3 ms·

I didn't follow the Snowden story because I don't have the background to evaluate the claims, but there is something I recall that hasn't been discussed yet. S

by wrp 3y ago

I didn't follow the Snowden story because I don't have the background to evaluate the claims, but there is something I recall that hasn't been discussed yet. Snowden was apparently fairly active as a protester against government surveillance before he got his gig as an NSA contractor. It seems he originally pursued the job with the intention of finding information to leak. If this is true, then a large part of the story should be how it shows the incompetence of the government in doing security checks.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>Snowden was apparently fairly active as a protester against government surveillance before he got his gig as an NSA contractor. This is a bastardized version of events. Snowden had a number of jobs that required high level clearance from 2006-2013. He supposedly took the final Booz Allen Hamilton job because it had a great deal of access to data, but he had long since passed the security checks necessary to get the job. You can argue that there should be more checks done upon switching jobs, or that people with clearance should face more periodic checks to their current status, but there was no real reason for Snowden to fail the security checks.
- wrp 3y ago
  So, was Snowden a visibly active protester against government surveillance before getting the job? If so, did the government fail to notice or did they notice and not care? How extreme should such activity be before it become a "real reason for Snowden to fail the security checks"?
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    First, you're missing the point. Snowden passed his security checks in 2006, when no one considers him anti-surveillance. That's why he had no real reason to fail any checks. Second, some coworkers afterward the leaks said they thought Snowden had started to act disgruntled towards the industry, but he was never a "visibly active protester against government surveillance." He was an active cog in government surveillance from ~2006 til 2013. You're kind of right that he seemingly only took the Booz Allen Hamilton job to get access to data, but every other detail you're way off on.

by wrp 3y ago

boomboomsubban 3y ago

>Snowden was apparently fairly active as a protester against government surveillance before he got his gig as an NSA contractor. This is a bastardized version of events. Snowden had a number of jobs that required high level clearance from 2006-2013. He supposedly took the final Booz Allen Hamilton job because it had a great deal of access to data, but he had long since passed the security checks necessary to get the job. You can argue that there should be more checks done upon switching jobs, or that people with clearance should face more periodic checks to their current status, but there was no real reason for Snowden to fail the security checks.

wrp 3y ago
So, was Snowden a visibly active protester against government surveillance before getting the job? If so, did the government fail to notice or did they notice and not care? How extreme should such activity be before it become a "real reason for Snowden to fail the security checks"?
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  First, you're missing the point. Snowden passed his security checks in 2006, when no one considers him anti-surveillance. That's why he had no real reason to fail any checks. Second, some coworkers afterward the leaks said they thought Snowden had started to act disgruntled towards the industry, but he was never a "visibly active protester against government surveillance." He was an active cog in government surveillance from ~2006 til 2013. You're kind of right that he seemingly only took the Booz Allen Hamilton job to get access to data, but every other detail you're way off on.