8 ms·

>but I promise you nearly every American adult knows who Edward Snowden is and probably has at least a vague idea of what he was trying to communicate. I highl

>but I promise you nearly every American adult knows who Edward Snowden is and probably has at least a vague idea of what he was trying to communicate. I highly doubt this. In 2015, only 60% of Americans had some idea of who Snowden was, and only half of those had a positive opinion of him. I doubt this has improved over the past five years either. https://www.aclu.org/snowden-poll-results https://www.aclu.org/snowden-poll-results

kekebo 6y ago
60% of Americans having some idea of the issues he raised is assumably a vast increase in awareness of the topic compared to the time before his leaks became public.
- dunefox 6y ago
  > 60% of Americans having some idea of the issues he raised His comment says an idea of "who [Snowden] was", not of what he was trying to say.
LinuxBender 6y ago
The best example of the Snowden fallout and the apathy around it was when John Oliver interviewed both Snowden and many people on the street. People on the street did not comprehend what NSA monitoring meant and did not care until John put it in terms they could understand. "So you are ok with the NSA seeing pictures and videos of your significant others junk you text (sext) back and forth?" "Oh, I would be furious if they were seeing that". That was how nearly every conversation went.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  But that is not what the NSA monitoring meant. They do not get to see pictures of your SO's junk. They do know who you called and when but not tied to your name.
  - LinuxBender 6y ago
    Maybe, but they do for sure listen to your calls. I used their software in a wireless provider. "She" was fascinating. She could understand any language, dialect, voice inflection, and so much more. No training required whatsoever. She listens to all international calls and flags phrases and key words.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      They don't listen to your phone calls either. If they did, Snowden would have leaked it, and it would have been a bombshell revelation. If you have information otherwise, you should blow the whistle.
      - LinuxBender 6y ago
        There is no whistle to blow. It is fairly well known that all international calls into or out of each country are monitored by bots using speech recognition by the related agency for each repsective country. This has been the case for a very long time. Before bots, there were listening stations with thousands of people monitoring calls. There would be nothing for Snowden to leak in that regard. The only place this has been taboo is when the NSA is doing it within the country. They too use bots, as there is no way you could hire enough people to listen to the calls. Only flagged calls are listened to by people.
        rmrfstar 6y ago
        Confirmed in this gem: https://web.archive.org/web/20200618030047/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-12-12-1995346001-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200618030047/https://www.balti...
        ChrisKnott 6y ago
        I am almost certain this has never been reported, I am also almost certain it is not the case. Can you provide a link?
        6y ago
- nobleach 6y ago
  I think THAT is where the apathy comes in. THAT is probably the biggest concern of your average internet surfer. They think, "I don't trade any high level secrets... I'm a nobody". So the worst thing they can conceive is, "but I did send some pics to that person I met on Facebook. I sure would hate for my significant other to find out". That's something that can resonate with a far larger group. Many honestly don't care because they feel there's nothing they can do. Perhaps they're right. It's not like the US Gov (or any other) said, "oh, you caught us.... fine we'll shut down the program" I totally agree that it's sad that we're in this place of apathy. But it's hard to get folks all excited when they don't believe it'll really affect them personally.
worker767424 6y ago
> only 60% of Americans had some idea of who Snowden was It's things like this and people who believe the moon landing was faked that convinced me universal suffrage isn't a good thing, and we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting. I realize the US has a bad history with "literacy" tests, but it's clear that most people have no business voting.
- autosharp 6y ago
  Who designs the test?
  - Broken_Hippo 6y ago
    I was going to ask the same thing. "The issues" vary between people. How many do you include? Are they just the basic stuff the news covers? Do you need to know federal, state, and local issues? If you vote in a federal election, do you need to know issues in different parts of the country? Wouldn't the test show the biases of the test makers?
    - jjdin14 6y ago
      Parties write the test together and it must have x% approval from both parties in order to pass and be amended in the future. It is short and simple, covering only basic topics at the federal level that are relevant to the whole population regardless of location. E.g. What person currently holds position A, who was the first B, what is the purpose department C, etc. These can be multiple choice with fairly clear answers. Test would be released 1 year before each election, can be re-taken as many times as you'd like, and you need y% to pass. This seems like it would be a good start that would weed out people who are completely uninformed and unwilling to do the bare minimum to vote.
- Thinkx220 6y ago
  It's comments like this that convince me most programmers are arogant douchebags. Just because someone has a weird idea about an event that had almost no direct affect on the general population doesn't mean we should remove those peoples ability to have a choice in matters which will effect them. Knowing more than someone else does not make you morally superior or give you more of a right to have a say in your own fate.
eyepea2007 6y ago
Piggybacking on your point about the general public: historically something like 25 to 30 percent of people don't even know who the Vice President of the United States is...and this goes back to at least the 70s. Simply asking someone if they know who Snowden is doesn't really prove much. What percentage of people will just lie and say they know?

kekebo 6y ago

60% of Americans having some idea of the issues he raised is assumably a vast increase in awareness of the topic compared to the time before his leaks became public.

dunefox 6y ago
> 60% of Americans having some idea of the issues he raised His comment says an idea of "who [Snowden] was", not of what he was trying to say.

LinuxBender 6y ago

The best example of the Snowden fallout and the apathy around it was when John Oliver interviewed both Snowden and many people on the street. People on the street did not comprehend what NSA monitoring meant and did not care until John put it in terms they could understand. "So you are ok with the NSA seeing pictures and videos of your significant others junk you text (sext) back and forth?" "Oh, I would be furious if they were seeing that". That was how nearly every conversation went.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
But that is not what the NSA monitoring meant. They do not get to see pictures of your SO's junk. They do know who you called and when but not tied to your name.
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  Maybe, but they do for sure listen to your calls. I used their software in a wireless provider. "She" was fascinating. She could understand any language, dialect, voice inflection, and so much more. No training required whatsoever. She listens to all international calls and flags phrases and key words.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    They don't listen to your phone calls either. If they did, Snowden would have leaked it, and it would have been a bombshell revelation. If you have information otherwise, you should blow the whistle.
    - LinuxBender 6y ago
      There is no whistle to blow. It is fairly well known that all international calls into or out of each country are monitored by bots using speech recognition by the related agency for each repsective country. This has been the case for a very long time. Before bots, there were listening stations with thousands of people monitoring calls. There would be nothing for Snowden to leak in that regard. The only place this has been taboo is when the NSA is doing it within the country. They too use bots, as there is no way you could hire enough people to listen to the calls. Only flagged calls are listened to by people.
      - rmrfstar 6y ago
        Confirmed in this gem: https://web.archive.org/web/20200618030047/https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1995-12-12-1995346001-story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200618030047/https://www.balti...
      - ChrisKnott 6y ago
        I am almost certain this has never been reported, I am also almost certain it is not the case. Can you provide a link?
      - 6y ago
nobleach 6y ago
I think THAT is where the apathy comes in. THAT is probably the biggest concern of your average internet surfer. They think, "I don't trade any high level secrets... I'm a nobody". So the worst thing they can conceive is, "but I did send some pics to that person I met on Facebook. I sure would hate for my significant other to find out". That's something that can resonate with a far larger group. Many honestly don't care because they feel there's nothing they can do. Perhaps they're right. It's not like the US Gov (or any other) said, "oh, you caught us.... fine we'll shut down the program" I totally agree that it's sad that we're in this place of apathy. But it's hard to get folks all excited when they don't believe it'll really affect them personally.

worker767424 6y ago

> only 60% of Americans had some idea of who Snowden was It's things like this and people who believe the moon landing was faked that convinced me universal suffrage isn't a good thing, and we need some sort of poll test to make sure people are educated on issues before voting. I realize the US has a bad history with "literacy" tests, but it's clear that most people have no business voting.

autosharp 6y ago
Who designs the test?
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  I was going to ask the same thing. "The issues" vary between people. How many do you include? Are they just the basic stuff the news covers? Do you need to know federal, state, and local issues? If you vote in a federal election, do you need to know issues in different parts of the country? Wouldn't the test show the biases of the test makers?
  - jjdin14 6y ago
    Parties write the test together and it must have x% approval from both parties in order to pass and be amended in the future. It is short and simple, covering only basic topics at the federal level that are relevant to the whole population regardless of location. E.g. What person currently holds position A, who was the first B, what is the purpose department C, etc. These can be multiple choice with fairly clear answers. Test would be released 1 year before each election, can be re-taken as many times as you'd like, and you need y% to pass. This seems like it would be a good start that would weed out people who are completely uninformed and unwilling to do the bare minimum to vote.
Thinkx220 6y ago
It's comments like this that convince me most programmers are arogant douchebags. Just because someone has a weird idea about an event that had almost no direct affect on the general population doesn't mean we should remove those peoples ability to have a choice in matters which will effect them. Knowing more than someone else does not make you morally superior or give you more of a right to have a say in your own fate.

eyepea2007 6y ago

Piggybacking on your point about the general public: historically something like 25 to 30 percent of people don't even know who the Vice President of the United States is...and this goes back to at least the 70s. Simply asking someone if they know who Snowden is doesn't really prove much. What percentage of people will just lie and say they know?