TPM Reader FG hits on one of the points I’ve wondered about too. Should we really be so surprised that Snowden had the vast access he claims when Manning, a very junior Army intelligence analyst, had access to everything he did?
Just a few thoughts on the Snowden case:
1. If he did have the level of access that he claims, it would not really surprise me. The level of access that Bradley Manning had was waaaay too great. Manning was a low-level Army intelligence analyst who had access to State Department cables, which is laughable if you think about it. Both these cases show the importance of IT controls-you want to often limit the level of access to information for staff members. As you pointed out, it is a balancing act-you want collaboration, but you don’t want information ever to come out fire-hydrant style…
2. From my understanding and experience, government contractors have one big advantage over government agencies-they can hire staff without having to go through as rigorous of background checks and reviews. You can ignore veterans preference, hire individuals with low-level misdemeanors (DUIs), and just have an overall speedier process as a government contractor. And in Snowden’s case, it would be much harder to hire him in the NSA, with his dearth of even a high school diploma, than a government contractor finding a way to on-board him. In this case though, Booze may wonder if they need to up their HR hiring guidelines…
