12 ms·

Snowden Tried to Tell NSA About Surveillance Concerns, Documents Reveal

342 points by aburan28 10y ago

hackney 10y ago
Apparently your best defense is to lawyer up and flat out sue. Being nice gets you nowhere.
- jackweirdy 10y ago
  As an outsider looking in, that seems to be good advice for all American life.
  - Sarki 10y ago
    I'd say this is valid for anyone, unfortunately...
  - ryanlol 10y ago
    Despite it being a common meme, this is hardly an American thing.
  - tacone 10y ago
    You can't call yourself an adult until you get a lawyer,
patcon 10y ago
Seems to say a whole lot about the lack of clear process. Despite all the investigative power of those following up, they seemed unable to discover if complaints had actually been raised.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Wow, that was a lot to read. After reading all that, I wonder why Snowden didn't just take his own emails with him, too. He might have overlooked it. Yet, a carbon copy or just stealth copy of any complaints to compliance groups or whatever might be worth remembering for future whistleblowers.
- riskable 10y ago
  He probably couldn't without raising alarms. As administrator to the SharePoint site he had many means to access (and copy) the files contained therein (from the servers themselves) but to make a big copy of his emails would require very risky operations on his personal workstation. A device that is probably intricately monitored.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Yeah, the stuff was probably extremely hard: http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-113051-Monitor-Splitter/dp/B005H3I38G http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-113051-Monitor-Splitter/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dCIZAXceQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dCIZAXceQ Really, difficult. ;)
    - woodman 10y ago
      The concern is a plausible cover for action. Your suggested solution would be a little difficult to explain away - especially considering the kind of coworkers you'd have at the NSA. Instead of explaining why you're archiving all your mail, you'd have to explain the cabling, capture card, massive video files...
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        He connected on monitored systems to all kinds of servers under several credentials to steal their files. You think a hidden camera on his chest aimed at his monitor or phone just angled in its direction is too much risk, though?
        woodman 10y ago
        Yes. There are a lot of rational explanations for why you'd break security protocols, there is no good reason to come into work wearing a wire. Would you rather have to explain a login to IT security, or explain the pinhole camera taped to your chest - after a newly instituted random wanding takes place?
zer00eyz 10y ago
I hadn't really thought about the issue of contractors and whistleblower status in depth till reading this. I would assume that he (Snowden) had to talk to someone about blowing the whistle to know he wasn't covered before he did it. He didn't just pull these facts out of his ass. The question is who did he speak to, and what was the context and color of that conversation.
- gcommer 10y ago
  Alternatively he could've just read about prior NSA whistleblowers (like Binnie and others) who tried to blow the whistle on many of the same issues more quietly and instead of being able to keep fighting for the Constitution, they got their doors kicked in and silenced by the legal system. Edited to correct smartphone auto-"correct" typos
  - zer00eyz 10y ago
    Have a hearty thanks and an upvote for your $0.02, I had not thought of the other whistleblowers as a viable means of figuring this out.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
It is abundantly obvious that the NSA has no interest whatsoever in following the law or offering an avenue for whistleblowers to point out wrongdoing. This well-written and detailed article is just more confirmation. It seems clear that any internal compliance channels purportedly offered as a way to raise concerns about violations of law are worse then just windowdressing - they are more like a honeypot used to sniff out employees who have any regard for law or ethics. >During the course of the interview, standard interview questions were used, but were tailored as needed to follow the flow of the interview. It is also important to note that there were questions included that were meant to uncover whether Mr. Snowden was dissatisfied with the US government. The "standard interview questions" asked when an employee raises a legal concern about the practices of the NSA are used to turn the microscope onto the employee, rather then the legal issue (a practice certainly not lost on employees considering raising an issue). The message here is clear - keep your head down and do what your told, or you will be hammered down like a nail that sticks out from a board. The willingness of the NSA to continue its constant and continuing barrage of lies is troubling and revealing, laying bare the immoral, illegal, and sociopathic tendencies of those employed there.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  It seems to be a problem across many agencies, this disrespect for the law. The FBI was recently busted again for submitting illegal requests that were ruled such back in 2008.
  - alexandercrohde 10y ago
    I'd go a step further and propose it's systemic problem that will occur with any closed powerful agency with a mission (NSA, Anonymous, North Korea): if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Once you've decided you're The GoodGuy™, anybody who stops you becomes The Enemy™. It's just a matter of time until you're wrong and those trying to stop your error become The Enemy™.
    - ageofwant 10y ago
      There is a simpler and more universal explanation for corporate behaviour, and that is that it wants to continue continuing. Once it exists it will justify its existence as priority one. Of course this becomes problematic for big government institutions with "inherent" power. The only power the people have over these institutions is funding, and the case of the CIA, they have taken care of that existential threat as well.
woodman 10y ago
"An NSA official offered up several options for dealing with NBC News, only one of which was left unredacted..." I understand not wanting to make public internal conversations, but this sort of redaction really sets the imagination down a dark path. Not Gary Webb dark, but HBGary-fabricating-evidence-to-discredit-journalists kind of dark [0]. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html...
- aburan28 10y ago
  Certainly makes you wonder if Brian Williams being outed had something to do with his interview with Snowden
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    Can you please explain how the military revealing the Brian Williams scandal would have anything to do with Snowden?
danieltillett 10y ago
I know this is a little off-topic, but this is the first time I learned that Snowden worked for the 'Office of Information Sharing'.
jokoon 10y ago
Even if you're against Snowden and defend the NSA, I believe there really was a big miscalculation about how employees would perceive such program if it was badly implemented, and the potential for misuse and mismanagement of those tools. It sounds like immense negligence combined with hawkish cyber warfare ambitions. The first thing that comes into my mind, is the cost/benefit estimation of him leaking those things if I were in his shoes. So far he managed to mitigate the cost done to him, and did something he believed would benefit his country. What I'm curious about is the intelligence costs those leaks generated. Were the documents leaked carefully chosen to limit that damage and still prove those programs were unconstitutional? Or was the damage real?
ufo 10y ago
I got a bit confused about halfway through this long article. Could someone please provide a summary or a link to one? - What instances of Snowden voicing his concerns internally do we now know of? - Which of these are "old news" and which are "fresh news"? - How did the NSA respond to each of these cases that we know of?
- winterismute 10y ago
  Same here, in a way. Seems like he has actually not "reported these clearly problematic programs to more than 10 distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them.", as he stated in front of the EU parliament.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    To be fair to Snowden the evidence we have is just those in emails. If he raised issues in person we don't have any evidence that he didn't.
- en4bz 10y ago
  I read the whole thing and the content of the article certainly doesn't reflect the headline. The only "revelation" in the article is that Snowden followed up on the one email released by the NSA in person and may have discussed some issues there. In particular he was concerned about the content of the training he was taking and where it was accurate.
- okabat 10y ago
  Yeah, I don't see the evidence, unfortunately. Weird article. The lede - NSA released a bunch of documents yesterday - is buried in the final paragraph. Think there's strong evidence their whistleblower protections are lacking. Think it's clear the NSA is trying desperately to damage control the situation. While it's possible Snowden attempted to go through the proper channels (and I'd love to see evidence of this), the documents linked in this article only show him testing the waters. The fact Snowden doesn't want to respond is a pretty good sign this isn't a slam dunk for the anti-spying contingent. "[Snowden] believes the NSA is still playing games with selective releases, and [he] therefore chooses not to participate in this effort," Wizner said. "He doesn't trust that the intelligence community will operate in good faith."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 10y ago
> "We can only crystal ball so much, especially when the protagonist is not bound by facts or the truth." It is fascinating to read internal debates and conversations happening at NSA. A good number those people publicly claim Snowden is lying and fabricating facts. I imagine they have to all think at some superficial level that he is a terrible person, liar, criminal, traitor etc. If they question or doubt that they face their cognitive dissonance -- maybe their workplace is the immoral agency here, maybe they are lying and skirting the law. That is a hard pill to swallow I think. It is easier to just keep lying to yourself overall.
- wrong_variable 10y ago
  'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it' - Upton Sinclair
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
Surely this being HN I will be down-voted terribly for this. But I am not at all convinced that Snowden's account is 100% to be trusted in this. The article in question spends an exceptionally long time examining NSA/DoJ decision making in responding to Snowden's claims that: > . "I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than 10 distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them." The article provides no evidence that this was true. Or that US Officials' rejection of this position was contrary to the facts. In fact a different reporter might argue that the lack of such evidence given the new documentation provided supports the opposite conclusion. > The NSA portrayed it as an innocuous question that elicited a direct response when it released the email in 2014. It may not be an entirely innocuous issue, but it's certainly not equivalent to raising concerns. To suggest the later requires perfect ignorance of how bueracracy works. No one is going to look for 'implicit intent' in you raising a question and escalate it to something more than that. They cc'ed relevant experts to provide an answer and that's really the best you should expect from a large organization. Unless you explicitly report a complaint, nobody is going to go around knocking on the higher ups doors for you. Another point that I would like to raise that hasn't been mentioned is Snowden's account of his career at the CIA. According to him he was quite senior. > In March 2012, Dell reassigned Snowden to Hawaii as lead technologist for the NSA's information-sharing office. [0] In this article we clearly see he signs ( when answering a question about file types) as: > Ed Snowden, System Administrator I'm not bringing these up as a proponent of NSA surveillance, but I do think it is important to be critical in this - and I'm no more convinced of Edward Snowden as a witness than before I started reading this. Particularly I think the article is disingenuously written (Clickbait Title) in following a very lengthy narrative ( to build up suspense? ) without providing much in the way of strong evidence; one expects to finally find it at the end, but curiously finds nothing. If they told me at the start "no emails which would significantly alter the known facts were disclosed" - I could have saved 30 minutes. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/ http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/
- foxhedgehog 10y ago
  good summary
theophrastus 10y ago
The wild conjecture is out there that as one of the final acts of his presidency, Obama will pardon Snowden. Mostly to get this messy matter off the table of the next president. I really don't know where to place the likelihood of this actually happening.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  By the way, I just looked at this a little, it appears like it would be POSSIBLE. Meaning you can pardon someone, like Snowden, before they've even been charged: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... But that being said, I don't think Obama of all people would. He has been more pro surveillance than Bush Jr, was more damaged by Snowden, and had tons of political friends damaged by Snowden. I think people confused the person they wanted Obama to be, and the president Obama has actually been. He is more similar to Bush Jr in these matters than different, and has prosecuted more whistleblowers.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Nixon was pardoned without being charged. I think people confused the person they wanted Obama to be, and the president Obama has actually been. Not confused, disappointed.
- burkaman 10y ago
  How would that take the matter off the table? If Snowden could come back, he could travel around the country doing talks, do interviews, organize protests, etc. If you want people to forget about him, you leave him in Russia and don't put too much effort into bringing him back for a trial.
  - theophrastus 10y ago
    Shall we add more hypotheticals to a hypothetical ;)? Pardons may include stipulations. Suppose this one exacted an agreement that no further germane information ("currently in possession of the putative pardonee") will be made public subject to rescinding said pardon? Presidential pardons are typically treated as sacred by the Justice department no matter their form.
juliangamble 10y ago
Is this article meant to rebut the claims of Clinton et. al. who claim that Snowden could have been an effective whistle-blower? (ie this article is saying he already tried that path and it didn't work) > Cooper turned to Hillary Clinton and asked, “Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?” Clinton, who earlier in the debate had described herself as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” replied, “He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistle-blower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-edward-snowden http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-i...
vessenes 10y ago
That was a very long read, and the journalist did very little work on behalf of the reader when it comes to summarizing. On the other hand, some in-depth context is good at times. One thing that jumps out at me as a new understanding of the situation is a kind of mutually-sympathetic view as to how both parties got to where they were. If you take all the direct statements from both sides as true, then one question is: do we have a plausible story that could have occurred? I'd say so based solely on this article. To me, I am imagining Mr. Snowden who has significant ethical concerns. Or as is suggested in kind of a classic 'newspeak' bit of advice by the NSA 'process' concerns. And, as he digs in a little, he learns: * He has no real protection for whistleblowing, or at least he has even less protection than some other whistleblowers, whose lives are essentially shit. * The training materials are at best outdated, and if you're inclined to be untrusting, teach people they have legal rights which have expired. Presumably he had become well educated on these laws, and so felt upset when he answered the training test per actual active law, and then failed. * There is no real culture of concern for uncovering and fixing these gaps. In addition, the NSA docs say he hadn't been briefed on any methods he could engage with whistleblowing-type concerns. It's also pretty obvious that those concerns would have been quashed. There has never been, to my knowledge, a public NSA statement that his ethics ("process") complaints had merit. So, in that world, he made his choices, and he and we live in the world shaped by the consequences of those choices. On the other side, you have a group of people who felt they were doing the right thing -- good people trying hard in the cause of nationalism and safety -- and just have typical organizational slippage. Nothing nefarious. And they feel targeted by a very junior contractor with a chip on his shoulder. The e-mails are like "Wait, we train them who to call with concerns. .. Um, well we're supposed to, but schedules are tight lately. So he didn't get that training. ... Yeah, so is there a problem with that 702 test? No, that's just someone junior complaining. People who work here know the drill. That's totally immaterial bitching from someone who's salty about failing. Did he actually raise a big stink about these process concerns? Well, I found this one clarification e-mail. Nothing like what he claims. Are there more? I dunno." So, maybe there's some whole internal investigation and response that was triggered that's not being released under this FOIA. But it seems to me like both parties could be telling the truth as they see it, at least up to the point that the PR folks get involved and add spin, there's plenty of spin. But, the fundamentals seem to me to be comprehensible from either side.
karmacondon 10y ago
I don't know what Snowden expected. Was the NSA supposed to cancel its multibillion dollar program because it went against a contractor's interpretation of the Constitution? It seems to me that the system worked. He raised his concerns and they were duly noted. I don't think he presented any new information that the IG wasn't aware of. I understand that the NSA is extremely unpopular here, but their actions had the implicit consent of every branch of the US government. I don't see anything in this lengthy article that makes me think they should have acted any differently than they did. The only person that has veto power is the president. Everyone else has to go through proper channels, and should do so with the expectation that nothing will change.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  All branches of government, generally, at least in western democracies, are subject to the rule of law. The "implicit consent" of anyone does not, or should not at least, come into play.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  He has stated that he expected that the people of the USA, from whom the NSA derives its significant power, would rope it in. And, to some extent, they have continued to fail to do that.
jackgavigan 10y ago
So, having read through that extremely long and largely uninformative article, I'm left with the impression that there's no real story of any substance here. The NSA spent a lot of time and resources trying to find any evidence to support Snowden's claims that he raised concerns about the legality of NSA programs but they couldn't find any, apart from a single email whining about a difficult question in a test he failed which even the most generous of interpretations would struggle to describe as "raising concerns". In other words, the headline is a lie. Ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.
- darkxanthos 10y ago
  Exactly. I'm guessing most didn't fully read the article. What I got out of it was that the NSA was really concerned about being sure they were correct that Snowden didn't in fact officially raise any concerns and that all they could find that was even close to this was a single email about a trick question on a test. One could argue the NSA could be trying to make sure there was no proof rather and that's fine. This article though only finds evidence of a single email. I'd love to see more but this isn't it.
- tehwebguy 10y ago
  > The NSA spent a lot of time and resources trying to find any evidence to support Snowden's claims == "NSA has investigated NSA and has found no wrongdoing." Your mind was already made up, not sure why you bothered reading it.
  - brians 10y ago
    No, this is showing more: all the splashing and churn of a bunch of mid level people really looking.
  - jokermatt999 10y ago
    I came to the same conclusion after reading it, and the entire time I read the article I was hoping for more evidence of the title. I still agree with his actions (especially in light of how previous whistleblowers were treated), but I don't feel like this article delivered what was promised. I'm actually disappointed by that.

342 points by aburan28 10y ago

hackney 10y ago

Apparently your best defense is to lawyer up and flat out sue. Being nice gets you nowhere.

jackweirdy 10y ago
As an outsider looking in, that seems to be good advice for all American life.
- Sarki 10y ago
  I'd say this is valid for anyone, unfortunately...
- ryanlol 10y ago
  Despite it being a common meme, this is hardly an American thing.
- tacone 10y ago
  You can't call yourself an adult until you get a lawyer,

patcon 10y ago

Seems to say a whole lot about the lack of clear process. Despite all the investigative power of those following up, they seemed unable to discover if complaints had actually been raised.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Wow, that was a lot to read. After reading all that, I wonder why Snowden didn't just take his own emails with him, too. He might have overlooked it. Yet, a carbon copy or just stealth copy of any complaints to compliance groups or whatever might be worth remembering for future whistleblowers.

riskable 10y ago
He probably couldn't without raising alarms. As administrator to the SharePoint site he had many means to access (and copy) the files contained therein (from the servers themselves) but to make a big copy of his emails would require very risky operations on his personal workstation. A device that is probably intricately monitored.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Yeah, the stuff was probably extremely hard: http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-113051-Monitor-Splitter/dp/B005H3I38G http://www.amazon.com/Cable-Matters-113051-Monitor-Splitter/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dCIZAXceQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4dCIZAXceQ Really, difficult. ;)
  - woodman 10y ago
    The concern is a plausible cover for action. Your suggested solution would be a little difficult to explain away - especially considering the kind of coworkers you'd have at the NSA. Instead of explaining why you're archiving all your mail, you'd have to explain the cabling, capture card, massive video files...
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      He connected on monitored systems to all kinds of servers under several credentials to steal their files. You think a hidden camera on his chest aimed at his monitor or phone just angled in its direction is too much risk, though?
      - woodman 10y ago
        Yes. There are a lot of rational explanations for why you'd break security protocols, there is no good reason to come into work wearing a wire. Would you rather have to explain a login to IT security, or explain the pinhole camera taped to your chest - after a newly instituted random wanding takes place?

zer00eyz 10y ago

I hadn't really thought about the issue of contractors and whistleblower status in depth till reading this. I would assume that he (Snowden) had to talk to someone about blowing the whistle to know he wasn't covered before he did it. He didn't just pull these facts out of his ass. The question is who did he speak to, and what was the context and color of that conversation.

gcommer 10y ago
Alternatively he could've just read about prior NSA whistleblowers (like Binnie and others) who tried to blow the whistle on many of the same issues more quietly and instead of being able to keep fighting for the Constitution, they got their doors kicked in and silenced by the legal system. Edited to correct smartphone auto-"correct" typos
- zer00eyz 10y ago
  Have a hearty thanks and an upvote for your $0.02, I had not thought of the other whistleblowers as a viable means of figuring this out.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

It is abundantly obvious that the NSA has no interest whatsoever in following the law or offering an avenue for whistleblowers to point out wrongdoing. This well-written and detailed article is just more confirmation. It seems clear that any internal compliance channels purportedly offered as a way to raise concerns about violations of law are worse then just windowdressing - they are more like a honeypot used to sniff out employees who have any regard for law or ethics. >During the course of the interview, standard interview questions were used, but were tailored as needed to follow the flow of the interview. It is also important to note that there were questions included that were meant to uncover whether Mr. Snowden was dissatisfied with the US government. The "standard interview questions" asked when an employee raises a legal concern about the practices of the NSA are used to turn the microscope onto the employee, rather then the legal issue (a practice certainly not lost on employees considering raising an issue). The message here is clear - keep your head down and do what your told, or you will be hammered down like a nail that sticks out from a board. The willingness of the NSA to continue its constant and continuing barrage of lies is troubling and revealing, laying bare the immoral, illegal, and sociopathic tendencies of those employed there.

Shivetya 10y ago
It seems to be a problem across many agencies, this disrespect for the law. The FBI was recently busted again for submitting illegal requests that were ruled such back in 2008.
- alexandercrohde 10y ago
  I'd go a step further and propose it's systemic problem that will occur with any closed powerful agency with a mission (NSA, Anonymous, North Korea): if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. Once you've decided you're The GoodGuy™, anybody who stops you becomes The Enemy™. It's just a matter of time until you're wrong and those trying to stop your error become The Enemy™.
  - ageofwant 10y ago
    There is a simpler and more universal explanation for corporate behaviour, and that is that it wants to continue continuing. Once it exists it will justify its existence as priority one. Of course this becomes problematic for big government institutions with "inherent" power. The only power the people have over these institutions is funding, and the case of the CIA, they have taken care of that existential threat as well.

woodman 10y ago

"An NSA official offered up several options for dealing with NBC News, only one of which was left unredacted..." I understand not wanting to make public internal conversations, but this sort of redaction really sets the imagination down a dark path. Not Gary Webb dark, but HBGary-fabricating-evidence-to-discredit-journalists kind of dark [0]. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html...

aburan28 10y ago
Certainly makes you wonder if Brian Williams being outed had something to do with his interview with Snowden
- wallace_f 10y ago
  Can you please explain how the military revealing the Brian Williams scandal would have anything to do with Snowden?

danieltillett 10y ago

I know this is a little off-topic, but this is the first time I learned that Snowden worked for the 'Office of Information Sharing'.

jokoon 10y ago

Even if you're against Snowden and defend the NSA, I believe there really was a big miscalculation about how employees would perceive such program if it was badly implemented, and the potential for misuse and mismanagement of those tools. It sounds like immense negligence combined with hawkish cyber warfare ambitions. The first thing that comes into my mind, is the cost/benefit estimation of him leaking those things if I were in his shoes. So far he managed to mitigate the cost done to him, and did something he believed would benefit his country. What I'm curious about is the intelligence costs those leaks generated. Were the documents leaked carefully chosen to limit that damage and still prove those programs were unconstitutional? Or was the damage real?

ufo 10y ago

I got a bit confused about halfway through this long article. Could someone please provide a summary or a link to one? - What instances of Snowden voicing his concerns internally do we now know of? - Which of these are "old news" and which are "fresh news"? - How did the NSA respond to each of these cases that we know of?

winterismute 10y ago
Same here, in a way. Seems like he has actually not "reported these clearly problematic programs to more than 10 distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them.", as he stated in front of the EU parliament.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  To be fair to Snowden the evidence we have is just those in emails. If he raised issues in person we don't have any evidence that he didn't.
en4bz 10y ago
I read the whole thing and the content of the article certainly doesn't reflect the headline. The only "revelation" in the article is that Snowden followed up on the one email released by the NSA in person and may have discussed some issues there. In particular he was concerned about the content of the training he was taking and where it was accurate.
okabat 10y ago
Yeah, I don't see the evidence, unfortunately. Weird article. The lede - NSA released a bunch of documents yesterday - is buried in the final paragraph. Think there's strong evidence their whistleblower protections are lacking. Think it's clear the NSA is trying desperately to damage control the situation. While it's possible Snowden attempted to go through the proper channels (and I'd love to see evidence of this), the documents linked in this article only show him testing the waters. The fact Snowden doesn't want to respond is a pretty good sign this isn't a slam dunk for the anti-spying contingent. "[Snowden] believes the NSA is still playing games with selective releases, and [he] therefore chooses not to participate in this effort," Wizner said. "He doesn't trust that the intelligence community will operate in good faith."

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 10y ago

> "We can only crystal ball so much, especially when the protagonist is not bound by facts or the truth." It is fascinating to read internal debates and conversations happening at NSA. A good number those people publicly claim Snowden is lying and fabricating facts. I imagine they have to all think at some superficial level that he is a terrible person, liar, criminal, traitor etc. If they question or doubt that they face their cognitive dissonance -- maybe their workplace is the immoral agency here, maybe they are lying and skirting the law. That is a hard pill to swallow I think. It is easier to just keep lying to yourself overall.

wrong_variable 10y ago
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it' - Upton Sinclair

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

Surely this being HN I will be down-voted terribly for this. But I am not at all convinced that Snowden's account is 100% to be trusted in this. The article in question spends an exceptionally long time examining NSA/DoJ decision making in responding to Snowden's claims that: > . "I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than 10 distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them." The article provides no evidence that this was true. Or that US Officials' rejection of this position was contrary to the facts. In fact a different reporter might argue that the lack of such evidence given the new documentation provided supports the opposite conclusion. > The NSA portrayed it as an innocuous question that elicited a direct response when it released the email in 2014. It may not be an entirely innocuous issue, but it's certainly not equivalent to raising concerns. To suggest the later requires perfect ignorance of how bueracracy works. No one is going to look for 'implicit intent' in you raising a question and escalate it to something more than that. They cc'ed relevant experts to provide an answer and that's really the best you should expect from a large organization. Unless you explicitly report a complaint, nobody is going to go around knocking on the higher ups doors for you. Another point that I would like to raise that hasn't been mentioned is Snowden's account of his career at the CIA. According to him he was quite senior. > In March 2012, Dell reassigned Snowden to Hawaii as lead technologist for the NSA's information-sharing office. [0] In this article we clearly see he signs ( when answering a question about file types) as: > Ed Snowden, System Administrator I'm not bringing these up as a proponent of NSA surveillance, but I do think it is important to be critical in this - and I'm no more convinced of Edward Snowden as a witness than before I started reading this. Particularly I think the article is disingenuously written (Clickbait Title) in following a very lengthy narrative ( to build up suspense? ) without providing much in the way of strong evidence; one expects to finally find it at the end, but curiously finds nothing. If they told me at the start "no emails which would significantly alter the known facts were disclosed" - I could have saved 30 minutes. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/ http://www.wired.com/2014/08/edward-snowden/

foxhedgehog 10y ago
good summary

theophrastus 10y ago

The wild conjecture is out there that as one of the final acts of his presidency, Obama will pardon Snowden. Mostly to get this messy matter off the table of the next president. I really don't know where to place the likelihood of this actually happening.

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
By the way, I just looked at this a little, it appears like it would be POSSIBLE. Meaning you can pardon someone, like Snowden, before they've even been charged: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20... But that being said, I don't think Obama of all people would. He has been more pro surveillance than Bush Jr, was more damaged by Snowden, and had tons of political friends damaged by Snowden. I think people confused the person they wanted Obama to be, and the president Obama has actually been. He is more similar to Bush Jr in these matters than different, and has prosecuted more whistleblowers.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Nixon was pardoned without being charged. I think people confused the person they wanted Obama to be, and the president Obama has actually been. Not confused, disappointed.
burkaman 10y ago
How would that take the matter off the table? If Snowden could come back, he could travel around the country doing talks, do interviews, organize protests, etc. If you want people to forget about him, you leave him in Russia and don't put too much effort into bringing him back for a trial.
- theophrastus 10y ago
  Shall we add more hypotheticals to a hypothetical ;)? Pardons may include stipulations. Suppose this one exacted an agreement that no further germane information ("currently in possession of the putative pardonee") will be made public subject to rescinding said pardon? Presidential pardons are typically treated as sacred by the Justice department no matter their form.

juliangamble 10y ago

Is this article meant to rebut the claims of Clinton et. al. who claim that Snowden could have been an effective whistle-blower? (ie this article is saying he already tried that path and it didn't work) > Cooper turned to Hillary Clinton and asked, “Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?” Clinton, who earlier in the debate had described herself as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” replied, “He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistle-blower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-about-edward-snowden http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-i...

vessenes 10y ago

That was a very long read, and the journalist did very little work on behalf of the reader when it comes to summarizing. On the other hand, some in-depth context is good at times. One thing that jumps out at me as a new understanding of the situation is a kind of mutually-sympathetic view as to how both parties got to where they were. If you take all the direct statements from both sides as true, then one question is: do we have a plausible story that could have occurred? I'd say so based solely on this article. To me, I am imagining Mr. Snowden who has significant ethical concerns. Or as is suggested in kind of a classic 'newspeak' bit of advice by the NSA 'process' concerns. And, as he digs in a little, he learns: * He has no real protection for whistleblowing, or at least he has even less protection than some other whistleblowers, whose lives are essentially shit. * The training materials are at best outdated, and if you're inclined to be untrusting, teach people they have legal rights which have expired. Presumably he had become well educated on these laws, and so felt upset when he answered the training test per actual active law, and then failed. * There is no real culture of concern for uncovering and fixing these gaps. In addition, the NSA docs say he hadn't been briefed on any methods he could engage with whistleblowing-type concerns. It's also pretty obvious that those concerns would have been quashed. There has never been, to my knowledge, a public NSA statement that his ethics ("process") complaints had merit. So, in that world, he made his choices, and he and we live in the world shaped by the consequences of those choices. On the other side, you have a group of people who felt they were doing the right thing -- good people trying hard in the cause of nationalism and safety -- and just have typical organizational slippage. Nothing nefarious. And they feel targeted by a very junior contractor with a chip on his shoulder. The e-mails are like "Wait, we train them who to call with concerns. .. Um, well we're supposed to, but schedules are tight lately. So he didn't get that training. ... Yeah, so is there a problem with that 702 test? No, that's just someone junior complaining. People who work here know the drill. That's totally immaterial bitching from someone who's salty about failing. Did he actually raise a big stink about these process concerns? Well, I found this one clarification e-mail. Nothing like what he claims. Are there more? I dunno." So, maybe there's some whole internal investigation and response that was triggered that's not being released under this FOIA. But it seems to me like both parties could be telling the truth as they see it, at least up to the point that the PR folks get involved and add spin, there's plenty of spin. But, the fundamentals seem to me to be comprehensible from either side.

karmacondon 10y ago

I don't know what Snowden expected. Was the NSA supposed to cancel its multibillion dollar program because it went against a contractor's interpretation of the Constitution? It seems to me that the system worked. He raised his concerns and they were duly noted. I don't think he presented any new information that the IG wasn't aware of. I understand that the NSA is extremely unpopular here, but their actions had the implicit consent of every branch of the US government. I don't see anything in this lengthy article that makes me think they should have acted any differently than they did. The only person that has veto power is the president. Everyone else has to go through proper channels, and should do so with the expectation that nothing will change.

ageofwant 10y ago
All branches of government, generally, at least in western democracies, are subject to the rule of law. The "implicit consent" of anyone does not, or should not at least, come into play.
fit2rule 10y ago
He has stated that he expected that the people of the USA, from whom the NSA derives its significant power, would rope it in. And, to some extent, they have continued to fail to do that.

jackgavigan 10y ago

So, having read through that extremely long and largely uninformative article, I'm left with the impression that there's no real story of any substance here. The NSA spent a lot of time and resources trying to find any evidence to support Snowden's claims that he raised concerns about the legality of NSA programs but they couldn't find any, apart from a single email whining about a difficult question in a test he failed which even the most generous of interpretations would struggle to describe as "raising concerns". In other words, the headline is a lie. Ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.

darkxanthos 10y ago
Exactly. I'm guessing most didn't fully read the article. What I got out of it was that the NSA was really concerned about being sure they were correct that Snowden didn't in fact officially raise any concerns and that all they could find that was even close to this was a single email about a trick question on a test. One could argue the NSA could be trying to make sure there was no proof rather and that's fine. This article though only finds evidence of a single email. I'd love to see more but this isn't it.
tehwebguy 10y ago
> The NSA spent a lot of time and resources trying to find any evidence to support Snowden's claims == "NSA has investigated NSA and has found no wrongdoing." Your mind was already made up, not sure why you bothered reading it.
- brians 10y ago
  No, this is showing more: all the splashing and churn of a bunch of mid level people really looking.
- jokermatt999 10y ago
  I came to the same conclusion after reading it, and the entire time I read the article I was hoping for more evidence of the title. I still agree with his actions (especially in light of how previous whistleblowers were treated), but I don't feel like this article delivered what was promised. I'm actually disappointed by that.