top | item 5851516

If the NSA Trusted Edward Snowden With Our Data, Why Should We Trust the NSA?

232 points| reaganing | 12 years ago |slate.com | reply

77 comments

order
[+] ritchiea|12 years ago|reply
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's how he got to where he was, but it could also be that the government is terrible at hiring and granting security clearance and there are a lot of terrible individuals with access to secrets & sensitive data and Snowden just happened to be a standout.
[+] known_unknowns|12 years ago|reply
The security clearance process basically looks for reasonable, honest Americans free of foreign influence.

If government actors are abusing their power to such an extent that reasonable, honest Americans free of foreign influence feel morally obligated to blow the whistle, then there are going to be more leaks.

It's not a flaw in the system; It's a safeguard against corruption and abuse of the system.

[+] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
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.

[+] gkoberger|12 years ago|reply
I don't think Slate is trying to crucify Edward Snowden. I think it was more "If a high school dropout with basic computer skills can win this contract, imagine what a talented hacker with malicious intentions could do", and just happened to attack Snowden a bit too much.
[+] obstacle1|12 years ago|reply
Even Slate admits, though, that they have no idea what level his computer skills are at or how good a fit he was for the job:

>Yes, he could be a computing savant anyway—many well-known techies dropped out of school

They're basically bemoaning his lack of official credentials.

[+] jongraehl|12 years ago|reply
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 joke.

[+] saosebastiao|12 years ago|reply
This was the revulsion I felt as I read this as well. I used to be a truck driver. I am no longer a truck driver. Absolutely nothing about where I was says anything about who I am, how qualified I am to be who I am, nor where I am going. Lets not forget a previous owner of Slate, MSN...founded by the richest college dropout in the world.
[+] Terretta|12 years ago|reply
The janitor making good, solving the famous math conjecture on the blackboard, is a Hollywood trope. Not sure why Slate is so adamant that the guy's story is a disqualifier.

We don't know his story yet but this much is certain: he is by definition an exceptional individual.

[+] mahyarm|12 years ago|reply
Most Americans probably worked some minimum wage job at a food or retail establishment too as their first job too. I don't know where the shock comes from.
[+] krakensden|12 years ago|reply
Note the author- essentially everything he writes is like this.
[+] SeanDav|12 years ago|reply
So now lack of a degree means you cannot be trusted with sensitive data - wtf?

I understand the guy is emphasizing these things to make his point but still, wtf.

What about his morals? What about his courage? I would most definitely trust my data to a guy that was and is prepared to go to jail for his beliefs that my data should be treated with respect and within the law.

[+] untog|12 years ago|reply
What about his morals? What about his courage?

I don't think the NSA would be using the same words you are.

The more legitimate point is that he was a contractor- just how much clearance do contractors get? That seems like the bigger worry to me.

[+] malandrew|12 years ago|reply
I expect this from some news sources such as CNN, but not from Slate and definitely not from Farhad Manjoo.

Why can't we celebrate him for having the moral character to have done the right thing instead of assault his character.

A college dropout that did the right thing by whistleblowing is 1000x better to have in this World than an MIT, Stanford or Harvard graduate who is working at the NSA or CIA being enabling or at least complicit in programs.

[+] thret|12 years ago|reply
I wouldn't be surprised if the #1 criteria for NSA grunt employees is patriotism. If he's prepared to sacrifice everything for his country than he seems to be the perfect candidate to me.
[+] rdtsc|12 years ago|reply
It is for CIA at least. Their tactic is that "we can teach you technical stuff in class after we hire you, we can't teach you patriotism if you already aren't". They like to hire ex-Marines. Someone was saying they also like to hire Mormons.

The kink is that many patriots do actually understand and love the Constitution and if forced to routinely go against it in their line of works, a few will pull a Manning. That is expected. They can't have it both ways.

[+] adventured|12 years ago|reply
And so it begins, the assault on Snowden, his character, his qualifications, etc.
[+] gridmaths|12 years ago|reply
Indeed.. and this guy will be crucified, for basically doing the right thing.

Such is the projection of American military power that his credit card and bank account will already be locked down, on grounds that he is a 'terrorist', regardless of which country he flees to.

[+] gyardley|12 years ago|reply
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.

[+] mikejholly|12 years ago|reply
I'm not sure that the author understands what a sysadmin is. Even a junior sysadmin could cripple most services based on their level of access.
[+] MaulingMonkey|12 years ago|reply
More security conscientious setups use things like automatic password vaults requiring multiple admins to access. Sysadmin also doesn't mean defacto data access without forcing them to patch the software maliciously (you don't want your admins accidentally or intentionally accessing data covered under HIPAA!)

Which isn't to say you're incorrect when you say how much damage a junior sysadmin could do in most places. It is to say that there are options that make this kind of thing a lot harder, to limit the scope and damage rogue admins can cause, and to raise the bar in terms of knowledge required. One would hope the NSA would be employing some of them.

[+] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
Has the destroying of his credibility already started? What's next? An uncovered rape case from his past?
[+] gridmaths|12 years ago|reply
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?

[+] freepipi|12 years ago|reply
Is it really harmful if government get your call and email?
[+] Zak|12 years ago|reply
http://paulgraham.com/credentials.html

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.

[+] randomfool|12 years ago|reply
He comes off as a fairly intelligent person in the interview.

The tech community should be the most understanding when it comes to overlooked people who kick ass on the job. Too many tech companies today are focusing on university names, this isn't the way it always was.

Is being nice to Edward Snowden considered aiding a terrorist? The NSA probably just fired off a warrant for the rest of my communications.

[+] brady747|12 years ago|reply
'If Slate trusts Farhad Manjoo with their Op/Ed writing and critical thinking, why should we trust Slate with their journalism?'

//insert crappy article

I mean, why should we give interviews at all? Obviously someone's resume and a class they didn't complete is all we need to know about them.

[+] georgemcbay|12 years ago|reply
Not a big fan of the reasons we are supposedly not supposed to trust Snowden specifically, but the question remains a powerful one in the sense that if you can't ensure that the data and systems you're using for something this powerful can remain secure from the actions of any single person, then you have a huge problem.

I've worked at companies where the secrets behind our app signing key are held to a higher standard than being entrusted to the care of any single entity. Even ignoring how you feel about whether the PRISM system is good or bad, shouldn't we expect the NSA to have better security policies, given the huge scope of abuse these systems could allow?

[+] mpyne|12 years ago|reply
I didn't get the impression that Snowden actually has access to PRISM itself. If all he's doing is IT support then it could be as simple as that he ran across the "management briefing" for it on the share drive without ever having access to the system itself. Certainly I would hope that NSA is not dumb enough to farm out credentialing for a system like PRISM to one of their contractors, but who knows?
[+] tzs|12 years ago|reply
> He was accorded the NSA’s top security clearance, which allowed him to see and to download the agency’s most sensitive documents.

Document control works on two dimensions: clearance level and need to know. You need to both have the requisite clearance level and a need to know to be approved for access to a given document. Having a top clearance doesn't mean you get to freely look at whatever you want, although the press and general public seems to think it does.

[+] dnautics|12 years ago|reply
EXACTLY.

Not just this guy, but a contracting firm (BAH) in general? How did they get that bid?

[+] lawnchair_larry|12 years ago|reply
There's a reason that over 900,000 security clearances are processed every year. The "defense" contracting industry is booming.

FYI, CISPA is specifically for an NSA program intended to expand collection and give immunity to everyone. The lobbying for it as well as the politicans who proposed it, are heavily funded by these defense contractors.

[+] gridmaths|12 years ago|reply
Follow the Money.

This is a big part of the problem, the massive .mil budgets go to commercial contractors, who in turn support party candidates by donation. Its an incestuous positive feedback loop.

see Lessigs video talk on "LesterLand".

[+] dpeck|12 years ago|reply
employees of BAH and other companies like them run the day to day operations of a very significant portion of the government and have for quite some time.
[+] mehmehshoe|12 years ago|reply
Agreed. Why isn't anyone talking about the contractor?
[+] codex|12 years ago|reply
Having access to a PowerPoint about a system ("metadata") is not exactly the same as having access to the data itself.
[+] BCM43|12 years ago|reply
Listen to the interview with him, he says he had access to the data.
[+] ccarter84|12 years ago|reply
But...but they're helping us secure our home networks!

"The Information Assurance Directorate (IAD) at NSA recently released a new technical guide entitled Best Practices for Securing a Home Network." - http://www.nsa.gov/ia/index.shtml

[+] mehmehshoe|12 years ago|reply
ok...I will bite. TOR power initiate...7 proxies now!
[+] soup10|12 years ago|reply
The very fact that Edward has the integrity to risk his life in the name of public interest means that he's exactly the kind of person the NSA should be trusting with our data. It's probably his combination of integrity and competence that let him get the access he did in the first place.
[+] burnstek|12 years ago|reply
In my university, we had a computer security program where computer scientists were heavily recruited to work for the DoD for a few years in exchange for a scholarship. One of the students I knew who ended up at the NSA was a standout, but the many others I knew were of average intellect and in many cases were below average computer scientists. These are not the level of people you want involved in mass surveillance programs.

What matters most to the NSA is your ability to pass a polygraph - not your engineering skills.