CIA Warned About Snowden Trying To Get Into Computers He Wasn't Authorized On Back In 2009 [Update: Or Not]
from the checks-and-balances dept
Update: And, of course, now the NY Times is walking back this story as the CIA has directly denied it:Asked repeatedly for comment over the past several weeks, most recently on Thursday, the C.I.A. declined. But on Friday, the C.I.A. responded with a statement, the first public acknowledgment that Mr. Snowden had worked for the agency.This contradicts what the NY Times had reported on Friday -- and while it appears someone is not being particularly honest, we'll take back the story as well. Original below -- but crossed out.
“The C.I.A did not file any report on Snowden indicating that it suspected he was trying to break into classified computer files to which he did not have authorized access while he was employed at the C.I.A., nor was he returned home from an overseas assignment because of such concerns,” Todd Ebitz, an agency spokesman, said in the statement.
What's interesting about this is that it at least suggests that Snowden has been considering all of this for quite a long time. Back in June, he had told Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras that his time in the CIA "disillusioned" him, and a colleague of his in Geneva apparently said recently that Snowden "was already experiencing a crisis of conscience of sorts" when she knew him back then. This seems interesting on a variety of levels, as it further highlights that Snowden didn't take the decision he made to be a whistleblower lightly. Plus, he had a long time to think things through, which supports the claims that Barton Gellman recently made, concerning Snowden's larger view of what he was doing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: background checks, cia, ed snowden, nsa, security
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fishy
They go on to say that only "major rule-based infractions" result in suspension of a clearance. If this isn't one of those, I don't know what is.
Really, if it's serious enough to suspend somebody from their post over, it surely is serious enough to warrant revoking their clearance too.
I'm not bashing Snowden, I'm just puzzled about this story and how either the government is completely inept if this is how they operate or they're grasping at straws to cover their asses by trying to make this story more of a failure of the system rather than their own incompetence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me just agree and say this has been manufactured by the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BS
On the other hand - it must be true, since it's CIA who's saying it. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Updated
two senior American officials with direct knowledge of the episode who spoke on the condition of anonymity"
I mean that's rock solid right !!!!!
IF you are caught or even suspected of being a security break or risk YOU DONT CONTINUE to work in that field !!!
Not even a "Senior GOVERMENT official" NO..
Senior AMERICAN Official, now what could that possibly include ?? The person in charge of the local post office ?
When you hear "Senior AMERICAN Officials" who want anonymity and you don't start to ask questions Mr Masnick ?
Why not retract the headline as well Mr Masnick now you know it's no true ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
except in the minds of "two AMERICAN 'officials' !!!
They probably do not think it's important, because they KNOW it's not true, does not even make sense !!
People suspected of security breaches who have a clearance, LOSE THEIR clearance, they do not just go to work for another security company or department.
But let's not let facts spoil a good story !!!
Even seen a business card that says for his title "Senior AMERICAN OFFICAL" ?
Does anyone here know what the term means ???
"Senior American official" ??
Yes, the CIA deal with information, REAL information, not just made up shit.
Again, this is about Snowden, what about the leaks, what of the leaks, are they continuing ? Why no debate about the leaks again ? It seems just more noise to cover any real story that might be 'out there' just a Google search away.
It heartening to see some other readers being critical and looking at real facts and questioning the truth as proclaimed here on TD.
It's the risk you take if you are unwilling to write and research anything yourself, you leave that job up to reporters and writers, when you get your information from Google search you would expect to get crap.
Perhaps you need to find some of your own "Official American Officials" to dig up some tech dirt for you.. instead of being reliant on 'real' news and real reporters.
You either take the risk of being always wrong, or do your own research, this time you got burnt. But because of your method you can just blame your source on bad reporting, but I would have hoped you were a bit more savvy than that.
Again, quantity over quality, when you could have both!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conflicted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conflicted
q. Mr Masnick when did you stop beating your wife ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conflicted
Anyone can ask pointed questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
denial as good as a confirmation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Journalistic integrity
Kudos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny
I'd be surprised if Edward Snowden had never tried to get into unauthorized computers.
It doesn't make him any less a hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liars all
The CIA and the NSA are micromanaging this story so badly...so maybe they should shut up. The NY Times played the patsy once too often for the government, it seems. Their role isn't quite so angelic, is it?
Let the truth stand for itself: he is a hero, and there's nothing anyone can do to change that, or what he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liars all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet now you come out and show us that it is possible to delete something in a convincing way -- you simply use the typographical "strikeout" feature that has become become available in most font implementations in the last 10 years or so. You nearly contradict yourself thereby -- but not quite.
Brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Besides, making the observation that information that has escaped into the internet wilds cannot be fully recaptured doesn't mean you can't remove stuff yourself - or shouldn't.
Alternatively, if you were trying to be ironic and/or parody Out of the Blue, then sorry, your argument was too organised, logical and lacking in ad-homs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warning
www.informationtechinology.org
www.olf.org/sheeper
God
www.oromiya.co m
Jesus Christ
Oromo Angels
www.unesco.org
www.foia.gov
www.glob.gov
www.dni.org
www.ola.org
www.olf.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]