Forget, for a moment, what this does for Snowden's credibility. If this is true, this is a huge blow to the NSA!
In college I had a friend who wanted to intern with the NSA. He was extremely smart, knew his way around a computer and then some, and was a model student. He was one of the few classmates of mine who never smoked and only occasionally drank, and even then only in moderation. He was exactly the sort of person who you'd expect to get the job (well, internship) with the NSA.
Following some initial interviews, he went for a polygraph at a facility near campus. Then, he was called to the DC area to undergo more interviews and another polygraph. Finally, he was called back for a third polygraph...and didn't get the job.
My impression at the time was that the NSA was doing such a thorough job screening candidates that they were likely discarding a large number of false positives from their screenings. This changes that impression completely...
What's worse than a government agency that has access to all of your secret information? A government agency that has access to all of your secret information and can't even determine if the people it's hiring and giving access to that information are trustworthy.
I think this hurts his credibility somewhat. It's a better story to think he joined with no preconceived notions and the evidence turned him. Now it appears he had a conclusion and went to prove his assumptions to be true.
Scientific (style) inquiry doesn't require that one have no preconceived notions, only that he be willing to be proven wrong about his preconceived notions. It is unfortunately difficult for outsiders to judge whether Snowden cherry-picked or is accurately representing what he found.
But why does this not increase Snowden's credibility? He went undercover to gather evidence of malfeasance. How does that not turn him from a leaker into an investigative journalist getting an inside scoop?
I like your point on Scientific inquiry. The main difference is that a scientist might have an intellectual rather than emotional predisposition to what the outcome of the data might prove. Those that cross that line end usually lose credibility and end up on the payroll of a like minded think tank/group.
I would be surprised if a definite case could be made that scientists are completely unvested in their theories. I think it's a lofty ideal to strive for, but it's often the case we'd like to have our intuitions and theories proved correct.
Like the GP post said, the intentions or motivations (emotional or intellectual) are of little concern as long as the scientist changes their views/theories based on experimentation. I could be emotionally invested in what I believe to be a life-saving cure for cancer, and I'll be emotionally pre-disposed to see the medical trials prove that, but that won't mean I'll fix the results to prove that.
I think it unfortunately makes it easier to be spun to hurt his credibility, but does not necessarily in reality. If, for example, from his previous jobs he knew this was happening, but had to get this particular job as a sysadmin to get the access necessary to actually obtain the documents to prove it, I view that action as honorable.
I hear you. It just feels like now you're accepting "proof" or not on global warning from a Greenpeace or Oilman lobbyist vs say an independent scientist. But that's the bigger problem here. Snowden is likely an incredibly narcissistic individual - if only because historically these folks are and he's showing similar traits - and it would be ideal to get him divorced from the story vs being such a central pillar.
Absolutely what I thought. Now the case could be made that he cherry picked his leaks to cause maximum damage while hiding additional context and wildly misinterpreting things that he saw to fit his predrawn conclusions. This could explain why we only saw 4 PRISM slides.
That explains surgical selection of the documents released so far, before it looked almost too good orchestration for a one man band to pull off - at least not without the perfect plan.
Well, it won't exactly help his case. If he didn't stumble upon the information but deliberately sought for it... that makes him a spy (perhaps not legal definition).
Intent counts for a great deal in the US court system.[1] The fact that he 'attacked' the NSA may generate additional charges (fraud, etc.) as well as increase the sentences for any convictions. What might have been 2-10 years in prison could be a life sentence by the time the dust settles.
In college I had a friend who wanted to intern with the NSA. He was extremely smart, knew his way around a computer and then some, and was a model student. He was one of the few classmates of mine who never smoked and only occasionally drank, and even then only in moderation. He was exactly the sort of person who you'd expect to get the job (well, internship) with the NSA.
Following some initial interviews, he went for a polygraph at a facility near campus. Then, he was called to the DC area to undergo more interviews and another polygraph. Finally, he was called back for a third polygraph...and didn't get the job.
My impression at the time was that the NSA was doing such a thorough job screening candidates that they were likely discarding a large number of false positives from their screenings. This changes that impression completely...
What's worse than a government agency that has access to all of your secret information? A government agency that has access to all of your secret information and can't even determine if the people it's hiring and giving access to that information are trustworthy.
Not good...