41–50 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it really harmful if government get your call and email?
If you don't have anything to hide... oh, why was the government doing it secretly?
Wrong Question. A better Question is : If the Government trusted the NSA with our every phone call and email, why should we trust the Government?
Is it really harmful if government get your call and email?
However, you don't know and can't predict how the government will change in the future. Data collected today is data that can be abused tomorrow.
And so it begins, the assault on Snowden, his character, his qualifications, etc.
It's perfectly possible for Snowden to have done what he did and still have negative qualities - for example, by going public he's making the entire conversation about him instead of the programs he leaked.
All of the comments taking umbrage that the article isn't celebrating Snowden's character are missing the point. While it is entirely possible that he was qualified or even overqualified for the position he had at Booz Allen Hamilton, nothing in his resume suggests that which raises the question who else has access to sensitive data and secrets? The answer could be that Snowden was an exceptional individual and that'…
As I understand it security clearance screening is done by blacklisting, not whitelisting. That's what would make sense for a nation with due process, but it does lead to increased risk of leaks from people with no obvious red flags that come up during the background check or in-person interviews.
Generally IMO the security clearance process is not up to the task in a world with more than one threat. It worked ok against USSR when we largely could use full spectrum of information AND could assume most people without black marks were anti-USSR (due to existential threat from nuclear weapons and essentially an undeclared state of war).
Doesn't work so well now when 1) IC really had no mission in the 1990s and 2) IC today is grossly oversized and overresourced for the anti-Islamism mission. The "anti-China, anti-Russia" stuff is much more like a real peacetime intelligence service, i.e. the <<500 people we had before WW2.
It seems unlikely Snowden was in a high-paid and important position without having demonstrated some kind of aptitude. I have the impression he was highly skilled.
The author is full of stupid snark. Clearly Snowden is an exceptional individual; learning that he used to be a janitor, or whatever, shouldn't cause us to throw away all the evidence we have about him and double-take "they promoted a janitor ?". Perhaps the quality of his work matched his obviously high character, regardless of his initial lack of formal credential. This is IT we're talking about - classes are a jok…
And so it begins, the assault on Snowden, his character, his qualifications, etc.
Sure, simultaneously with his canonization. It's perfectly possible for Snowden to have done what he did and still have negative qualities - for example, by going public he's making the entire conversation about him instead of the programs he leaked.
By going public, he's also encouraging others to do the same. Even if it's just the smallest amount, it matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, simultaneously with his canonization. It's perfectly possible for Snowden to have done what he did and still have negative qualities - for example, by going public he's making the entire conversation about him instead of the programs he leaked.
He had no choice but to go public. His only shot at not being disappeared, killed, tortured, etc was to go public. By going public, he's also encouraging others to do the same. Even if it's just the smallest amount, it matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it security clearance screening is done by blacklisting, not whitelisting. That's what would make sense for a nation with due process, but it does lead to increased risk of leaks from people with no obvious red flags that come up during the background check or in-person interviews.
Even "better", there are things which are highly correlated with "likely to be a security problem" which are NOT allowed to be included, or which get adjudicated away. Generally IMO the security clearance process is not up to the task in a world with more than one threat. It worked ok against USSR when we largely could use full spectrum of information AND could assume most people without black marks were anti-USSR (d…