Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Edward Snowden - How did this man get to where he is? Not an ideal Canadidate

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: Bilk22

Okay, I'll bite and I'm curious... What exactly do you mean by fabrication? The SVR creating him to mole in and then come back with a goodie bag, or our side made him as a disinfo double, or both working together to use the 'Snowden brand' to snow the public on whatever comes up?

If you mean the latter...It sure isn't lost on me that Snowden is the little Da Nang dive shack or St Louis Records fire of leakage potential for anything that may be important enough to shovel out that way. It comes with a near perfect credibility a segment of the world will accept, site unseen. It's like a golden transmission line for propaganda while it lasts, if that could be what it's all about.

It would be a clever move to actually counter Manning's damage in some ways that make it look like it compliments it, if Snowden remained loyal to his employers on this. (Pretty spy novel on that tho.. I admit)
Yes I think Snowden was a plant by the current administration. It serves many purposes. Most of which you hit on. It also achieves what I said earlier - that it was the way to move people toward accepting the surveillance state. They couldn't come out and say this is how it's going to be from now on. That would have sent even the most oblivious into a frenzy. But doing it this way, it causes a chaotic reaction where people don't know what they support - some see it as treason by Snowden, some see it as patriotic, further some see the data collecting as necessary for national security and others see it as overreaching. You can read it in posts. Some think Snowden is a traitor, but do not support the data collecting. There's no unified response. If it were just announced that "we're taking your privacy away", most everyone would agree they don't want that. Now Snowden and what he did is the issue and spying and data gathering on everyone is the sidebar. Heck what are we discussing here? Snowden and not the overreach by the feds.




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
I think people are giving the CIA/NSA too much credit. To be fair, there are some very smart people there, but like in any job most of the employees are average or worse.

You don't need to be a genius to know how to use these tools, you don't even have to be a genius to know how to make them. Anyone with an 11th grade education in math, 6 months education in programming/databases, and a handful of reference materials has the proper knowledge to make the spy software that is being used (though maybe you need some creativity to figure out how to use that knowledge). The hardest part is getting hardware access and the government can provide that.

Snowden had a semi technical background and could have arguably self taught anything else he needed to know. Getting hired on and then getting the government preferential treatment to promote from within explains how he got the CIA position. Booz Allen sees his resume and hires him for quite a bit of money. It's not the first time someone has been overpaid relative to their experience and it sure won't be the last.

Everything he said should worry you, not because of the shadow government but because if he had access to it, how many other perfectly average people also have this type of access, and what can they do with it? That was part of his entire point. He's not special. Neither are the other people who use this software. That holds true for the person at NSA who is spying on you and the person at your ISP who is spying on you.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
I think people are giving the CIA/NSA too much credit. To be fair, there are some very smart people there, but like in any job most of the employees are average or worse.


I agree with you on this and this is a pretty big reason why I have a problem with the "Snowden was head hunted" line of reasoning that some people take. There was no reason to headhunt Snowden, or any other IT guy.


originally posted by: AazadanSnowden had a semi technical background and could have arguably self taught anything else he needed to know. Getting hired on and then getting the government preferential treatment to promote from within explains how he got the CIA position.


I normally would agree with you but not in this case. The CIA, and by that I mean the intelligence element of the CIA and not the part that handles general hiring for non-intelligence related activity, is exempt from preferential treatment of any kind so Snowden's position as a security guard for them would have given him no preferential treatment, it would have been based solely on his qualifications and he didn't even come close to what they say they prefer.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Goteborg
I normally would agree with you but not in this case. The CIA, and by that I mean the intelligence element of the CIA and not the part that handles general hiring for non-intelligence related activity, is exempt from preferential treatment of any kind so Snowden's position as a security guard for them would have given him no preferential treatment, it would have been based solely on his qualifications and he didn't even come close to what they say they prefer.


If nothing else he would have seen the internal job posting and been able to apply. I don't know how accurate the no preferential treatment line is, but lets say he gets enough preference that his application is taken and he's given a test to see if he has the skills. Then lets say he passes the test. That opportunity to prove he had the skills may have been all he needed, as a random person his poor resume and education background wouldn't have gotten him the test, but as a government employee it did.

Something as simple as that could explain it all. Sometimes just having that connection to be able to take the skill test is all you need.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
If nothing else he would have seen the internal job posting and been able to apply.


I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he had applied, but that's a far cry from being hired.


originally posted by: Aazadan I don't know how accurate the no preferential treatment line is, but lets say he gets enough preference that his application is taken and he's given a test to see if he has the skills.


The no preferential treatment line is accurate:

fedshirevets.gov...

Not only is the CIA exempt but so is the postal service which surprised me because you'd think they would be all about EEOC.

The test you mention, whatever that may be, is where I really start to question the stories about Snowden. His "military training" was red flag number one for me but this is number two. When CIA positions open up they are extremely competitive because CIA jobs are pretty good jobs and from what we've been told about Snowden he wouldn't have been anywhere near the cream of the crop so why would the CIA waste their time with Snowden? The background story relies on Snowden being shown some sort of preference but there was no preference so barring some other compelling reason for the CIA to waste their time with him I have an extremely difficult time believing the story we've been fed about Snowden.


originally posted by: Aazadan Then lets say he passes the test. That opportunity to prove he had the skills may have been all he needed, as a random person his poor resume and education background wouldn't have gotten him the test, but as a government employee it did.



The skills are secondary. Obviously you have to have the skills to do whatever job you want to apply for but the CIA is looking for well educated people with experience who can gain a security clearance. The skills alone mean nothing so Snowden needed a lot more than the opportunity to prove he could work in IT.


originally posted by: AazadanSomething as simple as that could explain it all. Sometimes just having that connection to be able to take the skill test is all you need.


Already commented on. I understand where you're coming from here and I think you're probably closer to the truth than some people are, I too like to look for simple explanations because they're usually true. The problem with Snowden's backstory and in particular his alleged entrance into the CIA is that I think there are far too many "what-ifs" involved.

Snowden had to have been cleared at one point in order to work for BAH, the question is where and when? There's a defense contractor near me, you need a security clearance just to work as a janitor in that place. Gaining a clearance working for a contractor seems far more plausible to me than the story we've been told about Snowden and his background with intelligence agencies because according to the story Snowden wasn't an intelligence operative, he was an IT guy.

None of this really matters anyway. Assume for a second that everything we've been told about Snowden's background is true, it still doesn't explain how he did what he did. Edward Snowden described himself as having root access to the NSA network. Think about that. That means that Snowden had to have been cleared and granted access to every code word the government uses in order to classify intelligence and I don't believe that.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Goteborg
None of this really matters anyway. Assume for a second that everything we've been told about Snowden's background is true, it still doesn't explain how he did what he did. Edward Snowden described himself as having root access to the NSA network. Think about that. That means that Snowden had to have been cleared and granted access to every code word the government uses in order to classify intelligence and I don't believe that.


That's the part I find most believable actually. People do a lot of stupid things with technology, I know for a fact that private companies follow similar procedures. In the IT world it's usually one rule for them (access to everything, little if any monitors) and one rule for everyone else (everyone is locked down, everything is tracked). I don't see why something that is standard practice in the private sector would suddenly change, when most employees in those positions come from the private sector. Most members of management don't really understand technology so when those in IT say it's taken care of, that's good enough for them.

As for the security in place that let Snowden smuggle things out, it's true that they clamped down after Manning but again, the IT crowd has their own special set of rules.





new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution