3 ms·
I wonder if NSA really comprehends the breadth of what's going on here. I don't think Snowden was a singularly disgruntled guy who happened to have clearance.
by quesera 13y ago
I wonder if NSA really comprehends the breadth of what's going on here. I don't think Snowden was a singularly disgruntled guy who happened to have clearance.
His former coworkers are going to be smart, American, and patriotic too. Some percentage of that class of people will have strong opinions about being complicit in borderline-Constitutional activities. Snowden was the first to come forward, but do you really think there isn't a significant pool of sympathizers still at NSA considering making a similar move?
Requiring cooperation between two analysts does raise the bar somewhat. But I think NSA would be making a mistake to assume that this is an isolated problem, with a tactical solution. I hope that the next guy (or pair) to come forward is as circumspect as Snowden seems to have been. Thank goodness Bradley Manning didn't work at NSA -- that scenario would have real consequences for the world, instead of the noisy internal (and important and necessary) squabbling we'll be doing for the next several months.
- harryf 13y ago> His former coworkers are going to be smart, American, and patriotic too. So the NSA needs to offshore that work to China in future
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- antimagic 13y agoYeah. The worst of it is the corollary - you need to fire people that are ideologically impure. If people openly start talking about how they consider the Constitution to be an important document that needs to be protected by individual actions, then they can easily find an ally to make up the second person. To make the two person rule effective, you have to eliminate anyone that openly admits that they may very well break the organisation's rules in favour of the Constitution. That will be the NSA's finest hour - firing people for stating that they support the US Constitution...