Snowden himself disagrees with you:
[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-09/news/chi-nsa-p...
However, he says he worked as a systems administrator, which I don't think is a "CIA agent" - I believe (although I'm not 100% certain) that "agent" refers specifically to a spy.
The CIA doesn't have "agents", it has "officers". And they are mainly involved with recruiting and running sources of information, mainly foreign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/former-cia-worker-says-...
So what if technically Snowden was on someone else's payroll – that's how a lot of work for government agencies, covert or not, is done. And, lots of 'agents' for intelligence outfits are actually on other payrolls – often that's the whole point, serving multiple masters ambiguously! A journalist who cuts through the layers and describes the real supervisory relationship is doing their job, not carelessly getting things wrong (as alleged by Nrsolis).
I've worked for the government. We all understand the difference between employee/officer/agent/contractor.
For one thing, there are different rules and regulations. You are legally responsible as an agent in a way you aren't as an officer. Same for employee vs contractor.
The CIA is not the same thing you see in the movies. Don't get your information from Hollywood.
For example, the FBI has "special agents".
A little research goes a long way and this article doesn't even have a byline. Blogger or journalist? Who can tell anymore.
And he doesn't get to define his relationship with the CIA unilaterally.
For comparisons sake, calling Snowden a spy is the same as calling the guy who unclogs the toilets at a police station a "cop."
Snowden worked for the CIA in a foreign country under diplomatic cover. Most of the English-speaking world, and especially the readers of this Irish-based publication, understand that to make him a "CIA agent".
There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who work on "classified" projects or systems. They don't think of themselves as "spies".
Learn to listen when you're talking to someone who has more experience and information than you do. It's a reliable survival strategy in a chaotic world.
And your example (someone involved in "covert" activity) fits the colloquial use of the term "spy".
In any case, this isn't an English lesson.
What I'm trying to say here is that Snowden wants the world to believe he was doing much more important work than he was actually doing. I don't think the public discourse is served by misstating his role within the "black" world.
He uncovered some wrongdoing but I don't buy the story that he was just a good American that is trying to right a wrong. He had an agenda.
I have never worked for the CIA in any capacity.
Just the search ["CIA agent" Snowden] will turn up a variety of writers, foreign and domestic, who have described Snowden that way.
Searching for ["CIA agent" Waldheim] shows multiple sources (including the NYTimes) addressing the speculation that Kurt Waldheim, former president of Austria and Secretary-General of the UN, may have at some point been a "CIA agent". (The latest and most official evidence: he wasn't.)
Also check out the passage "Agent or Employee" in the 'Encyclopedia of the CIA':
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jc9wBsImOIC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6...
It pretty strongly confirms what I described: in common usage, 'agent' means anyone working for the CIA, but in some contexts it also applies to foreign nationals helping the CIA. (Apparently, in the CIA itself, 'agent' is specifically reserved for helpful foreign nationals. But internal bureaucratic distinctions can't override the plain meaning of 'agent' and global usage, to mean both that and more.)