10 ms·
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance [ft. Edward Snowden]
- joelrunyon 11y agoSnowden interview starts at 15:55 - https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=15m55s https://youtu.be/XEVlyP4_11M?t=15m55s
- adamnemecek 11y agoI feel like John Oliver is the first journalist who gave a somewhat balanced view of Snowden. That being said I don't really read the news all that much.
- Zombieball 11y agoAgreed. And sadly I do believe more Americans (or people in general) would know who Snowden is if his revelations were conveyed in terms of dick pics.
- Zezima 11y agoUnfortunately, the majority of the population is uninformed through their own doing. It's much easier to tune out boring technical debates when your beliefs are being challenged. The majority of the people in the Time Square interviews believed that the information was "not supposed to be leaked", or it was in some way the morally wrong thing to do, without knowing any further information. While the morality of Snowden's leaks is a flexible topic, it just goes to show that the American people do not actively care about this topic. I did love the rephrasing in terms of nudes which Oliver and his team did, but it's one step too short of actually producing meaningful change. This type of conversation, again, can be tuned out, it lacks the conviction required to affect more people. Nonetheless, it was hilarious, I just wanted more from it.
- XorNot 11y agoThe idea that people are uninformed is a toxic attitude to this whole issue. Threads like these are full of 'sheeple' statements. Counter points or arguments are aggressively down voted and anyone who doesn't share the exact point of view of a poster is tacitley insulted as being uninformed. A conversation requires both parties to be willing to listen, and it also requires some perception that ideas and concepts are actually up for debate. That's not going to happen so long as people who claim to think this is important refuse to try and understand any of the broader dynamics of it.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe people in the Times Square interviews (from the linked video) are literally uninformed. It's not an attitude to say so. Much of the segment is spent illustrating that people do care about the dynamics of the issue, but that they don't understand the details.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- RodericDay 11y agoThey're clearly more misinformed than uninformed. They were making accusations and holding a low opinion of Snowden, not abstaining completely. This idea that it's not even worth fighting back is extremely toxic.
- touristtam 11y agoThat is funny, in a way, because that is exactly the behaviour described by Susan Cain in a society that over estimate the value of bold assertion from extrovert character trait. So those misinformed are making statement on their own mental the assumption that conceding their ignorance will make them look weak. At least that is my reading.
- Zezima 11y agoYes, the discussion can and often will turn into an echo chamber of the same argument. I have seen this happen many times as well as been a part of it without realizing. However, I would like to know what counter points to my comment you are referencing so a more dynamic discussion can be formed. It's one thing to say that the conversation is one sided and lacking logical diversity, and another to explore counter arguments.
- zer0rest 11y agoStop looking at my dick nsa.
- laex 11y agoVideo not available for Australia.
- XioNoX 11y agoWorks fine in New Zealand ;)
- zer0rest 11y agotry downloading it with youtube-dl, or use tor :)
- laex 11y agoTor Browser to the rescue. Thanks.
- mrmondo 11y agosamm-mbp ~/Desktop % youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/watch\?v\=XEVlyP4_11M https://www.youtube.com/watch\?v\=XEVlyP4_11M [youtube] XEVlyP4_11M: Downloading webpage [youtube] XEVlyP4_11M: Downloading video info webpage ERROR: XEVlyP4_11M: YouTube said: The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
- q7 11y agoVideo is indeed restricted for the UK and AU: http://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=XEVlyP4_11M http://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=XEVlyP4_11M Other John Oliver videos are not restricted: http://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=uiN_-AEhTpk http://polsy.org.uk/stuff/ytrestrict.cgi?ytid=uiN_-AEhTpk
- entelechy0 11y agoThis was excellent. Thank you for sharing.
- Inufu 11y agoIf you are outside of the USA: https://vid.me/search?q=last%20week%20tonight%20government https://vid.me/search?q=last%20week%20tonight%20government
- q7 11y agoAlso, if you are outside of the USA, you're pretty much fucked as the NSA sees everything you do, including the dicks and vaginas of all 7 billion non-US citizens. And there is also no chance of that ever changing, since no foreign surveillance program hasn't even entered any debate. So from here, the non-united states to you, dear US reader: here's 7 billion people pointing their fingers at you, you peeping toms, you creeps.
- touristtam 11y agoThanks for the link. I just wished I'd known this website before as I had to resort to other means to view this interview.
- personlurking 11y agoI'm not sure why Snowden feels vindicated due to the story not going in and out of the news cycle quickly. The average person does not care, something evident from the complete lack of constant mass protests nationwide (to give an example). On the flip side, Oliver is correct, we can't have the necessary conversations if no one really understands what happened, and the scope of it.
- zachalexander 11y ago> average person does not care, something evident from the complete lack of constant mass protests That's a pretty high bar for "care".
- personlurking 11y agoTouché, though I would say it is the most effective way to show disagreement.
- bayesianhorse 11y agoYes, it is extremely important to note that the majority doesn't care. That also means that there is no way to reign in the NSA by democratic means. But at least the issue is in the open now. Well, some people may say that U.S. citizens are brainwashed by their media. But that is not true. They choose to listen to the media they listen to, they often pay for it in some form. There was tons of media coverage about Snowden's revelations, but people chose to ignore it and chose to forget most about it.
- unfunco 11y agoFor those in the United Kingdom (where this video is blocked) you can see the interview part here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfGWcmUbbk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfGWcmUbbk
- wattson12 11y agohis videos are only blocked until they air on HBO in the US, so in a day or so they should be available in the UK
- atmosx 11y agoI am a huge fan of John Oliver. I would love to see him deal with EU issues as well, but I know that's not possible since his audience is US based.
- laumars 11y agoHe has done. For example, the Scottish Referendum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkLPxQp_y0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YkLPxQp_y0 Though sadly not as often (for the reason you cited).
- atmosx 11y agoYes, the Scottish referendum was a subject I was watching closely. J. Oliver's comments were real gold, the fact that he is British added an extra flavor to the commentary :-)
- coldpie 11y agoAre you familiar with his podcast The Bugle? It's a (mostly) weekly, 30-minute satirical news podcast that he does with another English comedian, Andy Zaltzman. They cover European issues in most episodes. http://soundcloud.com/the-bugle http://soundcloud.com/the-bugle Archive of older episodes: http://gamesplusone.com/thebugle http://gamesplusone.com/thebugle
- atmosx 11y agoNope! Thanks!!! You gave something other than tech and philosophy to listen while running! Thanks!
- Synaesthesia 11y agoThank you! I only know Zaltzman for his cricket comedy. This is great, their styles match each other well.
- proactivesvcs 11y agoThe Bugle Podcast is all you need to know. You may have to put up with poor-quality phone lines in some episodes, but John and Andy take apart plenty of UK issues in their Friday issue of "an audio newspaper for a visual world".
- skaplun 11y agoJohn is brilliant.. but i wasnt very impressed with snowden, his mannerisms dont feel genuine.
- fysac 11y agoI feel like the interview was edited to make it seem that way. If you watch any of Snowden's other interviews and lectures, he's always very articulate and passionate about the subject.
- jules 11y agoI wasn't very impressed with Einstein, his hairstyle does not look professional.
- wyclif 11y agoIt was edited that way in order to increase the comedic value.
- raverbashing 11y agoMost people (non professionals) don't feel too comfortable in front of a camera.
- the_ancient 11y agoYou were not impressed by Snowden because frankly I believe Snowden was not prepared for John Oliver's style of sarcastic comedic interviewing. John is correct on the fact that the average person does not take this seriously or is completely ignorant on the subject. Edward Snowden believes the topic of mass surveillance is a very serious one, as he should. John is acting like the normal person namely an immature moron that does not take this topic seriously at all... Both are brilliant and John's commentary is a sad wakeup call to the intelligence of the average person in this country. The fact that "Dick Pics" is the best way to get the public to understand the massive problem that is mass surveillance is both true and very very sad.
- n8m 11y agoI have to say, I was fairly suprised of the way the interview was conducted. It was somewhat refreshing to see not the same questions being asked all over and over again. I think Mr. Oliver & his team picked very well what the average Joe does care about. Very well done!
- nick89 11y agoI have to agree. With the mass information dump everyday from news outlets, it's sometimes hard to put it into the perspective of "how does this affect me?". Using 'dick pics' to engage the audience was priceless!
- forthefuture 11y agoUnfortunately it's actually more common to never take a picture of your dick. If anything most people watching will think, "I don't take pictures of my dick, so I'm safe", which is the exact opposite of what you want people to think.
- chrisbuchholz 11y agoBut they will surely understand that if they're able to obtain and see your dick pics, they are also able to see all the other pictures your take and send via email and so forth. Most people don't take dick pics, but almost everyone take photos of other occasions which they might not like others to see, like their children running naked in the garden, your wife sun bathing or just the random social occasion that are no others business but yours and whom ever you deliberately choose to share it with.
- XorNot 11y agoWhich again buries the entire issue because if we're going to ask "who can see pictures you share with people without encryption" then the question goes a good deal further then "oh my god the government!" Quite literally any sysadmin at your ISP can see that material, and might see that material in the course of normal work. If you posed this to an "average" person they also haven't realized this. They also don't realize Dropbox is unencrypted. Neither are your bank records - not from your banker or the random support person you're calling. If we're on a role they might then be inclined to wonder why everyone in their life isn't constantly trying to blackmail them with all the information they could easily get all the time. And then eventually, we'd loop around to the obvious realization: because it would be illegal for them to actually use any of that information they obtained in confidence. And so on the vast vast scale of modern society, they don't. At which point you have a problem: the NSA doesn't actually randomly start posting stuff it collects on the internet. In fact people barely know what it does because it doesn't impact them. Because government thugs aren't kicking down doors of political dissidents, or doing any of the "totalitarian" stuff they expect. After this entire thought exercise, the average person might conclude they should stop emailing dick pics around if they don't want their ISP to see them. But then they'd also realize that's probably nothing to worry about from the NSA either. And by and large, they'd be right.
- ASlave2Gravity 11y agoWith this section 215 and myriad others like PRISM, Upstream - my question is why? Surely the overheads for looking at every single thing are so costly it borders on inefficient? I understand the 'deputising' of Facebook, Google ect. But why do governments want all this data? Is it as Snowden puts, '[to have] a gun over our head.'? That idea makes sense to me, if someone falls out of line the people in power have sensitive information on them and can steer the wayward back to the core ideology?
- Zezima 11y agoThe government wants this data in order to maintain control over a population of millions of people whose democracy prohibits the authoritarian spying and oppression which can be found in Russia or China. It allows the United States government to exploit weaknesses in individuals or the entire population when they have so much information. The only question which is critical to consider is why a person should care if you they "nothing to hide". Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who was first contacted by Snowden, gave a TED Talk on the topic http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters... It answers your question better than I just did.
- maxerickson 11y agoI don't think there is a conspiracy of control. I think the people involved in creating these programs are true believers who think they are making the world a better place. The idea that it is being done to maintain control creates a nexus of evil, a boogeyman that is responsible for it all. The idea I propose, that the only thing behind it is basic human nature, is much scarier.
- the_ancient 11y agoI think you are both wrong, and right. The people in charge of these programs believe in the United States Government, not the nation, not the people not the constitution, but the government They believe that Anyone that disagrees with the government at any level is the enemy and they must protect their government from that enemy even if those people are the citizens of that very nation they are suppose to serve.
- higherpurpose 11y agoJohn Oliver shows why we can't rely on surveys to show whether people support mass surveillance or not. Most don't even seem to know who Snowden is, let alone understand what the government is actually doing. At best most of their minds are made up by what they see on TV (where the networks hardly did Snowden and his revelations any justice). Also, relevant: https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/04/04/section-215s-multiple-programs-and-where-they-might-hide-after-june-1/ https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/04/04/section-215s-multiple-... It's very likely that even if the government "backs down" on some surveillance programs from the Patriot Act, they will try to replicate them in other bills, such as CISA or other future ones. They've done that before, too. So we need to be very vigilant about it.
- knweiss 11y agoWatching this video feels like attending a funeral together with a clown.
- DyslexicAtheist 11y agoanyone having problems with the video not available in their country should consider using https://proxtube.com/ https://proxtube.com/ browser extension (especially in Germany you can't live without, due to GEMA)
- jfoster 11y agoI think this is most interesting not so much as a Snowden interview or John Oliver clip, but a highlighting of the delta between the mainstream and people who have a particular interest in this topic. It's easy to forget just how big that delta is.
- touristtam 11y agoI think it is pretty much down to what sort of media is reaching these population. The perfect example is the one John Oliver is giving earlier on in the show where a serious interview is being cut off by a live news report on Bieber's misconduct in public.
- slaxman 11y agoCommunication: this is where john oliver is amazing. Rather than talk about all the complexities of the secret NSA programs. He simplified the entire scandal into "NSA can see your dick pics. Stop them now". This episode is a big lesson in communication for startups.
- xiaq 11y agoThis amazes me, but it saddens me more. On the one hand, I applaud the brilliance of John Oliver for presenting the NSA affair in an immediately alarming way and attracting the attention of the average people. On the other hand, people really have to think rationally and responsibly to tackle serious political issues. John Oliver is not going to work every time, and sometimes we don't have a John Oliver at all. I am deeply depressed by the political ignorance of the common people in the US. I have always assumed that political ignorance stems from political oppression, which seems to be case in China (which is my home country). But now it seems to be a consequence of universal human stupidity instead.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI think that people are ignorant, because why wouldn't they be? They have zero individual influence, 99% of things the government talks about openly is irrelevant bullshit and part of shaping the voter's sympathy. So basically if it doesn't influence your daily life and you have zero control over it, why should you care? So it doesn't seem surprising at all that people in modern democracies are ignorant of most of the politics. I think that many in tech, who are acutely aware of the significance of the NSA affair, care about it not because of politics, but because it's wrong and hurts people.
- xiaq 11y ago> So basically if it doesn't influence your daily life and you have zero control over it, why should you care? I cannot really argue against this pessimistic picture of democracy. > I think that many in tech, who are acutely aware of the significance of the NSA affair, care about it not because of politics, but because it's wrong and hurts people. Your definition of politics is very weird to me. Since preventing wrong things that happen on a big scale fits perfectly into my definition of political activities (think about the American civil rights movement).
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bayesianhorse 11y agoIt was hilarious to watch.
- olivierlacan 11y agoI transcribed the important part of the interview and put it up here with links to relevant info about each of the Patriot Act sections and NSA programs mentioned: http://cantheyseemydick.com http://cantheyseemydick.com
- TeMPOraL 11y agoAwesome! I'm sharing this in my social circles. One thing though: could you make it more clear those paragraphs are Snowden's words?
- sbose78 11y agoI think John Oliver's producers are heroic.
- pdkl95 11y agoI find it very interesting that Snowden explicitly confirmed that when the NSA says they only capture "foreign" data, they are considering the endpoints of the wires that transport any given packet, not the humans that generate/receive that packets. The NSA has a lot of people focused on "metadata" of the endpoints only, and not the entire path the data actually follows that is generally not something the leaves of the network can control. Snowden mentioned moving data to different locations (probably remote mirrors/backups) as one of the places data is captured. The NSA can probably capture any data they want by simply poisoning a few BGP[1] routes so the data they want is routed internationally. [1] pick your favorite method of rerouting traffic; BGP is just one obvious example
- LLWM 11y agoI don't think anyone is surprised at this point that they interpret their mission as broadly as they can possibly justify. The NSA are singlehandedly tearing down the stereotypes of lazy government workers.
- butwhy 11y agoThis interview was very cringeworthy. Snowden kept getting cut off and the entire thing was just totally disrespectful.
- mhomde 11y agoThat was the point, they didn't want to idolize Snowden and even made some pretty hard accusations about him being responsible for inadvertent repercussions That made the rest of the interview more believable and trustworthy. Fair, balanced and humorous I agree that it's a fine line between simplifying a topic for "the general masses" and dumbing it down to something out of the movie Idiocracy. However, I think that Oliver has done a fair job of making it easier to relate to topics people otherwise wouldn't. (He could use a touch less cursing to add some gravitas where needed, but that's a matter of personal taste I guess)
- butwhy 11y agoHere is Snowden... having dedicated and risked his life to help his fellow citizen, to have Oliver claim that Americans "don't give a shit" and that he is incompetent for passing on information to journalists that will publish un-redacted material. So Oliver is trying to be funny whilst fundamentally insulting his work and the freedom he has given up.
- tinco 11y agoNo, Oliver was not trying to be funny. Oliver was pointing out the truth as he observed it, and at the closing part of his interview offers a solution. So yes, there was some very harsh criticism during the interview and it was difficult the watch, but it made the interview that much stronger and the solution offered that much more appealing. It proves that Oliver is not your average 'funny-man' and dares to make part of his show uncomfortable just to establish a solid foundation of his interpretation and proposed solution.
- cardern 11y agoI thought that by joking with Snowden in the way that he did, Oliver was trying to humanize him.
- Yuioup 11y agoThis is one of the best things I have ever seen.
- nothrabannosir 11y agoOh God the part at 7:55 where people describe Edward Snowden as selling information, "that shouldn't have been revealed," I had to stop watching for a second. Poor guy. It's one thing for people to disapprove of what he did for the right reasons. But for people to think of him as a traitor for the wrong ones, that's another entirely. That was hard to watch. EDIT: Oh no he's showing it to him.. John's facial expression at 23.08 says it all. I almost can't watch this.
- vanderZwan 11y agoBut look at the smile when he sees them caring about dick pics!
- sanderjd 11y agoI loved how quickly he caught on to Oliver's point. I imagine a follow-on effect of the interview may be a renewed appraisal of how he presents his arguments on Snowden's part. Not dick-pics per se, but connecting better with why the average person should care.
- borgia 11y ago>That was hard to watch. I agree. I had to turn it off and come back to it. The level of ignorance from that random public sampling was utterly terrifying. I cannot imagine what kind of bubble those people are living in that they have seemingly totally avoided even the most basic of information pertaining to such a, or what should be a, massive scandal in American public life. It was enlightening, depressing and frustrating all bundle into one. It's no wonder nothing is coming of these leaks when you've an apparently massive amount of people who are totally disengaged with what is going on in their country, a heap of people apathetic about it, another heap of people in support of it and a sliver of people outraged but who feel totally powerless to do anything about it. Similarly it's no surprise that many feel totally powerless when they're surrounded by these other groups. While I feel Oliver somewhat trivialised the issue, he did make it far more approachable as a topic in doing so. Will this trigger a larger discussion on the issue? I do not know, but I'd be willing to bet that even in the face of proof of these activities, a large proportion of the population would still reject it and toe the government line.
- cookiecaper 11y agoWhat the disinterest comes down to is "show, don't tell". Snowden told everyone that the government is spying on them. Oliver is trying to make that more tangible by telling everyone "You know they've seen your dick, right?" The interesting thing here is that Snowden could've affected real change if he actually leaked a section of the corpus of data the NSA had collected. Last year's celebrity nude scandal was characterized as "sexual abuse" against the people whose photos got published. What kind of impact would've been made if an equivalent dump of "normal" people occurred? People hate revenge porn sites and anything that seems to indicate that nudes may be published without the consent of the depicted persons. It's a very interesting question to ask: would the indiscriminate embarrassment and exposure caused by a leak of say, one day's worth of the NSA's collected data, be worth the awareness that leak would cause, and the changes it may or may not provoke? Would that not be the most fair way to judge whether the NSA's collection of that data is really warranted? Snowden says he's all about letting the people judge for themselves, but as Oliver notes, he made a series of disclosures that require a significant technical background to fully grasp (perhaps part of his partnership with Greenwald et al was based around the hope that they could further personalize the story). Wouldn't his purpose have ultimately been better served by taking and publishing a raw chunk of the sampled data?
- tripzilch 11y agoQuestion for the Americans on this forum: What has the media coverage of Snowden actually been like in the US, then? From the comments all over the web (not particularly HN), as well as John Oliver's "we didn't cherry-pick these" remark about those street "interviews", I got the idea that the Netherlands, the EU, or the rest of the world has seen a wholly different news-coverage of Edward Snowden than the USA. For instance, this comment on Imgur really puzzled me: "Watched the whole interview after seeing the last image of it that was uploaded today. Dude seems nice. A little naive, but nice". That sounds as if the person who wrote this truly hadn't seen Snowden speak and/or explain his motives before today?? This guy's face has been all over the news for the past two years, and there have been numerous, in-depth interviews with Snowden, and live video appearances, that were in fact full of great soundbites suited perfectly for news coverage. And IMO, assuming one is remotely interested in a serious answer, some were in fact easier to understand than the few words Snowden got in between with John Oliver. Mainly because he got to finish his sentences and they asked sane questions (by which I don't mean the "Can they see our dicks?" question, that one may be crass, but it is actually an effective summary, in some sense). Somehow it seems like this appearance on a comedy show, talking about dick pics, is actually the first time for a great many people to hear Snowden explain himself and the issues at hand (that have been at hand for the past two years). I am very on the fence about this. Taken at face value, this interview was absolutely totally cringeworthy and awful. This guy gave up his life to bring the truth to light, he is a hero[0], I'm fairly sure that John Oliver sees and agrees with this, yet he shows him a pair of rubber testicles with stars-n-stripes pattern. On the OTHER hand, maybe the question "But can they see our dicks?" really is the last question that can make Americans actually care about this subject matter, in which case John Oliver did a great thing, if it actually works, that is wonderful. And I cringe for your country. Another nice mindtwister to think about: That folder, purportedly containing a "dickpic" of John Oliver. Two possibilities, which one is worse: Edward Snowden, man of Truth, exiled for life, in Russia, having to play along with a semi-scripted silly comedy sketch (you can see his discomfort) pretending there is a picture of John Oliver's penis in that folder. OR the alternative: John Oliver actually handing Edward "f-cking" Snowden a folder with an actual photograph of his naked penis. (I'd probably have more respect for the latter, also fits better with these ridiculously Strange Times we live in. But I guess Snowden's facial expression would have been somewhat different) [0] About the "traitor" part. A certain number of (corrupt) people in the USA might "honestly" feel betrayed by him, in an informed manner. But what he did is so much bigger than that, the rest of the world knows him as a hero.
- lurkinggrue 11y agoJust curious: If you had been at time square would you have avoided his cameras?
- MasoudKnows 11y agoAbsolutely amazing, Edward Snowden thought he was smart and by giving the 200,000K copies of important documents to so called "intelligent journalist". Doesn't solve anything...it kind of allows the NSA to plead for more money for security. Which we don't want!