Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

benswann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 240 posts

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#211

Post by DelightfulScone »

zimbatm wrote: post #114

One thing I think they need to cover is how he got hold of all these documents as a 3rd party contractor. Was it just available on a shared file server or did he had to hack into some kind of data store ? I suspect that most government agencies where already aware of the capabilities of the NSA, either because they where cooperating or because it's so easy to get access. If Snowden could do it, how many others did it…

I've mention something like this previously, in light of Obama 'conceding' on NSA complaints by suggesting the data be stored in private corporate hands.

It is befuddling.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#212

Post by magicalist »

thisiswrong wrote: post #172
alextingle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blocked in your country" (UK)

This is why it's time for a post-Google internet. No matter what you say about copyright, crucial videos like these are of high public interest and must be available to all individuals. Sadly the state of our current internet allows powerful interests to arbitrarily censor content, justifying their actions with copyright, or worse - 'protecting' children.

I don't understand your point. It says "The uploader has not made this video available in your country" for me, so it looks like ARD did that on purpose. They could have hosted that on any server and blocked you by IP address.

We have Fair Use in the US, which is the protection you seem to be grasping for, and while the concept is weaker in the EU, even with stronger protections it makes no logical sense to depend on the person who wants to (over) enforce their copyright to distribute their works freely under fair use. Even without any copyright at all, you still wouldn't be able to force them to distribute to everyone. You might as well mail them and ask for a copy, and, when they turn you down, call for a post-Postal-Service world.

You can, however, look to others to distribute the work, and as others have said below, the interview is available online[1]. If you think fair use in this case is important and someone tries to get the interview taken down from the Internet Archive, I suggest donating to hopefully get some good precedent behind them.

[1] https://archive.org/details/snowden_interview_en

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#213

Post by foobarqux »

ZenPro wrote: post #203
foobarqux wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the interview casts Snowden in a positive light then the government would probably be unhappy to have it highlighted in the media. The government uses implicit threats of retaliation as deterrence.

Source / Proof?

For which part? That a sophisticated, powerful entity is opposed to circumstances that will disadvantage them or that they will act to prevent other parties from causing those circumstances from occurring?

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#214

Post by foobarqux »

roc wrote: post #199
foobarqux wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question I ask myself is do I think that if Snowden were an enemy of an enemy (a "good" guy) of the US that this would have the same minimal media exposure? I think "I'm terrified of being assassinated by Russian/Chinese authorities" from a major dissident asylum seeker would be getting much more play. In any case I don't think this isolated interview is very significant in itself.

> "I think "I'm terrified of being assassinated by Russian/Chinese authorities" from a major dissident asylum seeker would be getting much more play." There's no need for hypotheticals here. When actual Russian dissidents wind up actually dead under extremely suspicious circumstances it actually does not get much more coverage in the US media.

I, like almost everyone, heard about Litvinenko without trying. Nevertheless those circumstances are different: A dissident openly slamming their own (non-ally) government is a far clearer message than a dissident dying under dubious circumstances. It can also be repeated indefinitely.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#215

Post by foobarqux »

ZenPro wrote: post #204
foobarqux wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clips would be fair use and it's hard to imagine that the cost is prohibitive for major US outlets. That said I don't the interview in its entirety conforms with the style of content shown on US networks.

Well since you decided the cost is not possibly prohibitive a media outlet should definitely cover it...

That's not what I said. I said cost is not likely the reason it is not covered.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#216

Post by throwaway2048 »

ceol wrote: post #183
lispm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US media simply could have bought the rights. They usually pay millions for some pictures with an ape and some prominent person, or for photos of an enhanced ass married to some other guy.

Because people want to see them. People (as in the general public) really don't care about yet-another Snowden interview, so news outlets aren't going to shell out the big bucks.

yet another? I beleive this is the first one

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#217

Post by mpyne »

rtpg wrote: post #122
avar wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite clear from the interview that he doesn't want to put himself into the position of revealing information himself, rather to funnel it all through journalistic sources. Furthermore it would compromise his position that his main motivation was to inform his own citizenry if he starts commenting explicitly on foreign intelligence agencies.

I might be wrong, but didn't he say that he did do filtering of some of the info before handing it to journalists? In that case the information revealed is already partly a statement on his part, because he chose not to filter it. He can't have his cake and eat it on this one.

> I might be wrong, but didn't he say that he did do filtering of some of the info before handing it to journalists?

He did say that.

He even went further and compared his actions to Manning's, making clear that he [Snowden] had been careful to be very selective in what he copied out of NSA.

Whether stuff is being filtered further by journalists is irrelevant, if we're seeing it on the news it's because Snowden claimed that it is important enough for the American public to see as to outweigh his oath and the possibility of damage to the U.S.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#218

Post by powertower »

tptacek wrote: post #153

Reddit takedown of this stupid blog post: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1wddfp/us_media_bl... Of course, on the Internet, it's not Occam's Razor that controls, but Godwin's, which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the greatest dramatic implications must be selected.

What adds more B.S. to all this is that the HN mods have not changed the title nor removed this blatantly false submit; even after it's been on HN for the entire day.

1) There is no blackout, 2) the US media is covering this, and 3) the general public does not care - hense it's not a major news story.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#219

Post by mpyne »

greenyoda wrote: post #29

I highly recommend watching this interview, in which Snowden clearly explains his motives for doing what he did and describes the scope of the data collection carried out by the NSA and its allied foreign intelligence agencies. While I've followed this story quite extensively, this is first time I've actually watched an interview with Snowden, and I was very impressed with his intelligence, thoughtfulness, depth of k…

Was this the interview where Snowden said that "not all spying is bad" and that "intelligence agencies do have a role to play"? That targeted spying programs should suffice for the needs of national intel agencies while mass surveillance is bad?

Because somehow that story didn't seem to gain as much traction. Of course, nor did it stop Snowden from leaking details on targeted spying programs too.

Re: US Media Blacks Out Snowden Interview

#220

Post by smithzvk »

ck2 wrote: post #77
DanBC wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MSNBC were interviewing a US politician (congress woman) about the Snowden leaks and about NSA reform. They interrupted that interview for some important breaking news. Justin Bieber had been arrested for drag racing his car. http://youtu.be/GH68bSJXGE8

MSNBC has had some good Snowden coverage over the longer weekend shows which are higher quality. Their hourly shows each day are getting to be more and more garbage. Chris Hayes had a fantastic long-form weekend show on MSNBC. Then they moved him to the hour format on a daily basis and his show went to garbage too as they have him pushing whatever the hype of the day is. And Rachel Maddow now has maybe one good show…

Yes, when Chris Hayes hosted "Up" it was a must watch each weekend for me. I watched about two episodes of his nightly show and couldn't stand it. Maybe we should try watching the new guy who took it over?

I guess it isn't about the competency of the host/crew but rather the fact that pushing out a show every night means that you must degrade the quality of your analysis, guests, and general information that you are reporting on.

Post reply on HN