I chose to focus my interests on John Oliver's interview with Edward Snowden. Although slightly inappropriate, but certainly attention catching, his analogy of sharing private pictures (i.e. pictures of your privates) was interesting enough. John Oliver's main point was that the US people are uninformed, do not care to be informed, or are misinformed. Interviewing people in Times Square about who Edward Snowden is and what he did illustrates this notion. Snowden wanted the people of the United States to know what the government was doing, so they can then take steps to either change or make an informed decision to let the government continue to have surveillance. However, Oliver was able to point out, sometimes pretty harshly, to Snowden that 'people don't care'. Snowden had a way of describing something that is very complicated in an almost more complicated manner. I think that Oliver's use of the "junk" circulation allowed for his viewers, and for Snowden himself, to understand the impact of Section 215 on the everyday lives of the American people in a more relatable way. I do not mean to say that everyone can empathize with the man who admittedly stated that he sent a risque picture to a girl not too long ago, however, they are called private parts for a reason. People are able to understand that fear and worry of private pictures getting out and relate that back to other personal information they do not want to be shared.
While this analogy caught my attention and raised eyebrows on the streets of New York, I don't believe it had the correct conclusion. Oliver asked Snowden if the American people should be worried about their pictures being seen by the government and change their ways. Snowden's reply surprised me. He said that people should not change their ways because it affects their values. He stated that people should continue to sending the pictures they want to send, and that the reform has to come from within the government. I understand that he is essentially relating this to all of our information, not just private pictures, however I think it is a two way street. Strictly relating to the photo analogy, if you do not want your pictures out there, do not put them there. If you cannot accept the risk or the idea that someone other than the intended recipient will see your photos, do not send them. Now, in the bigger picture, I do think that Americans have the right to privacy but in order for that to occur everyone needs to put in the effort. That is the beauty in a democracy. If everyone can stay informed and put the effort towards the change, change will occur. Whether it be in your favor or not, it is still progress. As Oliver said, this is a tough situation to negotiate; you can't have the rodent and the falcon. There has to be a middle ground, however it take informed people who are willing to search in order to find it.
Source: John Oliver's Youtube post on the blog
I think that behavior you suggest misses the point. What Snowden is saying is that you should behave as if you have the freedom to say what you want in a democracy. If you hold back and not show your "dick-pick", then you are losing and the government wins. Just offering the point Snowden was making. Remember after 9-11, President Bush urged us to go shopping and behave as we normally would so that terrorists don't win. This was echoed in Paris (though the crackdown was probably worse). It's the same idea here. Let the government change their behavior; why should we? I know. Easier said than done, and probably not very wise, given that we don't know what our ISPs are collecting in our behalf. Ugh. Don't get me started. Good discussion.
ReplyDelete