AMT Hero or traitor ?

polaris_x wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
That is what I am hoping will happen. This practice has been revealed, so now... we are aware of it.
On the flip side... so does the asshole that wants to unleash Anthrax at the food court at a mall and came devise counter measures to avoid exposure.

i find it funny that if you take all the deaths tied to domestic and/or foreign terroism in the US ... heck even abroad ... it wouldn't even come close to the deaths related to cancer or heart disease ... something the US could actually do something about if it really wanted to ...

JimmyV wrote:

Definitely not a hero. Traitor may be too strong a word but may be closer to correct than the other choice.

JimmyV wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Definitely not a hero. Traitor may be too strong a word but may be closer to correct than the other choice.

...
Certainly, a criminal.
By coming out and declaring his guilt, he probably saved his own life. The NSA would have found him and killed him and his death would have just been logged as just another traffic fatality or the victim of random street crime.
Now, if he turns up dead... we will all suspect the NSA behind the murder.

Wow, Cosmo, I had not thought of that. You are probably 100% correct.

Cosmo wrote:

Again, it is not that simple.
Either we use these tools that can help to identify possible risks to our security, including the deaths of people... or we forfeit our liberties that protect us from our own government.
You have to decide which is more important to you, your family and your fellow citizens.
...
Personally, I'm glad he at least made us aware that this is going on. As to stopping our government from carrying on these operations... it may be a necessary means to prevent tragedies. I don't like it... but, i understand why it is being done.

Shawshank wrote:

I see this guy as 100% hero! Our world is freaking nuts these days, and I have no doubt that whatever this guy knows, is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

Based on his credentials this guy probably has a similar degree as myself, because his resume reads almost exactly what the CIA was recruiting for back when I graduated in 2000. They looked for individuals studying to obtain degrees in Electronics Engineering especially. They actually came (yes, real agents from Langley) and interviewed the top 10% in the class, each year. They gave you a written test which was very specific and fairly challenging, but I still did well on it. Then they talked vaguely about what you would be doing and what you would be in charge of. They talked about how great it was, and that you would be living in areas where your salary would buy you a beautiful multi-story house with some land, and you would be able to have a full-time maid, nanny, and people would maintain your property for you...I guess like servants? I mean really out there stuff. If you wanted to accept their offer then the monumental application process begins and they do a stringent background check on you. I had friends of mine say it was like "This Is Your Life" because they had talked to people they hadn't seen or communicated with in 10+ years.

During the interview it doesn't take long to figure out that the telecommunications officers and system administrators are essentially "disposable employees". This is why I believe Snowden knew he would save his life by coming forward publicly. What I mean is, something can happen to you...an "accident" for example, and you'll never be tied to any agency. So while you're working for the CIA or NSA, your paycheck actually shows that you work for...say...Microsoft...or GE...or maybe some defense contractor, something like that. This is the first thing that raised a red flag for me, and the instant they mentioned it I knew there was no way in hell I was working for them. They say they do it to protect you, and I can see that argument as well. If you have a couple of brain cells when they are talking to you and get past the hype and the cool factor, it actually starts to set off quite a few alarms.

For my position they actually tell you that you will be funneling all of the information the agency receives for a specific region. This means you and a co-worker or two have access to EVERYTHING. You know who is being monitored, what is being said, what is on the horizon, etc. They tell you that you actually will know more about what is going on than the agents themselves. Each agent on the ground will have access only to his intel. He submits his intel. Another agent does the same thing. So each agent has a piece of the puzzle. You then receive that information and then forward it to Langley. So you get information from each and every agent for that region. It is crazy how much you would be exposed to. I had a wife and kids, so there was no way I was doing this. I sat in for the interview because I thought it was fascinating, and really just to see if I would even get an offer. I did, but I had to respectfully decline.

Go Beavers wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Again, it is not that simple.
Either we use these tools that can help to identify possible risks to our security, including the deaths of people... or we forfeit our liberties that protect us from our own government.
You have to decide which is more important to you, your family and your fellow citizens.
...
Personally, I'm glad he at least made us aware that this is going on. As to stopping our government from carrying on these operations... it may be a necessary means to prevent tragedies. I don't like it... but, i understand why it is being done.

After 9/11 we were told that the Patriot Act needed to be put in place in order to stop it from happening again, and people bought it. I don't buy it, because what we had in place prior to 9/11 was sufficient to stop it from happening.

Maybe I'm not grasping the enormity of the leak, but on a smaller scale, isn't it the equivalent of letting people know that there's a cop ahead popping drivers with his radar gun? We knew what was in the Patriot Act, now this guy is letting us know some of the specifics.