Film Citizenfour

I saw this on HBO last night. This is one of the most fantastic documentarys I have ever had the pleasure to watch. As an American I have often since 9-11 felt ashamed of my government and to some extent my fellow countrymen for our surrender to big brother. Thats why I find Mr. Snowden so compelling. He is a patriot in the truest sense of the word. I strongly urge everyone to see this documentary. Even if you have no interest in the issue of surveillance or the government. It's still a highly entertaining 2 hours.

The subject matter is interesting.... But I thought the documentary was pretty boring, to be honest.
Practically the entire thing takes place in a hotel room and a lot of what they're discussing can't be revealed.
There are scenes where they pass notes back and forth to each other, which the camera doesn't get to see...
And there's a minute long scene of Snowden doing his hair.

I strongly urge everyone to see this documentary. Even if you have no interest in the issue of surveillance or the government. It's still a highly entertaining 2 hours.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.
I think you have to be pretty invested in the United States to find this as compelling as you're presenting it to be.
I'm Australian and everyone I know thought it dragged.

...

Also, Snowden was clearly motivated - in part - by the hero status that he knew he would achieve.
And that scene where the gay reporter guy is doing a press conference in a foreign language is laughable.
Both of them (him and Snowden) paint themselves as heroes / "patriots in the truest sense of the word"... but I'm not convinced that what they did is significant... The government will simply take greater measures to protect national security. They will do whatever they have to do to not allow this to happen again... I'm not convinced that celebrity whistle-blowers like Snowden and Assange are achieving anything, beyond their own celebrity.

Although we all love the word "freedom", there are certain international realities that prevent us from exercising it absolutely.
Secrecy is (probably) an important element of government, to some extent.

If they have to monitor people to avoid another 911, so be it...
As long as they're not doing it for reasons other than national security.
And there isn't really much evidence that they are.

People cannot be prosecuted for crimes, for example, that are discovered as a result of the digital spy network.
So, beyond sensationalism, I'm not sure what the issue is exactly... or, at least, how serious an issue it is.

It's naive, I think, to presume that governmental organizations will every stop using technology to monitor the masses.
This documentary is selling a false hope, that - someday - we will be both safe and absolutely free. (We won't.)

ForEverAfter said:

I think you have to be pretty invested in the United States to find this as compelling as you're presenting it to be.
I'm Australian and everyone I know thought it dragged.

Click to expand...

These surveillance policies extend far beyond America, which includes cooperation from the Australian federal government. I think it would be a mistake to assume the information he's brought to light doesn't affect Australian surveillance policies. This is a global network.

ForEverAfter said:

If they have to monitor people to avoid another 911, so be it...
As long as they're not doing it for reasons other than national security.
And there isn't really much evidence that they are.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an iota of evidence that these surveillance measures are being used only to target terrorists or to protect national security? It either must not have made it to the news in Australia (I know it has because I watched in while I was there) or you just haven't seen it, but official reports and depositions have come out stating that terrorism prevention is a very small portion of the actual targets of these programs.

I'm aware of that. It's still a United States film, that paints a portrait of a US patriot / hero.

There's nothing in my post that indicates that it only pertains to the US. I will say, however, that the US - being freedom obsessed and outspoken - demand unrealistic things of their government... Australians aren't as obsessed with upholding their freedom to bear arms (even when people are dying) or their right to privacy (even when it threatens national security). I don't know... Freedom is a good thing but it seems like a lot of United States citizens are willing to protect it - no matter what they cost - including (potentially) the self-destruction of their country, their way of life, and the freedoms they already have. There's this kind of greedy, all-or-nothing attitude that I keep encountering within US media. I'm not saying other countries aren't guilty of it, just that the US are more concerned with that sort of thing and - therefore - more likely to be highly interested in this sort of film... I could be wrong.

Either way, I don't care particularly that people are being monitored.
There's nothing that I, or anybody else, can do about it - realistically.
So, as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant whether or not it affects Australia.

I think it would be a mistake to assume the information he's brought to light doesn't affect Australian surveillance policies.

Click to expand...

Affect them (the surveillance policies) in what way? The only potential outcome, that I can forsee, is governments (world-wide) tightening their security. It's naive to think that the US government, or the Australian government, or any other government for that matter, will put their hands up in the air - so to speak - and say, "Well, you caught us!"

I mean, what do you think Snowden actually achieved?

I read your edit, Bardeaux, after posting my reply.
(Hence the double post.)

Can you provide an iota of evidence that these surveillance measures are being used only to target terrorists or to protect national security? It either must not have made it to the news in Australia (I know it has because I watched in while I was there) or you just haven't seen it, but official reports and depositions have come out stating that terrorism prevention is a very small portion of the actual targets of these programs.

Click to expand...

I never said I could provide any evidence of that, no. I also can't provide evidence of the Dutch weaponizing potatoes...
Can you provide an iota of evidence that "terrorism prevention is a very small portion of the actual targets of these programs"?

It is inevitable that the media will spin it that way, post Snowden, regardless of whether or not it's actually happening, because they're fear mongers... so I don't consider articles - suggesting that this is going on - as actual evidence.

Doesn't due process, for most criminal acts, theoretically, prevent arrests based on secret surveillance operations?

ForEverAfter said:

I'm aware of that. It's still a United States film, that paints a portrait of a US patriot / hero.

Click to expand...

How this pertains only to Americans, I have no idea.

There's nothing in my post that indicates that it only pertains to the US.

Click to expand...

It was implied:

I think you have to be pretty invested in the United States to find this as compelling as you're presenting it to be.

Click to expand...

Either way, I don't care particularly that people are being monitored.
There's nothing that I, or anybody else, can do about it - realistically.

Click to expand...

Not if it's in the dark. What are politicians up for reelection going to do and say? "There's nothing you can do about it, so " Besides, I think this drastically underestimates the influence billions of people have on governmental policy.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant whether or not it affects Australia.

Click to expand...

If it affects Australia then you don't have to be particularly invested in the United States to find the story compelling

Affect them (the surveillance policies) in what way?

Click to expand...

In that the NSA and thei Australian counterpart collaborates, using the same programs in Australia that they use in America.

It's naive to think that the US government, or the Australian government, or any other government for that matter, will put their hands up in the air - so to speak - and say, "Well, you caught us!"

Click to expand...

They kind of don't have to when cables containing their personal correspondence on the matter are leaked publicly.

I mean, what do you think Snowden actually achieved?

Click to expand...

By a show of hands who knew about XKeyscore before the Snowden leaks? The scope of global surveillance? PRISM?

How this pertains only to Americans, I have no idea.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it does.

It was implied

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. Perhaps it appeared to be, but - since then - I've clarified quite clearly what I meant.
I said "as compelling", not "compelling"... and I've explained why I think so.

I think you have to be pretty invested in the United States to find this as compelling as you're presenting it to be.

Click to expand...

If you disagree with me, so be it.

What are politicians up for reelection going to do and say? "There's nothing you can do about it, so " Besides, I think this drastically underestimates the influence billions of people have on governmental policy.

Click to expand...

On secret governmental policies?
It's naive to believe what politicians say, when they're up for re-election.

If it affects Australia then you don't have to be particularly invested in the United States to find the story compelling

Click to expand...

"Compelling" or "as compelling"?

They kind of don't have to when cables containing their personal correspondence on the matter are leaked publicly.

Click to expand...

No, they don't.
They just have to bury them further.
You're being naive if you think - for one second - that the US government is going to become any more transparent.
On the contrary, the efforts to make them more transparent will achieve the opposite IMO.

By a show of hands who knew about XKeyscore before the Snowden leaks? The scope of global surveillance? PRISM?

Click to expand...

The scope of global surveillance portrayed in the film did not surprise me in the least.
What I'm asking, though, is: what long-term beneficial result has arisen / will arise - do you think - from the Snowden leak?
(Please keep in mind that we're already going in circles, and I don't really want to continue this discussion much further.)

ForEverAfter said:

Can you provide an iota of evidence that "terrorism prevention is a very small portion of the actual targets of these programs"?

Click to expand...

You still haven't provided any evidence as the original claims-maker, but what the hey.

The very nature in which these programs are designed would suggest that terrorist activity is an extremely low portion of the data being collected, for starters. The NSA is documented in spying on EU missions at the UN, they've been caught stealing Chinese SMS data from Chinese phone companies. I don't see how bugging the UN headquarters in Germany is in any way counter-terrorist activity. Besides, it would take quite a bit of nativity to believe this sort of power is being used honorably and only for the purpose of catching evil doers.

ForEverAfter said:

I didn't say it does.

Click to expand...

SO you don't have to be particularly invested in the United States to find the film (as) compelling? The gymnastics going on here.....

No, it wasn't. Perhaps it appeared to be, but - since then - I've clarified quite clearly what I meant.
I said "as compelling", not "compelling"... and I've explained why I think so.

Click to expand...

Define "as", please.

If you disagree with me, so be it.

Click to expand...

I don't care if you liked the movie or not, I honestly didn't expect you in particular to like it. I'm in disagreement over the American-centric undertones you find in the film and in the information Snowden released.

On secret governmental policies?

Click to expand...

Now what could possibly bring secret policies to light?

"Compelling" or "as compelling"?

Click to expand...

Either/or.

You're being naive if you think - for one second - that the US government is going to become any more transparent.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it was? You're using the word naive a lot for someone who doesn't care about whether or not there is an intrusive global surveillance program.

On the contrary, the efforts to make them more transparent will achieve the opposite IMO.

Click to expand...

And efforts will intensify. This is an arms race.

What I'm asking, though, is: what long-term beneficial result has arisen / will arise - do you think - from the Snowden leak?

Click to expand...

A fracture in the very foundation of trust and content with governments around the world and their populaces? How would it be in any way beneficial to remain in the dark about this?

(Please keep in mind that we're already going in circles, and I don't really want to continue this discussion much further.)

Click to expand...

k

If you cast a net, and you pull in a boot, you throw it back in the river.
Of course they're casting a wide net. That's just logical.

Technology allows them to monitor specific people, by monitoring everyone.
That is an ethical quandary for some, but not for me.

I never said the word terrorism. You did... I said national security. They are not the same thing... You may have assumed I was talking about terrorism because of the 911 keyword, but - if you go back - it's pretty clear that I'm referring to issues of national security.

You still haven't provided any evidence as the original claims-maker, but what the hey.

Click to expand...

What would you like evidence of?

I said there isn't evidence of something. That is what you quoted and responded to.
You can't expect me to provide evidence that there isn't evidence.
That's like a guilty-until-proven-innocent attitude to logic.

you said:

me said:

If they have to monitor people to avoid another 911, so be it...
As long as they're not doing it for reasons other than national security.
And there isn't really much evidence that they are.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an iota of evidence that these surveillance measures are being used only to target terrorists or to protect national security?

Click to expand...

You're asking me to provide evidence that something isn't happening... ?

It's not up to me, or you, to decide how wide they cast their net - for the sake of national security.
Why do you think they bugged the UN headquarters in Germany? Randomly? For fun? It's an expensive operation.
As for "stealing" SMS data, why shouldn't they if they're monitoring US and Australian SMS messages?

Until there is a court case where someone is arrested for committing a crime unrelated to national security, in which the evidence presented was collected in secret by the NSA, there is no evidence that people (who are not perceived as potential threats to national security) are being targeted... And, like I said earlier, they're going to have to find some way to get around due process.

I didn't say it was?

Click to expand...

You implied it was, a number of times, by suggesting that Snowden achieved something.
I can quote at least three times you did this.

You're using the word naive a lot for someone who doesn't care about whether or not there is an intrusive global surveillance program.

Click to expand...

That doesn't imply naivety.
I'm aware of the surveillance program and, whether or not it is ideal, it is what it is.
I don't care in the sense that it achieves nothing to care about it... and, I don't have anything to hide so it doesn't really affect me.
If I was a criminal, I probably would care.
But, I'm not.
So, I don't.

And efforts will intensify. This is an arms race.

Click to expand...

And the intensified efforts will just serve to tighten security further and further.
Hackers make digital infrastructures stronger, like diseases make surviving species stronger. This is well documented.
Unless you think that the government will be somehow defeated, the analogy fits.

A fracture in the very foundation of trust and content with governments around the world and their populaces? How would it be in any way beneficial to remain in the dark about this?

Click to expand...

Remain in the dark about what, XKeystroke and PRISM?
We're still in the dark. It's naive (there's that word again) to think otherwise.

SO you don't have to be particularly invested in the United States to find the film (as) compelling?

Click to expand...

"I think you have to be pretty invested in the United States to find this as compelling as (the OP is) presenting it to be."
That's what I said.

The OP said that it was one of the best documentaries ever made and that you didn't have to be invested in issues of surveillance OR government to find it a highly entertaining 2 hours. That was what I was responding to... I don't have to define "as" because it's already been defined by context, if you bother to look for it.

There are lots of countries involved in national security related surveillance programs, yet some people seem more concerned that the US is doing what the majority of the world is doing... I don't understand why, unless you have an investment in the United States (which I don't).

The gymnastics going on here.....

Click to expand...

Tell me about it.

Now what could possibly bring secret policies to light?

Click to expand...

You're taking things out of context.
Your responses, often, don't make sense.

Call this gymnastics, on my part, if you like, but I'm going to clarify (again).

me said:

you said:

I think this drastically underestimates the influence billions of people have on governmental policy.

Click to expand...

On secret governmental policies?

Click to expand...

What I'm saying here - and please try and understand, rather than just knee-jerk reacting - is: how could you possibly know the influence that anybody has over secret policies? They are, by nature, secret.

Either/or.

Click to expand...

They're considerably different.
Vietnamese citizens (probably) don't give a fuck about Snowden, relative to US citizens, wouldn't you think?
The film - and Snowden, in general - doesn't have the exact same appeal internationally... I don't know why you're getting so worked up about me suggesting that a US film about a leak from the US government is going to be more interesting / compelling to someone from the US than to someone from Afghanistan / Australia...

you're doing a lot of talking for someone who doesn't wish to have a conversation.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/747490-Better-Call-Saul?p=12917010&viewfull=1#post12917010

see, "Off-topic"

...

(I was responding to everything you said, compulsively; I do not want to have a discussion.)

Then stop. I did, it's not difficult. Have the last word if you must.

The last word: aardvark.

Brilliant documentary, i loved it

Btw there was a small part in the movie that showed a court case where the government used their surveillance intelligence to use against someone that didn't have to do with national security (there were three judges, one was on a video call) if I'm not mistaken.

I think it also touches on how it effects the populous. Something like how if you know you're being monitored, you're scared to say somethings or dive into ideas, which can severely restrict freedom of thought and can eventually turn into a very controlling state.

Another side note, the government is very powerful, especially when it comes to the media, and keeping things covered up from the public. This is why what Snowden has done is so heroic. He has found a way to not get pushed down by the government and let as many people know as possible. The vast population can make a change in our government if enough people care enough to do something about it (for example black rights movement, end of slavery, voting for women, etc.) or the right people get elected who have the power to make change (JFK, Abraham Lincoln, can't think of any more, but you get the idea). But it is hard make change about something you don't even know exists, and now thanks to Snowden, at least we know. The rest is up to us.

This is the best interview I have found if you're interested in a more informative analysis of the surveillance.