S02.E08: Government Surveillance / Edward Snowden

[Athena]

There are very few government checks on what America’s sweeping surveillance programs are capable of doing. John Oliver sits down with Edward Snowden to discuss the NSA, the balance between privacy and security, and dick-pics.

[trow125]

ooh, look what it says on LWT's Twitter feed:

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

This Sunday night's show will be forty-five minutes long because this week has been overflowing with last week.

[Victor the Crab]

Cool! I hope they spend a great deal of the show talking about Indiana's stupid anti gay legislation and how its governor and lifelike douchebag Mike Pence did not foresee the shitstorm his new law created because he's a fucking moron.

[MarquisDeCarabas]

Oh holy god this was Amazing.  This should win John all the awards.  I hope they do it next week but this was important and Amazing

[vmarsissmart]

I would want the dick pic program shut down.  

 

'merica

 

 

That was amazing.  I lost it when Snowden entered the room.  

[Irlandesa]

As someone who has complicated feelings about Snowden and his actions, I kind of dreaded that interview.  Instead, I loved it.  It managed to be funny, ask tough questions about the choices he made and their potentially unintended consequences and reframe the debate in a way that would make Americans care.  Too many think that if they're not doing anything wrong, they aren't a target of surveillance. 

 

Too bad this episode didn't air next week after the Game of Thrones and Veep premieres.  This show deserves a lot of attention.

[larapu2000]

That Snowden interview was everything. From John waiting over an hour, mentioning the KGB across the way, and the dick pic interviews, it was amazing. But the best moment of all was the cut to Bieber's sentencing in the MSNBC clip.

[Judois]

That episode was great journalism. John Oliver's interview was pretty tough on Snowden but Snowden did take it well,at least. Hearing him say dick pic over and over was quite funny.

[GaT]

That Snowden interview was fantastic, & not only was the dick pic thing hysterical, but it actually explained things in a way that was simple to understand. Also, the turtle LOL.

[bookworm]

Holy crap!  Watched this last night but needed some sleep time to process.  Our whole family was riveted, from 16 to 53, we all sat here with our mouths open.  When Edward Snowden actually walked into the room we were floored, but to have him stay and answer questions was incredible.  

 

John Oliver did a better job of getting to the heart of what Snowden thought he was doing right on our behalf, what he did that was actually wrong and dangerous, and also explaining the issues in a way that everyone in the room both got and stayed laser-focused on.  He got Snowden to admit some culpability for the unintended consequences and the fact that he didn't vet all the docs he decided to make public, letting that decision rest with various press businesses.  In the interviews I have seen and read, admittedly not all, Snowden has always been somewhat smug and self-congratulatory and winkles out of a lot of responsibility.

 

This should win every TV show and TV reporting award it possibly can.  It was amazing.  Not only does it make the issues crystal clear no matter how uninterested the viewer.  I would love to see a few of the dick-pic quotes on the stage behind NPH at the Emmys. 

Edited April 6, 2015 by bookworm

[dusang]

I'm halfway through the segment and all I can say is HOLY FUCK JOHN OLIVER!!

 

ETA: I honestly, sincerely, and deeply hope there was not a picture of John Oliver's dick.... ever.

 

EATA: I'm still not sure how I feel about Edward Snowden -- I think the leak was probably well intentioned but poorly executed, at best.  But with this interview I generally just feel really sad for the current state of both journalism and political discourse in the US.  I love John Oliver but really, there's entirely too much slack for him to be taking up.

Edited April 6, 2015 by dusang

[ganesh]

When JO showed the video to Snowden where no one knew what he did, I thought he was going to cry. You could see he was just crushed. To be able to pick it up, play along with JO, and explain the issues so well was pretty impressive. 

[Traveller519]

Only thing that would have made this better for me. Is if John had addressed his nervousness about travelling to Russia in light of all the jokes he's made at Putin and the Country's expense since he started the show. He sort of did, in his "I don't really want to be here walking on the streets bit, I just wish it was a little more on the nose to draw in people to the work he's been doing."

 

One of the most incredible things about the "bigger issues" John explores, is that he does so through a mostly non-partisan viewpoint. They're common sense approaches to ugly things. The fact that he can bring up that there is support for these types of reform on both sides (Much like he did when discussing Tax Reform while hosting the Daily Show) shows that these are bigger issues than Red or Blue states, it's things that need to be fixed.

 

I know mainstream politics is more the Daily Show's forum right now, but dammit I hope Jon does a segment summarizing his topics for reform by doing a piece on how ineffectual Congress has been. I'm sure with enough digging and support he could find that there have been a number of good bills that have died on the floor of Congress in the past 4+ years as controversial amendments get added to them

[iMonrey]

 

When JO showed the video to Snowden where no one knew what he did, I thought he was going to cry. You could see he was just crushed. To be able to pick it up, play along with JO, and explain the issues so well was pretty impressive.

 

Yes, you could see Snowden was crestfallen. It must have been very sobering to see that and think about how he's had to upend his entire life and live in Russia thinking he was some infamous underdog hero in the U.S.

 

For all that though, I still don't think most Americans give a damn about the surveillance program or ever will.

[Sharpie66]

As soon as John started talking about the Patriot Act, I was all "Hell, yeah!" because as a recent library school graduate, we spent a lot of time on that subject in my various classes.

 

There are reasons why just about every person in graduate library programs are politically liberal, and that's the main one! (As Michael Moore said in my favorite quote about librarians: "I really didn't realize the librarians were, you know, such a dangerous group. They are subversive. You think they're just sitting there at the desk, all quiet and everything. They're like plotting the revolution, man. I wouldn't mess with them.")

[bookworm]

When JO showed the video to Snowden where no one knew what he did, I thought he was going to cry. You could see he was just crushed. To be able to pick it up, play along with JO, and explain the issues so well was pretty impressive. 

I see we noticed exactly the same things.

 

It did seem as if he wanted to cry a bit when it became clear that the general populace either had no idea whatsoever about him or was conflating him with Julian Assange.  But he did seem to settle in and play along with the questions and premise when it became clear that JO did actually have a purpose for being so apparently dismissive of a lot of the intricacies of the situation.  By forcing the discussion into one path, internal communications, and one subject, dick pics, JO helped Snowden make his point better, more clearly, and regarding something people "care" about.

[Traveller519]

The thing that probably set me off as anything was the MSNBC clip where they broke to the Justin Beiber plea entry. I was seeing red.

[peeayebee]

That interview. So good. I admit I haven't seen the Snowden documentary yet, so this is really the first time I've heard him talk at length. I love how John brought up the dick pic issue in order to get people to understand. It really worked! Just amazing.

 

I was wondering how much internet access Snowden has in Russia. 

[ganesh]

The fact that he can bring up that there is support for these types of reform on both sides (Much like he did when discussing Tax Reform while hosting the Daily Show) shows that these are bigger issues than Red or Blue states, it's things that need to be fixed.

 

It's an issue of elected representatives actually governing properly and actually *wanting* to govern properly. Currently, they don't. Even back when Reagan "government is the problem" was president, Congress and the president regularly passed budgets and raised taxes when needed. 

The fact that he can bring up that there is support for these types of reform on both sides (Much like he did when discussing Tax Reform while hosting the Daily Show) shows that these are bigger issues than Red or Blue states, it's things that need to be fixed.

 

It's an issue of elected representatives actually governing properly and actually *wanting* to govern properly. Currently, they don't. Even back when Reagan "government is the problem" was president, Congress and the president regularly passed budgets and raised taxes when needed. 

[Irlandesa]

Yes, you could see Snowden was crestfallen. It must have been very sobering to see that and think about how he's had to upend his entire life and live in Russia thinking he was some infamous underdog hero in the U.S.

 

For all that though, I still don't think most Americans give a damn about the surveillance program or ever will.

I wonder if he's been protected from knowing just how little people care.  The thing is, the people who love Snowden REALLY love him.  Just today someone tried to put a 100 pound statue of him in a park.  I'm sure he has representatives who filter that adulation to him but the reality is, the amount of people who have a strong opinion, either positive or negative, about him is relatively small.

 

That said, I do think the question asked was the wrong question.  I'd guess more people have heard about NSA spying on them than the name of the man who exposed it.

 

But no, Americans don't care about it because unless they see it, it doesn't affect them.  If Snowden really wanted to make noise, he would've stolen dick pics to give to reporters and had those posted online.  When all those celebs had their nude photos released, that certainly spurred some companies to up their protection after the outrage

 

I was wondering how much internet access Snowden has in Russia. 

I don't know but apparently Oliver got the interview because Snowden as impressed by the net neutrality segment John did. I don't know if he saw it or if it was shown to him once the interview request was made.

[shok]

 

But no, Americans don't care about it because unless they see it, it doesn't affect them.

 

I think most Americans understand that there's very little privacy in their world what with all the security cameras on the streets and in most stores and offices. They willingly give up their privacy to be able to have access to their smart phones and computers. Corporations are far far more invasive than the government is and for most people, I think their attitude is they're not doing anything wrong anyway so they don't have much to fear. Whether that attitude is smart or correct is another discussion.

[Irlandesa]

Corporations are far far more invasive than the government is and for most people, I think their attitude is they're not doing anything wrong anyway so they don't have much to fear.

That's the funny thing, though.  People really do get up in arms when they think it's the government who has access to their e-mail, their Facebook accounts...etc.  But they give away access rather nonchalantly when it's a business.  Even when it's a business they haven't signed a 'privacy' agreement with. 

[attica]

I'm pretty sure I noticed Snowden's blushing when confronted with whatever photo was in that folder. That he didn't leap out of the chair and run away screaming tells you a bit about his personal composure.

 

I admit I haven't seen the Snowden documentary yet, so this is really the first time I've heard him talk at length.

 

I recommend it. It's really good filmmaking, whether or not you are freaked out by the content. I myself did a paranoia-marathon one Saturday, wherein I watched both The Fifth Estate and Citizen Four. CF's the better flick by far, despite my affection for most things Cumberbatchian.

 

The thing that gets my goat most about all the surveillance isn't that of course they do it, because of course they do it. If they can they will -- it's tautological. My goat gets gotten by when they inevitably use it against non-terrorists, they use it exclusively against liberals. Abortion clinic bombers don't get detained at airports -- Glenn Greenwald's husband does.  Which is not to say I'm in favor of it at all, but if I can't win the battle to scale it back, I'd like to see it leveraged against the people who are doing actual harm, rather than just those who might want the program overseen more stringently.

[dusang]

I think most Americans understand that there's very little privacy in their world what with all the security cameras on the streets and in most stores and offices. They willingly give up their privacy to be able to have access to their smart phones and computers. Corporations are far far more invasive than the government is and for most people, I think their attitude is they're not doing anything wrong anyway so they don't have much to fear. Whether that attitude is smart or correct is another discussion.

 

I think most Americans have never thought about it one way or another.  I think people give away FAR more information than they are consciously aware of -- I'm sure I've seen some cop/spy show refer to the fact that, through social media, people are basically surveilling themselves and making the government's job that much easier.  But, as Irlandesa says, I think people react better to companies collecting their data rather than governments.

[Notwisconsin]

We're in trouble. If the best journalism on television is JOHN OLIVER, then we're totally in trouble.

[ganesh]

John Oliver isn't the best journalism on television. He's a comedian that uses journalism as his medium and he's plying his craft at a very high level thanks to the format that HBO gives him. He's also made really smart choices about the topics he presents. PBS news is actual journalism. ITV and BBC is actual journalism. There's lots of freelance journalists literally risking their lives around the world to get stories to legit outlets because they sincerely believe a free press is essential to a free society. 

[dusang]

John Oliver isn't the best journalism on television. He's a comedian that uses journalism as his medium and he's plying his craft at a very high level thanks to the format that HBO gives him. He's also made really smart choices about the topics he presents. PBS news is actual journalism. ITV and BBC is actual journalism. There's lots of freelance journalists literally risking their lives around the world to get stories to legit outlets because they sincerely believe a free press is essential to a free society. 

 

I suspect Notwisconsin is alluding to the journalism at major news networks that pre-empted a discussion of the USA PATRIOT Act to cover Justin Bieber's sentencing.  Obviously there are serious journalists out there doing great work.  But they're few and far between on American network television.

 

(OT: I knew that USA PATRIOT is an acronym but in Googling it just now, I discovered that it is, in fact, a BACKronym and that such a word as backronym exists.  Wonderful!)

Edited April 8, 2015 by dusang

[Hanahope]

I know I shouldn't be amazed at how ignorant most Americans are, but I still am.  I may not all the details of Snowden, but man, I know the gist of what he did, and I don't really keep up on news in great detail.  How fabulous that Snowden actually showed up and I love how they made it real to people by using dick pics.  Just simply amazing that people do that.  I guess I have to stop being amazed at what people do and don't know.  /shakes head

[Dewey Decimate]

I just watched Citizenfour last week, and am embarrassed to admit that it felt more like "eat your broccoli because it's good for you" than movie-viewing experience. I was intent on paying attention and really trying to understand the details, but damn if JO didn't hit the nail on the head when he made the IT guy comparison. YES! I think their dick-pic-centric explanation of everything was golden.

 

I'm rather torn about how to feel about ES, but think he's incredibly well-spoken and composed for a relatively young guy at the center of a political/criminal shitstorm. Kudos to everyone involved in getting him on this show. Excellent episode.

[fastiller]

I'm rather torn about how to feel about ES, but think he's incredibly well-spoken and composed for a relatively young guy at the center of a political/criminal shitstorm. Kudos to everyone involved in getting him on this show. Excellent episode.

 

I'm also torn.  I like his intent, but not his methods.  I'd've preferred it if he were to have done a "deep throat" sort of thing and kept his own name out of the headlines.

[possibilities]

I thought it bordered on cruel for Oliver to hammer away at "no one cares" with Snowden. I don't want the guy to commit suicide over the futility of his actions, and I don't even think it's true that his actions have been useless. They did move the conversation, among those who are paying attention. And typically it is the people who are paying attention who get things done, not the randomly selected people on the street who aren't participating. Snowden has paid a very high price for his actions. Leading him to believe they've been meaningless isn't really accurate and seemed ruthless and unnecessary to make the point JO was trying to make, about the accessibility of the dick pic as a wedge to get more interest from the masses.

[hincandenza]

I'm also torn.  I like his intent, but not his methods.  I'd've preferred it if he were to have done a "deep throat" sort of thing and kept his own name out of the headlines.

 

Not to pick on you personally, but I've heard this sentiment elsewhere since the original story broke, and feel compelled to issue a blanket critique.  I hope you'll understand that I'm not thinking of you particularly when I write the angry rant below. :)

 

I believe that choice was specifically talked about in the CitizenFour documentary: that he wanted to hand over the documents to the press so they can do their diligence (and not be on the run like he would be), and also to avoid making himself part of the story like Julian Assange.  The idea was that his identity would be revealed in short order anyway, no good way to hide it- he knew who he had worked for- so it was best to just a) get out of Dodge if he can, b) get his girlfriend/family out of harm's way and make sure it's clear they had nothing to do with this so hopefully wouldn't be targeted, and c) try to make himself not part of the story, but instead let more experienced press analyze the documents and tell the story people need to hear.  He couldn't do that as "Deepthroat", not in the 21st century, not with the tools the three-letter-agencies have at their disposal.

 

I honestly have lived long enough to know how this works: damned if you do, etc.  If he hides his identity, he still gets found out, but then you'd have just said "I like his intent, but not his methods: hiding in the shadows, appointing himself arbiter of data leaks.  How can you trust someone like that?  Besides, why not hand it all over to an experienced group of journalists so they can caretake the analysis and release of information in a safe but meaningful way?". 

 

He could not win- not with the government itself of course, not with the American public, and not with the mostly toothless media that takes their marching orders from government and corporate press releases.  It certainly is not Snowden's fault- not remotely, no matter how much John Oliver or others protest- that the friggin' New York Times can't use MS Paint.  If we can't trust one of the most prestigious and storied newspapers to do their job, then how is that on Snowden to have predicted? That's like having your primary physician referred you to a specialist, who then makes a significant and costly error in their prescription... you don't sue the original doctor for malpractice!

 

Besides, there is still is no evidence that the leaks caused harm: criticizing Snowden's "methods" is a misdirection, a false concern to distract us from the main story, to render something that should be a passionately patriotic topic into something milquetoast and clinical, like discussing the fonts used in a FEMA operation after a hurricane.  The government was and is doing something profoundly wrong, and good people must stand up to that.  Might as well criticize "The White Rose" for the choice of mimeograph technology used in their protest leaflets.  "I like their opposition to the rise of Nazism, but not of their methods..."  Before this gets accused of Godwinning, I think the actual parallels are there to exempt it: these are some profound tramplings on the 4th amendment and individual liberty, and if unchecked would lead us to some very dark places.

 

 

Me, I have nothing but respect for him and his methods.  He's an American hero and patriot in the truest sense, giving up a great life (living in Hawaii with his girlfriend, making $200K a year) to go on the run and end up as a refugee in Russia, all for his belief in a free and democratic USA like he was raised to believe in.  Many people in that position would justify the status quo to themselves somehow, or just swallow their pride and admit to themselves that they sold out their ethics for the perfect material life.  The existence of these agencies depends on that trade-off, the "bystander effect" as an organizational policy.  In a democracy, no one owes any allegiance to a corrupt security state, or maintaining the theatrics of entrenched power.  That is the lie of the Bushes and Obamas and their minions in the executive branch, that some grave existential threat constantly faces us, and necessitates losing privacy or autonomy or freedom or due process, but you know... "trust us".

[OneWhoLurks]

We couldn’t tell them that we were going to interview [snowden], because there had to be very few people knowing about it … Also, I really liked the idea of it being a surprise, because we had this section at the start of the interview where I was really concerned he wasn’t going to turn up. But it’s not really funny if you promote it beforehand, so I thought it’d be great just to spring the interview on people.

 

    But that’s not something I think most networks are anxious to hear: "Oh, you’ve got something you think people would like to watch? Why not not tell them it’s going to be on?" It was amazing that they said, "Yeah sure, we’ll do that." And then we played it in to the audience, and I told the audience, "Do you mind just not, for the next three hours, telling anyone what’s happened?" Amazingly, it worked.

 

    I really appreciate the fact that HBO let us do that, because we thought it was the best way for that material to be presented, even though commercially, it’s the worst way to present it.

 

[...]

 

At Snowden's request, Last Week Tonight affirmed the accuracy of what he said during his interview with Oliver by following up with the NSA. But, Oliver added with a grin, "I'm guessing they [already] knew."

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10906064/john-oliver-edward-snowden-interview-hbo