
Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video] - juandazapata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efs3QRr8LWw
======
xrd
Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy
growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11
and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who
questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis.

He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if
he had not done anything else, his book would be remembered on its own as a
discourse on what being human means in these times. But, it will never be
viewed on its own, and that is a tragedy.

Pardon Snowden.

~~~
Lendal
I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I
think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the
security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no
matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for
precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king,
and even the Chief Justice does not rule absolutely. Snowden was brave, but he
was also wrong. He should be judged fairly by a jury of his peers and that
trial should be held in a transparent, fair and open trial for all to see. How
many years now has he had to prepare his defense? It's plenty. Let's get the
trial going.

~~~
hestipod
He was not wrong. So many people define right and wrong by some system of made
up rules and laws, and if someone breaks those rules or laws, even for right,
people still say "they should be held accountable" as if the rule and law
matter more than anything. The bad guys don't follow those rules and laws and
exposing them for that, even if it violates said rules and laws, is not
"wrong". It's brave and moral and right. If I was on that jury he would get a
"not guilty" or jury nullification from me because despite what rules and laws
he may have technically violated the system was wrong, not him. I don't care
about idealistic excuses like "he should have....." because those things don't
work as history proves over and over again. There are times the ends justify
the means. Life is not a series of black and white rules or rule violations.
The only wrong part about all of this is that they were spying on everyone to
begin with, lied about it, and that nothing has been done about it since
everyone was made aware. They have done a fantastic job of convincing the
masses Snowden is the REAL bad guy. Shameful. If anyone insists on a trial it
should be of the USG for its nefarious activities. Not the little guy for
exposing them.

~~~
late2part
There's this concept of punching up or down. The little guy shouldn't be
punched down to - in conventional politically correct culture.

Mostly the legal system is not encouraged to be politically correct.

Mr. Snowden broke his oath and leaked confidential data. His defense is the
greater good. That should prevent prosecution.

Mr. Clapper lied to Congress when he said "Not Wittingly."

Mrs. Clinton failed to safeguard confidential data.

Others have broken the law, and they are not prosecuted.

We should prosecute those who break the law. They should defend themselves
accordingly.

The real solution to this mess is for Congress to pass a law that exposing
illegal activities is allowed. Wait - they did! The whistleblower protections
don't work. More corruption.

~~~
bumby
> His defense is the greater good. That should prevent prosecution.

Do you mean prevent conviction or are you taking the stance claiming "the
greater good" means you shouldn't be tried?

~~~
late2part
I meant if he were tried, he should be found not guilty.

Separately, because what he did is prima facie for the greater good, he should
not be tried.

~~~
bumby
A jury or pardon could conceivably provide the first, but the latter would
require a movement away from the rule of law. Outside of a jury or prosecutor,
who has claim to make the call that what he did was for the greater good?

~~~
late2part
The prosecutor is sufficient.

------
roenxi
There is a real lesson here about just how cavalier the American government -
and to some degree the public - is about civil liberties, but that isn't the
biggest problem.

The problem here isn't even so much the government is being shady - that has
happened before, it will happen again. I can understand people not feeling
threatened by constant snooping even though I disagree.

To me the real problem is how effectively the government has kept this subject
from creeping into the public debate. The scary part is the secret laws and
precedents that elected officials aren't allowed to even tell their
constituents about. Government officials are not reliable; this is far to much
unaccountable power even if people involved were allowed to discuss what is
happening.

Why aren't the not-technically-interesting parts of this wiretapping program
legal for government agencies to talk about? If they need to be hidden, why
not go straight to the logical conclusion and classify a bunch of other laws?

Democracies can't handle this level of secrecy. The whole thing is going to
fall apart one way or another - the path America is going down isn't stable at
all; something is going to have to change radically. Either the intelligence
agencies will gain supremacy over the government, the government itself will
go rogue or the secrecy will have to end.

 _EDIT_ I'm going to bed before I see the whole video, but around 1:46:00 -
the bit with J. Clapper. Case in point that the whole system of checks and
balances can't work.

 _EDIT2_ And around 2:10:00. Barbaric stuff; it is like centuries of
accumulated Common Law and parliamentary legal tradition never happened.
People need to be able to occasionally talk about this stuff in formal
setting.

~~~
hos234
There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing)
and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two.

Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I
massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and
fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown.

But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosis of
cancer. You can freak out about it or you can find a Cancer specialist to see
what options are available. Asking the technician who gave you the report what
the odds are, doesn't make any sense. He knows only how to create the report.

In this case just look to history, to understand how these things play out.
History is the Oncologist.

Intelligence agencies have hard problems to deal with. On top of it, they are
giant bureaucracies which means cockups, incompetence, turf wars, hiding
issues are the norm. All that amplifies the problems, causes defensiveness,
over-reactions and reactions to reactions.

If you read the history (and these days there are tons of resources) this
sequence of events (of overreach) has unfolded a thousand times. There are a
whole bunch programmes that have been shutdown because one group or the other
got carried away or did damage. That history (in out current environment of
over information/disinformation/misinformation) is what will always be a
source of hope and faith.

~~~
asjw
The difference here is that the oncologist doesn't just observe.

The oncologist deals with the consequences of the observation: communicate
with the patient, gives advices on treatments, makes a therapy plan, deals
with families, answer to their questions, takes the hit when the relatives
think that the solution is not good enough or an Indian shaman could cure
everything with snake's poison.

Snowden have done good, but escaped from the consequences of his actions.

A position that made everything he's done questionable

Had he faced a trial, even the most unfair of trials, would have put him in
the position of being at least true to the values he was trying to protect.

Question the authority, suffer the consequences.

Question the authority, go to Russia is not what generally the public opinion
accepts as "honest".

There is much to say also about who leaked the data but didn't protect the
source.

The identity of deep throat has been made public after Nixon was already dead
for years and Mark Felt was already an old man suffering from dementia.

~~~
cookie_monsta
I don't think there was ever a question about hiding his identity - the govt
was after him before he'd even left Hong Kong or any leak had been published.
At the time he said he didn't care what happened to him.

I find it interesting that you posit Deep Throat's approach as somehow more
noble. If Snowden had anonymously leaked and kept on working would that have
been less questionable or more honest?

------
Timpy
Snowden is really clever with these interviews. Right away in the interview he
establishes his concerns about the government, then briefly mentions the
government smear campaign against him without hanging on the point too much.
He calmly explains himself in an articulate way, establishing himself as
perfectly sane. Then he reaches out to connect and empathize with his
interviewer:

> When I hear you just speak, I go "actually this is a thoughtful guy."

When he validates Joe, he validates Joe's audience, and it becomes Snowden's
audience. He did this with Trevor Noah too; I think he's intentional about it
while very cleverly appearing not to be. It's a good thing Snowden is the one
who blew that whistle, and not somebody less calculating.

~~~
KnMn
Oh, man. I completely disagree. I feel like he just talks and talks about
whatever he wants to talk about with almost no regard for whether his
technical language is being understood or if he's dominating the discussion or
anything like that. I don't think I've seen him develop a natural rapport with
anyone or even make a firm, memorable point in an interview. I'll always be
grateful for his leaks but over 2.5 hours he just became a soft background
murmur in my room.

~~~
pennaMan
You'll _love_ the John Carmack episode then :)

~~~
redisman
The Carmack episode was great but the follow-up questions I wanted to ask
Carmack and what Joe Rogan actually follows-up was a bit disappointing.

~~~
theseatoms
JRE is breadth first search, within a certain...domain.

------
0898
The success of Joe Rogan is fascinating and encouraging.

For a long time there was a view that attention spans were diminishing.
Facebook and Tik Tok reduced content to the smallest possible dosage.

But look at this. This is one of the world's most popular podcasts and it's
nearly three hours long. You see it too in TV: what is a Netflix series but a
13 hour movie?

I see a definite trend towards long form content right now, which I think is
quite positive.

~~~
ChicagoBoy11
Until you listen to his actual content and it is, the vast majority of the
time, pretty "easy" listening in the sense that it is pretty vacuous and
doesn't really require any sort of concentration to follow along. Don't get me
wrong -- I listen to it often on my way to work, but one of the reasons I do
is because it is not something that really requires much of my concentration
to follow along.

~~~
leepowers
That's not necessarily a negative. Rogan is wide not deep. The eclectic guest
selection means listeners are exposed to a wide range of ideas. Well, at least
as wide as the guests Rogan can book, and the topics and people that interest
him personally.

The show is successful because it knows that Google exists - it knows there's
a universe of information outside the bounds of the show. It provides the
gestalt and it's up to the listener to explore the details.

------
pacala
Snowden: But I didn't come forward to be safe. If I wanted to be safe, I'd
still be sitting in Hawaii, making a hell of a lot money, to spy on you.

~~~
tkifnn
Does the NSA actually pay well?

~~~
vermilingua
He said that he'd make ~2x at the NSA as what he'd make in an equivalent
private sector job, so it seems that way.

------
andrew_
His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry
available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't
well-reasoned, patient, and interesting - even if I didn't agree with
conclusions being made or the thought processes expressing them.

~~~
vfc1
Be careful, because his podcast is a bit of an echo chamber.

The other day he set up a debate on nutrition where he covered the topic of
heart disease, and he put a cardiologist (Dr. Khan) with 20 years of
experience debating with an acupuncturist (Kris Kresser) on the causes of
heart disease.

And he kept interrupting the doctor and taking the acupuncturist side on the
most absurd claims.

He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff
that generate a lot of internet traffic, but I think in a bit of a
hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that
stuff and just talks about it for the clicks.

~~~
bad_user
Dr. Khan is not just a cardiologist, he's a vegan and my problem with him
specifically and with veganism in general is that it's often ideological.

Chris Kresser is not an "acupuncturist". And this is a classic ad-hominen ;-)

Joe kept interrupting Khan because Khan was avoiding answering the asked
questions.

And Chris kept mentioning the elephant in the room, which is that the
randomized-controlled trials (the gold standard in nutrition) don't show a
statistically significant link between heart disease and meat or saturated fat
consumption and that's a fact, being also the subject of recent meta analysis,
that used GRADE to reach the conclusion that there is no good evidence for the
claim that meat causes cancer and that adults should probably continue their
current meat consumption:

[https://examine.com/nutrition/red-meat-is-good-for-you-
now/](https://examine.com/nutrition/red-meat-is-good-for-you-now/)

This isn't to say that meat or saturated fat is good or bad, but if listening
to such a podcast causes anger at the people daring to question a
"cardiologist with 20 years of experience", then maybe you should consider
that you yourself have stepped in the land of ideology / religion and that's
just not compatible with science or health for that matter.

~~~
vfc1
It's his formal training, he is a licensed acupuncturist. The man has
absolutely no business talking about heart disease, especially with an
experienced cardiologist.

The problem of putting someone with acupuncture training debating a
cardiologist is that, in the eyes of that huge audience, he presents those
opinions as perfectly equivalent, alternative to each other and equally valid.

When in fact, one person has basically no idea of what he is talking about,
but in the eyes of the public, and because they are put side by side, they are
seen as equivalent when they are not.

Why not put him against a non-vegan cardiologist then? Someone at least with
equivalent training.

From a scientific point of view, the only diet that as ever shown to stop the
progression of heart disease is a whole-food plant-based diet.

Khan replied to the questions, not sure why you are saying he avoided
anything. It's obvious that Joe took Kresser side during the debate.

What kind of tough questions did he ask Kresser compared to Khan?

~~~
iamthirsty
> It's his formal training, he is a licensed acupuncturist. The man has
> absolutely no business talking about heart disease, especially with an
> experienced cardiologist.

This is an extremely closed minded view—not everyone with formal training is
automatically an expert. This is the appeal to authority fallacy, and a poor
one at that.

> From a scientific point of view, the only diet that as ever shown to stop
> the progression of heart disease is a whole-food plant-based diet.

This is not true either, and I find it ironic it’s stated authoritatively with
no sources.

~~~
vfc1
Not everyone with formal training is an expert, but its the minimum
requirement. Literally no one without formal training can be an expert in such
a complex topic as heart disease.

Why is Joe Rogan asking about heart disease to a licensed acupuncturist in a
podcast with 60 million downloads a month? It's like asking for legal advice
from a massage therapist.

If you had heart disease or someone in your family had it, would you ask an
acupuncturist for advice?

For the sources:

"proved decades ago that heart disease could be reversed solely with diet and
lifestyle change"

[https://nutritionfacts.org/video/our-number-one-killer-
can-b...](https://nutritionfacts.org/video/our-number-one-killer-can-be-
stopped/)

The video is a summary of the studies listed via the "Sources cited" button,
that you find scrolling down after the video.

~~~
bmurphy1976
> Not everyone with formal training is an expert, but its the minimum
> requirement. Literally no one without formal training can be an expert in
> such a complex topic as heart disease.

I have no bone in this particular fight. I'm inclined to agree with you, most
of the time, but it's clearly possible to be an expert in nearly anything
without formal training:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan)

Lots of absolutes in this discussion, but reality is usually far more nuanced.

~~~
vfc1
It depends, if looking for advise on how to use excel from someone, I don't
think that they need to be certified or whatever.

For asking someone to do some web design or a logo, I don't think it's
necessary either, but there is a limit somewhere.

Think about this way, if you yourself or someone in your family would have
heart disease, would you take advice from an acupuncturist?

I bet you wouldn't. What are the odds that Kris Kresser without any formal
training or experience managed to better understand the science behind such a
complex topic like heart disease than full-time scientists and cardiologists?

Self-learning is great for a lot of things, but heart disease is likely not
one of them.

------
heyflyguy
This is the first time, and maybe it's just because of the length of the
interview; that I've noticed Snowden's being slightly untethered from
sensibility. The first 10 minutes in particular was a little worrisome.

I imagine that being stuck in Russia, with the pressure he's under has
contributed to this. I do wonder how much of this personality bubble was in
place when he made the decisions he did.

Nevertheless, I do have a love hate relationship with what he did.

~~~
hnarn
Out of curiosity, what about the things he did do you "hate"?

~~~
heyflyguy
Love - revealed to us that our constitutional rights were being absolutely
trampled to death.

Hate - revealed to the world endless amounts of national security data that
was not directly relevant to these constitutional encroachments.

~~~
Miner49er
> Hate - revealed to the world endless amounts of national security data that
> was not directly relevant to these constitutional encroachments.

He worked with journalists in order to avoid this. He gave the government a
head's up before the press released anything everytime they released something
new.

What more do you think he should have done?

~~~
dx87
If he really wanted to be treated as a whistleblower, he should have only
leaked the specific things that he took issue with, not grab anything he could
get his hands on and give it out. For example, there's no good reason for him
to give documents to China that tell them which Chinese computers NSA has
access to [0]. This myth that he responsibly leaked information needs to die.

[0] [https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/article/1260306/edward-s...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/article/1260306/edward-snowden-classified-us-data-shows-hong-kong-
hacking-targets)

~~~
Miner49er
You're completely misrepresenting this.

He didn't give them any documents, he didn't tell them all the computers, he
only _showed_ them a sample of them. They were also only civilian computers.

I think civilians all over the world had a right to know that they were being
spied on by the U.S. government. What difference does it make if a person is a
U.S. citizen or a Hong Kong citizen? Human rights are human rights.

~~~
meowface
Every other government, including the Chinese, are spying on US civilians as
well. And in this case, it seems like the Chinese civilians were the kinds of
civilians any other country would be spying on as well. I haven't seen a
convincing argument for Snowden or others as to why he took documents
unrelated to domestic spying. If he had only whistleblew the domestic stuff, I
bet a lot more politicians would be open to pardoning him.

~~~
DiogenesKynikos
If a Russian citizen published documents proving that the Russian government
was extensively spying on Americans, I doubt you would condemn the leaker. I
wouldn't.

~~~
meowface
If I were Russian, I probably would. As an American, I'd be indifferent to
both the leaker and the spying activity.

------
asar
I have to be honest here, I was very disappointed with this episode. It's
basically a very long monologue and feels like a marketing gig for his book
and not like a podcast with Edward Snowden. For someone who's familiar with
Snowden and his story, this had very little informational value.

I would've wished they talked about a bit more about other topics to see what
Snowden and his opinions are like outside of the general theme of mass
surveillance. At the 2 hour mark, Joe tries to switch and asks about his
current day-to-day life. But they switch back to the main theme after about 10
minutes.

~~~
sjwright
I think Joe’s style benefits from being physically in the same room as the
interviewee. Had it not been a remote interview I think it would have gone
very differently.

------
sschueller
Let's not forget Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange who are currently unable
to give interviews because of what the United States is doing to them.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
Conflating of Chelsea Manning and Assange with Snowden's efforts is the crux
of a very successful campaign to bury him behind claims of treason.

------
Antoninus
TLDW;

Edward Snowden: How Your Cell Phone Spies on You:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFns39RXPrU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFns39RXPrU)

Edward Snowden on America and Russia’s Diplomatic Woes:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k19Ipq0TV8Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k19Ipq0TV8Y)

------
lawrenceg
Someone made a comment that Joe Rogan is the dumb man's celebrity smart guy. I
tend to agree, but I do enjoy some of his podcasts.

~~~
RosanaAnaDana
I would take the inverse. Joe Rogan is the smart man's celebrity dumb guy. I
as well enjoy some of his podcasts.

------
0000011111
Snowden inspired me to immerse myself in learning more about modern
information technology.

He caused me to question what it means to be a patriot.

He drove me to learn about the importance of open-source encryption software
for storing (VeraCrypt) and transporting data through networks (VPN).

Knowledge is your power over your government.

------
sdan
1\. First time I've seen Joe with Airpods

2\. First time Joe has done a podcast with someone OTA (as far as I know)

~~~
ekianjo
For 2 its not like he had a choice to do it in person...

~~~
sdan
Right. Only other scenario that would work is for Joe to fly over there...
which probably wouldn't happen.

Regardless, Joe's getting so many good interviews in the past two years.

~~~
eswat
> Only other scenario that would work is for Joe to fly over there... which
> probably wouldn't happen.

I wouldn’t want to see a Sean Penn/El Chapo incident[0] happen with these two.

[0] [https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/sean-penn-el-chapo-
opsec...](https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/sean-penn-el-chapo-opsec/)

~~~
lagadu
Different circumstances: Snowden's location is well-known, he's protected via
political asylum. El Chapo on the other hand was being hunted by the local
government so he was dependent on his location remaining secret.

------
ffritz
This seems like the perfect post to showcase a little weekend project of mine.

I kind of wanted to checkout Joes podcasts on the go, but I don’t want to
listen to the whole 2 or 3 hours. Instead, a list of topics with timestamps
would be much better. So I hacked together a little feed and a player doing
just that.

This episode is also already live:

[https://joeroganplayer.com/episodes/1368](https://joeroganplayer.com/episodes/1368)

Granted, it’s all done manually at the moment, but I share the work with
friends also interested in this.

------
shusson
Man Edward wanted to talk. Joe barely talks let alone get a question in for
the first 20min.

~~~
nabla9
Many of the best Joe Rogan podcasts are those where he mostly listens.

Joe Rogan Experience #1214 - Lawrence Lessig is really good one.

~~~
mikece
Your point is valid and that was a great episode as well but I think the
__best __episodes are those where he questions and prods the guest to expound
far beyond talking points, to give what is essentially a statement of
philosophy after which Joe then dissects the points enumerated in that
statement of philosophy. What makes Joe 's process of doing this so compelling
is that he's not doing it with an agenda to change the guest's mind about
something but to deeply and truly understand WHAT the person believes, WHY
they believe it, HOW that affects and influences their live and decisions and
why that person thinks other should agree with them. Another thing that is
great about Rogan's guests is that he doesn't limit the guest list to people
who agree with him. If Adolf Hitler were alive today (and spoke English) Joe
would not only interview him but get him to not only enumerate all of his
beliefs but then explain why he hold those beliefs to be true. This process of
explication is IMPOSSIBLE in the mainstream media and allows the listener to
get to raw, fundamental truths at the base layer. It's a shame that not all
Americans (and non-Americans too) have the intellectual curiosity and patience
to REALLY LISTEN to and understand why people of different political,
religious, and ideological beliefs hold the positions they do and then
amicably coexist with them in respectful disagreement.

------
watt3rpig
I love the long form discussion. I feel I can actually here someones thoughts
and perspectives rather than short meaningless soundbites. The lack of guests
shouting over each other is great as well. He has also exposed me to some
wonderful thinkers like Sean Carrol who I otherwise would not have come
across.

~~~
jsgo
to be honest, he's made me appreciate Ben Shapiro which didn't feel incredibly
likely going in.

Prior to that, my experience with Shapiro was the stupid videos people would
share on Facebook of him "OWNING the libs." So I expected an absolutely
terrible interview where I was going to be disgusted with the guy constantly.
Granted, I don't agree with him on a lot, much at all really, but when he's
just talking out his views on points, I appreciated the candor as to reasoning
for various things on his end.

My takeaway from it, outside of the "for the clicks" YouTube videos that are
shared, is that while I may not agree with him on a lot, when he is explaining
his points and not going for the jugular, I feel like he isn't questioning my
intelligence by tossing various falsehoods at me constantly that I then have
to go look up. Instead, it is typically analysis of a situation followed by a
conclusion I don't personally reach typically.

And had it not been for the Shapiro interviews on JRE, I'd have just continued
to outright ignore this guy as another "provocateur" out for the clicks and
shares.

~~~
mszkoda
I agree, it's very interesting to listen to Shapiro reason his own beliefs as
he talks.

It definitely helps me to see how other people might think about a topic which
they may not be able to articulate well.

He certainly reaches some strange conclusions, but it is fascinating to see
how someone gets to that point and try to better understand other viewpoints.

------
MacroChip
Snowden mentioned something about Android and iOS refusing to implement his
idea about cutting network access to specific apps. He said they claim it's a
security risk. What is the security risk and where can I see the discussion
about this feature?

------
dominotw
Yung Haimie killing it this week,

Just finished listening to richard dawkins earlier this week

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bN4spt3744](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bN4spt3744)

------
tlobes
Joe Rogan's booking and showrunning team(s) needs a lot more credit where it's
due.

The politically and professionally diverse guests they are able to get, no
doubt with the assistance of Joe himself, is absolutely incredible. You rarely
see a show where you can have an extreme right wing radio host be a guest,
only to have a slew of high profile left wing candidates on months later, with
zero fucks given in making sure it's family-friendly.

------
agumonkey
I can't help but feel Snowden comes off as a frustrated naive insider spilling
details out of disappointment. Lacking perspective here. Most of his points
are basically peter's principle, hierarchy failure, internal competition, all
traits that made the response to national threats inappropriate before and
after 9/11.

I really don't think that his actions were clearly thought out and he won't
get a pass any time soon.

~~~
cco
I'm not quite clear on your point, are you implying that if Snowden had more
perspective on the subject he wouldn't have become a whistleblower?

The second half of your first paragraph suggests otherwise so I'm kinda
confused.

~~~
agumonkey
Sorry, also I was only half way through the interview.

My conclusion is that part of his reveal was clearly naive and that it doesn't
have any value regarding citizens or national improvement (incompetence in big
groups ? color me surprised).

He would have been more beneficial to sleep on the knowledge for a while,
filter what's important and find better leverage to make a change. Something
less naive.

When he talks, only very rarely I hear something relevant. At best, his good
points are:

\- shift toward abusing surveillance technology

\- paradoxical laws regarding accountability of the government (you cannot
have a fair assessment of government actions if it's illegal to look at it)

\- a bad government can abuse long stored data against you

But really he's babbling for hours and very few comes out at even surprising.
NSA had access to network/deep packets long before Google and even 9/11\. Yes
we all have smartphones.. boohoo, it's well known that these are potential
privacy backdoors. People just don't care, or at best the rich enough will buy
an iphone (if Apple is really that good regarding crypto and privacy).

Again, that's just an opinion right now, if someone can shed a light on what's
important in his case, please do, I'll read carefully.

ps: there's also a lot of moments where he's mostly telling his life which I
find disturbingly immature in tone.

------
bussiere
Just a friendly reminder :
[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-
snowde...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/us/politics/edward-snowden-at-
nsa-sexually-explicit-photos-often-shared.html)

Theses guys just shared naked pics of peoples ...

This kind of power corrupt ...

------
_zamorano_
It's not strange many interesting people want to visit Joe Rogan podcast.

First, he is willing to give a voice to many who won't be able to tell their
stories on mass media.

Who other will let speak people like James Damore? What major broadcaster is
willing to interview Jordan Peterson without protraiting him as a villain?

He respects his guest, when in disagrement. His interview to Jack Dorsey (not
much of his liking, I presume), was criticised for not being aggresive enough.

The interviewed is not afraid of a headline out of context.

Given the current political climate, I'm not suprised a MMA guy is capable of
doing what most journalists don't.

~~~
cyborgx7
I question the value of letting people like James Damore and Jordan Peterson
speak on such a big platform.

Edit: The people downvoting me are hypocrites. The function of downvoting to
make something less visible. Are you saying what I say has less value and
should therefore have a lesser platform?

But to be serious, everyone acknowledges that what some people say is of more
value than what other people say, and should be seen by more people. We just
disagree on what the things that have value are. And your insistence on
arguing about the former, rather than the latter is tiresome and dishonest.

~~~
lagadu
Yes, we should selectively filter people whose ideas we don't like from being
able to speak them to any audience. In fact I question the value of letting
people like <person whose ideas you value> speak on such a big platform.

/s

Surely you understand that what you're suggesting here is totalitarian? The
value you mention is the strengthening of a society where freedom of ideas is
considered a core value.

~~~
john-radio
Your "totalitarian" remark is such a shameless misrepresentation of what the
person you're talking to is saying that you might as well be talking to
yourself.

------
kup0
If I watch anymore JRE at all it's going to be in a "private" tab. Not that
Youtube recommendations/suggestions are good anyway, but watching JRE
absolutely destroys them

Though, as much airtime as Rogan has given to conspiracy theories- I guess it
makes sense that it turns my recommendations into absolute nonsense

------
fulldecent2
After reading the book, the interview seems mostly like a narration of the
book. I surely could have covered a lot more new ground in 2 hours.

------
vkaku
Finally. This, I'm looking forward to watch.

My unpopular opinion: Whistleblowers shouldn't be punished in a rogue state.

------
vanbytheriver
Joe Rogan is very pro-institution so it’s going to be a very interesting
video.

------
gsich
Is there a RSS feed of his podcast?

------
wnevets
did Rogan manage to mention trans athletes, #metoo, triggered people, gorillas
or dmt in this episode?

------
gnrlbzik
this video hit 1,712,029 views at 4:50pm, from 600,000 just around noon.
omg... : )

------
duxup
We live in a time where the president of the United States himself questions
any law that inconveniences him personally, same goes for any oversight, and
he retains a great deal of support from the population and his own party.

I wonder how / if it is possible to convince the public that laws and
oversight are necessary for good government.

~~~
keiferski
_”When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”_

\- Richard Nixon

The attitude is not a new phenomenon at all.

~~~
dwaltrip
I don't think we should look to the only president to resign from office for
examples of what to expect.

------
_ozde
This guy is on a roll!

------
HNLurker2
What is democracy?

~~~
cjfd
Democracy is a system of government where the three powers: law giving,
executive, and judicial are separated and at least the law giving is in the
hands of (representatives of) the people.

In the case of the massive spying by government we are dealing with secret
laws and/or the executive branch writing its own law. This is not very
compatible with democracy.

~~~
RealityVoid
While I understand your definition, this is not what Wikipedia nor what
Merriam-Webster use for it.

The separation of powers in three branches is not strictly necessary for a
democracy, just a mechanism through witch it is attained. Surely, there could
be examples where the powers are slpit another way that could still qualify as
democracies.

If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone of
their society, trading privacy for safety, would it still be a democracy?

Anyways, sorry, for nitpitcking, but something just sounds... incomplete in
your answer.

~~~
Phillipharryt
You're not really nitpicking, the parent comment has stretched democracy
somewhat to encompass a lot of what I assume they associate with a good
government.

------
throw51319
This guy did this to the US gov but would never do it to China or Russia. They
are not on the safe safe playing field.

------
clSTophEjUdRanu
Would have been nice to have Snowden actually there in person if he were not
such a coward.

~~~
magashna
Is a man who chooses not to walk into a pointed knife a coward?

~~~
clSTophEjUdRanu
Reality winner is only serving 5 years and she showed good faith. Ellsberg won
in court and served 0 years. If Snowden weren't a coward he could be there in
person right now.

~~~
smbowner
"With that being said, leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out
who they are!" \- POTUS

Obviously this doesn't apply directly to Snowden.

I would be worried about a fair trial in this type of political climate as
well.

I mean, it's not the US has ever inappropriately applied the judiciary to
falsely imprison a man before!

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
The act of fleeing made it harder for himself. Had he not fled overseas and
really did attempt to follow proper whisleblower procedure he would most
likely be a free man today.

------
repler
The whistleblower protections that Snowden did not bother to use are the same
ones currently providing the spark for the impeachment proceedings in the US
House of Representatives.

Really wish he had gone that route instead of the one he chose - and we'll
never know for sure how pure his intentions were/are because of it.

~~~
bsamuels
I often find myself scrolling to the bottom of these snowden threads just to
see how often people downvote/flag opinions they don't agree with.

HN doesn't seem to be much better than reddit in this regard

~~~
repler
I couldn't agree more.

This issue is super duper clear but nobody seems to "get" it.

Too enamored with the idea of a folk hero to consider the fallout from a long
view perspective.

~~~
2OEH8eoCRo0
Well said.

