I love that he went from being a network admin to the savior of the internet. At what point in his career did he have perfect visibility into every topic he's quoted on. He wasn't even a part of the groups he tried to out (TAO). My guess is he was genuine in his curiosity, something happened that frustrated him (maybe he was worried about being let go from yet another contracted position, maybe he was denied on his application to join the Remote Operations Team in TAO for the third time due to lack of technical acumen and personality conflicts.....). My guess is through Greenwald and Co, he was sold a narrative to drive him to collecting data they otherwise wouldn't have had (he himself was socially engineered). It's amazing how much money they've made off the leaks and yet that topic hasn't really come up at all. Everyone has a motive, many have multiple.
His first application to join TAO as a remote operator was denied due to personality conflicts (the interviewers felt he was cocky in his responses and weren't sure of his ability to fit in with the rest of the operators.) This was circa 2011 when he was working with the CIA in an NSA joint Billet.
Early 2012 during expansion and hiring within TAO Hawaii, he was given a second chance to prove technical talents in a test designed to pre-empt RIOT (Remote Interactive Operator Training). He failed the test twice both at NSAH and NSAW. His only option was to transition as a contractor at BAH where he was the equivalent of an R&T analyst even though he was in a network administration billet(he was never assigned to TAO directly, because his administration billet supported missions he was asked to fill a critical shortage of manpower). The technical requirements to become an R&T analyst while high, were well below those that perform as Interactive On Net operators (ION). As an analyst he worked projects targeting the exact groups he leaked information about. During his time working his targets he submitted numerous plans that were rejected and greater HQ at NSAW began to ignore is operations proposals. His projects were ultimately removed from him and placed in the hands of capable analysts. It wasn't long after that he decided to lash out. So no he was never offered a job within TAO (which has multiple groups), when he did work with BAH interacting with them he failed miserably.
Would they? Acknowledging attacks could give clue to operations in play. They're certainly not going to risk sources and or collection that's proven valuable.
And to be fair there have been a good amount of publicly acknowledged plot disruptions.
Except you can't prove that. Are they going to directly say, Satelite XYZ in geostationary orbit was monitoring data link 111322, during which we captured intelligence on platform 2342342 which resulted in a lead then passed on to domestic intelligence agencies. Nope, not going to happen. Everyone here likes to talk about the government and their parallel construction when it supports a negative notion, yet forget that it's also a legitimate tool to protect origination sources.
There is no need to prove someone's claim false, they must prove it true.
eg: Except that the government has claimed that they have foiled attacks and those claims have been shown to be bullshit.
So, given that they have made these claims and they are false, what conclusions should we draw?
A. The government gave us false information to reassure us that their blanket information gathering programs work, they cant tell us operational details or made some other mistake(even though operation details of various programs leak like a sieve.)
B. Their argument is specious, and someone made a list to prop up a program they do not have evidence for.
All claims need evidence to support them, its just that the poster said that the government is doing great work, too bad we cant show or prove that they are(citation needed, big time.)
There is no need to argue for balance in the discussion to protect our government, they clearly can operate these programs without our approval or understanding.
Even beyond that, the fact that we are discussing courts and legal limitations, though they aren't perfect, is an example of the systems in place trying to work. One only has to look at law from any other angle to see that nothing is cut and dry regardless of the topic.
I too have worked on both sides of the game and the irony is that outside of the government it's far easier for me to get raw collection simply by buying a feed from one of the provider(s).
I've taken data from marketing firms that have extensive details on users that have been linked and culled from a myriad of databases sold by the big brokerage firms like Experian. There is far less governance when profitability is involved.
I only hope that in 75 years 1/10th of the work done is shared. Not everyone in the government is evil despite what people project.
I spent a lot of time in late 99-2001 playing around with some of the prototypes IPIX was working on at the time. They had some of the best 360 stitched photography i'd ever seen, they'd built a quasi in-expensive adaptor for the Nikon cameras (The model that twisted in the middle), and were prototyping some really awesome 360 video tech. I think the best video I saw was a prototype helmet they'd put on users, allowing them to see stitched 360 footage from the perspective of a motorcycle riding through the Appalachians.
It makes me wonder how things would have turned out if a few of those companies had worked together rather than individually trying to solve the same problems.
I presume people from those companies, for the most part, went on to build (together) similar stuff in bigger companies like Google once their initial companies folded.
