Hacker News Reader

Comment by staunch | Hacker News Reader

This is seriously the weirdest part of this story so far. Why is it news that this guy, who clearly has resigned, is being "fired"? And why was his precise salary released? Why is it being reported on? Why does it matter that he did, or did not, finish high school?

It feels like some kind of desperate attempt to disparage him. As if someone hopes it will sound like he's a disgruntled former employee that was fired. Or that he was some low level hack of an employee.

And yet no one is disputing that he worked for our spy agencies for the better part of a decade, or that he had a job that would tend to give him significant access. No one is disputing anything he's said at all, as far as I can tell. This shit is irrelevant.

View on HN

I was going to say that looking at it through a more cynical lens it's to discredit him, but I'm not sure such a lens is required. The difference in reported income, the firing, the criminal investigation, and his job being re-listed as a junior level position are tools to do this. The reason for this smearing could be a PR stunt to shore up investors' confidence (and therefore the stock price), or it could be character assassination and to make casual readers think this was a low-level employee with problems telling the truth and holding down a job.

The article that's linked half way through paints Booz Allen as a wonderful, benevolent employer that was gracious enough to hire someone without formal credentials (in this job climate, no less!). It's most certainly to bolster its reputation on Wall Street and also to make people think Snowden was an ungrateful chump for giving up such a cushy position.

I've seen it reported in other articles, but I didn't see mention in this article about him not finishing HS. Was this original article edited?

Booz took zero risks hiring this guy. Zero chances at all. He has a TS/SCI clearance combined with whatever bullshit IT security certs gov't contracts demand, which means he is a guaranteed revenue source.

The risk that was taken was giving him a TS clearance at all. I don't agree with or like it, but the clearance process is supposed to eliminate people who don't like authority or the socially approved path. Somebody who drops out of high school despite being intelligent is clearly not someone who fits these criteria.

This is called the twenty-four hour news cycle. People want to hear more about this story, but there is nothing more that anyone knows. So we dive into the human element, speculate as to "why", and so on. People keep clicking the ads, so it must be what they want. (We read it, right?)

ironically I, as someone who holds pieces of papers from some of the most highly esteemed institutions of education in this country and others, listening to Snowden speak for 30 seconds and digesting the implication of his actions has easily convinced me that he is a man of greater intellect, integrity and courage than myself or many of my similarly degree-equipped classmates.

the lack of a degree makes his star shine even brighter for me.

You, sir, are a true intellectual. I agree with you. I suspect a lot of the journalistic sniping is due to the fact that the writers invested heavily in pieces of paper, and years later have a significantly lower salary. Their bitterness and envy shapes their thoughts.

Thanks. That means a lot to me. :)

And why was his precise salary released

A little known fact is that thousands of companies participate in this (including Booz Allen): http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/index.asp

This is an Equifax-owned entity that may resell salary information and dates worked at a company.

It is possible that a reporter just bought the salary info, but in this case it does seem that Booz Allen plainly released it.

More info: http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/30/16762661-exclusi...

Booz Allen added Snowden's salary in the revised press release announcing his firing. Strange. Here's the text of the current version of the press release dated 6/11:

Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, was an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. Snowden, who had a salary at the rate of $122,000, was terminated June 10, 2013 for violations of the firm’s code of ethics and firm policy. News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.

http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/4839932...

Here is an earlier (original?) version of the same press release dated 6/9:

Booz Allen can confirm that Edward Snowden, 29, has been an employee of our firm for less than 3 months, assigned to a team in Hawaii. News reports that this individual has claimed to have leaked classified information are shocking, and if accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm. We will work closely with our clients and authorities in their investigation of this matter.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-09/booz-allen-promptly...

Edit: add press release text

Edit2: add original press release text

It maybe a simple matter of releasing details that everyone is clamoring for and yelling about. BAH's main interest in this matter is diverting blame for the leak away from their organization. They are not really interested in Snowden. They'd rather he be ignored than attacked.

"This individual", notice the hideous language "we do not want to have anything to do with this... OK not going to insult him just depersonalize him". Might as well have said "this object". Not even Mr. or jus "he."

> http://www.theworknumber.com/Employees/Why/Verifications.asp

Does the FCRA allow an employee's data to be released (to non-FBI/NSA clients, natch) without the employee's consent?

> This is seriously the weirdest part of this story so far. Why is it news that this guy, who clearly has resigned, is being "fired"? And why was his precise salary released? Why is it being reported on? Why does it matter that he did, or did not, finish high school?

It's called "character attack" to discredit the source. Same happened to Assange.

I don't think it's an attack for Booz Allen to release the numbers to clear up a lie he (Snowden) made in an interview in which he was referencing the company.

Imagine that you're an employee for the company with a degree and a decade of experience or even a shareholder. Now you read that your employer was paying some low-level contractor 200k/yr in Hawaii. As an exec at Booz Allen, why wouldn't you try to minimize your damage?

Once you take into account a ~30% annual bonus (normal for BAH), a company car, and relocation expenses - all of which you can be sure he had, as they're also de rigeur for NGO contractors, that $200k figure is about right.

See? It works :)

If by "once you take into account," you mean "if you pretend/arbitrarily decide he received," then sure.

I'd like to see your source that states that a 30% annual bonus is typical.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Bonuses/Booz-Allen-Hamilton-Bonuses...

Looks like the character smearing is working. It always does since there are always people who want to believe it.

We're playing a game of truths and realities. It's embarrassing to company to have this happen. It's more embarrassing and painful if the employee that made it happen was grossly overcompensated in the eyes of shareholders.

Keep in mind that Booz Allen and the NSA are different entities. Booz Allen is (rationally) defending its own assets.

CNN has been focusing on trashing this guy since his identity first came to light. Their reporting has also been quick to minimize the extent and importance of this scandal. Partisan reporting at its finest - they are going to be the last ones on Obama's sinking ship.

Another thing I noticed is that every Onion story related to the scandal has been pro-NSA (today I learned pro-NSA humor exists). It reminded me of the recent gun control debates in which every Onion story related to that was pro gun control. I'm not saying they're part of a larger concerted effort to sway public opinion, but it does make me question their integrity as a comedic organization.

Pro-gun control? You don't remember the one with the gorillas, I think it was, advocating for gorilla control and with people complaining that the keeping of gorillas in public was a Constitutional right, and even if a few people in stores get savaged by gorillas occasionally, that was a small price to pay for freedom?

Um, that one was extremely pro gun control. Read it again. "Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack". This is making fun of people who buy guns in the aftermath of shootings, and who seek the preservation of 2nd amendment rights. It argues (by analogy) that such people are silly to fight for such antiquated rights, and that there would be complete chaos if everyone owned a gun.

Indeed - I think my brain short-circuited there somehow and I took "pro" to mean "anti".

"it does make me question their integrity as a comedic organization"

Are you trying to say that it's inherently silly to question the integrity of a comedic organization?

If so, I'd disagree with you, as many people use comedy as a means to make a point, political and otherwise. I think the success of Jon Stewart and Colbert point to the fact that valid points can be made with comedy.

While I don't think "comedic organizations" are (or should be) held to the same standard as journalistic ones, GP has a valid point about bias, even in comedic reporting.

"Are you trying to say that it's inherently silly to question the integrity of a comedic organization?"

Yes. Jon Stewart has scoffed, in more than one interview, at the notion that he be held to any standards whatsoever, other than the standard of being funny.

"a valid point about bias"

I respectfully disagree. I see nothing wrong with any sort or degree of bias from the Onion, Daily Show, or any other "comedic organization".

A couple things: 1. Today there was an anti-NSA article ("NSA Assures Americans That PRISM 2.0 Will Be Way More Invasive"), which kind of invalidates my point. 2. "Comedic organization" was the best term I could come up with; I know it sounds a bit ridiculous. :-)

but you can bet that if CNN broke the story and he went to them with the documents they would be praising him ..

i've noticed a few outlets that are usually progressive have been leaning anti-Snowden, and I can't help but feel that it is because of a professional jealousy.

CNN would have probably helped him get captured by the US government.

It's pretty well-known that CNN works with governments, especially the US government, whenever they're asked to. Former CNN reporters have outed them on this.

I was surprised when I opened the CNN app on Monday, not a single story was about this issue, yet the BBC app had 3 in the top stories. Reminds me of the articles going around comparing media in Turkey to that outside of it during the protests...

For the record, I watched Fox News while eating lunch yesterday, and bounced between it and MSNBC. Fox was much, much worse about attacking Snowden. They brought in an FBI profiler who sat there and pretended to know what kind of personality Snowden has. She basically painted him as an attention whore. Then the Fox reporter made fun of his girlfriend for being rather "hippyish" and enrolling in circus classes, and asked leading questions that were clearly heading down the path of "this guy is a fruitcake liberal."

The fact that he donated money to Rand Paul was ignored, naturally.

Oddly enough, MSNBC was actually criticizing Obama, and running a story comparing him to George W. Bush.

Calling CNN partisan is absurd. They're not. They are biased, of course, but to their corporate sponsors.

Just thought I'd pop your factless bubble with an anecdote that completely destroys it. The "liberal media" bullshit is just that: bullshit. Journalists who are classically trained tend to be liberal because of their college background, but are tempered by both age and the "journalistic ethic" drilled in to them. "Conservative" media isn't really ideologically conservative. They instead play to an elderly reader/viewer base that hates change and resents a country that isn't as white, Christian or rural as it used to be. Hence the fact that John Boehner is on TV calling Snowden a traitor, while the ACTUAL Conservatives who have a true ideology call him a hero.

>It feels like some kind of desperate attempt to disparage him.

Not desperate at all; the tactic is wildly successful. Just look at what happened with Wikileak's work with its editor Assange and source Manning. The same tactics will come up against the Guardian with journalist Greenwald and source Snowden. The situations are similar in enough ways.

Slowly, they will try to justify its conviction and torture. From what I read, he is ready for that.

I wish companies like Google and Microsoft asked for his amnesty. Would that even help?

I actually posted the article since I found it amusing more than anything. As if anyone was still wondering what happened to his position.

They'll probably rewrite the PR so that he was fired before he quitted. Snowden will be a fired, highschool dropout with no job.

> As if anyone was still wondering what happened to his position.

Maybe it'll show up in the next "Who's Hiring" thread here on HN. :-)

It would be pretty funny if he just came back to work next Monday and pretended like nothing had happend.

"Bill, have you seen the game last night? What, why is everyone looking at me? Do I have something stuck in my teeth again?"

If I had to guess, it's http://careers.boozallen.com/job/Honolulu-Systems-Administra... . At least you have a starting point for salary negotiations, and an easy talking point on ethics.

> And why was his precise salary released?

He claimed to be earning $200,000 in his statements to The Guardian — his intention, presumably, to emphasise the extent of the sacrifice he has made in releasing these documents.

A side-effect of that revelation is that Booz Allen Hamilton have been reported on in a decidedly unfavourable light, as the greedy contractors in cahoots with the US government to bleed the taxpayer dry.

Booz Allen Hamilton obviously want to counter that notion, so have produced a much lower, slightly more reasonable, figure for his salary.

As always, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. The figure Snowden gave is probably rounded up for simplicity, and the figure BAH provided is probably excluding parts of his compensation package.

Snowden's figure most likely includes bonueses and other perks which I've always considered part of total compenstation.

If his salary is over $100,000 then he is probably "earning" over $200,000 for his employer. Also, as others have pointed out, your salary is significantly less than what you actually get paid.

The funny thing about this high school thing is that it could go both ways.

"So, they hire people that haven't even finished High School to take care of top secret information""

But since this is CNN and is not the official spin it's ignored

While it seems to be working, the worse they make him sound the more foolish they look for hiring him in the first place.

They are just further ruining any remaining reputation they have for being able to keep privileged data secret.

It seems likely that Booz Allen has other contractors still working on NSA projects besides Snowden. There's a certain amount of damage control they need to do if they want to keep their client happy and keep the contracts coming.

"No one is disputing anything he's said at all"

This was probably true when you wrote it eight hours ago, but in the past hour someone who should know[0] was interviewed on NPR, and said that there is no way that Snowden had the abilities and access that he claimed in an interview. She strongly disputed his claim that he had been able to "wiretap" anyone at will, sitting at his desk.

[0] A professor of something like national security studies, who worked for intelligence agencies for years before academia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com