20 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
LinuxBenderJun 2021Strongly recommends
That is a good question because it comes up a lot and people start explaining ideologies rather than showing real world examples. I believe John Oliver provided the best example when he interviewed Edward Snowden. John walked around town asking people how they felt about the government monitoring their phone communications, text messages, etc... People were mostly indifferent until he rephrased the question asking if it was alright if someone was monitoring the pictures and videos (sexting) between they and their spouse/partner. When that topic came up, the nearly unanimous answer is that they would be furious if someone was watching their sexting content. [1] So in summary, I believe the answer is to find something that people actually wish to keep private when discussing it. [1] - ▶ this video
in “Ask HN: How to explain to others why privacy matters?” · View on HN
jerfApr 2017Recommends
"(Likely an overabundance of trust or a lack of understanding of all the real implications and potential for exploit.)" I think that's a lot of it. People aren't trading privacy for convenience... people are taking convenience. It makes a lot more sense when you think of it that way. You can do an experiment yourself to show this; take 5 non-techie/non-HN people and explain to them exactly what this thing does and how it works. You'll find people's attitudes change, rationally or otherwise, which I present only as evidence that they haven't thought about this and incorporated it into their worldview, not that they are right or wrong. Or watch this: ▶ this video John Oliver on Government Surveillance. Perhaps ironically, mere nude photos of myself aren't really what I'm worried about. I mean, I wouldn't be happy if they got out, and since I'm not in the habit of texting them about I have questions about where they came from, but by and large, nobody would care and it would affect my life only briefly. I'm far more worried about the government scraping everybody's postings on Facebook and building up a GoodThink/BadThink database, which I know basically already exists, because our political parties (let alone our intelligence community) build voter databases that are probably at least 90% accurate on that front. A concrete list of Everyone Who Disagrees With Me, one accurate enough for someone powerful to decide the rest of the inaccuracy is acceptable collateral damage, is scary.
in “Amazon Echo Look” · View on HN
tyreMar 2016Recommends
This paints an unfair portrait of the average American. It isn't that they don't care, they just aren't as technologically savvy as this audience. Take the Edward Snowden leaks. John Oliver did a wonderful segment interviewing people about NSA surveillance.[1] If you ask an average citizen if they are for or against "Section 215" or "X-Keyscore", they'll fall back on vague national security scare quotes. If you ask them if the government should see your dick-pics, then they start to understand what is at stake. In many people's minds, what the FBI is saying makes sense. What's the big deal? They want to access a single iPhone from a terrorist . Teach people that it means their nude photos could be accessed by any law enforcement official and I think you'll find that people really do care. [1]: ▶ this video
in “Apple files final response in San Bernardino iPhone case” · View on HN
anonym29Apr 2023Cites it
"it's debatable whether the USA as a whole got a positive outcome from his actions." I could make the case that while what Snowden did was heroic, and praiseworthy in a just and educated nation, the US is ultimately neither a just nor educated nation, and too little changed as a result of his whistleblowing. Go ask 100 truly random people what they think of Snowden's revelations and you may find yourself quite disappointed. John Oliver did an episode on this and it was more than a little depressing: ▶ this video
in “Whistleblowers are the conscience of society, yet suffer gravely” · View on HN
Show 14 more comments
dijksterhuisJul 2021Cites it
> And so what if the government looks at my holiday pictures, they think. Holiday pics, sure. Dick pics? Joe public doesn't like that one! ▶ this video
in “Huge data leak shatters the lie that the innocent need not fear surveillance” · View on HN
sneakJun 2021Cites it
Public knowledge and widely known are two different things. There are things that everyone could know (A), things that everyone knows (B), and things that everyone knows that everyone knows[3] (C). These are distinct sets. The fact that direct access to FAANG servers[2] is granted without a warrant to the US government was widely publicized, yet most people still don't realize that the NSA is regularly looking at naked pictures of Americans stored in cloud services[1]. You might even be aware of this, but have missed the (reported at the same time) fact that this is the #1 source, the most-often used, in US intelligence reports. It's where they do most of their spying. People haven't moved on to C about the non-privacy of gmail, for instance. Everyone savvy knows that gmail is compromised, yet because not everyone knows that everyone knows that, it's still pretended that your email box is private. Publicity is helpful. Most people are too busy to realize what is being done by their military in their name. Repetition helps. [1]: ▶ this video [2]: FISA Amendments Act Section 702, internal codename PRISM, reported in FAANG transparency reports as FISA orders [3]: [link] and [link]
in “Report finds phone network encryption was deliberately weakened” · View on HN
indigochillOct 2020Cites it
John Oliver did an episode on surveillance where he actually interviewed Snowden as well as "people on the street". Although most had no idea who Snowden was, there was (among the people shown in his interviews - could have been selectively chosen) a heightened awareness of the surveillance state. ▶ this video
in “Spy agency ducks questions about 'back doors' in tech products” · View on HN
gruezJul 2020Cites it
Probably because it's more concrete than some abstract threat like the ad industry building a dossier on you, or the NSA spying on your web browsing habits and phone records. John Oliver uses this to great effect when talking about NSA surveillance: ▶ this video
in “Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera” · View on HN
dandelion_loverApr 2017Cites it
> I just want to get some insight into what the 'average American' thinks about Snowden. ▶ this video
in “Leaked NSA Malware Threatens Windows Users Around the World” · View on HN
denzil_correaMar 2017Cites it
> People very much care about the privacy of their sex life. Relevant Plug : John Oliver Interview with Snowden (23m45s) ▶ this video Also, the "You have got nothing to hide" argument fails.
in “Vibrator Maker to Pay Millions Over Claims It Secretly Tracked Use” · View on HN
nickpsecurityJun 2016Cites it
One of his failures is that he didn't understand how things work. He's an idealist and technical person. I was a technical person that dug my head into how things work as well in terms of media and whistleblowing. Thing is, they often don't. The corporate media in the U.S. that dominates most coverage is about anything that holds audiences' attention to get them to look at ads. That means more noise and theatrics than signal. Their owners even benefit from the power structure in the U.S. that financially and politically favors elites. Their media organizations, if they play ball a bit, even get interviews with elites in government or on boards of those in business. Finally, they maximize attention span and engagement by creating echo-chambers where people see what they want to see with minimal deviation. Against this backdrop, it's no surprise change will rarely happen. There's a pattern that emerges, though, where events make waves. There's a rise where event spreads to many media outlets. They each modify their presentation to reflect views of their target audience. Occasionally, if it threatens elite status quo, they'll self-suppress it in favor of talking points that please their viewers but are ultimately harmless. Much shouting happens, politicians might introduce bills which might go somewhere (or get neutered), and eventually the wave subsides to let next story and its wave flow in. Interestingly, we often see lots of focus on sensationalist crap nobody can do anythin
in “'State of Surveillance' with Edward Snowden and Shane Smith [video]” · View on HN
sampoFeb 2016Cites it
> Most people don't care about NSA surveillance or they agree with it. John Oliver went to the streets with the question, if people have ever send a naked photo of themselves with a cellphone or email, should the government have the right to collect and look at those photos? None of the people agreed that the government should have that right. ▶ this video
in “Denmark confirms US sent rendition flight for Snowden” · View on HN
ryanmarshFeb 2016Cites it
Our forthright discussion on this issue on HN, while valuable, will not help the broader problem of educating the voting public. It's kind of like John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden[1]. This issue needs to be translated into "pics of my junk" and become a sort of meme. Is the issue being framed wrong more of a problem than it not being framed at all? 1. ▶ this video
in “Answers to your questions about Apple and security” · View on HN
hfsktrFeb 2016Cites it
▶ this video I assume this is the same episode everyone was talking about but it's the Snowden one and the street interviews are pretty sad (as they always are).
in “The US Government has no credibility to compel anybody to weaken security” · View on HN
DecadeAug 2015Cites it
From what I can see, we have mass surveillance because it is what the people want. We have the TSA because it is what the people want. We have drone strikes because it is what the people want. From what I can see, most people just don’t understand and don’t care. Just like I don’t understand and don’t care about my local football team, most people don’t understand and don’t care about security. Worse, they have the relentless propaganda machine of government and access journalism to mislead them. Ask an ordinary American to apply common sense, and I think the majority will say: of course I don’t want the government looking at my dick pics[1], of course I don’t want to be processed like cattle before I enter the airport, of course I don’t want to execute people without trial with lots of collateral damage. But hide all of that in a veneer of: the experts say we need this, the government says it’s fine, and look at this cute puppy and the weather is beautiful and who is the latest celebrity and our sports team is doing… and I can understand why most Americans don’t do anything about mass surveillance. [1] ▶ this video
in “The network is hostile” · View on HN
game-of-throwsAug 2022Critical
You can tilt any poll any way you want with exaggerated language. Surely you know this, and it's why you biased the question the way you did. > Should phone carriers be required to divulge text messages to law enforcement who have obtained a proper court order? vs. > Should government workers be allowed to spy on your dick pics? ▶ this video
in “U.S. Treasury sanctions virtual currency mixer Tornado Cash” · View on HN
keymoneSep 2019Critical
have you seen jon oliver trying to interview him in moscow [0]? i think it's naive to believe his actions aren't strictly controlled and approved by russia's intelligence agency. [0] ▶ this video
in “Snowden calls on France’s Macron to grant him asylum” · View on HN
msimpsonMar 2017Joke
> ...this knowledge was hidden from the vast majority of people who rely on TV news... They seem so much more enlightened now: ▶ this video > "Blow the lid off" doesn't mean the first person to reveal something... Which is probably why you remember Riegner, yet give no mention of Leon Feiner. > ...it refers to an explosion that can't be ignored. Sure, or an artful twist to facilitate some hero worship.
in “Why ‘I Have Nothing to Hide’ Is the Wrong Way to Think About Surveillance” · View on HN