| I agree the 'whole of agency' funding thing doesn't really make sense. Look at all the budgets, they dip, slightly, around that time then continue their upward or stable trends, as least publicly. Maybe the NSA really did get a budget win in the years post 2013. Regardless, it was just too good to be true, tho, as a leak. Don't you think? I think the most likely scenario is, it was a "false flag" "own goal"/self-inflicted wound, that then necessitated useful and remunerative healing and mending by restructuring and getting congress back on their side. Probably hastily executed in response to some looming threat: like they were going to merge NSA with some other agency, aggressively restructure, etc. So, from one point of view, yes, Snowden is a patriot and a hero for playing the role of patsy in a scheme to save the US intelligence community from muddleheaded regulators, or whomever. But from another point of view, the conventional "public" one, if that's true, he's not. But, the way it was designed is very clever: everybody wins! Public gets happy that they are now more safe and private. IT sector gets happy with a new shiny product "privacy". Defence and intelligence gets happy because they have to be "saved" by congress from the damage done by the leaks to vital national security. Who knows maybe there was even an aspect of long game preparation to raise public awareness about privacy to prevent the eroding away of US internet company customer base by Chinese competitors thrown into the mix? |