Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance

That Episode was insane. The Snowden interview came out of nowhere. This is a comedy show with more journalistic guts and integrety than many of the major news networks. I really hope this will get the discussion going. #dicpicprogram

That Bieber cutaway. I'm fucking dying. God help us all.

Very nice interview. Clear short explanations from Snowden about why we should care, and done in a very humorous way.

There is not really any new information, except perhaps Snowden's response to the allegations that the materials were leaked in an irresponsible manner. I wish we could have this discussion in a more in-depth and mature manner with Snowden expanding on rather than repeating the issue at hand, but at this point anything that shines a light on the issue and makes people think about it is very good.

So I commend John Oliver for doing this and Edward Snowden for playing along.

Best quote towards the end of the video:

"You shouldn't change your behavior because a government agency somewhere is doing the wrong thing. If we sacrifice our values because we're afraid, we don't care about those values very much."

A 30 minute John Oliver video? Dis gon be good.

Man, it hurt to see Snowden that sad when he was watching the laptop. :(

What a great interview though.

LWT is oriented toward viral sharing rather than traditional promotion.

Is Breaking News in America really such a meaningless term? When I hear it in Germany I can be pretty sure that at least one person died.

I honestly don't know how to feel about John Oliver saying that. The only reason Edward Snowden isn't dead or in solitary confinement 23 hours a day is his foresight. There's only so much preparation and planning you can do when the most powerful intelligence agencies aided by the most powerful surveillance tools will hunt you down when they suspect something is up. All anyone needs to do is watch Citizenfour to see just how much Snowden had to keep in mind to pull off what he did. There were already people intimidating his girlfriend at home and watching his house in the very early steps of the leak before any of us knew what these programs were called or what these agencies are capable of. Yeah, they were watching his house when they were still just putting everything together in the hotel room in Hong Kong.

I'm hoping John was just playing Devil's Advocate and not actually attacking Snowden. I believe Edward Snowden was anything but reckless.

I was also very unhappy with his dismissive appraisal of Julian Assange and his dig at his physical appearance. Those sorts of jokes are better suited for something like The Colbert Report, as Stephen was playing a character which mocked pundits doing things like trying to discredit people based on irrelevant details such as appearance. It reminded me of the media calling Snowden smug and saying he looked like a weasel in an attempt to persuade people to discredit his message. John shouldn't be making those kinds of jokes about someone like Julian Assange, who's efforts to inform and educate about the realities of this new technological age have been awesome as far I can see.

I take this issue very seriously and understand John and his team were probably trying to frame it in a way those people on the streets will actually care about, since apparently they don't care about the reality of the surveillance situation, but was still a little disheartened. Maybe it's just hard for me to accept people are that clueless and need the example of dick pictures to see any sort of context.

When you hear it in the United States you can be sure many people die... inside.

Yeah, that one hurt a little bit to see. I don't claim to know all the details of what he did or why he did it, but the guy has completely turned his life upside down and been forced to cut ties with his friends and family in an attempt to stand up for what he believes in. To then be shown that the average citizen is completely unaware of that sacrifice must be painful.

The dick pic analogy was a stroke of genius. Relating a complex set of issues to something personal to many Americans. When the interview started I was wondering what direction John Oliver was trying to take it in. But it is probably one of the best Snowden interviews I've seen. It also serves to make him appear more human too.

Are you giving out free HBOGO subscriptions?

edit: for the love of God, don't take this post so seriously.

I really appreciated that Snowden tried to wriggle out a bit but then accepted responsibility for this error in his methodology. "At least one of us thought ahead." OUCH! Snowden took it on the chin and hung in there.

You mistyped "any" as "many".

The look on that poor bastard's face as Oliver shows him the videos of Americans. It just reads like, "I gave up my entire fucking life for these idiots... these complete and utter idiots."

It also serves to make him appear more human too.

I'm surprised at how much hate Snowden gets about this. It's exceedingly clear, even in very short interviews, how intelligent he is. It's like the average American takes the sight of intelligence as a personal threat.

It literally takes Snowden talking about domestic espionage in terms of dick pics and sexting to make him seem down to earth. That's kind of sad.

I wonder why HBO didn't promote the interview before it was aired. Normally they shamelessly promote all of their shows in between the end of one and the beginning of the next. I liked the surprise element though and obviously people can watch it now on youtube in case they missed it.

The shock on his face when he hears the stuff on wikileaks and selling info is just brutal. Poor dude.

It amazes me how uninformed so many people are. The Snowden thing isn't that complicated for the average citizen. At least it shouldn't be.

"The government has collected and saved everything you ever emailed, txted, and put on facebook. There's likely a 20 year old kid at the NSA looking at the nude pics your girlfriend sent to you 3 years ago. It's illegal and the government is doing it anyway."

What is hard to understand about that? How are people NOT losing their minds over this?

Step 1: Copy Youtube link (Which is blocked)

Step 2: Enter link on vid.me

Step 3: Watch the video anywhere in the world and on any device

Step 4: Don't wait for cool americans

Mirror

I agree with your points that Snowden had a decent plan on how to get out of the US with the documents. However his "escape" plan failed when the US cancelled his passport. I think that John's comment was a half-throwaway joke meant in jest but it still pointed out that Snowden did not read every document yet still released them all to the press.

I disagree about your take on Assange and Wiki leaks and I will take whatever downvotes I get for it. Assange was irresponsible and compromised actual people in the field as well as ongoing diplomatic efforts. I do not believe that is ethical in any way. I think Snowden is trying to take an ethical route by exposing the government without compromising individual people. That seems to be a good philosophy as he is standing for individual privacy.

Now to wait for the cool Americans to re upload this to vimeo.

Upvote the shit out of this. The /sub/worldnews post got removed.

Edit: In other words, get this to the front page ASAP.

Two smart guys in a room be gettin' shit right.

I love how John coaches Snowden, who is usually very careful to sounds professional and articulate, in the fine art of uncouth, "dick pic" rhetoric. At first you see Snowden just ignores it, then slowly comes to the realization of what John is trying to do, and in the end is really going with the flow.

Watch the actual episodes, they are all 30 minutes and cover more than one subject.

It's nice to see Oliver forcing Snowden to discuss the issue in terms that might interest a larger population of people. It's interesting to think that Snowden leaked the information two years ago, it really doesn't seem like that long ago.

Try not to succumb to cynicism or apathy. Keep paying attention. Share this video. Contact your representatives and candidates and let them know how you feel and that you'll be voting based on that. Spread the word to your friends and family. Get them to express how they feel too. Write editorials for your local paper. Finally vote and campaign for any candidate who'll stand against this.

The media told the public he's a traitor that stole information. That's exactly what people knew, and all they knew.

And I care a hell of a lot about dick pics.

EDIT: Really. So much. Send me your dick pics. For America.

I think it's very hard for people like us (computer literate, and computer interested to a certain degree) to understand what it's like to be the kind of person who finds computers somewhat terrifying.

There are so many people out there who have had technology thrust on them without going through the basics that we did (dicking around with it in our free time) and who are told their jobs depend on using something they don't understand or like even a little bit. If the average redditor had a new OS thrust in front of them, we could probably experiment with it until we had a good idea of how it worked, and then educate ourselves on the rest without too much trouble. Do the same to someone who isn't tech-savvy, and to them, every single button they press could be the "delete all" button, for all they know. It's like going into a nuclear power plant and "experimenting" by pushing random buttons. It takes a certain amount of understanding and background with it to have the confidence to even start, and a minimal level of interest to make it worth trying. Their comfort with technology barely extends to "This is the Facebook/email/MS Word button. I recognize those and am required to use them, so those are the only ones I will push."

So when those people see headlines like "NSA puts backdoors into encryption," all they see is "USA's IT department does techno mumbo-jumbo to fight terrorists." It's even worse if they distantly heard "Congress calls Snowden a traitor" because then every article comes across as "Bad Russian guy spreads lies about IT," which of course they aren't going to read because not only is it confusing, it isn't even real. Reading the actual article doesn't even cross their minds. Hell, I majored in Computer Security and I sometimes struggle to follow what's going on, so I can see why someone who doesn't really get the headline wouldn't try to push through. When skimming the paper, they probably skip any article with "techie" words the same way I would skip a detailed account on football statistics: I have a limited amount of time and that isn't of interest to me, so it certainly isn't worth the investment of time it would take to understand it.

I'm not saying it's only uneducated plebs who don't get it, either. Highly educated people in finance or literature or even other sciences can be just as terrified of computers as I am of investing in the stock market or mixing chemicals (both of which I do, but probably at the level of "this is the Google button.").

So if someone is the type of person to skip any tech articles in the paper or zone out/switch the channel if it comes up on the news, then yeah, I get why they haven't heard of Snowden. I think the great thing John Oliver did was cut through all of the "scary IT" parts and recognize that it needs to be pared down to something the average, uninterested, tech-phobic person can understand: the government is spying on you when you're naked and vulnerable.

Edit: /u/_dude_ is was the clever kind of redditor who does research and provides links. As the lazy kind of redditor, I will simply link to his comment with all the relevant computer-literacy studies here.

How should we honestly take action against this?

intelligence community continuously lies

Great to see John Oliver tackle this really important subject.

Edward Snowden's actions were extremely self-less, he was prepared to spend the rest of his life in jail so that the American people and the rest of the world can have this extremely important conversation about mass indiscriminate surveillance.

A report compiled by an independent White House review panel appointed by President Obama has found that the NSA's programs have never stopped a single terrorist attack and that any information needed for terrorism investigations could be obtained with conventional court orders. In fact, in every major terrorist attack in the western world, the attackers were known to the intelligence agencies before the time, in the most recent attacks, the perpetrators of attack on the Lindt Cafe in Sydney and the attack on the Charlie Hebdo in Paris were known to intelligence agencies. In the Lindt Cafe attack, authorities received 18 tip offs about the attacker but did nothing with the information they received.

When it comes to bulk surveillance, you may hear the analogy of the needle and the haystack, that in order to find the needle (i.e. terrorists), you need to collect the haystack. That is a fitting analogy but let's not forget that this haystack represents the people's personal and private communications. Sticking to the analogy, the NSA isn't collecting the haystack, they are collecting the entire farm trying to find the needle which raises another important point which is known as the big data problem in which the amount of data being collected makes it hard to pin point individualized threats.

Regarding oversight of the NSA: the oversight of the NSA is extremely poor, reports have shown that the NSA has broken it's rules thousands of times, something which the intelligence oversight committee didn't know until they were asked for comment by the media. How is congress meant to do oversight of the NSA when the to them? In addition, the NSA's auditing was so poor that they did not known what files Edward Snowden took, this raises another important point that the information that the NSA collects can be misused by staff and the NSA would not know about it.

In addition to the massive privacy implications there are also massive security implications for the online world. The NSA and it's intelligence partners known as the Five Eyes have worked very hard to subvert encryption algorithms and to insert backdoors into devices used by companies and people all over the world. Companies, developers, project managers, etc cannot honor the promise they make to their users to keep their data safe and secure because the security standards and protocols used to secure their systems are vulnerable.

David Cameron has suggested mandating back doors in encryption algorithms so that governments can read the contents of communications while mandating stronger data protection (WTF?!). The irony is that back doors can also be used by bad actors to gain access to communications and our private information.

You may ask yourself why is privacy so important, a common argument is that if you're doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide. The litmus test to this argument is to ask someone to take off their clothes and hand over bank cards and the passwords to all of their online accounts since if they are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide. Of course, not a single person will do that because while people may say with their words that privacy doesn't matter, with their actions they prove otherwise since privacy is social norm which is why we have doors and locks on bathroom and bedroom doors.

Governments all around the world have claimed that they want to be transparent and they want to end corruption but then they create laws to persecute whistleblowers and journalists who expose the government's dirty laundry. The Obama administration for example has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the other administrations combined.

Privacy is also extremely important for investigative journalists and activists who routinely shed light on government wrong doing and as a results many of the major political scandals have been the work of investigative journalists. These investigative journalists use privacy tools such PGP, Tor, Tails, Truecrpypt amongst others to help expose government's wrong doing, naturally being targeted by the NSA and other governments.

If we want to live in a democracy where governments are held accountable to their actions, the work of whistleblowers, investivigative journalists and activists cannot be undermined. We as the internet community should not let that happen.

TL;DR Intelligence agencies have poor governmental oversight and have failed to prevent terrorist attacks yet insist on collecting vast amounts of data and weakening security protocols and tools used to secure the internet.

If you honestly believe that, you should try NPR and PBS as well as the BBC.

PBS Frontline is even better than John Oliver but just not as 'entertaining'.

I see all these John Oliver segments on reddit but for some reason I never see frontline.

Well, I appreciate everything they are doing with LWT. Awesome show.

Exactly, I'm sure the last thing Edward Snowden was thinking when turning over information to respected journalists -- even those at the New York Times -- is that they would be so incompetent they wouldn't blacken out key bits of information properly.

It's very hard to account for incompetence. If you've ever had any management experience, you may have come across people who just generally need to have their hands held through tasks and those that need to be truly managed. And the fuck-ups that those people get involved with are ones where you just sit back and think "how in the hell did they manage to pull that off?"

I'm sure Snowden felt the same way. "How in the hell am I suppose to account for something that small that shouldn't have even been an issue?" Of course, his initial defense was that we can't expect journalists to be perfect or something along those lines. And I truly sympathize with him.

He did better than 99% of the public would have done dealing with this information which includes him not being captured by US authorities or caught while gathering the information. Everyone's hindsight is 20/20.

That was hard to watch.

Mark Zuckerberg liked this. How ironic.

Edit: Verified marker when moused over his name, for those curious.

How ironic.

Edit: Verified marker when moused over his name, for those curious.

John Oliver was certainly playing devil's advocate role intentionally. An interview is more compelling and worthwhile if there are two sides clashing instead of the interviewer coddling the interviewee.

In fairness, Snowden has to be careful. As much as this might get the general public more on Snowden's side, I can already see politicians calling him juvenile and moronic because of this interview.

breaking news as we cut to J-Biebs in court. Under arrest for a DUI

even MORE breaking news as we cut back to the congresswoman who as just killed herself because of the first breaking news

back to the court case.. Man his hair looks nice

Best episode of this season. His segments keep getting longer and better. Enjoy the karma!

I remember them showing that clip on The Daily Show and it was bad, but I didn't realize THIS was the topic that Congresswoman was talking about.

It's like the average American takes the sight of intelligence as a personal threat.

TBF, the technical language in the Patriot Act would fly over most educated people as well.

Less "threat", more "not my area of expertise".

In a way, I think it was important for Snowden to see that. It was a way of saying "Look, you have to redouble your effort to educate the masses about this serious problem." John was essentially implying that apathy and a lack of understanding can be just as threatening to liberty as the surveillance programs in question.

As a non-American I am surprised how few people seem to know/care about the whole story. I think a big part of this is the seemingly boring communication of Snowden himself and the corrosponding journalists, at least for "normal" non-tech people, who do not have a grasp on what is even happening.

Oliver is doing a great job of packaging how this actually effects the US-citizens in a way they both understand and care about it, even if it involves dicks.

The [PBS] Frontline piece was amazing. Not surprisingly, +2 hours of serious journalism didn't garner much attention nor views. I hope Oliver's comedic style may actually get people's attention.

I've seen so many great stories on Frontline that I wish more people watched. Some recent episodes that did some great investigation work:

Gunned Down: The Power of the NRA

Putins Way

Battle for Ukraine

Raising Adam Lanza (sandy hook shooter)

Newton Divided

United States of Secrets

Secret State of North Korea

To Catch A Trader

A Death in St Augustine (police protecting one of their own in a case of domestic violence and mu...

A League of Denial - NFL's Concussion Crisis

The Untouchables (A look inside the lack of prosecutions on Wall Street after The Great Recession)

Climate of Doubt (investigation into climate doubters and tactics)

Money, Power and Wall Street (4hrs on the Global recession)

edit:

Want to add one of the best Frontline episodes ever: Bush's War

A complete list of all the episodes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frontline_%28PBS%29_episodes

Even that is barely what they knew. I was very surprised by that. I really figured he was a household name at this point, but I guess not.

Fuck yeah, sorry cool americans but you're not needed anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Sr96TFQQE

NBC did a 40 minute interview with him a year ago:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xfc4b_edward-snowden-nbc-news-full-interview-may-28-2014_news

Ya, ya, Brian Williams.

And an Oscar winning American documentary titled Citizen Four. And the Lawrence Lessing interview @ Harvard:

And the Guardian interview:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/edward-snowden-video-interview

And a whole bunch of other interviews he's done over the years. Oliver is hardly the first to the punch. :)

If you want to hear a Snowden interview, it's not exactly a rarity.

I like what you said and would just like to add a little more, hopefully you'll agree with me.

Never stop thinking critically. Never believe anything without first looking for a decent amount of proof. Don't inform yourself from only one or two sources. Look for as many perspectives and opinions as possible regarding a situation or news story or anything really. Always keep an open mind and be ready to learn something new, but also scrutinize everything you hear and do your best to put together the real truths. The world is chocked full of people who are going to lie to you and manipulate you and some of them have an insane amount of influence.

Find your morals and stand up for them. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils or three or four evils. When you vote, vote for someone you actually like the best out of all your options. Don't compromise on your beliefs and vote for someone you think is more likely to win. I've only been able to vote a few times because I'm young, but the only time I've regretted voting for anyone was when I decided to vote to try and keep one person from winning instead of voting for who I actually liked the best.

Start educating yourself on peer-to-peer infrastructure as an alternative way to store and share data. It's the future of how the masses are going to be able to keep communicating freely, not just a way to pirate films.

It's an easy way for the media to silence dissenting opinions while looking to be unbiased.

yeah, as a non-American, all I know about MSNBC is that it's the Dem version of Fox News (regardless of how accurate that information may be)

They have episodes online on streaming sites but you know do you have what it takes to be a pirate

I was actually watching that live when they did that. I stood up and yelled at the TV like the old man that I am.

It was just unbelievable that they'd even think of having the Biebz in handcuffs.

Seriously though, as a Canadian... Sorry about that guy.

God damn it. Just say what you mean: DICK PICS FOR AMERICA.

"You will never be completely free from risk if you are free. The only time you can be free from risk is when you are in prison"

Edward Snowden

Maybe one day in the future, people won't be so easily swayed by fear.

John Oliver is destroying everything in his path and I'm so damn pleased about it.

MSNBC wishes it was the Dem version of Fox News, but it happens that they are way worse at doing what Fox News does. Not to mention the market for left-wing rhetoric in America is comparatively small, so it's not really Liberal, just vaguely anti-conservative and much of the time not even that (they host Joe Scarborough, after all).

If there's one thing you can say to MSNBC's credit it's that they at least seem to have some idea of what they are trying to be as opposed to CNN which is just plain awful and pointless.

In his defense, Time Square is filled with nothing but fucking idiots.

I wonder if any presidential candidates would consider an interview with him.

Unscripted? No fucking way.

I was speaking more so about people's hate towards Snowden for speaking slowly, eloquently, and for just being generally reserved.

Obama received a lot of hate initially as well, with people calling him pretentious, etc.

Dailymotion link

You're right. It is a more entertaining version of 60 mins in many ways

Probably starting with the journalists themselves whom are probably being forced to cover this bullshit. They have a look behind their eyes that says "help me"

More honest too, check out 60 Minutes coverage of Snowden leaks. I used to really love that show.

They're too busy breaking video of this turtle fucking a rubber clog

His jokes are getting tired though. Virtually every one is the same. "That's like if [insert noun] did [insert crazy thing]. (Act out scenario)."

They are now with the dick pic outrage.

I'd say it's spectacularly more effective. People who would find this content interesting would be far more likely to watch it if HBO wasn't cramming it down their throats.

You really helped put into context how I feel about the situation. He was being hunted like it was a damn action movie. Hindsight is 20/20 really sums up how I feel about people who would say Snowden wasn't careful enough. He pulled off something incredible and in my opinion, something that has the potential to benefit the entire future of humanity if we learn from the information we now have.

Honestly though, there was never a chance this information wouldn't get out. A lot of people already knew about how bad of a surveillance state and globe we have become, it's just that you'd get called a conspiracy theorist if you admitted how you felt. Edward Snowden really presented the facts in a way I admire greatly. He did everything he could to avoid being a martyr and to keep the focus on the story and not him. Now obviously, the powers that be and in turn the media would rather focus on him and so a lot of people do, but it's insanely obvious his intentions were pretty damn pure and he was and is looking out for humanity's best interest. That's a lot more than I can say for our world's governments and agencies and all forms of the elite sect of society.

Are there really that many people out there that are that computer illiterate at this point though?

I think it largely depends on the circles people frequent. Among my friends? No, although I think that's the age group (they're 30s-40s) where apathy is responsible for the most ignorance ("I have nothing to hide, why should I bother reading this article explaining why that's a terrible argument?").

Among my parents age group (baby boomers), though? Absolutely. The area where my parents live has a lot of people in their 50s and up, and most if not all of them have a "Oh, that's just over-complicated computer stuff. I just use my phone as a phone and for Facebook and that's plenty" outlook. Sure, some of them have mastered specific areas (e.g. Photoshop is popular among the photographers), but the prevailing attitude is that they need that one tool computers offer, and that's all they care about. They're all very educated, but they cherry-pick one program to learn and that's where their interest ends. Switching to another program with very similar functionality would never cross their minds because they already have something that works well enough. Their interest in encryption or security is about as deep as my interest in machine code, and begins and ends at Norton AntiVirus, that program their child or grandchild recommended in 1991.

And those are retired doctors, nurses, lawyers, etc. People who caught the end of the computer wave as it became mandatory in their offices. For every one of them, how many people who never had the computer experience pushed on them through their work are there? I'm pretty sure everyone with a first initial-common last name gmail or yahoo account gets bombarded with email from people who can't even figure out their own email address. I have ten different people with the same very unusual last name as me hand out my email as their own on a regular basis to banks, friends, and relatives (not just using it as a junk email). I've had gainfully-employed adults tell me they were also "assigned" my email address, so we were just going to have to share it. Could they ever check that email address? Of course not, but that's how tenuous their understanding of email was. I can't imagine how much grief JSmith@gmail goes through. Some of the people who've used my email are police officers, Motorola techs, and office temps. Assuming they've ever heard of encryption, interest in learning about it falls somewhere behind learning ancient Sumerian. In their minds, it affects them just as much.

Below that group is the one that doesn't use email at all. Maybe someone set them up with one once, maybe they just didn't bother getting one, but they didn't like it and they won't use it. They may not even have a computer, just whatever services their phone offers. If they need to talk to someone, they call. For entertainment they read or watch TV. I have relatives and friends like this, of varying ages (in major cities, not rural). The reason they don't care is because they don't even use email, so who cares what the government does with it? That's other people's problem, and for them, internet use is more of a luxury item than an essential (on the level of a boat or a trip to Vegas). That's the group of people who can get by without it for their jobs and don't want it as a hobby (construction, maintenance, zoo keeping, lots of manual labor or outdoor work). Yeah, maybe once a month they'll need to get a document for work, but the main office has a single computer (again, from the 90s) and a printer, and even if they can't get it working someone else can probably figure it out.

Throw in rural communities even less tech-dependent (a good chunk of farmers, vets, local craftsmen, diners, etc) and then the people who live food-to-mouth and certainly aren't splurging on a computer that isn't essential to living, and yeah, I think that's a pretty big chunk of the population.

Obviously most of this is anecdotal and speculation, but it's the only way I can get my head around 50% of the population not being concerned about government spying through tech. The idea of it is too advanced for the layperson to understand and too complex for the uninterested to quickly skim, so they just...don't.

Lastweektonight usually blocks their content in regions where they air until the episode has aired in that region.

If no television network in your region airs Last week tonight, then that is probably why it is not blocked.

That, plus it's a great place to instantly get a cross-section of Americans inches away from their production location.

Sounds like a riff off a Ben Franklin quote: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

What blew me away is the ignorance of a lot of the people interviewed on the street. Everyone should know who Edward Snowden is. It's not just apathy. It's plain old ignorance.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver... the only videos I upvote before I watch them for obvious reasons.

Shows like this should teach you something valuable. Everyone is open to ridicule. John was attacking snowden. It wasn't devils advocate. Snowden took these documents. He's response able for the leak and the data they contain. When a news agency fucks up, giving out his information, he needs to take responsibility for it. It seems like he realizes it and was regretful of the situation but none the less, he needs to be held accountable.

As for Julian, I can't defend his attack on his appearance. I assume it was a nessisary joke to fit in the comment about how poorly Julian handled the leaks. Its nothing to get too worked up over though.

Edit: a word

The ability to click a mouse?

Shit, call me Redbeard then. (it sounds better than cheetodustbeard)

There was a reason they chose to find people in Times Square of all places. It is a bit like stacking the deck to get those kinds of responses from people who just left a three story store selling nothing but M &Ms

go to the capitol building in nothing but a trench coat...

Move your online services away from the US and other five-eyes countries and use privacy conscious software:

https://prism-break.org

/sub/privacy

Feel free to ask for any reccomendation, I'm pretty invested in all of this.

He got a really awesome glow when people seemed so outraged about the government seeing dick pics, though. He stated himself that he wanted the focus to be on the issue of people's privacy and not on him. I think seeing people do that (albeit only the "will someone see my privates?" part) must have felt good.

This is a comedy show with more journalistic guts and integrety than many of the major news networks.

Probably, though the Snowden interview is more an effect of that than evidence of it -- I'm sure other news outlets would be happy to interview Snowden. He chose John Oliver.

You're spot on!

Here's Citizenfour for everyone interested in watching it. I highly reccomend it, it's a thriller but everything in it is real. I had goosebumps for two hours: https://vid.me/o1T9

@19:43

I was really impressed with the interview John Oliver gave. He definitely put pressure on Snowden about some of his poor decisions.

I wonder if any presidential candidates would consider an interview with him.

This episode was actually 45 minutes because of the Snowden interview

http://www.reddit.com/sub/Bitcoin/comments/31443f/donating_to_snowden_is_now_illegal_and_the_us/

I'd like to think he's probably smart enough to not think he was shown that.

Same with the him giving it to journalists. I do think that Oliver had a good argument on the whole idea of "choosing whom to give the information to" and how that system wasn't perfect (see: NYT article with that slide). But it's better than the alternative of making the information open source, as this isn't source code we're talking about, it's sensitive information and metadata on individuals.

Snowden's plan was not perfect, but it put out key information that exposed the government of spying on us. Rather than simply being a conspiracy, it is now something we legitimately know.

Absolutely. He threw punches that were vicious, but are also easy to bat away. There is no way Snowden is morally responsible for a NYT fuckup, and it isn't like the fuckup had any national security consequences. ISIS already knows their shit is monitored.

I'm from England. America is International matter to me.

bows head in dejection

Apathy is a helluva drug.

10-20 years ago, that would have been incorrect. Today, it is 100% accurate.

And we finally got to hear his thoughts on hot pockets

In a word: Yes. That's MSNBC, by the way, our most "prestigious" of TV news channels.

So...AKA the Family Guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMglQX6gE

you might enjoy

Surprise! Controversial Patriot Act power now overwhelmingly used in drug investigations

http://www.reddit.com/sub/news/comments/2krxpy/surprise_controversial_patriot_act_power_now/

TV tricks of the trade -- Quotes and cutaways