Despite having been involved in the "cypherpunks" world for two decades, I never thought crypto, security, privacy, NSA, etc. would become such a mass market issue that an Oscar-winning documentary would be created about it.
Getting nominated was fantastic but very few* believed the Academy would have the guts to actually give them the Oscar. I'm very positively surprised.
*Edit: I stand corrected. It was clearly not the underdog I thought it was. I never checked the bookmakers so my comments are purely from a personal perspective of what people I've talked to believed. This doesn't change the fact that I'm positively surprised :)
The recent past seems like such a dark time for people who are skeptical of all this State Spycraft stuff.
An award to a good film about an essentially important issue, with a little dark (or darkly sinister, take your pick) levity by Mister Oscar, and you start to feel that there is a glimmer of hope...
The EFF can justifiably rant and rave and they do a good job at it. But a little nod from a general public institution seems, to me at least, to provide a special sort of boost.
People sometimes talk about the academy as if it's not all the people there in the audience. Like it's 20 other elitists behind closed doors trying to control our hearts and minds. The academy has its admin staff but the voting is done by the collective just like the nominations are. if it's nominated it's a potential win. The result tonight tells me how annoyed even Hollywood is with the current President on this topic.
You're thinking of the ratings board. The Academy consists of hundreds. Politics in Hollywood is a cause that will win you awards just like gays, race, AIDS/HIV, Africa and a multitude of other subjects.
I was right there with you. I only watched 20-30 minutes of the show, but made the authoritative pronouncement to my GF that citizenfour would not win, as the powers that be owned Hollywood.
I am glad I was wrong in this case.
I'm not surprised. I'm no big time Hollywood guy but have 45 years of experience.
Such ceremonies will award trophies based on subject matter without regard to quality. Not to sound like I'm disparaging the doc but anything about this subject, now, plus gays and racial and political issues will win you votes because these types always feel the need to side with causes to make them feel better about themselves.
No. Not everyone. And I should mention I have relatives who are actors but don't feel that way. Some may remember, a few years ago, the director who lost and said, "Next time I'll make a film about a gay, Latino who's politically suppressed".
I was thinking the exact same thing. It's a good doc by any measure but if it were about another topic, it wouldn't have won on cinematic merit. BUT at the same time, it tells the story well being mostly told through a hotel room and narration. So with that said both the content and how it was made is still noteworthy but not outstanding. So it's all about all of it coming together too. Documentaries are a lot of luck and skill and pulling together the story that people can appreciate.
Greenwald has said on multiple occasions that he feels very comfortable coming to the US because of its constitution and freedom of speech as an explicit granted right. He isn't going back to the UK anytime soon.
Prosecuting a journalist -- over something that has the executive branch sweating bullets -- when they're on the way to attend one of the biggest entertainment award ceremonies of the year would be like loading a revolver with a whole stick of dynamite and pretending you're just going to shoot your foot off.
"TSA imprisons Oscar winners on their way to the ceremonies" isn't something Obama wants to see in every newspaper on Monday morning.
No kidding. I've been delayed just about that same timeframe coming back into Chicago while having the right credentials with a foreign greencard holding spouse. Turns out the media didn't ask me for my story.
* It would be a way to make an example out of "collaborators". Presumably in the future the next Greenwald would think twice before embarking on this kind of project.
* It would also be a way to prove to themselves and the rest of the world that "nobody really cares and public in general supports the Government".
Regarding the last issue. There is a hidden danger in these revelations and that is despite all the talk and all the press, it seems the general public is not too interested in the topic after all. This in turn serves as a signal to the executive branch and to the NSA that they need not worry much and can even increase the intensity of their programs.
If you refreshed yourself of some American history you might not feel so sure. The likelihood of such a thing happening increases with each rightward shift the country takes. The war on terror is rather popular, and the constitution not so much with is protections for criminals, terrorists, gay marriage, non-christians and atheists, and all other things that make the right see red.
Releasing "state secrets" (or whatever spin the gov't wants to put on being embarrassed) carries a pretty stiff penalty that could be worse, or at least as bad as, enemy combatant.
ehhh, when you say U.S. citizens are you referring to Anwar Al-Awlaki? Because that's a very specific strike in that he was a recruiter for Al Qaeda and was with 3 other Al Qaeda members in the same vehicle in northern Yemen.
Now you might say they could have let him go. But we did let Al-Baghdadi go, and equally charismatic islamist and look what that led to.
Not every U.S. citizen criminal gets a trial. For example if you go on a shooting rampage, and a cop kills you, well no trial, because you couldn't be captured. That's the way this situation was handled in yemen. Why? Because the Yemeni government tried him in absentia and ordered him to be captured dead or alive. If you commit a crime in another country you are subject to their laws.
Face it it's an exception that statistically 1 out of 300000000 would have a concern over. So lose the hyperbole it's not going to serve your case as well as more factual statements would.
"there are US citizens that are being executed without even a trial"
Wow! Edgy stuff. You should present your evidence, it would be the news story of the decade. You do have evidence I presume? It's not as if you would write something so outlandish based purely on conspiracy theories?
It's not up to the person arguing the status quo to prove the status quo. It's up to person with the extraordinary theory to provide the extraordinary evidence.
I hope you're not saying I'm one of them/a spook/lizardman. Because I really like this website and it depresses me that it's slowly being infected with the conspiracy mindset.
>It fits the definition of "combat" used by almost everyone. And basically no-one would define it as "execution". So there's your problem there.
A simple search would show you that your assertion is mere bravado and puffery, attempting to paint things in a black and white light. "Almost everyone" and "basically no-one" are weasel words. The issue is nuanced.
I am not arguing in favor or against calling it execution, just pointing out that your tactics are underhanded and trollish. The issue isn't as black and white as you want it to be and no amount of your cynicism or finger-pointing will change that.
The academic articles that you've glossed over explicitly point out that further attention needs to be given to the frameworks within which we look at drone tactics:
From the second academic journal link: "In targeted attacks, with surgical precision, key targets are picked off discriminately. This is far too reminiscent of murder, and does not give the target a proper right to defend themselves against the accusations or discrimination. This issue needs to be considered in further detail."
Note that this comes from an engineering journal, likely targeted at a similar audience as the crowd that makes up HN. It doesn't take any sort of farfetched opining to agree that the issue is more than just "Execution? T/F?".
I understand the social justice thrust of your argument, and I understand the political narrative that wishes to categorize this as "execution". Unfortunately no-one really agrees apart from your fellow-travellers on the extreme-left.
Both have made several appearances in the US promoting the film; Greenwald has also been on a book tour. They're probably taking care with what they try to take through customs (if anything), but simply visiting doesn't seem (for the moment at least) to be prohibitively tough.
Since they went to the US for the Oscars, the USG making a fuss would get them a lot of attention from the media establishment and the general public, i.e. not really desirable.
I gotta say, Greenwald with all the good he does shining light on things, really bothers me the way he misrepresents Sam Harris. He basically misleads people on what Sam Harris says about Islam and it worries me that Greenwald may be a little too loose with facts in other areas of his reporting.
He is absolutely loose with the facts. To this day, he doesn't know what PRISM is, unlike nearly everybody else in the press. The leaks would have been better managed by almost any other reporter.
I attempted to research this issue, and as far as I can tell Greenwald did not misrepresent Harris' opinion. I found the full context of the following quotes by Harris, which Greenwald presented, and they mean exactly what they look like:
>"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim."
>"We are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam."
>"The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory — and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice."
>"Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies."
Plus several more along those lines.
I agree with both Harris and Greenwald to varying extents here, but where exactly did Greenwald mislead people on what Harris has said about Islam? One may think Harris is right or wrong and may disagree with Greenwald taking the stance that Harris is wrong, but I think Greenwald painted an accurate picture of what Harris thinks about the issue.
Greenwald has sometimes been a bit loose with facts throughout his writing history. He's more of an opinion writer than a straight journalist, which typically means a faster writing cycle and less editorial oversight--both of which can result in mangled facts.
Snowden approached him because of his attitude and willingness to stand up to the government, but also worked with reporters like Barton Gellman.
Here is a somewhat heated and very informative 3 hour interview in which pundit Cenk Uygur talks to Sam Harris about these criticisms -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVl3BJoEoAU
probably not nearly as much as we'd believe. Pretty much every case of border frustration that I've heard from this group of people has usually turned out somewhat founded (like when Greenwald's partner got stopped while he was actually carrying confidential documents).
Then again, police harass people for no good reason all the time, so the TSA could very well have the same culture. Not a huge fan of security theater.
EDIT: stand corrected, the harrassement by the DHS agents described in this is pretty horrible
Even as a western European foreigner who does nothing of interest to anyone, US immigration comes off as very hostile in comparison to any other country I have visited and TSA agents are basically on the same level as prison wardens (low education, low pay and enabled to power trip over anyone without a fear of repercussions).
I actually found the opposite when I visited the US for the first time last year. I was slightly nervous about encountering the TSA as I'd read some absolute horror stories online (many through Hacker News). But I've got to say, the TSA agents I encountered were incredibly friendly and helpful, even chatting and joking with my wife and I^.
Of course they did break into my suit case and destroy my pad lock but hey ho, at least they left me a friendly note.
Anyway I think it's important that both sides of the coin are represented here, people are more likely to write about negative experiences in general.
^We were on honeymoon in Orlando which probably accounts for the generally positive reception :)
A couple years back I got fast tracked for the first time through a TSA line ( France -> Chicago ). Person who was sitting next to me in the flight was just as American as I was but hey her skin was dark (4th generation Indian parents or something?) so she got pulled to the side.
Based off of similar discussions I've had with other people on flights like this, a really good first approximation of the stopping time is "color of skin."
I've been pulled to the side seems like 30% of the time and I'm just a mutt from the Midwest with some international trips in my passport. I don't take offense because it happens with so many people and so many people glide through unscathed whether pulled aside or not. it's annoying but always random enough.
I'm glad they won the award. And yes I thought Neil Patrick Harris' comment was more than a bit uncalled for. I also agree with rdl that it's amazing that this has become such a durable national discussion.
To provide context: Neil Patrick Harris made a joke that Edward Snowden "couldn't be there for some treason".
I firmly believe all puns are uncalled for in America (except by dads, who call for as many puns as possible). But sometimes we get the humor we deserve, not the humor we ask for.
Joking about what is, or isn't treasonous, is to my way of thinking in just as much poor taste as joking about sexual orientation or race.
I "get" the freedom of speech thing, there isn't any law against it, but I dislike it because the topic of encryption and privacy are things I consider important. Neil could have just as easily joked that Turing would still be around if he had been a bit more discreet about his "tastes." And I would be equally offended.
So when you have people who have put their liberty and their life on the line for something they believe in, I think it is important for us to treat what they did with respect and not make jokes about it.
>>
Joking about what is, or isn't treasonous, is to my way of thinking in just as much poor taste as joking about sexual orientation or race.
Honestly, I use to feel the same way as you but.... I've begun to realize that jokes about serious matters is actually one form of communication to spread awareness about an issue, relief some social-stresses and it also serves as social-indicator. Like, if someone were to ask me "When could we consider the problem of racism mostly solved?" My answer would be, "When you stop seeing racist jokes/comments in youtube comments of any vid with minorities in it and when Louis CK's racist jokes don't make the audience laugh anymore." The jokes are not the cause of the problem, they're the indicator that the problem still exists. btw, same thing for gangsta-rap music. People say it causes problems in the African american community; I say gangsta-rap music is so popular because a lot of African americans can relate to it. Every black person in USA, including myself, can talk about instances of racism endured and/or the struggles in low-income areas of America. When that's no longer the case, they'll stop buying it then it'll stop being made.
That said, there's definitely a time & a place for those kinds of jokes and it requires some tact to understand where & when it's appropriate.
My first impression of this would be that it’s an alright joke, mostly because I think “treason” is a ridiculous and non-sensical concept in the first place and in general.
All the jokes on award shows like the Oscars telecast are written by a room full of comedy writers.
That opening joke was actually "Tonight we celebrate Hollywood's best and whitest OOPS I MEAN brightest". Actually kind of a funny and relevant joke given the current state of race in Hollywood. Chris Rock's recent interview is a good read along those lines:
It seems like you agree that you support free speech, but were still offended. This is a totally fair point.
> things I consider important
I am glad to see that you realize that virtually everything falls under the category of "important" to one person or another. Jokes are jokes and frankly I think nothing should be off limits. Freedom, ironically, is the absolute core of this argument and what Edward Snowden fought for personallly.
I personally thought the joke was funny, even if it made light of my deeply held political sensibilities.
But what do you mean by "nothing should be off limits"? Are you saying that no joke or form of speech should be beyond criticism, no matter the venue? I don't think anyone has a right to someone else's platform to make any sort of speech they like. Even though I found the treason joke within my limits of taste for an Oscar's broadcast, I respect the prerogative of the original poster to voice criticism. That's part of free speech too, although interestingly some are trying to silence that person with downvotes.
In the context of the broadcast the joke was so quick, and it came after an impassioned speech by Laura Poitras. I can't even imagine someone being inspired to see the movie by either its Oscar win or the acceptance speech and being thrown of course by the quick little one-liner that followed it.
I didn't downvote you, I appreciated your commentand it underscores my larger point. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and there very well could be public backlash for this, or any other comment. Private organizations can enforce consequences on employees or stakeholders for falling outside their prescribed internal policies. Also, saying generally offensive things can certainly alienate somebody in society or professionally. I don't think this particular case the joke went too far and was certainly written by the oscar comedy writers and probably not by Harris himself.
To your other point, on a private platform people certainly have the right to deem what is acceptable communication. I agree with that, certainly. In really no case is a form of speech 'beyond criticism'.
Was that what he said? I didn't hear the "t". Without the "t" it's much more amusing, with it's sad because it plays on a line of thought that is sad, small, and wrong.
The closed caption that I saw printed "treason" and that's what I heard. But then, they also mangled Ed Catmull's name into something like "at maul", so I don't consider it definitive.
I think a straight pardon is unlikely for the next 10 years, unless something on the order of the Church Committee happens, if not more. (IIRC you have to be convicted to be pardoned, anyway)
However, I could see some kind of immunity from prosecution granted to get him out of Russia, and to confirm what documents were released, happening in a somewhat more marginal change (maybe at the next Presidential transition, but probably not). This would be lesser, because it wouldn't be saying "what you did was right", just that it's in the national interest to end the whole affair.
Not much likely, but I think the idea that Snowden was just the guy who pulled the switch and not the one who caused the fire might be gaining ground. That might bring a change ultimately in to how people view things. Then, at some point, a political figure might be ready to exploit that view, for gaining more votes and there you have it... Democracy at it's best ;-)
I guess it really comes down to who has the last say. If it's Obama personally then I can see it happening. Being willing to pardon someone who has done you harm because it's the right thing to do is great way to build a nice legacy, especially since you're retiring anyway and it's no longer your problem.
I'm sure there's lots of examples, but in the documentary world, The Thin Blue Line was about a man wrongfully accused of murder on death row, who was retried and released as a direct result of the movie.
Also, I think Triumph of the Will played a huge part in helping Hitler come to power. And in the US, The Birth of a Nation helped the KKK explode in popularity. These aren't particularly uplifting examples, but I think it's clear that a popular movie can have a huge effect on the political landscape.
Similarly (but less directly), the sympathetic treatment given in the 2011 Richard Linklater film "Bernie" is believed by some to have been instrumental in the release of a convicted murderer from his life sentence.
Yeah my bad, I remembered wrong. Maybe it helped cement his power? We definitely talked about this in some history class I took, but I can't find any good references online, so maybe that's a bad example.
Thats not true. Snowden have said several times that if he can get a fair trial, he would jump on the first plane to the US. However, the US have not guaranteed him that in any way. He does not want to end up like Chelsea Manning.
If you're going to commit treason, be prepared to accept the consequences for treason. To commit the crime and then flee the country to avoid prosecution is complete cowardice.
Comedy. That's how it is sometimes. I found it harsh but also a well done joke. But remember, humor is about absurdity. Neil P Harris or his writers are well aware of the absurdity of the situation. Doesn't mean they actually think he's committed treason. These people are professionals but it's not beneath them to take a potshot now and again even if it delivers with ambiguous intent.
Also would like to point out Snowden himself thought it was funny. Quote:
"To be honest, I laughed at NPH. I don't think it was meant as a political statement, but even if it was, that's not so bad. My perspective is if you're not willing to be called a few names to help out your country, you don't care enough.
"If this be treason, then let us make the most of it." [he linked this quote to Patrick Henry on wikipedia]
This is good. Humor is the way to handle heavy topics like this. He's a dissident and accused of treason -- only dark humor can help us cope with this.
Only the film's copyright holder can release it into the public domain. They must do so by an overt act or statement that indicates the work is no longer subject to copyright.
Merely submitting copies of the work to a court as part of a lawsuit doesn't do this as there is no statement that copyright is relinquished. Quite the opposite--copies of the film still bear a copyright notice.
Maybe take the middle road? Grab a copy now if you can't wait and buy it later when it comes out on DVD/Blueray. Fortunately it's being aired here in the UK on Channel 4 tomorrow so I haven't got this dilemma.
This is great. Now, how can I get to see this movie here in Tokyo? It doesn't look like any screening is planned in Japan, and most people here don't seem to care the issue.
You are probably going to have to pirate it. Despite it's importance, I haven't seen it becoming very popular even in the US. It is mostly playing alternative movie theaters, and not that often.
It will be playing on HBO in the US Monday night. I for one am looking forward to seeing it, and will probably show it to friends via HBO Go. However, I have no idea if HBO will be showing it internationally.
Average joe doesn't read wired or the new york times and if he has heard about any of the leaks, he probably thinks "I have nothing to hide so no big deal - USA number one!".
Cinema chains probably don't want to piss off big gov either and the owners are usually politically involved too.
Oscar bump should call up some courage of theaters to be screening it more. You never know with indie films, and documentaries especially are on no predictable timeline for distribution.
HBO is also showing it, http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/citizenfour, but if you just want to watch it without paying anything for it, there should be illegal copies available through torrens.
Excellent! Because I would hate to pay a nominal sum to people risking their liberty, and perhaps even their very lives, to spread the word about government abuses that threaten the future of not merely the 300-plus million people living in this country but people from around the world, too. Can we get more of this?
