irreconcilable information were more demanding because the only available sources were the conflicting reports. This is a frequent dilemma when dealing with newly revealed classified materials whose authors and representatives deny even exist. All one can do is hope additional information will one day be released, but there is no guarantee. Until that time, inductive reasoning is the only compass. For example, an article about a clandestine file stated 2.3 million bits of spy data had been corralled over the course of a decade. Another exposé claimed the same surveillance records had been gathered in a single month. There was no third party to consult, and the primary document was nondescript. I resolved the issue by looking at technological capabilities a decade prior and considering similar numbers in a German report dealing with a comparable espionage method. As always, I discuss how I came to certain conclusions and the methodology used.
However, if an incongruity doggedly persisted and the press’s divide was 70/30 or less, I made the conscientious decision to include and discuss the divergent viewpoints. Also, if a reliable source was the only dissenter, especially if an argument was crafted by those who worked directly with Snowden or his stolen files, I include and annotate the fact. In a few instances, a dependable source contradicted itself. Snowden’s father reported three different timelines for when his son started working in intelligence. Despite two dates being implausible because I could account for Snowden being elsewhere at that time, I nonetheless include the information so others can consider the possibility and, in the event I overlooked or misinterpreted something along the way, rectify my error.
Another challenge in writing this book was, unlike most historical studies, the Snowden Affair has no natural stopping point. It is one of the rare instances in which the conversation may exhaust itself before the events which initiated the debate come to a close. There are two reasons for continuing the discussion after the titular character steps offstage. One, as mentioned, the work is a study of Snowden, the media and the NSA. It would deprive the reader if the book ended with Snowden’s biographical epilogue. Two, Snowden rightfully stated he wants the debate to focus upon modern surveillance policies and practices and not the person who brought them to light. From the present look of things, unless the U.S. government collapses or society suddenly abandons technology, the book—like most—will be a single chapter in a dialogue that spans many volumes. With that said, I chose to end on a thematic high note. For any reader skeptical about whether the surveillance debate should be taken seriously, I ask you read page 254 relating to smartphones.
In respect to the various classified disclosures: I had two diametrically-opposed objectives when writing about them. Though any interpretation harbors implicit bias, NSA analysts, surveillance watch groups and IT professionals may say my reading of the disclosures is too conservative. Legal experts, U.S. intelligence administrators and officials in Washington are apt to claim it is too liberal. Corporations, foreign nations and the press are the most likely to state I am close to the mark. I try to appease no particular audience, faction or party and merely attempt to present an examination of the information provided by the press through the government documents issued by Snowden. Because what is being presented is often highly technical and riddled with legal, technological and military jargon, I provide an introduction to the basic ideas and themes being discussed for readers not as acquainted with the fields as they might like. I refused to ignore any logistic warts for the sake of argumentative convenience while denying the urge to pick at others which begged to be inflamed. I save the rhetorical scratching for the Afterword. Conversely, on an equally
However, if an incongruity doggedly persisted and the press’s divide was 70/30 or less, I made the conscientious decision to include and discuss the divergent viewpoints. Also, if a reliable source was the only dissenter, especially if an argument was crafted by those who worked directly with Snowden or his stolen files, I include and annotate the fact. In a few instances, a dependable source contradicted itself. Snowden’s father reported three different timelines for when his son started working in intelligence. Despite two dates being implausible because I could account for Snowden being elsewhere at that time, I nonetheless include the information so others can consider the possibility and, in the event I overlooked or misinterpreted something along the way, rectify my error.
Another challenge in writing this book was, unlike most historical studies, the Snowden Affair has no natural stopping point. It is one of the rare instances in which the conversation may exhaust itself before the events which initiated the debate come to a close. There are two reasons for continuing the discussion after the titular character steps offstage. One, as mentioned, the work is a study of Snowden, the media and the NSA. It would deprive the reader if the book ended with Snowden’s biographical epilogue. Two, Snowden rightfully stated he wants the debate to focus upon modern surveillance policies and practices and not the person who brought them to light. From the present look of things, unless the U.S. government collapses or society suddenly abandons technology, the book—like most—will be a single chapter in a dialogue that spans many volumes. With that said, I chose to end on a thematic high note. For any reader skeptical about whether the surveillance debate should be taken seriously, I ask you read page 254 relating to smartphones.
In respect to the various classified disclosures: I had two diametrically-opposed objectives when writing about them. Though any interpretation harbors implicit bias, NSA analysts, surveillance watch groups and IT professionals may say my reading of the disclosures is too conservative. Legal experts, U.S. intelligence administrators and officials in Washington are apt to claim it is too liberal. Corporations, foreign nations and the press are the most likely to state I am close to the mark. I try to appease no particular audience, faction or party and merely attempt to present an examination of the information provided by the press through the government documents issued by Snowden. Because what is being presented is often highly technical and riddled with legal, technological and military jargon, I provide an introduction to the basic ideas and themes being discussed for readers not as acquainted with the fields as they might like. I refused to ignore any logistic warts for the sake of argumentative convenience while denying the urge to pick at others which begged to be inflamed. I save the rhetorical scratching for the Afterword. Conversely, on an equally
Similar Books
