
Snowden criticises Amazon for hiring former NSA boss - ironyman
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54106863
======
mikece
The former NSA boss was hired to close future deals between Amazon and the DOD
for AWS. The DoD, and the NSA in particular, have had a close relationship
with Microsoft going back to the 80s so the Pentagon selecting Microsoft for
JEDI was always the default in my mind. Hiring Alexander is an attempt to make
inroads with the active duty brass to spread the Good News about AWS. Even at
a salary in the seven figures it’s a lot less expensive than advertising and
litigation.

~~~
pydry
This is probably related to Bezos's buying of the Washington Post, too and
their "NSA/CIA friendly reporting" subsequent to its puchase:

[https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-
disgrace...](https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-
disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-
shady-group/)

~~~
lern_too_spel
What is CIA/NSA friendly about that article?

Also, The Intercept made a mountain out of a molehill here by spending an
entire article ranting about an organization the WaPo mentioned only in
passing in it's article.

~~~
pydry
Are you asking what's CIA/NSA friendly about smearing news publications which
are critical of thr CIA/NSA?

Aside from the obvious it feeds their desire to foment fear and hatred of
Russia which is good for the one thing they truly care about - budget
increases to counter whatever seems like the most plausible threat.

~~~
lern_too_spel
> Are you asking what's CIA/NSA friendly about smearing news publications
> which are critical of thr CIA/NSA?

No, I'm asking what is CIA/NSA friendly about the WaPo article mentioned. The
only news publications smeared in that article are RT and Sputnik, and they
weren't smeared because they were criticial of the CIA/NSA but because they
were spreading fake news.

------
boomboomsubban
It seems strange that this article does not actually embed the tweets
mentioned, nor do they link to his Twitter page. Other recent stories seem
fine using that technique.

My cynical side wonders if Snowden's other recent tweets denouncing Assange's
ongoing show trial are to blame.

~~~
katsume3
> It seems strange that this article does not actually embed the tweets
> mentioned

That's because a tweet can be deleted by the owner of the tweet, and the embed
won't show it in the article anymore. Embedding tweets in an article is
usually bad practice, and it also slows down the page with unnecessary
Javascript.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with just copying and pasting a Tweet, so now you
have a verbatim copy of what was said. Then there is the issue of edited
tweets which apparently are coming soon, giving another troll tool to users of
Twitter.

~~~
Krasnol
They could still link to it without embedding. I don't see a reason for not
doing it because even the "deleted" message is a message. It doesn't break the
experience but ads information to it. In this case: the author didn't want to
have this up anymore.

The utter lack of linking in internet articles is terrible. I understand that
it's like free advertisement sometimes but hell...you're already reporting and
the traffic from your page would ENCOURAGE potential ad clients to run ads on
your page if it generates so much traffic...

~~~
pfranz
I often wish there were more direct citations in journalistic articles. I hate
to say this, but often when trying to find sources it is cluttered up by news
articles.

------
Ozzie_osman
So Big Tech, under anti-trust pressure, getting more in bed with the
government. The case seems to not only be: "if you break us up, you leave room
for foreign (ie Chinese) competitors, which is bad for national security", but
also, "you should spend more money on security, too, so give us more
contracts."

~~~
jrockway
Where is the government going to buy computing resources from if not some sort
of large American company? I feel like people would complain no matter the
vendor. If they bought a bunch of Intel servers it would be "wow, wasting
taxpayer dollars on an antique 14nm process". If they went AMD, it would be
"wow, might as well just shut down the IRS and let TSMC collect taxes
directly." At the end of the day, the federal government needs servers so
people can download 1040 forms or whatever. I don't think it's that bad to
pick Amazon, Microsoft, or Google for that.

Going deeper, no matter which cloud provider hosts their servers, it's up to
the people to elect representatives that put forth the public policy programs
they desire. I am sure AWS is just as happy to host some computer program that
frees people that have been wrongly convicted of crimes as it is to host a
computer program that uses machine learning to round up undesirables.

------
justanotheranon
here's to hoping Gab hires the retires patriot Admiral Mike Rogers to its
board of directors to help protect the Qanon ecosystem as Gab expands into
competing against Youtube and Facebook. ;)

------
ponker
I respect Snowden but his opinion on most matters these days is no more
credentialed than “man on the street.” Whether I agree with him or not (here,
I do) it’s not clear why he’s a trusted authority.

------
fouric
Can someone explain why this is newsworthy, or why Snowden's words in
particular are valuable?

~~~
harry8
He's the guy who informed us all that Alexander is a criminal. Having paid a
pretty full price for doing that he's definitely allowed to express an opinion
on Alexander now cashing in embracing the corruption in big tech and with the
sellers of the "Amazon Microphone" [1]

He's got a right to be bitter when he's defended the interests of the people
at considerable personal cost from this criminal, who is now getting filthy
rich rather than defending charges in a court of law. Beyond that, he actually
knows something about surveillance and the surveillance state. He's followed
it pretty closely. So far his opinions on the subject that I've noticed have
been utterly sensible, well informed, well reasoned and worthy of serious
consideration by anyone interested in the topic.

[1] Amazon PR apparently hate their listening device being called the "Amazon
Microphone" It seems to convey what it is quite well to people who get
bamboozled when recent tech is involved.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
I think you are setting a very low bar for “filthy rich”.

~~~
harry8
Eye of the beholder. I think you're delusional in the extreme if you think a
million bucks a year for attending a couple of meetings doesn't. It surely
isn't his way of supporting the American people. He's doing it for the cash.

What percentage of people do you think earn a million (for the most part time
of part time gigs)? Would any of them be "poor" ?

So now what percentage of those with military careers? Do you think on the
standards of the military, ie his standards, a million a year isn't filthy
rich? It seems to me like a lot more than they report those spying for foreign
powers got paid!

