When it showed Nick Cage, I almost lost it. Is it at all possible to have Hollywood make something accurate? I know that's wishful thinking, but this looks like a train wreck.
Thoughts?
4 Likes
its about getting the story out there. if they made it for techies it would be boring to most. i understand why they movies for the general public. there's a snowden documentary for accuracy
4 Likes
I've seen the documentary, but unfortunately a lot of the general public will think this is enough info to get whats going on / what happened.
"Find the terrorist in the internet ASAP" I mean cmon.
1 Like
why do people think Snowden was some kind of spy for the NSA? The dude was contract IA. His litteral role was to prevent data loss. He wasn't some badass. He was a guy who snooped into doc's he didn't have clearance for and took them and put them out there for the world to see. I'm not going to argue the merit of what he did or argue against it but why is he being portrayed this way? Fact, he didn't make it thru army basic boot camp. He got hurt but got no where near any cool training. Fact, he was a system admin then a security expert. What that means in government employment terms is he is the guy who is supposed to protect data. In those positions you do not view the data you are protecting. That is why compartmented clearances work. Jesus Christ it's like nobody who is making this movie has any idea what he did or what he is.
1 Like
I take from the trailer that this is aimed at the general public who thinks internet is like magic. Good approach as that is the only way to make it popular with the masses.
As we do not need to talk about the "real-deal" we should focus on how we get our not so tech-savy families and friends to watch it.
This is not 2012 where engineers where asked to design whole ships. This is not The Martian where the NSA was asked for advice. The makers have as little idea of the technical part as the general uninformed public. But let me tell you, they are good at marketing!
1 Like
Came here to say this ^^. Unfortunately, we're in the situation we're in because most people don't understand it. Hell I might not even understand it if it weren't for Tek Syndicate (and TYT). It has to be a bit sensationalized and dramatized in order to hold the attention of the masses. The movie doesn't look inaccurate to me, but it does look over dramatized. That said I think it looks good, but I love Oliver Stone movies, so I kinda can't see how it'd be bad.
If nothing else, I'm very happy this movie exists for this reason... the more people that know about the spying the better.
this hits the nail on the head of what the general US citizens know or care about security/ surveillance.
no one cares to be educated, they want information that effects their personal lives
**** it includes snowden
3 Likes
I have not seen or am legally aloud to view any of the information that Snowden has published since I am under employment of the Government. So I really can't attest to how valuable it was the information he leaked. What I can say is that I think this movie could create kind of a hero worship toward him without understanding the consequences of his actions. In a perspective it could be put that Snowden was part of the "It" department in the government. This is not signals and intelligence which is the really cool spy stuff. "IT" in government falls under communications and has a split which is "cyber security" or "information assurance". The purpose of Snowden as a "cybersecurity" employee within a government agency is to assess the security of the network and succepatibility of data loss. Working along side the other parts of "IT" the "cybersecurity" employee will try and strengthen the network by pushing policies to the "it" departments who will then enact those policies( like putting port security on a switch). The cybersecurity only gets in contact with the "assets" or "network" when doing security sweeps. This is called auditing which is the second part of their job. Then they will brief their boss or higher ranking individual of the risks to the network and data. Based off the risk their boss is willing to allow is how they will create their policy. That is their whole role. So who thinks the movie is going to be about a person who has no clearance to view data on a network and then steals it and releases it to the public. Would you want the cyber security guy at your bank releasing your bank account info. I can't tell you if the information that he released was needed for the public since I don't know but I can tell you he should have never seen it.
Is your answer to:
1 Like
It reads better if you put the "So" in front of the second sentence. If it seems like I keep saying I don't know what he released its mainly because I don't want an argument or discourse of the material. The only thing I can talk about is the impression this movie gives is of a badass who was a super spy but turned on the government because they asked him to do something wrong. All I'm saying is shouldn't it be a movie about a guy who did something wrong but what he did may or may not be valuable for the world?
1 Like
Snowden is a Hero, end of story.
Just because it's the government, doesn't give them immutable authority to break its own laws and inherently nullify its oath of service. The fact that some people want to execute him is telling on how little they value liberty, how much faith they put on the 'entity' known as government, rather than a set of individuals relegated to roles of authority within the government. People are naturally curious and human, regardless of their job, and putting all network information, unencrypted, in some data center somewhere is a massive invasion of privacy and a national security risk in itself.
2 Likes
Again, that's not the issue. If a robber breaks into a house and finds tons of heroin or something illegal and then reports it then yes he did something good and yes he needs to go to jail. I'm mainly talking about the complete lie that this movie trailer is portraying Snowden in. I'm not saying what he leaked wasn't valuable at all. I am just saying the dude was never given permission to know about or view any of the information he stole. Basically he just got on a computer and started snooping around and found some stuff he didn't agree with and shouldn't that be what the movie is about. Watch the movie the Informant with Matt Damon. It's kind of like that. His character did something good but still had to pay for the wrong he did.
Also you are right about the government they do have to answer to the people but that is a complete separate topic
You stated you are not allowed to see the documents, so if I copied some of that in here, you would have to leave, I suppose.
That's interesting and I'm not sure I agree.
Certainly the robber should be prosecuted for breaking and entering, and that is something wrong that he did.
But the whole crime of that is to break in and rob something or do something else more malicious. It's the intent that is the problem. For his sake, the punishment doesn't meet the crime. He would either be in prison for the rest of his life or be executed.
Another way to look at it would be if someone is breaking and entering to stop a murder from happening, and let's just say that Snowden kills that other guy in a struggle, by defending himself and that other person. (the person he defended the american people, and the person he killed the NSA) That would seem like a better analogy.
1 Like
I can't tell if you are trying to turn this into an uncivilized conversation and if so I'm not sure why?
My biggest problem is that I learned to treat every problem/issue seperate from every other.
To break this down:
-I see that Snwoden is a criminal by US law
-The US was and is commiting several crimes not against its own laws but against human rights
-There is a movie trailer meant to advertise for an upcomming movie I do not know enough about to talk about
-The US needs to keep documents secret from people working for them which is the same behaviour as for the TTIP documents right now. (I treat your statement as truth)
I just really get mad when people are cross talking several of the points I mentioned above concluding them all in one final statement. Sorry
1 Like
I see where you are going but the fact remains that Snowden would have had no idea what's on the servers. We compartment information like that to create a need to know only access. Under his job he shouldn't have had any idea what was being stored. So it's more like he broke in then discovered. I'm really not saying that releasing the information to the public didn't benefit us. I'm just saying the facts of the case are he did some stuff that was criminal before he even knew what data was being stored. I think if they portrayed the movie in more of a factual way it would be more exciting. Honestly tho he should be considered innocent until he is given a fair trial. i just really think a persona is being created threw pop culture that is incorrect.
I understand what you're saying that he did something wrong. But he should NOT come back, because the government in this case are not the good guys. They are absolutely bureaucratic and in this case, he's a large PRIME NUMBER that needs to be dissolved. Just a number, like everyone else.
It would be stupid for him to face sentencing. Edward is not a stupid man. If anything, his oath of service required him to uphold the constitution. If a robot or AI was designed to follow the rules to a strict guideline, then in this case, the same thing would have happened. Releasing this information is the only defense that we have from it, and it hasn't stopped, it's still ongoing.
If this stuff wasn't released, then how much in the dark would we have been a decade from now? Seriously, has it really hurt the government at all? The people who trust the government, are already doing it without any slights or persuasion, and those who already don't trust it, already have reason not to and this is no surprise to them.
If anything, this has probably helped the NSA by putting their name out there, and showing how much power they have. People wouldn't refuse to work with them, people still respect them, and 5-10 years from now, this whole thing will blow over and it will be cemented in people's minds, the power of the NSA.
I do believe in the future, this will hurt the NSA. When people are more rational. But right now, the majority of people think he's a traitor. So in this case, it just showcases the power of the NSA and gets their name out there. Even if it's bad PR...