5 ms·

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. Th

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.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Similar to other replies: my mind was already made up the other direction, and the article's very thin findings are making me question that.
itsdrewmiller 10y ago
I quit mid-article when it was obvious there wasn't a big story here and I asked myself how much I care whether he exhausted his internal options before going public. (Turns out I don't.)

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.
sanderjd 10y ago
Similar to other replies: my mind was already made up the other direction, and the article's very thin findings are making me question that.

itsdrewmiller 10y ago

I quit mid-article when it was obvious there wasn't a big story here and I asked myself how much I care whether he exhausted his internal options before going public. (Turns out I don't.)