10 ms·

Matt Damon: Edward Snowden did a great thing

257 points by vinhnx 13y ago

corin_ 13y ago
I'm not sure how I hadn't already thought of this, so I wonder has everyone else missed this or not. We've all been thinking that not enough people outside the tech. world have been paying enough attention to these revelations - what better way to change this than through celebrity endorsements? Not necessarily of Snowden himself, but endorsements of the message that what is going on is wrong. Or has this been happening already and I just missed it?
- narcissus 13y ago
  Totally agree. And to be honest, I've been wondering if there's going to be a moment when certain celebrities and Hollywood 'types' start getting 'caught' in the data that has been found... in some sort of new age McCarthyism.
- DoubleMalt 13y ago
  Celebrities are on average not much different than other people. Most of them are sheep. Like most of us do not go to protest on the streets over such a thing, most celebrities will not be bothered to stick their head out in a possibly career crippling way. The ones that do regularly are quickly labelled as parts liberal Hollywood that can be disregarded. Another thing is that actors are part of the big movie-industrial complex that has a lot of interest in surveillance because they perceive this as their only hope against the free distribution of data. But I agree it would be worth the effort to actively pursue people like Matt Damon to give the cause widespread legitimacy. Easy it will be not, I'm afraid.
- deveac 13y ago
  This is the first instance I am aware of where a mundane celebrity not known for an interest/connection to tech has spoken out against the NSA on this topic. I'm sure there have been at least a few instances of lesser known personalities doing so. I sincerely welcome this; celebrities have large networks.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    What counts as a "mundane celebrity?" Jimmy Carter has already said Snowden's actions were "beneficial" and that "America does not have a functioning democracy at this point in time." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/jimmy-carter-edward-snowden_n_3616930.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/jimmy-carter-edward...
    - untog 13y ago
      Sad reality: a lot more people care about what Matt Damon thinks than what Jimmy Carter thinks. It's still only middle ground, though. Once we can get One Direction involved...
    - deveac 13y ago
      Well, Jimmy Carter is a former president of the United States, ambassador, and politician. I was thinking generally of famous people that don't have a past or present connection to public policy. Either way though, it's a grey term, so there is plenty of room for interpretation. The point, I think, remains the same. As far as famous people of any sort talking to the public on this issue, my attitude is the more the better.
  - roc 13y ago
    > "This is the first instance I am aware of where a mundane celebrity not known for an interest/connection to tech has spoken out against the NSA on this topic." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/snowden-principle_b_3441237.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/snowden-principle_... It doesn't seem to have much more impact than when anyone else does it.
    - deveac 13y ago
      >It doesn't seem to have much more impact than when anyone else does it. Not sure how one would measure that specifically, but any sort of public education on the issue by any influencer with a significant network is additive.
      - 13y ago
seren 13y ago
> "If we're going to trade our civil liberties for our security, then that should be a decision that we collectively make," I don't understand how the blog author can relate the use of the word "collectively" to a hint at Communism, East Germany and the Stasi. Is this generally a taboo word in the US ?
- jimwise 13y ago
  Yes. A central idea of the American experiment is that there are exchanges of liberty for security which it is not acceptable to make even if the people collectively decide to make them. That is why certain liberties are enshrined in the Constitution, which is intentionally made hard to amend, rather than merely in law, which is relatively easy to change. Looking at the number of totalitarian systems which started out as expressions of the collective will of their societies in the two-plus centuries since, I'd say the founders got this one right...
  - seren 13y ago
    Ok, from that point of view, it can make some sense. Even if it seems in the current debate, the issue was the trade-off was more or less made unilaterally by the executive branch, without much consultation, which is actually worse that a "collective" decision, whatever that means.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    > Looking at the number of totalitarian societies which started out as expressions of the collective will of their societies in the two-plus centuries since Which ones are you talking about? I can't think of many. I can think of quite a few where authoritarian movements got substantial support, but I can't for sure name many where such regimes were anywhere near a majority, and I'd think a majority at least would be required before it becomes reasonable to talk about "expressions of the collective will of their societies".
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Collectively we can pass laws and change the constitution. The supreme court has ruled, in Smith vs Maryland, that the government can capture message metadata from a third party when a message is conveyed by that third party without warrant. So the constitution doesn't help much here -- either we need to collectively change the constitution or collectively pass a lot of laws or collectively get different supreme court judges appointed and have the ruling overturned.
yuvadam 13y ago
As Matt Damon was talking about "civil liberties vs. security" it resonated with essentially every second sentence DIRNSA was saying at his public appearance at BlackHat. This is a false dichotomy, and definitely not about some sort of tradeoff to protect us from "terrorists amongst us" (which in itself is a dubious claim.) All these programs are about the creation of a de-facto authoritarian state serving nobody else but the powerful corporations and the decision-makers that said corporations keep in place via their accumulated wealth. This isn't some democratic debate about civil liberties at conflict. This is a fucking plutocracy.
- snitko 13y ago
  Your comment finally made me realize why the difference in analysis of the problem leads to difference in solutions. Some people think that corporations are the root of all evil. They accumulate wealth, then put people in power to protect that wealth. Others think that government is the root of all evil, while corporations are either forced to cooperate or willingly abuse this system, because if they don't, then competitors will surely do it. Thus the latter group believes that businesses simply respond to incentives. Thus it is no surprise that the first group of people usually believes we need more elaborate regulations and a good government. The second group usually sees the solution in eliminating part or all of the government as an inherently corrupt institution. Matt Damon probably belongs to the first group, although I'm not sure.
  - DamnYuppie 13y ago
    Greed and lust for power are the root of all evil, corporations with lax oversight are simply our eras incarnation of it.
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Yeah, and there's no Evil at all in governments, and corporations have the Monopoly of Greed? Don't make me laugh.
      - 13y ago
spodek 13y ago
Though just a role in a movie (though one he co-wrote), his scene about why his character in Good Will Hunting should or shouldn't work for the NSA seems relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYteE7XGaY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYteE7XGaY4 EDIT: Here's the text of it (it appears unformatted because it's one long (well-delivered) line of text). Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one. But I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the NSA, and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, cus' I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East and once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hiding... Fifteen hundred people that I never met, never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, Send in the marines to secure the area" cus' they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cus' they were off pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cus' he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' cus' every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected President. EDIT TWO: Watching that monologue in context made the scene more relevant. The NSA guys try to entice him with the opportunity to work on cool math with brilliant people. He responds with something I can only imagine current NSA smart people haven't done but I hope they are starting to -- to consider the consequences of their actions and their responsibility. Hacker News posted a story -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6258093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6258093 -- about a math professor whom the NSA employed for a couple summers as a math undergrad in Princeton now calling on his colleagues to question their contributions and to speak up. It raises a timeless question in science and engineering: "I can do this, but should I? ... What are the consequences?"
gyardley 13y ago
Gee, I didn't have an opinion on Edward Snowden before, but now that I know what Matt Damon thinks...
- deveac 13y ago
  Not the point. He's effectively equivalent to a TV news anchor reading a a teleprompter about the topic, except his message is being delivered to a larger network than many broadcasts and the message itself is less neutral and more sympathetic. This is good from an information dissemination perspective, which has been a massive problem for this topic in the past. It's a sign that the topic is finally starting to grab mindshare in popular culture. That is a prerequisite for many, if not all, of the possible remedies to the problems of govt illegality and overreach.
  - gyardley 13y ago
    Shucks, that's terrific. Send it to all your relatives. Now, why is it posted here?
    - deveac 13y ago
      I would not think you'd need me to spell it out for you, but I'd wager it is because it illustrates the penetration of a major technology issue into popular culture. An issue who's presence (or lack of) in mainstream mindshare has significant ramifications for many many tech services (cloud, encrypted comms, email, etc). We've already seen multiple tech services announce shutdown as a direct result of Snowden's revelations of NSA's behavior, and solutions to these problems can't be framed without factoring in public support/lack-of. If you head over to the hackerNews FAQ (I'm sure you can track it down) you'll see that this is eminently on topic. So yeah. It's an on-topic current event illustrating the traction technology policy that is affecting the entire globe is gaining in popular culture. Can't imagine why a hacker would be interested in that....
      - prawn 13y ago
        Upvotes by 86 people in an hour suggests that people think it's of interest.
cpursley 13y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUa5oHgYV2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUa5oHgYV2k
- tbatterii 13y ago
  my thoughts exactly when I read the headline.
AliEzer 13y ago
Could somebody please find Ja Rule so I can make sense of all this?
- chjj 13y ago
  I want some answers Ja Rule might not have right now.
- sergiotapia 13y ago
  Where is Ja!?
nicholassmith 13y ago
I recently read an interview with Damon that covered some of his background, which was quite left wing (his family still are) so I'm not surprised this bothers him. I hope he uses his position to try keep the conversation about what's right and fair in terms of surveillance. It's not great that we need celebrities onside to try and remind people that something is awful, but it's not a bad thing.
kilian 13y ago
Is this in general how reporting on 'celebrity opinions' is done in the USA? Apart from the one or two lines that directly quote Matt Damon, the rest of the article is an abomination. I do however hope this reaches more people, there's nothing like a celebrity endorsement.
popee 13y ago
> It is, though, a tempting and charming notion that we could all get together and decide on how much of our civil liberties we really ought to give up or not. Is this really possible in US? Or is someone just going to explain to him that he is socialist/communist? >:-)
jfe 13y ago
worst writing ever.
hannibal5 13y ago
>the actor who must know a thing or two about the covert world and >He is being asked what he thinks of Edward Snowden. Astonishingly for someone who has been Jason Bourne and knows the danger of such things, he is answering the question. WTF. Actor who has been playing Jason Bourne and been in Good Will hunting now is now expert?
- voltagex_ 13y ago
  Although I agree with you, a lot of these movies have expert consultants (ex FBI, ex police etc). So he could have gained quite a lot of information.
- Amadou 13y ago
  WTF. Actor who has been playing Jason Bourne and been in Good Will hunting now is now expert? It is not like he's got a PhD in the history of surveillence, but he's going to be better educated on the topic than joe random citizen. After all, at the very least he's spent a fair amount of time thinking about the details of his roles and in this case those details have a lot of overlap with the current situation.
  - AmVess 13y ago
    IIRC, he had a really good formal education from the time he was ready to attend school to his days at Harvard.
- xradionut 13y ago
  You are assuming that because he's an actor, he isn't an intelligent, informed, politically aware human that may give a shit about people.
  - untog 13y ago
    No, I think the OP was more balking at the idea that an actor "must" know about the covert world. He may well do, but it isn't an immediate assumption just because he played a spy guy.
sigzero 13y ago
Really? Who cares? His opinion is not any more relevant than anyone else.
frogpelt 13y ago
A. Why does Matt Damon think we care what he thinks? OR B. Why do we care what Matt Damon thinks?
- javajosh 13y ago
  I care because, based on interviews I've read, as a person he is unusually thoughtful and intelligent. He is clearly a person of principle who is troubled by the goings on in the world around him, and who is articulate about what those troubles are and that it's important to address them.
- BlackDeath3 13y ago
  For the same reasons that anybody should (or should not) care about what you think, I would imagine.
cjdrake 13y ago
Finally! I have been waiting in anticipation, not unlike a pre-pubescent girl at a Justin Bieber concert, for Matt Damon to make a statement. Oh thank you, great actor whose day job is to read what other people tell you to say, for telling me what to think. I would be lost without his voice, guiding me like a compass towards the truth.
squozzer 13y ago
Chris Matyszczyk sounded a bit condescending. But I had to laugh at his last line, "However, can we truly trust ourselves? We are, after all, the bright sparks who voted in the current Congress." I would extend that line of questioning to include: 1) Can we trust ourselves given that we elected several Presidents who were - a) Obviously oblivious frat boys who were better at campaigning than governing (GW Bush and Clinton 2nd term); b) Ex-CIA (GHW Bush -- actually he was DCI, don't believe he was ever an agent); 3) Someone who campaigned on a progressive platform but quickly abandoned most of it upon election (Obama). 2) Can we trust ourselves given that we find a Matt Damon snark piece on Cnet so damned fascinating?
jongraehl 13y ago
Author suggests we should consider Damon an expert on whether someone is acting. That's rather silly. Why aren't we using actors instead of torture, then?

257 points by vinhnx 13y ago

I'm not sure how I hadn't already thought of this, so I wonder has everyone else missed this or not. We've all been thinking that not enough people outside the tech. world have been paying enough attention to these revelations - what better way to change this than through celebrity endorsements? Not necessarily of Snowden himself, but endorsements of the message that what is going on is wrong. Or has this been happening already and I just missed it?

narcissus 13y ago
Totally agree. And to be honest, I've been wondering if there's going to be a moment when certain celebrities and Hollywood 'types' start getting 'caught' in the data that has been found... in some sort of new age McCarthyism.
DoubleMalt 13y ago
Celebrities are on average not much different than other people. Most of them are sheep. Like most of us do not go to protest on the streets over such a thing, most celebrities will not be bothered to stick their head out in a possibly career crippling way. The ones that do regularly are quickly labelled as parts liberal Hollywood that can be disregarded. Another thing is that actors are part of the big movie-industrial complex that has a lot of interest in surveillance because they perceive this as their only hope against the free distribution of data. But I agree it would be worth the effort to actively pursue people like Matt Damon to give the cause widespread legitimacy. Easy it will be not, I'm afraid.
deveac 13y ago
This is the first instance I am aware of where a mundane celebrity not known for an interest/connection to tech has spoken out against the NSA on this topic. I'm sure there have been at least a few instances of lesser known personalities doing so. I sincerely welcome this; celebrities have large networks.
- Amadou 13y ago
  What counts as a "mundane celebrity?" Jimmy Carter has already said Snowden's actions were "beneficial" and that "America does not have a functioning democracy at this point in time." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/jimmy-carter-edward-snowden_n_3616930.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/jimmy-carter-edward...
  - untog 13y ago
    Sad reality: a lot more people care about what Matt Damon thinks than what Jimmy Carter thinks. It's still only middle ground, though. Once we can get One Direction involved...
  - deveac 13y ago
    Well, Jimmy Carter is a former president of the United States, ambassador, and politician. I was thinking generally of famous people that don't have a past or present connection to public policy. Either way though, it's a grey term, so there is plenty of room for interpretation. The point, I think, remains the same. As far as famous people of any sort talking to the public on this issue, my attitude is the more the better.
- roc 13y ago
  > "This is the first instance I am aware of where a mundane celebrity not known for an interest/connection to tech has spoken out against the NSA on this topic." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/snowden-principle_b_3441237.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cusack/snowden-principle_... It doesn't seem to have much more impact than when anyone else does it.
  - deveac 13y ago
    >It doesn't seem to have much more impact than when anyone else does it. Not sure how one would measure that specifically, but any sort of public education on the issue by any influencer with a significant network is additive.
    - 13y ago

seren 13y ago

> "If we're going to trade our civil liberties for our security, then that should be a decision that we collectively make," I don't understand how the blog author can relate the use of the word "collectively" to a hint at Communism, East Germany and the Stasi. Is this generally a taboo word in the US ?

jimwise 13y ago
Yes. A central idea of the American experiment is that there are exchanges of liberty for security which it is not acceptable to make even if the people collectively decide to make them. That is why certain liberties are enshrined in the Constitution, which is intentionally made hard to amend, rather than merely in law, which is relatively easy to change. Looking at the number of totalitarian systems which started out as expressions of the collective will of their societies in the two-plus centuries since, I'd say the founders got this one right...
- seren 13y ago
  Ok, from that point of view, it can make some sense. Even if it seems in the current debate, the issue was the trade-off was more or less made unilaterally by the executive branch, without much consultation, which is actually worse that a "collective" decision, whatever that means.
- vidarh 13y ago
  > Looking at the number of totalitarian societies which started out as expressions of the collective will of their societies in the two-plus centuries since Which ones are you talking about? I can't think of many. I can think of quite a few where authoritarian movements got substantial support, but I can't for sure name many where such regimes were anywhere near a majority, and I'd think a majority at least would be required before it becomes reasonable to talk about "expressions of the collective will of their societies".
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Collectively we can pass laws and change the constitution. The supreme court has ruled, in Smith vs Maryland, that the government can capture message metadata from a third party when a message is conveyed by that third party without warrant. So the constitution doesn't help much here -- either we need to collectively change the constitution or collectively pass a lot of laws or collectively get different supreme court judges appointed and have the ruling overturned.

yuvadam 13y ago

As Matt Damon was talking about "civil liberties vs. security" it resonated with essentially every second sentence DIRNSA was saying at his public appearance at BlackHat. This is a false dichotomy, and definitely not about some sort of tradeoff to protect us from "terrorists amongst us" (which in itself is a dubious claim.) All these programs are about the creation of a de-facto authoritarian state serving nobody else but the powerful corporations and the decision-makers that said corporations keep in place via their accumulated wealth. This isn't some democratic debate about civil liberties at conflict. This is a fucking plutocracy.

snitko 13y ago
Your comment finally made me realize why the difference in analysis of the problem leads to difference in solutions. Some people think that corporations are the root of all evil. They accumulate wealth, then put people in power to protect that wealth. Others think that government is the root of all evil, while corporations are either forced to cooperate or willingly abuse this system, because if they don't, then competitors will surely do it. Thus the latter group believes that businesses simply respond to incentives. Thus it is no surprise that the first group of people usually believes we need more elaborate regulations and a good government. The second group usually sees the solution in eliminating part or all of the government as an inherently corrupt institution. Matt Damon probably belongs to the first group, although I'm not sure.
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  Greed and lust for power are the root of all evil, corporations with lax oversight are simply our eras incarnation of it.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    Yeah, and there's no Evil at all in governments, and corporations have the Monopoly of Greed? Don't make me laugh.
    - 13y ago

spodek 13y ago

Though just a role in a movie (though one he co-wrote), his scene about why his character in Good Will Hunting should or shouldn't work for the NSA seems relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYteE7XGaY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYteE7XGaY4 EDIT: Here's the text of it (it appears unformatted because it's one long (well-delivered) line of text). Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one. But I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the NSA, and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, cus' I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East and once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hiding... Fifteen hundred people that I never met, never had no problem with get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, Send in the marines to secure the area" cus' they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, cus' they were off pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, cus' he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin' cus' every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected President. EDIT TWO: Watching that monologue in context made the scene more relevant. The NSA guys try to entice him with the opportunity to work on cool math with brilliant people. He responds with something I can only imagine current NSA smart people haven't done but I hope they are starting to -- to consider the consequences of their actions and their responsibility. Hacker News posted a story -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6258093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6258093 -- about a math professor whom the NSA employed for a couple summers as a math undergrad in Princeton now calling on his colleagues to question their contributions and to speak up. It raises a timeless question in science and engineering: "I can do this, but should I? ... What are the consequences?"

gyardley 13y ago

Gee, I didn't have an opinion on Edward Snowden before, but now that I know what Matt Damon thinks...

deveac 13y ago
Not the point. He's effectively equivalent to a TV news anchor reading a a teleprompter about the topic, except his message is being delivered to a larger network than many broadcasts and the message itself is less neutral and more sympathetic. This is good from an information dissemination perspective, which has been a massive problem for this topic in the past. It's a sign that the topic is finally starting to grab mindshare in popular culture. That is a prerequisite for many, if not all, of the possible remedies to the problems of govt illegality and overreach.
- gyardley 13y ago
  Shucks, that's terrific. Send it to all your relatives. Now, why is it posted here?
  - deveac 13y ago
    I would not think you'd need me to spell it out for you, but I'd wager it is because it illustrates the penetration of a major technology issue into popular culture. An issue who's presence (or lack of) in mainstream mindshare has significant ramifications for many many tech services (cloud, encrypted comms, email, etc). We've already seen multiple tech services announce shutdown as a direct result of Snowden's revelations of NSA's behavior, and solutions to these problems can't be framed without factoring in public support/lack-of. If you head over to the hackerNews FAQ (I'm sure you can track it down) you'll see that this is eminently on topic. So yeah. It's an on-topic current event illustrating the traction technology policy that is affecting the entire globe is gaining in popular culture. Can't imagine why a hacker would be interested in that....
    - prawn 13y ago
      Upvotes by 86 people in an hour suggests that people think it's of interest.

cpursley 13y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUa5oHgYV2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUa5oHgYV2k

tbatterii 13y ago
my thoughts exactly when I read the headline.

AliEzer 13y ago

Could somebody please find Ja Rule so I can make sense of all this?

chjj 13y ago
I want some answers Ja Rule might not have right now.
sergiotapia 13y ago
Where is Ja!?

nicholassmith 13y ago

I recently read an interview with Damon that covered some of his background, which was quite left wing (his family still are) so I'm not surprised this bothers him. I hope he uses his position to try keep the conversation about what's right and fair in terms of surveillance. It's not great that we need celebrities onside to try and remind people that something is awful, but it's not a bad thing.

kilian 13y ago

Is this in general how reporting on 'celebrity opinions' is done in the USA? Apart from the one or two lines that directly quote Matt Damon, the rest of the article is an abomination. I do however hope this reaches more people, there's nothing like a celebrity endorsement.

popee 13y ago

> It is, though, a tempting and charming notion that we could all get together and decide on how much of our civil liberties we really ought to give up or not. Is this really possible in US? Or is someone just going to explain to him that he is socialist/communist? >:-)

jfe 13y ago

worst writing ever.

hannibal5 13y ago

>the actor who must know a thing or two about the covert world and >He is being asked what he thinks of Edward Snowden. Astonishingly for someone who has been Jason Bourne and knows the danger of such things, he is answering the question. WTF. Actor who has been playing Jason Bourne and been in Good Will hunting now is now expert?

voltagex_ 13y ago
Although I agree with you, a lot of these movies have expert consultants (ex FBI, ex police etc). So he could have gained quite a lot of information.
Amadou 13y ago
WTF. Actor who has been playing Jason Bourne and been in Good Will hunting now is now expert? It is not like he's got a PhD in the history of surveillence, but he's going to be better educated on the topic than joe random citizen. After all, at the very least he's spent a fair amount of time thinking about the details of his roles and in this case those details have a lot of overlap with the current situation.
- AmVess 13y ago
  IIRC, he had a really good formal education from the time he was ready to attend school to his days at Harvard.
xradionut 13y ago
You are assuming that because he's an actor, he isn't an intelligent, informed, politically aware human that may give a shit about people.
- untog 13y ago
  No, I think the OP was more balking at the idea that an actor "must" know about the covert world. He may well do, but it isn't an immediate assumption just because he played a spy guy.

sigzero 13y ago

Really? Who cares? His opinion is not any more relevant than anyone else.

frogpelt 13y ago

A. Why does Matt Damon think we care what he thinks? OR B. Why do we care what Matt Damon thinks?

javajosh 13y ago
I care because, based on interviews I've read, as a person he is unusually thoughtful and intelligent. He is clearly a person of principle who is troubled by the goings on in the world around him, and who is articulate about what those troubles are and that it's important to address them.
BlackDeath3 13y ago
For the same reasons that anybody should (or should not) care about what you think, I would imagine.

cjdrake 13y ago

Finally! I have been waiting in anticipation, not unlike a pre-pubescent girl at a Justin Bieber concert, for Matt Damon to make a statement. Oh thank you, great actor whose day job is to read what other people tell you to say, for telling me what to think. I would be lost without his voice, guiding me like a compass towards the truth.

squozzer 13y ago

Chris Matyszczyk sounded a bit condescending. But I had to laugh at his last line, "However, can we truly trust ourselves? We are, after all, the bright sparks who voted in the current Congress." I would extend that line of questioning to include: 1) Can we trust ourselves given that we elected several Presidents who were - a) Obviously oblivious frat boys who were better at campaigning than governing (GW Bush and Clinton 2nd term); b) Ex-CIA (GHW Bush -- actually he was DCI, don't believe he was ever an agent); 3) Someone who campaigned on a progressive platform but quickly abandoned most of it upon election (Obama). 2) Can we trust ourselves given that we find a Matt Damon snark piece on Cnet so damned fascinating?

jongraehl 13y ago

Author suggests we should consider Damon an expert on whether someone is acting. That's rather silly. Why aren't we using actors instead of torture, then?