Scotth
Verified Military
Well he worked for the CIA for a couple years and had the secret clearance in hand. Beyond that I completely agree with you Teufel.
Top Secret clearance I meant.
Well he worked for the CIA for a couple years and had the secret clearance in hand. Beyond that I completely agree with you Teufel.
Here's my question. It seems this guy was a high school drop out, got his GED, unsuccessfully tried out for the Special Forces, and got a job doing information assurance (ironic) with the NSA. He was there for three months as a Booz Allen contractor and was given all sorts of access to stuff. Is anyone else bothered by how underqualified this guy seems for that job and how quickly this dick bag was given access to our nation's secrets? It seemed like it took an act of congress for me to get my clearance but this guy waltzes in off of a failed interview at McDonalds into a 200,000 dollar job as the IA manager (i.e. the guy who pesters everyone to turn in their Information Assurance online training certificates and maintains a roster of said certificates) for a top secret facility????
I wonder if he actually made 200K/year; he's lied about the rest of his life.
I wonder if he actually made 200K/year; he's lied about the rest of his life.
200k for a stateside job that require a TS? Possible I guess, but then that puts them in line with the going rate for working overseas.
Watch out FF...I think your salary is showing.
An IT/ electronics guy on the right contract OR with a ton of overtime OR who has been with his company for a long time can make over 200k in a year, but their salary range is less than that. My company does have a generator mechanic/ Power Pro guy who made 220k one year through a combination of the above. He managed to blow most of it on hookers and leading several different lives, but that's another story...
Since this went down, I haven't heard anything in the news about the IRS scandal...
Coincidence?
Friedman makes some interesting points in this essay....
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/opinion/friedman-blowing-a-whistle.html?hp&_r=2&
Now that the dust has settled after the Edward Snowden affair, it’s time to ask some tough questions about The Guardian’s scoop of the week. Snowden’s story is that he dropped a $200,000 a year job and a (very attractive) girlfriend in Hawaii for a life in hiding in Hong Kong in order to expose the evils of the NSA's Prism programme. But bits of the story are now being questioned.
1. Why did he go to China? It was always an odd aspect of his plan that he should choose as his refuge from tyranny a totalitarian state that happily spies on its own people and imprisons dissenters. True, Hong Kong itself has a tradition of resistance to dictatorship, but it also has a treaty with the US that would make it relatively easy for America to extradite their guy back. Perhaps Snowden simply has the worst lawyers in history?
2. Snowden’s backstory is not entirely accurate. Booz Allen says that his salary was 40 per cent lower than thought and a real estate agent says that his house in Hawaii was empty for weeks before he vamoosed. Does the fact that he only worked for three months with Booz Allen and the NSA suggest he was planning a hit and run all along – that he took the job with the NSA with the intention of stealing the documents?
3. The administration is pushing back on the definition of what Prism actually is – that it’s not a snooping programme but a data management tool. The call logging accusations are pretty much beyond doubt (and reason enough to scream Big Brother) but the Prism angle is a little less clear. Extremetech points out that it is a programme that has hidden in public sight, that Prism is in fact, “the name of a web data management tool that is so boring that no one had ever bothered to report on its existence before now. It appears that the public Prism tool is simply a way to view and manage collected data, as well as correlate it with the source.” This is not to say that there isn’t a scandal to investigate here: “What is much more important is to pay attention to what data is being collected, and how.” But Prism might not be the smoking gun.
None of this debunks outright Snowden’s claims that the NSA is gathering data, that it has extraordinary power or that it has lied to Congress about it. But it does smack of a lack of fact checking on the part of The Guardian and it risks giving credibility to those who think this is a lot of fuss about nothing (and I'm not one of them). As Joshua Foust of Medium.com suggests, the problem probably rests with Snowden. He first approached the Washington Post via a freelancer and demanded that they publish everything without time for fact checking or government comment. The Post hesitated – so Snowden went to The Guardian instead. This forced the Post to speed up publication of its own story. Frost: “Both papers, in their rush, wound up printing misleading stories.” If so, they're in trouble.
Another mainstream media agency questioning the left wing (Guardian) bullshit:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...y-the-guardians-scoop-is-looking-a-bit-dodgy/
EDIT: I'm not justifying pay rates, but a TS/SCI with poly can be hard to find sometimes. That may be some of the employer's justification for a "overly" high pay rate.
I think we can all agree that privatizing the federal work force probably isn't a money saver like it was promised. Contracting should never be a permanent employment solution.
My understanding of the "A contractor is cheaper than a fulltime gov't employee": The cost estimates are predicated on hiring a contractor for a short amount of time. I don't think anyone ever envisioned keeping contractors in the same gigs for well over a decade and I know for a fact that some contracts have been around for that long. What I'm unsure of is where a contractor becomes more expensive than the equivalent gov't employee or servicemember.
Contractors were meant as a stopgap measure but the system has become a beast with its own life.