The NSA: An Inside View

I see a lot of negativity in this thread, but I think a lot of folks should stop for just a moment and consider the opportunity that's presenting itself: a former employee of the NSA is posting online about his experience and is an active member of HN. He doesn't appear to be in a position where his continued employment with the government would be an issue (he's apparently got his own business), so he doesn't have to worry about talking frankly about his experience, positive or negative (although I'd image that he's still under obligation not to reveal anything classified).

Just about everything we've seen about the insides of the NSA have come from only one source. Snowden was only employed there for 3 months, and has publicly stated that his primary reason for seeking employment there was specifically to gather information on NSA surveillance systems[1] - in order words, his opinions on the NSA were solidified before he joined. To top it off, Snowden is not available for interview.

I'm not even saying you're required to believe him. I do, however, think an insider's perspective has been sadly lacking from most of the conversation that's been going on. I don't expect journalists to have a complete understanding of all of the details regarding these programs and systems that have been leaked - they've never worked with them.

So, lorendsr, thank you for your contribution. Don't let the flat out negative comments get to you. I hope your post encourages others with a background in the NSA to share what parts of their experience that they can. Everyone else, please take advantage of this opportunity to ask questions, gain any insight that you can and don't just dismiss him outright.

I'm not an American. So what you say does not apply to me, correct?

What about Americans who are 2, 3 or 4 degrees removed from suspected foreign agents?

Does 'looking' include automated processes that scan for, for lack of a better word, suspicious behavior?

Come on, "left hand isn't aware what the right is doing" isn't just plausible, it's standard practice at any organization larger than a dozen or so people.

He never claimed to have more than anecdotal evidence regarding the NSA. He never asked to be taken more seriously than, as you so derisively put it, a well-placed secretary (actually, I suspect a secretary would have a much better high-level picture of what was going on, but I don't think you intended an actual comparison).

I'd like to thank him for adding his perspective to the discussion. Even though I'll be keeping my opinion, it is good to know that in some (most?) parts of the NSA, the culture of taking jurisdiction seriously still pervades. It could be a lot worse, and absent this admittedly anecdotal evidence it's difficult to know what to believe.

Or they could just lie.