful court review for those who wish to challenge nondisclosure orders.

The Patriot Act debate is far from over.

 

[Jeff7]

It's not though, because you cut out the 'unreasonable' part, which makes it super unclear as it all depends on your definition of reasonable.

True.
I have a feeling that mass collection of private communications would not be deemed "reasonable."

"Imagine that, in the future, it'll be possible to economically open everyone's mail and read it."

(I'm sorry...read the addresses of the sender and recipient, and record how often correspondence was made, and the weight and dimension of each item.)

At this point, they're saying that I'm "suspicious" enough to swipe snippets of information from me just because I send information over the Internet.

I think these programs are huge violations of the 4th amendment, but let's not go down the same road as the ridiculous 2nd amendment people who say 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' as if it's some ironclad rule. The freedom from searches is not absolute, same as the right to bear arms is not absolute.

What I take it to mean is that the government needs a warrant to search your stuff.
(Private industry can get away with a few more things - private property and such.)
I can't think of many positive points to having a population that knows that the government is having a peek at anything they're doing, and either archiving it indefinitely, or else sending it through a sophisticated supercomputer to check it for anything that's either suspicious or interesting, depending on what your definition is for "suspicious" or "interesting," and the official definitions for those would surely be classified.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Buckle up buttercup, mass collection and analyzing of data and the extinction of private information is the world from here on out.

 

[BoberFett]

What I take it to mean is that the government needs a warrant to search your stuff.
(Private industry can get away with a few more things - private property and such.)
I can't think of many positive points to having a population that knows that the government is having a peek at anything they're doing, and either archiving it indefinitely, or else sending it through a sophisticated supercomputer to check it for anything that's either suspicious or interesting, depending on what your definition is for "suspicious" or "interesting," and the official definitions for those would surely be classified.

Based on some of what we've seen, "interesting" can just mean some NSA creep keeping tabs on an ex-girlfriend.

 

[BoberFett]

Buckle up buttercup, mass collection and analyzing of data and the extinction of private information is the world from here on out.

Then politicians shouldn't mind buckling on cameras to wear 24/7 so we can all see who THEY'RE talking to...

 

[realibrad]

He had already fled the country before he released any information; why not release a few pieces that you've already vetted and redacted yourself and hold off on releasing the rest until you've had a chance to review it? The complete information dump feels like a cop-out, although it's more likely a young man panicking as he realizes the scope of what he's doing. But it's still reckless and unnecessary.

Because you dont know where the government draws the line on what is enough to go after you. If he releases enough, the government may say, "we need to get this guy before he releases more". If you do what he did, you get a big enough name so you can disappear. You also show what you are willing to release and it becomes a game of MAD. If you hold back too much, they are going to get you before its too late.

Was it reckless, maybe. But, before you start throwing stones, look at the situation the government set up. It is almost impossible that someone could do things perfectly. There was a lot of risk that Snowden took upon himself and no doubt he made mistakes. I just cut him some slack because what he did was worth doing, even if it could have been done better.

The main thing here is to see what the government did with spying on its people, and how they tried to go about covering it up.

 

[LegendKiller]

It's fascinating that so many people are taking the propaganda bait and making this about Snowden and getting outraged about one little guy, rather than the fact that our government is run by a bunch of pieces of shit who have no problem with massive illegal surveillance programs.

Mission Accomplished indeed.

You know what I find fascinating? The fact that the second Snowden gets faced with *real* questions about his actions, motives, methods, he waffles and starts flubbing his lines.

WHY?

Because there is *far* more to this story than we are hearing.

There was an article on BI today that pretty much says this. His "handlers" (FSB) thought Oliver was yet another Brian Williams puff piece. It wasn't, their preparation sucked, and he fucked up, big time.

This whole "patriot" line is a sham.

 

[LegendKiller]

Okay let's rework your story then:

So, you believe he was a Russian spy masquerading as a idealistic American who was born and raised in North Coralina, whose father was a rear admiral and worked at the FBI, who ended up getting access to every NSA document and expertly positioned himself as a security whistleblower who may or may not have sold off the documents for not much money and is now living in a shit hole in Russia? And that was his plan all along, yet you think he's not intelligent (guess not since he did all that to live in a shit hole.)

Count me as a sheep then.

No, I believe something happened between his jobs where he *intentionally* sought out the job to steal classified information. He then dug for that information using means way beyond his pay grade and place in life. How?

I also then believe he f'd up his escape and tried to backtrack on his actions by using the media.

He was never a "whistleblower". His email to the NSA was NOT about his problems with spying.

I think that his move to Russia was not calculated but, instead, was a checkmate by his intelligence handler. Snowden tried to backtrack and his handlers held it over him. He tried to play the "patriot" role, but then that didn't work either because he turned over everything to people who didn't give a shit about sources & methods and classification.

I think he got in *WAY* over his head and was used, abused, fucked with a firehose without lube and now he's done.

He had no fucking clue how the world worked. He still has no clue.

 

[Genx87]

He should have reviewed every document he was planning on leaking. The options available were:

1. Leak everything and let other people figure it out.
2. Leak nothing.
3. Review the documents and leak only the things he thought constituted government misbehavior. (this is clearly the right one)

He chose an extremely irresponsible option, and he should pay the price. Maybe that's exile, maybe that's jail time here. The idea that he didn't feel like expending the effort to see if what he was leaking was important or not is totally unconvincing to me.

That is an easy way to never review anything. What you propose is simply unrealistic given the size of the our spying programs. I dont have any sympathy for a govt spying on its citizens complaining somebody let the world know about their transgressions. If it were upto me they'd be in jail. I'm probably on a watch list for mentioning that. Murrica 2015.