"Any analyst at any time can target anyone, any selector, anywhere. Where those communications will be picked up depends on the range of the sensor networks and the authorities that analyst is empowered with. Not all analysts have the ability to target everything. But I sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a Federal judge to even the President if I had a personal e-mail."

Bolded for your benefit.

Not any analyst could target anyone. But he could, because he was a trained spy. He also could target *everything*.

Bolded for your benefit.

Even if you ignore the nuance pointed out by the first commenter, I don't see anywhere in what Snowden said later that claims that he only could access what he did because he 'was trained as a spy'.

So no, he didn't 'undermine his credibility'. But you've made it plain in this OP that you're trying to find any way possible to claim he did.

Yet that assertion has never been proven. He used his access to the information he leaked as supporting evidence of how easy it could be for any analyst to get at unauthorized information. Again, that's simply not true. And it's never been a validated assertion. By revealing he had special training as a Spy for the US with broad involvement in the U.S. Intelligence system, he is undermining his original statement that it would be easy for any analyst to do what he did.

I hate to say it, but I don't think his interview is going to be favorable to him. And I think, based on responses to this and other posts, there are going to be a lot of upset people here.

Also, you have to ask why didn't he disclose this information about being a trained spy to Greenwald? And if he did, why didn't Greenwald report it? I think the answer is clear. Because it sounds far worse for "any analyst" to be able to do what Snowden did.

while I was refilling my coffee just now.

He said something like 'I was sort of a spy, in that I lived under a fake name working a fake job in a foreign country'.

Working databases might be some sort of skill that's useful for spies, but I'm guessing most of our 'spies' don't sit around pulling data our own government collects, so I'm not sure why being a spy implies he would have any greater access to collected data in the US. Heck, if anything, it would suggest he should have LESS access, because your 'spies' are the guys who could get caught, so you want them as much on the outside as possible if they get caught.

So I think telling people up front that he was a 'spy' actually would make people more likely to think he wouldn't have been let anywhere near sensitive data, because the agency probably tries to keep people with the 'keys to the kingdom' safe in the states, and not traveling overseas where they might be grabbed.

Except, of course, they've actually acknowledged he did get more than a million and a half documents, so it's pretty self-evident that he did have access at this point.

I could care less about Snowden. I do care that he is just now revealing this information when it should have been a disclaimer before.

Not for the NSA, but the lack of understanding most anti-Snowden people seem to have about how databases and systems security in general works has been mind-boggling. I was an 'analyst', in addition to the design, maintenance, and security work I did. Heck, I have a masters degree in systems analysis. And yet I've heard all sorts of ignorance in service of denying that Snowden could possibly do the sorts of things he did.

Systems analysts are the 'goto' guys. They pretty much hold the keys to the data kingdom wherever they're employed, no matter what the 'rules' might be. So my 'stake' is just generally countering the sorts of nonsense people with no IT experience keep putting forward.

Being a 'database guy' has little to do with Snowden exposing himself as a trained spy.

I use my real name, you can look me up on the web. I worked as lead programmer/DBA for a company called Netseats from 99 to 2011, got my masters in systems analysis from miami university in ohio.

Although, quite frankly, I don't care what you 'highly doubt'. It's not my job to convince you of anything. I wasted a few minutes trying to point out your logical fallacy and ignorance, but I'm not going to waste any more of my time, so toodles.

I find it interesting that you use a database analyst as an analogy. BTW, I did look you up. I too use my real name. I have a masters degree as well. But our resumes are quite different, as I never changed career paths.

The fact is, he did expose himself and it is a contradiction. That has not been refuted. There is no logical fallacy. Snowden misled in his original statements to Greenwald that it would be easy for anyone to do what he did. That is a fact.

He says that anyone could spy on anyone but then says he wasn't just 'anyone'.

His new claims are getting interesting. After so much time has gone by, he recently said, "Oh. By the way, I also went through channels at the NSA to get them to stop all this spying stuff."

And how he is saying, "Oh. By the way, I was actually a spy."

I don't believe either of those claims any more than I believe he could have spied on the President. He never offers up any details of these claims. And, sadly, his interviewers don't press him on them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

Any phlebotomist can draw blood. I can draw blood, because I've had phlebotomy training.

Oh, btw, I'm also an RN.

And guess what, that doesn't imply that you have to be an RN to draw blood.

Any phlebotomist can still draw blood without being an RN.

Nothing I said was a contradiction, nothing was untrue, but to come to the conclusion that I would have to be an RN to draw blood is the same sort of logical fallacy being offered above.

Being a 'spy' or claiming to have repeatedly tried normal channels nearly a year after the event are bigger deals and seem to be a ham-fisted attempt to rewrite the original narrative.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

modern spies actually do is probably as vague as their understanding of what registered nurses do.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

it is an attempt to introduce something else controversial into the argument to detract from the fact that Greenwald is going to expose the names of the Americans that were spied upon. Obviously, this has them shitting their pants because it will reveal that the reasons they say they are spying is not what they said.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall during those meetings as they try to come up with some excuse for spying on Americans that have nothing to do with terrorism and how they can discredit Snowden, Greenwald, etc. I'm sure they are discussing how to torpedo the credibility of The Intercept, too.

.....because he was once on medication for a seizure disorder.

A poster even asserts that his disorder springs from "psychiatric" troubles or alcoholism.

Real 19th century stuff, there!

his CIA cover name and his CIA ID number. He also told the world in his first interview that he worked for the CIA in Geneva.

"Yes. Snowden told Greenwald that he was a spy. He have Poitras and Greenwald his CIA cover name and his CIA ID number."

The Guardian: Snowden Is A Whistleblower, Not A Spy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023156854

Pretending otherwise makes you look...

Also available on Glenngreenwald.net

Second "He still doesn't know very much"

NOW "He's a trained super CIA operative James Bond type"

LOL.

The intelligence apparati must be shitting their pants over the fact that Greenwald is going to name names of Americans that were spied upon. It blows their excuses to hell if the Americans that were spied upon are activists, dissenters, journalists and assorted members of government.

That is behind Kerry's little speech, too. There is some serious pant pissing and crapping going on.

.....in light of Greenwald ratcheting up the heat.

Snowden MUST BE discounted.

Of course the fact that the Secretary of State is beating this drum only makes Snowden more important.