3 ms·

In the interest of facilitating a open and fair discussion on the larger issue of state surveillance, I highly recommend checking out the 2014 Munk debates: htt

by pa7ch 12y ago

In the interest of facilitating a open and fair discussion on the larger issue of state surveillance, I highly recommend checking out the 2014 Munk debates: http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/state-surveillance http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/state-surveillance General Hayden and Glenn Greenwald are given fair time to discuss the issue and to give rebuttals to each other. Its much more informative then trying to parse HN comments to form an opinion about state surveillance. It also forces you to consider the views of people who don't agree with you.

csandreasen 12y ago
For those who aren't Munk members, it's also available on C-SPAN[1]. I thought it was an entertaining debate, but not as good as I hoped it would be (I watched it live when it was first broadcasted). My memory is a little foggy, but as I recall, Glenn Greenwald went off on his usual 'the NSA is the epitome of evil and exists solely to invade your privacy' rants; Michael Hayden spent most of his time backtracking and focusing on where Greenwald was factually wrong rather than making his own argument; I didn't think Alan Dershowitz made a particularly convincing argument; and Alexis Ohanian made some greats points but was completely ignored by everyone else. I personally enjoyed watching Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) square off against Chris Inglis (former NSA Deputy Director) at the Brookings Institute last year[2] - both sides had good arguments. For that matter, Benjamin Wittes (the guy moderating the debate) has had some good interviews on his blog[3] and podcast[4] as well - you don't see many outlets that will have James Comey (FBI director) one week followed by Chris Soghoian (ACLU) the next week. [1] http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surveillance http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surv... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KKEh2AS6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KKEh2AS6E [3] http://www.lawfareblog.com/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/ [4] http://www.lawfareblog.com/category/podcasts/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/category/podcasts/
AndrewKemendo 12y ago
Thanks for this I didn't know this existed. Interesting for sure to see the evidence presented on each side and how little actual data came through in the course of the debate.

by pa7ch 12y ago

csandreasen 12y ago

For those who aren't Munk members, it's also available on C-SPAN[1]. I thought it was an entertaining debate, but not as good as I hoped it would be (I watched it live when it was first broadcasted). My memory is a little foggy, but as I recall, Glenn Greenwald went off on his usual 'the NSA is the epitome of evil and exists solely to invade your privacy' rants; Michael Hayden spent most of his time backtracking and focusing on where Greenwald was factually wrong rather than making his own argument; I didn't think Alan Dershowitz made a particularly convincing argument; and Alexis Ohanian made some greats points but was completely ignored by everyone else. I personally enjoyed watching Jameel Jaffer (ACLU) square off against Chris Inglis (former NSA Deputy Director) at the Brookings Institute last year[2] - both sides had good arguments. For that matter, Benjamin Wittes (the guy moderating the debate) has had some good interviews on his blog[3] and podcast[4] as well - you don't see many outlets that will have James Comey (FBI director) one week followed by Chris Soghoian (ACLU) the next week. [1] http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surveillance http://www.c-span.org/video/?319161-1/munk-debate-state-surv... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KKEh2AS6E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3KKEh2AS6E [3] http://www.lawfareblog.com/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/ [4] http://www.lawfareblog.com/category/podcasts/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/category/podcasts/

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

Thanks for this I didn't know this existed. Interesting for sure to see the evidence presented on each side and how little actual data came through in the course of the debate.