

Edward Snowden SXSW live stream - jpmc
http://new.livestream.com/texastribune/events/2823117

======
chimeracoder
The Streisand effect is in full force here. I only knew about this interview
because Congressman Pompeo asked conference organizers to rescind their
invitation to him on the grounds that Snowden is a "traitor"[0].

I can't watch this right now, but I'm looking forward to seeing it later
tonight.

[0] [http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-sxsw-snowden-speech-
has-...](http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-sxsw-snowden-speech-has-
conference-buzzing-congressman-stewing/)

~~~
bostonpete
Do you really think his goal was to get them to rescind their invitation? I
don't think I'm typically cynical on such matters but I have little doubt that
his goal was to get publicity for _asking_ for this invitation to be
rescinded. I suspect he got exactly what he wanted here -- go on record
against Snowden _and_ get liberals attacking him. That can only help him fend
off potential threats in a primary later this year...

~~~
Crito
> _" and get liberals attacking him"_

If there is one thing I don't understand about this entire issue, it is how
partisan politics are actually playing out. Normally I just look at what
people in my extended family think, but all of the Republicans/conservatives
in my extended family think that all of this NSA stuff is _A Big Deal_ (tm)
and think Snowden a patriotic hero _(presumably because they think that it
paints the Obama administration in a bad light, which they are always all
for.)_

I agree with their conclusions, though I have a different motivation for doing
so.

Furthermore, I would say that all or almost all of the pro-NSA viewpoints I
have heard from people around me are from not necessarily liberals, but people
who buy into the Democratic party line very hard. They seem to have the same
basic motivation as my conservative relatives, though different political
alignment.

What is the deal with pro-NSA Republicans/conservatives though? I haven't
actually met any in person so I haven't been able to grill any. Has anybody
else had the opportunity?

~~~
smtddr
_> >but all of the Republicans/conservatives in my extended family think that
all of this NSA stuff is A Big Deal(tm) and think Snowden a patriotic hero
(presumably because they think that it paints the Obama administration in a
bad light, which they are always all for.)_

I'm glad there are republicans/conservatives that are against what NSA is
doing because it supports my wild theory[1] about what would happen if things
finally reach a boiling point.

I'm not glad that they hold Obama responsible for something that probably
started before he showed up and he probably doesn't have absolute power to
shutdown.

Of course, I'm not happy that Obama publicly defends NSA's behavior. Since he
doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has these days are
truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7003678](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7003678)

~~~
bostonpete
> Since he doesn't need to be re-elected, I'm assuming the opinions he has
> these days are truly his own without any other motive. That hurts. :(

If you believe he's doing it because it's what he believes is best for the
country, that's the best you can hope for I guess. He's a smart guy, with an
appreciation of the Constitution, and a lot more information available to him
than the vast majority of people on any issue put before him. Given that he's
not up for re-election again, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the
doubt on his motivations in his second term.

That's not to say that I agree with every thing he does, just that I take
comfort in knowing that he's _relatively_ unencumbered at this point.

~~~
danbmil99
Any president would act thusly. He doesn't think he will abuse the power, and
closing down the programs could risk him being blamed for any and all bad guy
stuff for the rest of his term.

There is no upside for someone with power to ever give it up, for any reason
at all. I'm still trying to figure out Gorbachev.

------
suprgeek
There were a few gems in the interview...

"We need public oversight ... some way for trusted public figures to advocate
for us. We need a watchdog that watches Congress, because if we're not
informed, we can't consent to these (government) policies."

A somewhat ok paraphrasing is here:
[http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/tech/web/edward-snowden-
sxsw/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/tech/web/edward-snowden-sxsw/)

One remark stuck with me "....the NSA surveillance was setting fire to the
future of the Internet". Absolutely!

------
IceyEC
if, like me, you can't get the stream live (?), afterwards the ACLU will post
it here: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon-
virt...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon-virtual-
conversation-edward-snowden)

------
untog
1\. Did he really have the US Constitution as a backdrop? Is he Saul Goodman?

2\. It's a shame no-one asked him about his opinions on Russia's recent
actions. I know it isn't anything to do with the revelations he exposed, but
seeking asylum in Russia makes him part of the broader political game.

~~~
krisdol
There's a right time and right place to publicly criticize a country's
actions, and I think it comes after you no longer depend on that country for
political asylum

~~~
laureny
So basically he's just an opportunist who lives in a country as long as it
suits him and then leaves it when he's being inconvenienced?

~~~
arg01
Yes because he thought his life would be a lot more convinient by realeasing
the NSA documents to the world. Generally whistle blowers are seen as having
incredibly cushy lives. I too believe that Edward Snowden did it for the fame
and fortune that were sure to follow the leak.

I'm sorry if this is overly sarcastic but I do not know what other kind of
answer you'd expect. The basis of your question is seems not to be based in
reality you might as well ask why the founding fathers didn't believe laws
applied to them.

------
aw3c2
If the connection is this bad, why waste your bandwidth on video? I turned it
off because I did not find the echoing effects tolerable to listen to.

~~~
cs02rm0
I'm not sure it's bandwidth and not just that they're not muting their
microphones while he talks. Either way, the experience is terrible.

~~~
kzahel
Seriously. Manually mute your mic. This applies to everybody who uses hangouts
or conferences with anything, ever.

~~~
dublinben
It also makes a big difference to use a headset or headphones so the other
person's audio is directed into your ears, not played out loud.

------
shmerl
Is there any transcript? The video
([https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY](https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY))
has a horrible echo. I couldn't understand half he was saying.

~~~
fragmede
[https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon-
virt...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/coming-soon-virtual-
conversation-edward-snowden)

------
poulson
Does anyone have a link to the transcript? The echo is really hard to ignore
in the video.

------
sweedy
I can hardly understand anything, so here is a transcript -

[http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw-
fu...](http://blog.inside.com/blog/2014/3/10/edward-snowden-sxsw-full-
transcription-and-video)

------
nsxwolf
I'll wait for a transcript. The audio quality is too poor.

------
jokoon
whats' that awful echo ? can't understand a bit

------
stevengg
video of the event?

~~~
BgSpnnrs
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPrDqoaHHSY)

------
puppetmaster3
Not on first page? lol.

~~~
higherpurpose
Yeah, I feel pretty ashamed of the HN community today, and I'm going to take
the day off from it today. There were like 10 submissions and none of them
were upvoted too much.

~~~
exelius
In all honesty, it wasn't a great interview and didn't raise any points that
most of us here on HN didn't know already. Snowden didn't speak all that much
and what he did say wasn't incredibly insightful if you're a technology
professional. His main gripe is that secure tools are too hard to use, and
real security will need to come from the Googles and Apples of the world, but
it's not in their best interest given their reliance on private surveillance
for advertising purposes. So basically it was a plea to the next generation of
the "next big thing" to think about doing security in a way that actually
secures information.

~~~
cinquemb
> _So basically it was a plea to the next generation of the "next big thing"
> to think about doing security in a way that actually secures information._

So basically, another entity ready to be co-opted by its aligning self
interests with the State?

It's like we never collectively learned anything from the cyhperpunks:

"They think they can always find someone to protect them. No, you can't.
You've got to protect yourself."

Society doesn't want to hear that… The same society that wants to elect people
to solve their problems time and time again… and you know what? Maybe what
society gets is what it deserves time and time again… but it doesn't seem to
stop individuals that do achieve what they seek, despite it all, and at the
end of the day that's what it always seems to come down to, and the steps
snowden took to even conduct the interview (that is intolerable to listen to
for the echo) is a prime example.

~~~
exelius
No; his point was that companies like Google and Facebook will never be truly
secure because true security is at odds with their business model. They're
advertising companies, so they need to look at your communications to serve
you ads. On a private level, that's fine, because you implicitly choose to
submit to this surveillance in exchange for the service, and if Google
oversteps their bounds, there is legal recourse.

What he was asking for was for the _next_ Google or Facebook, which will
likely not be based on an advertising-centric business model, to take privacy
seriously and do things in such a way that it can't be turned over to the
government en masse. He didn't seem against surveillance as a concept; there
is a place for targeted surveillance and he wants to use the technology to
force individual surveillance to be the only viable option.

~~~
cinquemb
Sure, if one thinks the Facebook's and the Google's (and future ones) only
misalignment is with their business model. I think it's more fundamental than
that.

~~~
exelius
I don't know it gets more fundamental than the business model. Everything
about a company supports its business model; not the other way around.

~~~
cinquemb
What about the formation of any corporation? To whom does the potential
corporation submit itself to? And what benefits does it receive upon
incorporation even well before any business model can be in sight or capital
gained?

~~~
exelius
Corporations submit to the shareholders. Those shareholders submit to the
government, because let's face it: governments have real power in the form of
men with guns. Different governments have different rules about how and when
those men with guns do things, and yes, that is a conversation that needs to
happen in the US.

This was a talk targeted at technologists. All technologists can do is try to
make it harder for governments to collect data on the entire population at
once by using secure crypto schemes. If they want YOU, they can still get you,
because one man vs. a government is never going to end in the man's favor.

~~~
cinquemb
_All technologists can do is try to make it harder for governments to collect
data on the entire population at once by using secure crypto schemes._

I disagree with that statement, because it assumes all technologists pick the
state as the enemy, or that they all think mass collection is a problem. I
personally see the information asymmetry between who can have access to such
information and those who do not as the problem, and one that I am personally
working on solving.

And then there's this: look how many people you see advocating for "secure
crypto schemes" and how many of them are actively developing them and have
been for decades, and wonder about how effective they have been so far for the
greater population or even to the population that is still advocating for it.
Because I sure do wonder about that…

