What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Edward Snowden on Joe Rogan (1 Viewer)

dkp993

dkp993

Footballguy
If you haven’t heard this interview yet (just came out today so many probably haven’t) I highly recommend it.  
 

I honestly never dig deep on this situation before.  Snowden’s take is fascinating and compelling.  What’s the “other sides” argument for those of you in the know (@ren hoek  @SaintsInDome2006 @Henry Ford   @rockaction come to mind as people I assume have educated thoughts). 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looking forward to listening to this one. I'm about 250 pages into Permanent Record. Would definitely recommend it.

 
Interesting. I don't have educated thoughts about Snowden because I don't know exactly what he did. I think, at that point in my life, I'd left anything formally political and tried to stay away from what I thought was American governance run amok, almost tyrannically so. I'll give the interview at least a cursory listen and see if I can't come up with something.

Thanks for the shout, dkp.

 
dkp993 said:
If you haven’t heard this interview yet (just came out today so many probably haven’t) I highly recommend it.  
 

I honestly never dig deep on this situation before.  Snowden’s take is fascinating and compelling.  What’s the “other sides” argument for those of you in the know (@ren hoek  @SaintsInDome2006 @Henry Ford   @rockaction come to mind as people I assume have educated thoughts). 
Click to expand...
Is there a link, just to be sure I'm listening to the right thing? TIA.

 
beef said:
This is good.  Not sure how I feel about Snowden, but worth listening to.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I thought.  He comes across as very reasonable and rational but I assume there is another side to all of this.  Would love to hear the other side as I’m not very informed on the subject.  

 
I'm about an hour in. I'll finish the rest later.

I can confirm that TS IT guys still make way more money than they should. Most arent great at their jobs. The top guys get poached all the time.

The IC is still in competition with each other and doesn't share Intel as well it should. 

This is the first interview I've listened to with Snowden and so far I find him long winded and a bit full of himself. 

He did the right thing though IMO.

 
Max Power said:
I'm about an hour in. I'll finish the rest later.

I can confirm that TS IT guys still make way more money than they should. Most arent great at their jobs. The top guys get poached all the time.

The IC is still in competition with each other and doesn't share Intel as well it should. 

This is the first interview I've listened to with Snowden and so far I find him long winded and a bit full of himself. 

He did the right thing though IMO.
Click to expand...
No doubt he likes to talk. I’ve never heard Joe talk less in one of his interviews.  

 
dkp993 said:
Max Power said:
I'm about an hour in. I'll finish the rest later.

I can confirm that TS IT guys still make way more money than they should. Most arent great at their jobs. The top guys get poached all the time.

The IC is still in competition with each other and doesn't share Intel as well it should. 

This is the first interview I've listened to with Snowden and so far I find him long winded and a bit full of himself. 

He did the right thing though IMO.
Click to expand...
No doubt he likes to talk. I’ve never heard Joe talk less in one of his interviews.  
Click to expand...
Well, he has had quite awhile to think about and justify what he did and that he made the right decision, I suppose that would lead anyone to talking a lot about it. For the record, I also think he did the right thing -- too bad nothing really came from it.

 
Not knowing Joe Rogan from NewsRadio = lames

Dave Foley, I think Mira Sorvino was on there too, great show 

edit: Linda Fiorentino was who I was thinking of, but that was wrong too, it’s Maura Tierney 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He mentions Cheney hoping that most viewers will know who he is.  I’ve always just assumed, ‘how could anyone ever forget?’  But I’m 35 now.  I was graduating HS when that stuff was going on.  There’s a whole generation of people with no clue about the degeneracy of the Bush administration.  That’s why it’s important to push back whenever someone like Ellen tries to rehabilitate them.  Even moreso when the media engages in the most brutal, ahistorical whitewashing of history when they pass away.  

 
Thanks for the link above. This is 2.5 hours so I'm not really sure I can do all this. Just some running notes:

- 'Of course he's not taking money from the Russians'.... er except his home, his security, getting secreted away from extradition, and whatever other entertainment the FSB provides, and they pretty much govern his whole life. Rogan also never asks him if he was debriefed by FSB after coming over about his work or about how he got to Russia.

- He does talk about Navalny which is good.

- He's right about the use of contractors.

- His points about proportionality is of course fair and correct. 

- The point he doesn't make is about the inception of the program. It started under Bush Sr., but yeah Addington expanded the program, I buy that.

- He says right up front that Congress - via the Gang of 8, and also other key committee leadership - was informed. The thing about Brennan and Clapper lying to Congress.... Congress was informed via the proper process. He says right there that even Wyden wouldn't admit the existence of the program.

- He gave raw data to 3 newspapers, per him. - Ok that's very Pentagon Papers. 

- It's interesting to me that he tries to distinguish himself from Manning, ie 'no one was hurt'. 

- I don't get the criticism of the IC evaccing on the 9/11/01 attacks. It's odd, everyone in DC federal buildings was being evacuated. Tons of secretaries and support staff had lives and families. Weird thing to focus on. - In general he does a lot of discussing of 9/11/01, which is.... ok, whatever. My sense is he had a sort of obsessive resentment of his job and bosses. 

- Everything he says about restrictions on data harvesting by the Fed government is true and correct. Those restrictions were put in place for a reason. He's absolutely right.

- It takes Rogan 45 minutes to rein him in.

- It's interesting that he says the NYT squelched the story in 2004.

- Everything he says about surveillance is fair and true. I think the problem is 1. he did not use the whistleblower process, 2. he seems to be making false assumptions about what might have happened to him if he had stood trial in the US (this idea he would not be allowed to discuss motive is pure poppycock), and 3. the problem was Wikileaks and the help that WL gave him and who was helping WL. 

- Lol amazingly I have gone through all of this and if I am not mistaken Wikileaks isn't mentioned once? How does this happen? Is his book like that?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen said:
Joe Rogan you say?
Click to expand...
Rogan is so much better than the bought and paid for TV hacks for both sides.  Rogan actually is very open minded on topics and will go in both directions and that is refreshing.

I have listened to him since he started and right now he is a little disgruntled with politics on both sides.  Overall Joe is liberal, but doesn't  care for the modern democratic party. Big on free speech and personal freedom. Really can't stand sjw and pc stuff. To Dems he has been coming across more conservative than he used to but only because he does not like the direction the party is headed. He said he always voted for democrats until 2016, where he voted for Gary Johnson, a libertarian as he did not like Trump or Hillary. As for 2020, he has said more than once he likes Tulsi Gabbard.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've only seen a couple of Rogan's interviews to base this on.  I do appreciate that he lets his guests talk and tell their stories, regardless if he agrees or not, and doesn't interrupt or swing the discussion to fulfill his own agenda (Fox/CNN).

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- I don't get the criticism of the IC evaccing on the 9/11/01 attacks. It's odd, everyone in DC federal buildings was being evacuated. Tons of secretaries and support staff had lives and families. Weird thing to focus on. - In general he does a lot of discussing of 9/11/01, which is.... ok, whatever. My sense is he had a sort of obsessive resentment of his job and bosses.
Click to expand...
Initially, I thought this was weird too, but then I thought about it.  While it's possible that these terrorists could have obtained the locations of the inner workings of these agencies, it's highly unlikely.  I don't think he was talking about Langley or Fort Meade.  To his point, it's very puzzling to me that the foremost in knowledge with respect to everything going on in the world was offline.  No one was there working on the issue.  That's odd...didn't know that until listening to this.

 
I'm not sure Snowden didn't plan on doing what he did prior to ever working for the CIA/NSA.  Maybe he didn't know what he would release, but fully intended on releasing something very controversial.  I'm also not sure he was ever in a highly classified position that allowed him the access to get the info and didn't get it from hacking the systems.  He seems to be saying it clearly that he searched through databases looking for stuff (aliens, etc.), which makes it seem like it wasn't part of his job duties.  And even though I support his fight for personal liberties and freedom for citizens not being illegally spied on, I would like to see him tried in court.

 
beef said:
I'm not sure Snowden didn't plan on doing what he did prior to ever working for the CIA/NSA.  Maybe he didn't know what he would release, but fully intended on releasing something very controversial.  I'm also not sure he was ever in a highly classified position that allowed him the access to get the info and didn't get it from hacking the systems.  He seems to be saying it clearly that he searched through databases looking for stuff (aliens, etc.), which makes it seem like it wasn't part of his job duties.  And even though I support his fight for personal liberties and freedom for citizens not being illegally spied on, I would like to see him tried in court.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Snowden's contracts but "wasn't part of his job duties" isn't a typical standard.  If you have access, you're supposed to have access and they have decided it's ok for you to see.  If there was a hacking of the system and he got info he wasn't cleared to get, I'm good with being in court.  Otherwise, no.  Looking to see what one has access to isn't a crime.

 
beef said:
I'm also not sure he was ever in a highly classified position that allowed him the access to get the info and didn't get it from hacking the systems. 
Click to expand...
He was a SysAdmin. There is no one more powerful position in any organization when it comes to access.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thanks for the link above. This is 2.5 hours so I'm not really sure I can do all this. Just some running notes:

- 'Of course he's not taking money from the Russians'.... er except his home, his security, getting secreted away from extradition, and whatever other entertainment the FSB provides, and they pretty much govern his whole life. Rogan also never asks him if he was debriefed by FSB after coming over about his work or about how he got to Russia.

- He does talk about Navalny which is good.

- He's right about the use of contractors.

- His points about proportionality is of course fair and correct. 

- The point he doesn't make is about the inception of the program. It started under Bush Sr., but yeah Addington expanded the program, I buy that.

- He says right up front that Congress - via the Gang of 8, and also other key committee leadership - was informed. The thing about Brennan and Clapper lying to Congress.... Congress was informed via the proper process. He says right there that even Wyden wouldn't admit the existence of the program.

- He gave raw data to 3 newspapers, per him. - Ok that's very Pentagon Papers. 

- It's interesting to me that he tries to distinguish himself from Manning, ie 'no one was hurt'. 

- I don't get the criticism of the IC evaccing on the 9/11/01 attacks. It's odd, everyone in DC federal buildings was being evacuated. Tons of secretaries and support staff had lives and families. Weird thing to focus on. - In general he does a lot of discussing of 9/11/01, which is.... ok, whatever. My sense is he had a sort of obsessive resentment of his job and bosses. 

- Everything he says about restrictions on data harvesting by the Fed government is true and correct. Those restrictions were put in place for a reason. He's absolutely right.

- It takes Rogan 45 minutes to rein him in.

- It's interesting that he says the NYT squelched the story in 2004.

- Everything he says about surveillance is fair and true. I think the problem is 1. he did not use the whistleblower process, 2. he seems to be making false assumptions about what might have happened to him if he had stood trial in the US (this idea he would not be allowed to discuss motive is pure poppycock), and 3. the problem was Wikileaks and the help that WL gave him and who was helping WL. 

- Lol amazingly I have gone through all of this and if I am not mistaken Wikileaks isn't mentioned once? How does this happen? Is his book like that?
Click to expand...
SiD as usual you’re the man.  Great thoughts here, thanks. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- I don't get the criticism of the IC evaccing on the 9/11/01 attacks. It's odd, everyone in DC federal buildings was being evacuated. Tons of secretaries and support staff had lives and families. Weird thing to focus on. - In general he does a lot of discussing of 9/11/01, which is.... ok, whatever. My sense is he had a sort of obsessive resentment of his job and bosses. 
Click to expand...
I think the reason he talks about 9/11 is that 9/11 was the catalyst for this new surveillance dragnet, the argument to sacrifice the 4th amendment and ultimately our own bill of rights to ‘keep us safe’.  That was the argument for combating terrorism, by treating everyone like a terrorist.  Online, on the phone, at the protest, at the airport.  

But apparently they were made to quietly abandon their posts when push came to shove.  That undercuts their entire rationale for mass surveillance, and reveals what it really is about: power and control.  

 
Summer Wheat said:
Rogan is so much better than the bought and paid for TV hacks for both sides.  Rogan actually is very open minded on topics and will go in both directions and that is refreshing.

I have listened to him since he started and right now he is a little disgruntled with politics on both sides.  Overall Joe is liberal, but doesn't  care for the modern democratic party. Big on free speech and personal freedom. Really can't stand sjw and pc stuff. To Dems he has been coming across more conservative than he used to but only because he does not like the direction the party is headed. He said he always voted for democrats until 2016, where he voted for Gary Johnson, a libertarian as he did not like Trump or Hillary. As for 2020, he has said more than once he likes Tulsi Gabbard.
Click to expand...
OK

 
The Commish said:
I can't speak for Snowden's contracts but "wasn't part of his job duties" isn't a typical standard.  If you have access, you're supposed to have access and they have decided it's ok for you to see.  If there was a hacking of the system and he got info he wasn't cleared to get, I'm good with being in court.  Otherwise, no.  Looking to see what one has access to isn't a crime.
Click to expand...
Just having access does not mean it is ok for you to see data.  I've had access to systems and data before but it still wasn't allowed to search that data.  I don't know if it was technically illegal to search it because the threat of losing my job is enough for me not get curious and do it.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Just having access does not mean it is ok for you to see data.  I've had access to systems and data before but it still wasn't allowed to search that data.  I don't know if it was technically illegal to search it because the threat of losing my job is enough for me not get curious and do it.
Click to expand...
Really?  Things have changed...gotten more lax it seems.  Working through those days we had literally 100s of profiles for people based on their clearance controlling what they could/couldn't see.  It was not left up to them and the honor system.  There was no concept of "stumbling into things you aren't supposed to see".  This approach is a recipe for disaster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murph said:
He was a SysAdmin. There is no one more powerful position in any organization when it comes to access.
Click to expand...
There are also levels of SysAdmins in this environment as well....fyi.....well, there WERE anyway....that has probably changed a bit too if what RW is saying is correct.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Really?  Things have changed...gotten more lax it seems.  Working through those days we had literally 100s of profiles for people based on their clearance controlling what they could/couldn't see.  It was not left up to them and the honor system.  There was no concept of "stumbling into things you aren't supposed to see".  This approach is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way.  You may have access to a certain group of data because you need it for your job.  But you can't go searching that data for your neighbor, family members, or even your favorite player or actress.

 
The Commish said:
There are also levels of SysAdmins in this environment as well....fyi.....well, there WERE anyway....that has probably changed a bit too if what RW is saying is correct.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. In the book he explains that he began using the documents to create a legitimate program (Heartbeat if I recall). His version of events is that accessing/searching/reading the documents was all within his authority. Whether or not that is true may not be knowable, but I think it's certainly plausible.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Let's put it this way.  You may have access to a certain group of data because you need it for your job.  But you can't go searching that data for your neighbor, family members, or even your favorite player or actress.
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand what you're saying....but not sure it matters either....at least to the point of access I was making.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thanks for the link above. This is 2.5 hours so I'm not really sure I can do all this. Just some running notes:

- 'Of course he's not taking money from the Russians'.... er except his home, his security, getting secreted away from extradition, and whatever other entertainment the FSB provides, and they pretty much govern his whole life. Rogan also never asks him if he was debriefed by FSB after coming over about his work or about how he got to Russia.

- He does talk about Navalny which is good.

- He's right about the use of contractors.

- His points about proportionality is of course fair and correct. 

- The point he doesn't make is about the inception of the program. It started under Bush Sr., but yeah Addington expanded the program, I buy that.

- He says right up front that Congress - via the Gang of 8, and also other key committee leadership - was informed. The thing about Brennan and Clapper lying to Congress.... Congress was informed via the proper process. He says right there that even Wyden wouldn't admit the existence of the program.

- He gave raw data to 3 newspapers, per him. - Ok that's very Pentagon Papers. 

- It's interesting to me that he tries to distinguish himself from Manning, ie 'no one was hurt'. 

- I don't get the criticism of the IC evaccing on the 9/11/01 attacks. It's odd, everyone in DC federal buildings was being evacuated. Tons of secretaries and support staff had lives and families. Weird thing to focus on. - In general he does a lot of discussing of 9/11/01, which is.... ok, whatever. My sense is he had a sort of obsessive resentment of his job and bosses. 

- Everything he says about restrictions on data harvesting by the Fed government is true and correct. Those restrictions were put in place for a reason. He's absolutely right.

- It takes Rogan 45 minutes to rein him in.

- It's interesting that he says the NYT squelched the story in 2004.

- Everything he says about surveillance is fair and true. I think the problem is 1. he did not use the whistleblower process, 2. he seems to be making false assumptions about what might have happened to him if he had stood trial in the US (this idea he would not be allowed to discuss motive is pure poppycock), and 3. the problem was Wikileaks and the help that WL gave him and who was helping WL. 

- Lol amazingly I have gone through all of this and if I am not mistaken Wikileaks isn't mentioned once? How does this happen? Is his book like that?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything you say here. 

I listened to the next hour or so. So 2 total before I got bored of it, but he is a good public speaker and I semi enjoyed it.

He gives more detail to the world than the IC would like and that is what keeps him on the "wanted" list.

So counter terror is a real thing. It's not just scare tactics. When his sources relay current methods of surveillance to him, it's not a good thing for America. 

Commercial and government surveillance are likely hand in hand at this point.  Commercial spends more money on it and had better people, so I'm positive we buy our capabilities from them. 

Imo what this all comes down to is storing data. Keeping info on people is wrong. No matter how you acquire it.

Live listening can be excused if we discard data say 72 hours later. 

 
Despite him telling the story rather well these days, I still don't buy his story on stumbling into such a powerful position.  This guy had to have had help getting where he was and he was spying for someone.  I'm surprised he hasn't been killed yet.

 
Thanks for posting this @dkp993.   I never really listened to any of Rogan's podcasts until now.      Probably not the best thread to drop these in but I found others, particularly ones with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson fascinating.    I will drop 1 link in here but there are other podcasts with these two guys individually.

Hancock & Carlson

 
kodycutter said:
Thanks for posting this @dkp993.   I never really listened to any of Rogan's podcasts until now.      Probably not the best thread to drop these in but I found others, particularly ones with Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson fascinating.    I will drop 1 link in here but there are other podcasts with these two guys individually.

Hancock & Carlson
Click to expand...
Happy too.  👍

He’s got dozens and dozens of outstanding interviews. 

 
Since I Met Edward Snowden, I’ve Never Stopped Watching My Back

After receiving a trove of documents from the whistleblower, I found myself under surveillance and investigation by the U.S. government.

As I battled sensory overload, a young man appeared near the player piano, his appearance subtly altered. A minder might be anywhere in this circus of a lobby, but I saw no government escort. We shook hands, and Snowden walked me wordlessly to a back elevator and up to his hotel room. For two days, throughout 14 hours of interviews, he did not once part the curtains or step outside. He remained a target of surpassing interest to the intelligence services of more than one nation.

He resisted questioning about his private life, but he allowed that he missed small things from home. Milkshakes, for one. Why not make your own? Snowden refused to confirm or deny possession of a blender. Like all appliances, blenders have an electrical signature when switched on. He believed that the U.S. government was trying to discover where he lived. He did not wish to offer clues, electromagnetic or otherwise. U.S. intelligence agencies had closely studied electrical emissions when scouting Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan. “Raising the shields and lowering the target surface” was one of Snowden’s security mantras.

On bathroom breaks, he took his laptop with him. “There’s a level of paranoia where you go, ‘You know what? This could be too much,’ ” he said when I smiled at this. “But it costs nothing. It’s—you get used to it. You adjust your behavior. And if you’re reducing risk, why not?”

Over six hours that day and eight hours the next, Snowden loosened up a bit, telling me for the first time why he had reached out to me the previous spring. “It was important that this not be a radical project,” he said, an allusion to the politics of Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the other two journalists with whom he’d shared digital archives purloined from the National Security Agency a few months earlier. “I thought you’d be more serious but less reliable. I put you through a hell of a lot more vetting than everybody else. God, you did screw me, so I didn’t vet you enough.” He was referring to my profile of him in The Washington Post that June, in which I had inadvertently exposed an online handle that he had still been using. (After that he had disappeared on me for a while.)

When we broke for the night, I walked into a hotel stairwell and down two floors, where I found an armchair in a deserted hallway. I might or might not have been under surveillance then, but I had to assume I would be once back in my room, so this was my best chance to work unobserved.
Click to expand...
- A hell of an article on Snowden, finally outside the Greenwald sphere and a look-in at the deal with the devil Snowden has made with Russia.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo
Lehigh98
Bodhizefa's Tiers of Starting Pitching - 2010
Replies
42
Views
2K
KiddLattimer
KiddLattimer

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top