John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

[WelshBloke]

That's what you have to do when you're doing research. Like the scientists at Jurassic Park who were researching dinosaur DNA and used frog DNA to fill the gaps. What I'm saying is Edward Snowden has developed dinosaur cloning technology. It's the only sensible explanation for the holes in his story. How else do you explain him mysteriously disappearing from Hong Kong and turning up in Russia unless he rode a pterodactyl? WAKE UP SHEEPLE.

I'm liking your narrative quite a lot actually. :awe:

 

[disappoint]

I dont think he did what he did because of ego. I think he was justifying the consequences of his actions by thinking the world cared. That face is what you get when you realize you just ruined your life forever and almost nobody knows your name.

You want to go where you can see
Our troubles are all the same...
You want to go where
Everybody gets drunk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KtAgAMzaeg

 

[realibrad]

Rather scary, if legit.

The torture of prisoners captured in the Middle East, which parts of the US government oversaw and approved: If only we'd have used machines to torture people, then maybe it would have been exempt from any laws against that sort of thing.

There is no doubt about it being true. What they did to the guy for simply running an email client is scary.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

What I mean is that there are tons of well known and easy ways to ensure that the information would leak in the event of your arrest/death/whatever. In fact, it appears that at the time of him fleeing from the US he had already done such a thing:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ggests_nsa_blueprint_is_party_of_snowden.html

That means he had all the time in the world.

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.

I think what I linked before shows that he wasn't constrained in that way. This was his choice and he made a bad one.

 

[realibrad]

What I mean is that there are tons of well known and easy ways to ensure that the information would leak in the event of your arrest/death/whatever. In fact, it appears that at the time of him fleeing from the US he had already done such a thing:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ggests_nsa_blueprint_is_party_of_snowden.html

That means he had all the time in the world.



I think what I linked before shows that he wasn't constrained in that way. This was his choice and he made a bad one.

So, what did he release that was so obviously a danger? I dont see a problem with him letting others decide what is important, because like I said, there was a time when journalist were seen as doing that.

Also, the real issue is now Snowden and his mishandle of the data. It is the fact that the US government had that data and how it got that data.

As for going through secure means, its not as easy as finding a client and using it. As exampled by LavaBit (dead horse I know) you have to make sure they are trustworthy. Any data that is sent can be corrupted if you can get into the network. LavaBit was being forced to compromise its entire system. Just imagine trying to find another system that you could trust, knowing that a government can break that system. Encryption is only useful if someone cannot decrypt the data. If the admin of the network wishes, they have the ability to break it. You have to have someone you trust to pass your data. You cannot trust ISPs (PRISIM), and you cannot blindly trust encryption services (LavaBit). Your best bet is people and spreading around the data so that no one point is the weak link.

Wikileaks had this same problem. One person was trusted with the manning data, and he was compromised.

 

[zinfamous]

It's called mosaic theory. In this case you can look at all of the gaps, and his refusal to answer them, and then when he does he flip flops all over the place, you begin to suspect the whole thing. You don't think that it's even a little suspicious that he completely comes off the rails? Not at all? Are you fucking kidding me?

This isn't the first time a supposed "patriot" turned traitor. History is littered with them. Money, hatred over an "inept" government (according to them), getting back at people, naive thoughts, are all reasons.

You're shit at research, then. You're method here is to "fill the gaps" with information that fits your pre-conceived bias, not with information that is most logical, backed with data or evidence, that is actually salient to your subject. Due to your bias, you ignore the relevant bits of information.

I do research for a living, too. I'm going to guess that you are in economics, "business science," something like that? Here, publishable material enforces grade school stats with mostly made-up numbers. Those research journals are littered with minefields of shit studies predicated by falsified data. In some cases, as with a lot of economics, you are left depending on assumptions and a model of prediction that defies quantitation. I get that, but it's certainly not the proper model to be applied for determining guilt or innocence.

 

[fskimospy]

So, what did he release that was so obviously a danger? I dont see a problem with him letting others decide what is important, because like I said, there was a time when journalist were seen as doing that.

Also, the real issue is now Snowden and his mishandle of the data. It is the fact that the US government had that data and how it got that data.

As for going through secure means, its not as easy as finding a client and using it. As exampled by LavaBit (dead horse I know) you have to make sure they are trustworthy. Any data that is sent can be corrupted if you can get into the network. LavaBit was being forced to compromise its entire system. Just imagine trying to find another system that you could trust, knowing that a government can break that system. Encryption is only useful if someone cannot decrypt the data. If the admin of the network wishes, they have the ability to break it. You have to have someone you trust to pass your data. You cannot trust ISPs (PRISIM), and you cannot blindly trust encryption services (LavaBit). Your best bet is people and spreading around the data so that no one point is the weak link.

Wikileaks had this same problem. One person was trusted with the manning data, and he was compromised.

I agree that the main issue is the actions of our government, the dragnet NSA surveillance in particular. I think that he has leaked information that goes far beyond that, into things where the government was acting totally appropriately. I mean I'm not just okay with the NSA spying on friendly governments during trade negotiations, I'm actively in support of it.

I don't think you leak the information to journalists to decide because they don't have the same ethical obligations that you do as the holder of the information. I think this was shown by what they chose to publish.

 

[realibrad]

I agree that the main issue is the actions of our government, the dragnet NSA surveillance in particular. I think that he has leaked information that goes far beyond that, into things where the government was acting totally appropriately. I mean I'm not just okay with the NSA spying on friendly governments during trade negotiations, I'm actively in support of it.

I don't think you leak the information to journalists to decide because they don't have the same ethical obligations that you do as the holder of the information. I think this was shown by what they chose to publish.

When you set up a shitty system, shitty things are going to happen. Snowden may not have been the best, but he is what we got. The whole system was set up to make it hard on someone to come out with this info. He made some mistakes, but I expect that when doing something that he did. It was not perfect or clean, but I am glad he did not simply dump everything to the internet like he could have.

 

[jackstar7]

Impressive interview.

 

[LegendKiller]

You're shit at research, then. You're method here is to "fill the gaps" with information that fits your pre-conceived bias, not with information that is most logical, backed with data or evidence, that is actually salient to your subject. Due to your bias, you ignore the relevant bits of information.

I do research for a living, too. I'm going to guess that you are in economics, "business science," something like that? Here, publishable material enforces grade school stats with mostly made-up numbers. Those research journals are littered with minefields of shit studies predicated by falsified data. In some cases, as with a lot of economics, you are left depending on assumptions and a model of prediction that defies quantitation. I get that, but it's certainly not the proper model to be applied for determining guilt or innocence.

Yeah, tell that to my company. Over $6bn in assets have fully paid off and I have not lost them $1 of principal over 3 years when investing in some more riskier investments.

There are different types of research, not all of it is statistical and relies on hard data. Some of it relies on experience, data (or lack thereof), legal analysis (without being a lawyer), and gut reaction to risk/return relative value.

Similar to how an FBI investigator tracks down everything. They don't know everything right away, they have track it down. Have theories, develop a mosaic, fill in the holes and present a case.

My last bit of "research" avoided a 60% loss on investment, a large investment, because my "shit research" told me something was up.

I get paid well for my research.

But tell me, what type of research do you do where you accept the word of a liar on face value and fail to consider any other possibilities, including that he is a liar, and refuse to acknowledge that there ma be exogenous variables that you haven't accounted for. You refuse to fill in the gaps, or even explore why they exist, because the conclusion they may lead to is inconvenient to your narrative. You are linear.

Talk about shit research.

"Well, Snowden said it, so it MUST be true. No use exploring how, or why, or when, or who. He just magically appeared here or there, just magically got this or that, and, you know, fuck it, who cares when he talked to the FSB, it's immaterial. Who cares how he handled the data, or who got it, or how. It just happened, like Snowden says. Fuck the USA! TEAM ANARCHY!"

You're no better than Jenny McCarthy spouting off about Autism after reading Wakefield's study and taking it as gospel.

 

[Subyman]

I'm a stock trader, so I know about international spy rings. That's about the worst appeal to authority claim I've read in a while.

 

[realibrad]

I'm a stock trader, so I know about international spy rings. That's about the worst appeal to authority claim I've read in a while.

I can see Russia quality.

 

[Perknose]

Similar to how an FBI investigator tracks down everything.

:awe:

I just stitched together a mosaic -- ok, it's more of an embroidered tea cozy -- that says, "LK, your hubris will catch up with you."

 

[JD50]

I'm a stock trader, so I know about international spy rings. That's about the worst appeal to authority claim I've read in a while.

Living in Southern Illinois, I'm sure you are intimately familiar with the programs that Snowden has exposed.

 

[smackababy]

What specific leaks are you and eskimospy talking about here?

Slides released by NYT that failed to properly redact the US had agents monitoring ISIS. It was covered in the fucking interview...

Snowden gave potentially dangerous information to a bunch of randoms and is trying to remove responsibility from himself for it.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm a stock trader, so I know about international spy rings. That's about the worst appeal to authority claim I've read in a while.

Yes, that's it...

And what do you do that makes it so you can divine that Snowden is telling the truth when he was already caught in a lie?

Ohh, wait, you're just a internet tool who thinks that the gubment is all bad and snowden is a god. Got it.

 

[LegendKiller]

:awe:

I just stitched together a mosaic -- ok, it's more of an embroidered tea cozy -- that says, "LK, your hubris will catch up with you."

Gotcha there chucklebunny. Perhaps you can come up with some reason why we should actually believe Snowden, other than "Hey, I live in my mom's basement and hate the government, so snowden is my hero".

"MOM, GIVE ME SOME MEATLOAF!"


But hey, nice duhversionary tactic, attack me rather than just asking some simple questions.

First simple question the guy gets asked and he folds like a cheap suit.


But nope, gotta just believe him on face value.

Doesn't it pique your interest, just a little bit, that this guy folds on such a simple question that he has stuck to the whole time?

What makes his version 100% gospel and not any other alternative theory? Because he says so?

Wow, you guys are a bunch of fucking gullible rubes.

 

[JD50]

Yes, that's it...

And what do you do that makes it so you can divine that Snowden is telling the truth when he was already caught in a lie?

Ohh, wait, you're just a internet tool who thinks that the gubment is all bad and snowden is a god. Got it.

Exactly. I love the double standard here.

What's funny is that you have a bunch of nerds on this site that love to bash the main stream media on just about any other subject, but when it comes to Snowden they believe everything without question. These people really know their technology... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRcdmbC0HHs

 

[ivwshane]

I guess your idea of folding is different than mine but then again I'm not a stock trader making six figures posting on a political sub forum about being a stock trader.

You must have such low self esteem that you deem it necessary to talk about how awesome you are in every thread you post in. Or you have a micro penis, the M.O. is the same either way

Gotcha there chucklebunny. Perhaps you can come up with some reason why we should actually believe Snowden, other than "Hey, I live in my mom's basement and hate the government, so snowden is my hero".

"MOM, GIVE ME SOME MEATLOAF!"


But hey, nice duhversionary tactic, attack me rather than just asking some simple questions.

First simple question the guy gets asked and he folds like a cheap suit.


But nope, gotta just believe him on face value.

Doesn't it pique your interest, just a little bit, that this guy folds on such a simple question that he has stuck to the whole time?

What makes his version 100% gospel and not any other alternative theory? Because he says so?

Wow, you guys are a bunch of fucking gullible rubes.

 

[Subyman]

Living in Southern Illinois, I'm sure you are intimately familiar with the programs that Snowden has exposed.

I am privy to most of programs he has uncovered, just like anyone else following. Location doesn't matter, unless you were right behind Snowden following him. I'm not making up stories and trying to pass them off as expert analysis. So what was the point of your post?

Yes, that's it...

And what do you do that makes it so you can divine that Snowden is telling the truth when he was already caught in a lie?

Ohh, wait, you're just a internet tool who thinks that the gubment is all bad and snowden is a god. Got it.

I'm not filling in the gaps with conjecture and then appealing to my (unrelated) profession. I'm keen to accept a more reasonable story than the one you have portrayed. The point of my post is that your arguments should stand on their own without the need to justify your position by saying you are an "expert."

 

[Subyman]

Exactly. I love the double standard here.

What's funny is that you have a bunch of nerds on this site that love to bash the main stream media on just about any other subject, but when it comes to Snowden they believe everything without question. These people really know their technology... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRcdmbC0HHs

Ah yes, the straw man. Well, we've got appeal to authority, ad hominem, and now a straw man. Let's keep on rolling here.

So you believe Legend's Russian spy ring story?

 

[JD50]

I am privy to most of programs he has uncovered, just like anyone else following. Location doesn't matter, unless you were right behind Snowden following him. I'm not making up stories and trying to pass them off as expert analysis. So what was the point of your post?

No you absolutely are not. You are privy to his and the media's interpretation. I have already made my point several times, and it is that he clearly didn't understand what he leaked.

Location doesn't matter, but your background and personal experience does. I doubt someone living in Southern Illinois has any experience in the IC, which is what I was getting at. You criticize LK because of his background, but yours doesn't matter?

Take a step back and ask yourself why you're so willing to believe everything that the media is telling you. Honestly I don't really blame most people for believing it because they are only hearing one side of the story. The Government is very limited in what they can say about the whole thing for obvious reasons, I just wish some people would be a little more skeptical and use some critical thinking here.

 

[JD50]

Ah yes, the straw man. Well, we've got appeal to authority, ad hominem, and now a straw man. Let's keep on rolling here.

So you believe Legend's Russian spy ring story?

What straw man? Sometimes an appeal to authority is appropriate, and there's no ad hominem there.

If you're expecting the government to declassify these programs and explain to everyone how they work, you're being unrealistic. They are classified for a reason.

 

[Subyman]

No you absolutely are not. You are privy to his and the media's interpretation. I have already made my point several times, and it is that he clearly didn't understand what he leaked.

I am privy to most of programs he has uncovered, just like anyone else following. Location doesn't matter, unless you were right behind Snowden following him. I'm not making up stories and trying to pass them off as expert analysis. So what was the point of your post?

Uhm, that's the same thing. "Absolutely not"... Unless you have a different definition of "he uncovered." Are you privy to the "real" interpretation, links?

Location doesn't matter, but your background and personal experience does. I doubt someone living in Southern Illinois has any experience in the IC, which is what I was getting at. You criticize LK because of his background, but yours doesn't matter?

No mine doesn't matter, because I'm not creating alternative narratives here. I'm generally accepting of what has been shown by the document leaks and the following analysis. Legend provided a hugely different narrative, but didn't back it up with many decent facts. He was called out on it and then he went down the path of saying he is privy to research techniques that put his perspective far above both ours and every other investigative analysis made so far. After a page or so he fesses up to being a stock trader, not an security insider.

Again, me or others that are disagreeing with his narrative do not need to be security experts and we aren't claiming to be. Because we aren't coming up with our own theories.

Take a step back and ask yourself why you're so willing to believe everything that the media is telling you. Honestly I don't really blame most people for believing it because they are only hearing one side of the story. The Government is very limited in what they can say about the whole thing for obvious reasons, I just wish some people would be a little more skeptical and use some critical thinking here.

I absolutely never said I believe everything the media shows. But being skeptical doesn't mean you accept the opposite of what the media says without decent proof.

If you have legitimate links to an analysis other than what the generally accepted narrative is that includes Russian spy rings and conspiracies with foreign nations that is laid out with great evidence then I'll check it out.

 

[Subyman]

What straw man? Sometimes an appeal to authority is appropriate, and there's no ad hominem there.

If you're expecting the government to declassify these programs and explain to everyone how they work, you're being unrealistic. They are classified for a reason.

No, you never appeal to authority. If you are an authority, you should be able to explain it and provide enough evidence for the argument to stand on its own.

Straw man was you saying "nerds on this website never believe the media" <-- creating the straw man and then burning it down by saying "unless its about Snowden, then they believe it."

and this nugget of an ad hominem:

Ohh, wait, you're just a internet tool who thinks that the gubment is all bad and snowden is a god. Got it.