John Oliver Interviews Edward Snowden

[JD50]

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?

This is the essence of the problem. The people that have all of the information can't share it for obvious reasons. Again, you're expecting the Government to declassify everything and explain it to the public, that is not realistic.

 

[JD50]

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:

You disagree that people on this site are quick to make fun of the media when they are routinely wrong about technology related stories?

Sometimes an authority can't provide that evidence, I'm sure you can figure out why that might be the case in this situation. Yes, I know that seems like a convenient answer and an easy out, but unfortunately that's how it is. I do however think the Government could've handled this a lot better even without revealing any classified info.

 

[jackstar7]

More has been added:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzGzB-yYKcc

 

[mrjminer]

IMO this has been the worst episode. I thought it was pretty juvenile and not very funny from Snowden interview onward. Also, the first half or so of the show was fairly weak compared to his usual, and the part after the Snowden interview was mostly stupid or juvenile. This episode is the first one I've seen that I thought sucked, though.

 

[LegendKiller]

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?



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."

It's a huge double standard that you guys are more than willing to accept his story at face value, in a carefully crafted narrative, yet you aren't even willing to consider that it IS crafted and is full of holes, all of which he avoids addressing.

What is more reasonable, that he just happens to go to Russia, or that he was enticed to go?

When was he enticed to go, after he stole info? Could it be possible that it was before, or during?

It is possible.

 

[smackababy]

It's a huge double standard that you guys are more than willing to accept his story at face value, in a carefully crafted narrative, yet you aren't even willing to consider that it IS crafted and is full of holes, all of which he avoids addressing.

What is more reasonable, that he just happens to go to Russia, or that he was enticed to go?

When was he enticed to go, after he stole info? Could it be possible that it was before, or during?

It is possible.

IF you really think it is possible someone, Russian or otherwise, approached Snowden before he got a job at the NSA, well, chances are you think 911 was also an inside job by the Jewish community.

Do you really, and I mean deep down, believe he wasn't offered asylum AFTER the leaks because Russia believes he has more information to offer? Do you think they would have had him expose information he gathered to the public, if he was a spy? What purpose does that serve? He could literally be listening in on the President's phone conversations and sending Obama dick pics to Putin.

 

[Subyman]

This is the essence of the problem. The people that have all of the information can't share it for obvious reasons. Again, you're expecting the Government to declassify everything and explain it to the public, that is not realistic.

From what I've read of Legend's perspective, the documents are not in question. Snowden's motives are.

You disagree that people on this site are quick to make fun of the media when they are routinely wrong about technology related stories?

Sometimes an authority can't provide that evidence, I'm sure you can figure out why that might be the case in this situation. Yes, I know that seems like a convenient answer and an easy out, but unfortunately that's how it is. I do however think the Government could've handled this a lot better even without revealing any classified info.

Who's the authority again? So without any evidence we have to simply believe Legend's narrative based on his gut? Or do you have your own perspective? Surely you aren't agreeing to Legend's story. I can definitely see being skeptical about the Snowden situations, but that is a far cry from lamenting about Russian spy rings and international intrigue based on nothing more than notions and incomplete information.

 

[Subyman]

It's a huge double standard that you guys are more than willing to accept his story at face value, in a carefully crafted narrative, yet you aren't even willing to consider that it IS crafted and is full of holes, all of which he avoids addressing.

What is more reasonable, that he just happens to go to Russia, or that he was enticed to go?

When was he enticed to go, after he stole info? Could it be possible that it was before, or during?

It is possible.

Anything is possible, but seriously we are starting to sound like Ancient Aliens. Their favorite phrase was "is it possible?" Without more information, there isn't much to your plot.

 

[shira]

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.

How could you possibly know what those "reasons" are and whether they're legitimate?

I remember Dick Cheney a short time before the invasion of Iraq announcing that he had access to classified information "proving" a connection between Saddam, Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks. Turns out it was BS.

The government has a long and rich history of classifying information NOT to protect America but to prevent embarrassment, to keep the American public from understanding the lies we're told, and to enable the government to propagandize the American public with impunity. Remember the Pentagon Papers?

It is also public information that America suffers from vast OVER-classification. I mean, when was the last time you read an un-approved leak of classified information where you thought to yourself, "OH MY GOD! That leak means America is totally fvcked now!" My answer is that I've NEVER seen anything like that, which tells me that claims of huge "losses" due to leaks are wildly overblown.

 

[Knowing]

Sources and methods.

Also, "I've never seen it" is an appeal to ignorance. Further, if our intelligence services say we couldn't catch [this guy] because of x, y, and to some extent z, that is the definition of giving the game away.

Describing our capabilities by defining what we are able or not able to do would be akin to playing blind man's bluff instead of 5 card stud when everyone else is playing with 4.

 

[shira]

Sources and methods.

Also, "I've never seen it" is an appeal to ignorance. Further, if our intelligence services say we couldn't catch [this guy] because of x, y, and to some extent z, that is the definition of giving the game away.

Describing our capabilities by defining what we are able or not able to do would be akin to playing blind man's bluff instead of 5 card stud when everyone else is playing with 4.

These are good points. But a more telling point is that - for all of the data collection performed by the NSA since 9/11, for all of the "sources and methods, the only "terrorist act prevented" that we've been told about is the one Oliver mentioned: an attempt to donate $8500 to Al Qaeda. That says a lot.

And I don't believe for one moment that telling the America public what acts have been prevented reveals anything about "sources and methods." I mean, the bad guys already know they've been stopped with respect to some specific plot, so announcing same to the American public "compromises" exactly nothing.

So what has America accomplished pursuant to the government's huge invasion of privacy revealed by Snowden? Sounds iike the answer is a slam dunk: Almost nothing.

 

[JD50]

From what I've read of Legend's perspective, the documents are not in question. Snowden's motives are.



Who's the authority again? So without any evidence we have to simply believe Legend's narrative based on his gut? Or do you have your own perspective? Surely you aren't agreeing to Legend's story. I can definitely see being skeptical about the Snowden situations, but that is a far cry from lamenting about Russian spy rings and international intrigue based on nothing more than notions and incomplete information.

I'm not really commenting on Legends narrative either way. I'm pointing out that you're holding him to a much higher standard than you hold yourself or anyone else that believes Snowden. You keep saying that you aren't providing an alternative theory like LK is, but you are buying into everything Snowden says, which is no different.

Snowden has already proven himself to be an untrustworthy liar.

 

[JD50]

These are good points. But a more telling point is that - for all of the data collection performed by the NSA since 9/11, for all of the "sources and methods, the only "terrorist act prevented" that we've been told about is the one Oliver mentioned: an attempt to donate $8500 to Al Qaeda. That says a lot.

And I don't believe for one moment that telling the America public what acts have been prevented reveals anything about "sources and methods." I mean, the bad guys already know they've been stopped with respect to some specific plot, so announcing same to the American public "compromises" exactly nothing.

So what has America accomplished pursuant to the government's huge invasion of privacy revealed by Snowden? Sounds iike the answer is a slam dunk: Almost nothing.

You are wrong.

 

[Knowing]

And I don't believe for one moment that telling the America public what acts have been prevented reveals anything about "sources and methods." I mean, the bad guys already know they've been stopped with respect to some specific plot, so announcing same to the American public "compromises" exactly nothing.

So what has America accomplished pursuant to the government's huge invasion of privacy revealed by Snowden? Sounds iike the answer is a slam dunk: Almost nothing.

The bad guys do know that they've been stopped, but they have no idea how they were stopped. The American public would not be content with a complete accounting of our intelligence successes (which already gives away that there was an intelligence success rather than bad luck on the bad guy's part), in order to prove that it was a success in the light of these disclosures the mechanic of the success would have to be disclosed - anything else and they're "making it up."

I'm quite sensitive to the argument in favor of the rights of US persons, but I think there are better targets for criticism. The police killing innocent people in their homes, for example. Or the FBI telling two contradictory stories about how someone was killed in their home during an interview in the wee hours and then doing their very best to cover it up and bury the investigation. Incidentally, the FBI has the same access to "business records" call meta data that the NSA has (that the DEA was using for decades before NSA). They've also been caught lying under oath about the use of stingrays.

The NSA "revelations" will fade from view without significant (if any) changes because grandma's pie recipe just isn't that important; just like when the CIA issues a periodic mea culpa about the things that they used to do that they totally don't do anymore. The FBI will continue to never be at fault when they're caught breaking the law in people's homes and in the judicial system.

There are tanks in the streets, the NSA is a distraction.

 

[Subyman]

I'm not really commenting on Legends narrative either way. I'm pointing out that you're holding him to a much higher standard than you hold yourself or anyone else that believes Snowden. You keep saying that you aren't providing an alternative theory like LK is, but you are buying into everything Snowden says, which is no different.

Snowden has already proven himself to be an untrustworthy liar.

I really don't think you are understanding this situation. There is the general story that investigation journalists, tech world, interviews, and so forth have portrayed and then there is Legend's. You have to understand it isn't "my" story. I am more inclined to accept the generally accepted narrative rather than Legend's because he hasn't provided any proof. The only standard I am holding him to is some evidence, not gut feelings.

And quit saying "buying into everything Snowden says." I've said it several times, but I guess you keep missing it. No one has said they believe Snowden's accounts 100%. There are obviously gaps, but gaps don't = Russian spy ring.

 

[Zargon]

I really don't think you are understanding this situation. There is the general story that investigation journalists, tech world, interviews, and so forth have portrayed and then there is Legend's. You have to understand it isn't "my" story. I am more inclined to accept the generally accepted narrative rather than Legend's because he hasn't provided any proof. The only standard I am holding him to is some evidence, not gut feelings.

And quit saying "buying into everything Snowden says." I've said it several times, but I guess you keep missing it. No one has said they believe Snowden's accounts 100%. There are obviously gaps, but gaps don't = Russian spy ring.

Not to mention, why would he give all the details on how he evaded the US's ever watching eyes, he probably would prefer to leave Russia, eventually.....