John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

[Darwin333]

This is another favorite pro-Snowden idiot move.

If somebody says he shouldn't have leaked foreign spying, then the idiot says "Well, how could he address the abuse of internal spying".

HE COULD HAVE JUST RELEASED DOMESTIC SPYING INFO. FFS...

You are answering questions that I did not ask, while not answering the ones that I did ask, and ironically call other people idiots in the same post.....

I asked honest and very clear questions, if you do not know the answers to them that is perfectly fine. If you do, and you have the desire and the ability to answer intelligently, I would truly appreciate it. If not, I guess I'll get another reply like this one.

If you do not understand the questions I presented I will, to the best of my ability, try to clarify them until you do.

 

[Sephire]

 

[shira]

Snowden gets props for revealing the vastness of the domestic spying. However, he should have kept his freakin mouth shut when it came to our spying on other countries.

It's called "collateral damage," and it's unavoidable.

The government decided to trade our privacy for what it claims is needed security. Well, Snowden pushed back. We can't have it both ways.

Either you agree to allow the government to collect personal information from every American in the name of security or you don't. The government was not about to tell us what it was doing; Snowden blew the government's cover. The fact that some government secrets were exposed is just too, too bad. To understand what the government was doing required exposing secrets about the dividing line between what's allowable and what isn't. That's the price we should willingly pay for preserving our privacy.

 

[shira]

And that is the main problem I have with Snowden and Bradley Manning releasing so much information. They don't understand it or the issues it might cause. And I'm not talking about the issues of people crying the NSA saw their dick pic.

Yeah? Then how do you propose that what the government was doing SHOULD have been exposed? The answer is there was no other way. Do you think Snowden had the luxury/time to read through what is probably thousands of pages of documents to determine what should and shouldn't have been released? Do you think that the documents could easily be divided between government overstepping and legitimate collection of information? Highly unlikely.

Instead, apparently what he did was turn the documents over to leading American newspapers, to allow them to decide what to expose. Sounds like a pretty good strategy to me. Again, if the government was going to be so cavalier about the privacy of Americans, then it should not be surprised that some of its secrets were compromised when its law-breaking was exposed.

 

[shira]

I am not saying there should be no checks. I don't fault his reasons for doing what he did. I just understand the road to hell is paved with good intentions. He was acting from a position of ignorance when it came to the data he obtained. As such, I can't condone him possibly putting America in danger. What if he leaked some vulnerability that someone exploited to kill Americans? Are there lives worth what really amounts to nothing? Sure, the NSA might have scaled back (or so they said they have, but who is actually checking). Is that worth potentially endangering lives of those who have nothing to do with it?

Lives are worth something, but the privacy of Americans is worth more. The government's law-breaking is responsible for any lives lost, because any added security was paid for with the loss of American privacy, and the government had no right to make us pay that price.

Let me put this another way: If you knew for sure that 100 American lives would be lost UNLESS the government had the right to collect all emails and phone calls of Americans, would you willingly pay that price to save those lives? My answer is "Hell no!"

 

[ivwshane]

Eh, not much to discuss. They should shut down domestic surveillance or highly temper it, but they likely won't. So, let's fight about whether he is a traitor or not. Kill the messenger.

How do you shut down a government program when the American people are ignorant of the issue, conflate the issue with the man who represents the issue, and who are willing to trade perceived security for privacy?

There's plenty to discuss, the problem, as this thread shows, is no one is willing to discuss it.

 

[shira]

He didn't pull back much, if anything. But he did put America's position in the world at risk.


he is a traitor SD the vast majority of Americans think that.


It's funny that you blindly accept his half-assed explain at ion of what happened yet won't trust the government at sll. That is a huge bias ad one that shows your ignorance.

BS. I'm glad he did what he did. The government does not have my permission to collect my emails and my telephone calls. They don't have my permission to collect any information on me. Any added security gained from such data collection doesn't justify the loss of my privacy. I'm not willing to compromise my privacy to gain more "security."

You, apparently, don't really value your freedom.

 

[shira]

It looks like we need to break this down into simple terms for the fucking braindead.


Snowden sees that there is Domestic Spying (X) and International Spying (Y).

X is dangerous to the Constitution

Y is not

X should be discussed and seen by the US public, or at least its Representatives

Y should not

Snowden takes X and Y, but does not discern which is which

Snowden goes...where???

How???

WHO???

Snowden apparently gives X *AND* Y to Greenwald and people

But who else? Nobody knows.


Why the fuck don't we know where, who, what, and how?

And most importantly...


*****WHY THE FUCK DID HE RELEASE Y?****

His point could have been made by just releasing X. Everybody would have acknowledged that it was needed. In fact, he would have made him *MORE* credible because nobody could discredit him as a traitor. He would have been just a whistleblower.

My theory? He is a traitor, pure and simple, and the release of the domestic spying was to make him impeachable as somewhat of a "patriot" to the internet idiot masses.

You apparently think that the division between X and Y is clean. What's clear is that in the name of Y, the government collected X. X and Y were completely intertwined. There is no division. That's the point. That's the whole point.

 

[zinfamous]

I love how those that scream Government intrusion, government failure, government oversight in our lives, the loudest on these forums, are those that call Snowden a traitor, and those of us that support his actions "sheeple."


You guys are truly tools. You are the fucking dictionary definition of braindead tools. There is no getting around it. You swallow propaganda and suck on the teat of government oppression until the savory and unending drool of this action drowns you in a slow death of ignorant satisfaction.

So, keep sucking, tools. Let the rest of us care about the country.

 

[Ns1]

i'm gay for snowden and oliver now.

 

[WelshBloke]

It looks like we need to break this down into simple terms for the fucking braindead.


Snowden sees that there is Domestic Spying (X) and International Spying (Y).

X is dangerous to the Constitution

Y is not

X should be discussed and seen by the US public, or at least its Representatives

Y should not

Snowden takes X and Y, but does not discern which is which

Snowden goes...where???

How???

WHO???

Snowden apparently gives X *AND* Y to Greenwald and people

But who else? Nobody knows.


Why the fuck don't we know where, who, what, and how?

And most importantly...


*****WHY THE FUCK DID HE RELEASE Y?****

His point could have been made by just releasing X. Everybody would have acknowledged that it was needed. In fact, he would have made him *MORE* credible because nobody could discredit him as a traitor. He would have been just a whistleblower.

My theory? He is a traitor, pure and simple, and the release of the domestic spying was to make him impeachable as somewhat of a "patriot" to the internet idiot masses.

You do understand that there isn't a line between domestic and international surveillance, yes?

Information doesn't stay inside the USA. If they are trawling for data even if they stay outside the US they are still going to get all your dick pics.
And if they want to do some targeted surveillance on a US citizen who's resident in the US then there's always GCHQ who are always willing to do a bit of data swapping.

You can carry on with the 'Rah Rah Traitor' stuff all you like but it's naive in the extreme to expect an organisation that's expert in covert mass surveillance to separate it's domestic and international business. Indeed it's probably impossible to do so.

 

[Printer Bandit]

Spoiler

dick_pic.jpg

 

[WelshBloke]

Spoiler

dick_pic.jpg

I've already got them, I've got a couple of friends that work at GCHQ.

Also, you really need to turn the heating up for a bit before taking the next ones, no one looks at their best when they are cold.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

BS. I'm glad he did what he did. The government does not have my permission to collect my emails and my telephone calls. They don't have my permission to collect any information on me. Any added security gained from such data collection doesn't justify the loss of my privacy. I'm not willing to compromise my privacy to gain more "security."

You, apparently, don't really value your freedom.

Please, what about all those other 3rd party hands your precious "private" information goes through?

I love how those that scream Government intrusion, government failure, government oversight in our lives, the loudest on these forums, are those that call Snowden a traitor, and those of us that support his actions "sheeple."


You guys are truly tools. You are the fucking dictionary definition of braindead tools. There is no getting around it. You swallow propaganda and suck on the teat of government oppression until the savory and unending drool of this action drowns you in a slow death of ignorant satisfaction.

So, keep sucking, tools. Let the rest of us care about the country.

You might want to take another look before lumping us all into the same category. Snowden straight up handled this poorly (or, more accurately, espionage-y).

Edit: And speaking of, I'm kind of confounded by how people who normally recognize that government has the ability and responsibility to do the things that governments do go all stroke-faced uber patriot when it comes to this.

 

[DrDoug]

I love how those that scream Government intrusion, government failure, government oversight in our lives, the loudest on these forums, are those that call Snowden a traitor, and those of us that support his actions "sheeple."


You guys are truly tools. You are the fucking dictionary definition of braindead tools. There is no getting around it. You swallow propaganda and suck on the teat of government oppression until the savory and unending drool of this action drowns you in a slow death of ignorant satisfaction.

So, keep sucking, tools. Let the rest of us care about the country.

I think you need to wrap that flag around you a bit tighter. Maybe stuff the end of it up your ass to keep it from flapping in the wind, Mr. Patriot.

 

[Fox5]

It looks like we need to break this down into simple terms for the fucking braindead.


Snowden sees that there is Domestic Spying (X) and International Spying (Y).

X is dangerous to the Constitution

Y is not

X should be discussed and seen by the US public, or at least its Representatives

Y should not

Snowden takes X and Y, but does not discern which is which

Snowden goes...where???

How???

WHO???

Snowden apparently gives X *AND* Y to Greenwald and people

But who else? Nobody knows.


Why the fuck don't we know where, who, what, and how?

And most importantly...


*****WHY THE FUCK DID HE RELEASE Y?****

His point could have been made by just releasing X. Everybody would have acknowledged that it was needed. In fact, he would have made him *MORE* credible because nobody could discredit him as a traitor. He would have been just a whistleblower.

My theory? He is a traitor, pure and simple, and the release of the domestic spying was to make him impeachable as somewhat of a "patriot" to the internet idiot masses.

My view point is that he started with pure intentions, and then started worrying about his own ass. He would have fled to Venezuela or something if he wanted to just escape America and would have only taken the domestic surveillance stuff. He probably took the foreign stuff as a bargaining chip to get protection / a continued decent quality of living out of China. Then he found out that spies don't play fair, and he ended up in Russia instead of living in his penthouse petting his phoenix. He's now a prisoner of Russia, despite anything Russia says about him being free to leave any time.

John Oliver kind of hinted at the control, by pointing out the FSB building across the street from the hotel. Snowden being an hour late was likely that the FSB grabbed Oliver's interview material before the interview and was spending the time prepping Snowden to answer the questions and to remove anything they truly objected about (ie, anything that would have made Russia look bad).

For anyone who defends Snowden's mass leaks, the definition of a whistle blower is selectively releasing information that shows illegal actions. By definition, you're not a whistle blower if your leaks are not focused on a single issue or two, instead of indiscriminately grabbing whatever you can get.

As far as morality goes, the spying apparatus is preventing Iraq from being another Vietnam. Without correct intelligence, we'd be hole sale slaughtering villages like in Vietnam and carpet bombing everything, Iraq and Afghanistan are really the first time a war has been conducted in a controlled fashion. It's both horrifying and fascinating and wouldn't be possible without foreign intel.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's called "collateral damage," and it's unavoidable.

The government decided to trade our privacy for what it claims is needed security. Well, Snowden pushed back. We can't have it both ways.

Either you agree to allow the government to collect personal information from every American in the name of security or you don't. The government was not about to tell us what it was doing; Snowden blew the government's cover. The fact that some government secrets were exposed is just too, too bad. To understand what the government was doing required exposing secrets about the dividing line between what's allowable and what isn't. That's the price we should willingly pay for preserving our privacy.

Way to ignore my point. I don't care that the government is spying on other countries. I only care that they were collecting data on us (US citizens) with little to no oversight. But that's hardly only on the executive. It's on the spineless Congress, that demands people listen to it without ever holding anyone accountable (eg: how many people went to jail from the CIA for hacking Senate computers?).

As for Snowden - he claims he "understood" what was in the documents, but then he abdicated his responsibility to read them and handed them over to people, unredacted of actual, sensitive information (like how we were monitoring terrorist groups in Mosul, Iraq). He could have handed over the domestic stuff without compromising the international spying as much as he did. I have a hard time believing it was an all or nothing situation.

 

[fskimospy]

Way to ignore my point. I don't care that the government is spying on other countries. I only care that they were collecting data on us (US citizens) with little to no oversight. But that's hardly only on the executive. It's on the spineless Congress, that demands people listen to it without ever holding anyone accountable (eg: how many people went to jail from the CIA for hacking Senate computers?).

As for Snowden - he claims he "understood" what was in the documents, but then he abdicated his responsibility to read them and handed them over to people, unredacted of actual, sensitive information (like how we were monitoring terrorist groups in Mosul, Iraq). He could have handed over the domestic stuff without compromising the international spying as much as he did. I have a hard time believing it was an all or nothing situation.

He clearly didn't understand large amounts of what he gave to other people and it appears he made no real attempt to. Had he just stuck to the domestic spying program he would have been a hero. What he did though? He deserves to rot in prison.

There's simply no excuse for that kind of irresponsible behavior. He had a choice as to what he released and he chose this option. Whether he did it because of allegiance to a foreign power, stupidity, whatever. It doesn't matter.

 

[smackababy]

Yeah? Then how do you propose that what the government was doing SHOULD have been exposed? The answer is there was no other way. Do you think Snowden had the luxury/time to read through what is probably thousands of pages of documents to determine what should and shouldn't have been released? Do you think that the documents could easily be divided between government overstepping and legitimate collection of information? Highly unlikely.

Instead, apparently what he did was turn the documents over to leading American newspapers, to allow them to decide what to expose. Sounds like a pretty good strategy to me. Again, if the government was going to be so cavalier about the privacy of Americans, then it should not be surprised that some of its secrets were compromised when its law-breaking was exposed.

The fact you think this is a good strategy shows your gross negligence. If Snowden didn't have the luxury or time required to determine what in fact he was releasing, he shouldn't have released it.

If your idea of "good strategy" is the equivilent of "well, this is a bunch of pages, gotta have something good in it!" and throwing it out to the wolves, you're a fucking idiot and deserve to be in prison. That is exactly what Snowden did.

 

[Jeff7]

I love how those that scream Government intrusion, government failure, government oversight in our lives, the loudest on these forums, are those that call Snowden a traitor, and those of us that support his actions "sheeple."


You guys are truly tools. You are the fucking dictionary definition of braindead tools. There is no getting around it. You swallow propaganda and suck on the teat of government oppression until the savory and unending drool of this action drowns you in a slow death of ignorant satisfaction.

So, keep sucking, tools. Let the rest of us care about the country.

And so many are in the "Well if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care?"
Fine, let's just take it to the final theoretical step and station a cop outside of your bedroom at all times. If you're doing nothing wrong, there's nothing to hide, right?

I'm just glad that the definition of "wrong" is so clear and universally agreed-upon.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I love that there have been various "4th Amendment Protection Acts" introduced in the past several years. It's already a law, and allegedly one of the most basic and powerful ones we have! So we need additional laws now that say "Hey, we really mean it this time."

"The right...shall not be violated..."

Seems pretty damn clear to me.

 

[fskimospy]

I love that there was a "4th Amendment Restoration Act" introduced in 2013. It's already a law, and allegedly one of the most basic and powerful ones we have!
"The right...shall not be violated..."
Seems pretty damn clear to me.

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.

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.

 

[Phokus]

1) He took the job with the intention of grabbing classified information and leaking it
2) He clearly didn't read the crap he leaked before he did
3) He doesn't understand the definition of "collection"
4) He has not ever claimed to have contacted the IG (even through a trusted US citizen intermediary, say a lawyer that he could have contacted anonymously)
5) It was his intention from day 1 on the job to collect classified information and leak it to a foreign national.



Snowden betrayed the trust placed in him as a sysad and Snowden betrayed the trust placed in him as an individual endowed with a national security clearance. Fuck him.

He didn't leak everything to the public, he gave everything to journalists to sort through.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

He didn't leak everything to the public, he gave everything to journalists to sort through.

Which is still a pretty giant abdication of responsibility. "I stole a whole bunch of shit, you guys sort it out." That's where the line is between "whistleblower against clear Constitutional abuses of power" and "treason." I think what Snowden did was important, no doubt, but he did it in a hamfisted way that crossed the line on what was necessary to report abuses of power. And I like that John Oliver called him out on that point; "When you're handing over thousands of NSA documents, the last thing you want to do is read them."

 

[smackababy]

Which is still a pretty giant abdication of responsibility. "I stole a whole bunch of shit, you guys sort it out." That's where the line is between "whistleblower against clear Constitutional abuses of power" and "treason." I think what Snowden did was important, no doubt, but he did it in a hamfisted way that crossed the line on what was necessary to report abuses of power. And I like that John Oliver called him out on that point; "When you're handing over thousands of NSA documents, the last thing you want to do is read them."

And, let's be perfectly honest about the media here. Do we expect THEM to read and understand all said documents? Do we expect those who only gain be releasing "better than the other guy" information to censor themselves? Snowden either doesn't understand how the media works or didn't care. Either way is gross negligence with privileged information. Releasing detailed descriptions on how the US gathers intelligence on foreign nations / nationals should be treason. Releasing information on how, and how much, information the US illegally gathers on it's own citizens is a public service. Doing both doesn't erase the other.

 

[Printer Bandit]