- What instances of Snowden voicing his concerns internally do we now know of? - Which of these are "old news" and which are "fresh news"? - How did the NSA respond to each of these cases that we know of?
Think there's strong evidence their whistleblower protections are lacking. Think it's clear the NSA is trying desperately to damage control the situation. While it's possible Snowden attempted to go through the proper channels (and I'd love to see evidence of this), the documents linked in this article only show him testing the waters.
The fact Snowden doesn't want to respond is a pretty good sign this isn't a slam dunk for the anti-spying contingent.
"[Snowden] believes the NSA is still playing games with selective releases, and [he] therefore chooses not to participate in this effort," Wizner said. "He doesn't trust that the intelligence community will operate in good faith."
I think your right that Snowden was "testing the waters" and my guess is he came to the honest conclusion that public disclosure was necessary for there to be even debate on the issue of mass surveillance and there needed to be one.
I had forgotten what the title was in the process of reading the article. You're right, it's a near perfect example of spun journalism.
Consider the following:
> Because none of the people interviewed by the NSA in the wake of the leaks said that "Snowden mentioned a specific NSA program," and "many" of the people interviewed "affirmed that he never complained about any NSA program," the NSA's counterintelligence chief concluded that these conversations about the Constitution and privacy did not amount to raising concerns about the NSA's spying activities.
> That was the basis for the agency's public assertions — including those made by Ledgett during a TED talk later that month — that Snowden never attempted to voice his concerns about the scope of NSA surveillance while at the agency.
Note the infrequent 'Because ... Than ...' type of construct -- but that a particular fact is selected for the 'Because ...' clause it inclines the reader to believe that something is being omitted or hidden from public view (one spuriously continues reading the article hoping to find what it was) - but all the reader gets is:
> Snowden declined to answer a number of very specific questions for this story.
The whole article is written as if something is hidden, omitted and about to come into view! How else to justify the headline title!? But there's really nothing at all.
What's not proven in these docs, but seems at least imaginable perhaps even probable, is that the 702 test contained questions which required answers based on an expired law. That expired law gave analysts much more leeway than they currently had.
If that's what happened, I think we can understand at least partly why Snowden claims he raised more serious concerns, and simultaneously why NSA did not consider complaints about failing his test when evaluating how he had engaged.