3 ms·

This comes across as a lot of nonsense. There is little here to support the rather outrageous claims. The whole "Ed" thing is typical of folks of a certain poli

This comes across as a lot of nonsense. There is little here to support the rather outrageous claims. The whole "Ed" thing is typical of folks of a certain political bent who think diminishing a person through disrespectul over-familiarity helps their argument (think folks who constantly throw "Barry" into discussions referencing the President). If there were ANY evidence Snowden was a Russian agent the US authorities would be leading with that for the simple reason it would rapidly undermine any popular support for him.

mullingitover 13y ago
That's the thing I've been wondering about--either Snowden was a full-blown spy with lots of outside help, or he hacked his data out of the NSA on his own, with no formal spy training (and it wasn't as easy as downloading some files, either), which is ridiculously embarrassing for the NSA. The fact that they haven't branded him as a foreign agent immediately is telling. The author in this article seems like he's being deliberately obtuse-- "Putin today called Ed “a strange guy” – whose main purpose is causing pain and suffering to Washington, DC. Which, let it be said, he has done rather well, thanks to the propaganda offensive waged by Greenwald, Poitras, and their helpers in several countries, with Ed’s purloined information, and who have masked their radical activism under the (thin) guise of post-modern journalism." Right, because there's nothing at all problematic with the programs that Snowden revealed, and anyone who has a major problem with them is clearly a 'radical activist.' I think we've found a great example of the type of mindset that led to these programs being created in the first place.
- richardjordan 13y ago
  Sysadmins have lots of access into systems. Governments routinely favor security theater over actual mechanisms to secure things. The US government has a strong cultural bias towards having outside contractors rather tha employees on the government payroll (partly due to the ideological bent of the major political parties and partly due to lobbying by contractors). These things make it more than plausible that contract sysadmins had far too highly elevated access into far too wide-ranging sets of systems. No spying needed.

mullingitover 13y ago

That's the thing I've been wondering about--either Snowden was a full-blown spy with lots of outside help, or he hacked his data out of the NSA on his own, with no formal spy training (and it wasn't as easy as downloading some files, either), which is ridiculously embarrassing for the NSA. The fact that they haven't branded him as a foreign agent immediately is telling. The author in this article seems like he's being deliberately obtuse-- "Putin today called Ed “a strange guy” – whose main purpose is causing pain and suffering to Washington, DC. Which, let it be said, he has done rather well, thanks to the propaganda offensive waged by Greenwald, Poitras, and their helpers in several countries, with Ed’s purloined information, and who have masked their radical activism under the (thin) guise of post-modern journalism." Right, because there's nothing at all problematic with the programs that Snowden revealed, and anyone who has a major problem with them is clearly a 'radical activist.' I think we've found a great example of the type of mindset that led to these programs being created in the first place.

richardjordan 13y ago
Sysadmins have lots of access into systems. Governments routinely favor security theater over actual mechanisms to secure things. The US government has a strong cultural bias towards having outside contractors rather tha employees on the government payroll (partly due to the ideological bent of the major political parties and partly due to lobbying by contractors). These things make it more than plausible that contract sysadmins had far too highly elevated access into far too wide-ranging sets of systems. No spying needed.