Edward Snowden talks about why he became an informant

Excerpt from the book "Permanent Record"; as a young man working as a system administrator, he discovered an encroachment on freedom and decided to publicize the extensive American system of tracking citizens



When I was 22, I got a job in American intelligence, I had no political views. Like most young people, I had a set of clear views that were not really mine (although I refused to admit it) - it was a contradictory set of inherited principles. In my head there was a mess of the values ​​with which I was brought up, and the ideals I met on the Internet.



Only closer to 30 years, I finally realized that most of what I believed in, or what I thought I believed in, was just an imprinting of youth. We learn to speak, imitating the speech of adults around us, and in the process of this training we also imitate their opinions, until we find ourselves in a state of erroneous belief that we are surrounded by our own world.



My parents, if they did not reject politics as a whole, then certainly rejected politicians. And it was not like the discontent of people who did not go to the polls, or fanatical neglect. This was a strange rejection inherent in the class, which was formerly called the federal public service or the public sector, and in our time they prefer to call the deep state or the shadow government.



But these epithets do not really describe reality: a class of career officials (by the way, perhaps, representatives of one of the last strata belonging to the middle class of the USA), which no one elected and appointed, and who worked for the government or as part of independent agencies ( CIA, NSA, tax, federal communications commission, etc.), or as part of executive departments (ministries of justice, defense, finance, state department, etc.).



These were my parents, these were my people: an almost three millionth professional government workforce designed to help amateurs (chosen by the electorate or appointed by elected persons) in the implementation of their political responsibilities - or, as the oath says, the faithful performance of their service. These servants of the people, remaining in their positions regardless of the change of administration, work hard both under the Republicans and under the Democrats, since they, in fact, work for the government, ensuring continuous and stable management.



And they were people who answered the challenge when the country was in a state of martial law. I did this after 9/11, and found that patriotism, instilled in me by my parents, very easily transformed into ardent nationalism. For a while, especially after I joined the army, my attitude was reminiscent of the dualism of the simplest video games in which good and evil are defined very clearly and undeniably.



However, when I returned from the army and took up work with computers, I gradually began to regret my military fantasies. The more I developed my abilities, the more I grew up and realized that communication technology has a chance of success where technology of violence failed. Democracy cannot be planted at gunpoint, but it can perhaps be sowed by distributing silicon and fiber.



In the early 2000s, the Internet was barely out of the formation period, and, in my opinion, it offered a more authentic and complete embodiment of American ideals than even America itself. A place where everyone was equal? Yes. A place dedicated to life, freedom and the search for happiness? Yes. Yes Yes Yes.



It helped the fact that almost all the main documents that shaped the Internet culture described it in terms similar to American history: there were wild, open lines that belonged to everyone who was bold enough to settle there; but these lines very quickly began to colonize governments and corporations that tried to regulate them in order to gain power and profit. Large companies that asked for a lot of money for hardware, software, for long-distance calls, which were then needed to access the Internet, and for the knowledge itself, which was the legacy of all mankind, and in a good way, should have been free, reminded me impossibly an empire whose harsh taxes lit the fire of independence [in the US].



This revolution did not take place in history books, it was now, during the life of my generation, and each of us could become a part of it according to our capabilities. It was amazing to participate in the foundation of a new community, based not on where he was born, how he grew up, how popular he was at school, but on our knowledge and technical capabilities.



At school, I needed to learn a preface to the US Constitution. Now these words in my memory are firmly entwined with the " declaration of independence of cyberspace " by John Perry Barlow , in which the same self-evident and self-chosen plural pronoun is found: "We create a world into which everyone can enter without privileges and without prejudice based on race, economic opportunity, military strength, or place of birth. We are creating a world in which any person from anywhere can express his opinion, no matter how unique, without fear of being silenced or obeyed. ”



Such a technological meritocracy could give both inspiration and humility - as I understood, having got a job as a mental worker. Decentralization of the Internet has emphasized the decentralization of computer competency. I could be the best computer engineer in my family, or in Washington, but at such a job I had to compare my skills with the skills of all the inhabitants of the country and even the world. The Internet showed me the whole number and variety of existing talents, and made it clear that for prosperity I would have to choose a specialization.



I had access to several different career paths in the field of technology. I could become a software developer, or, as they often say, a programmer, and write code that makes computers work. Or I could become an expert in hardware or networks, install servers in racks, connect wires, stretch fiber, connecting all computers, devices and files.



I was interested in computers and programs, and, therefore, the networks that connect them. But most of all I was intrigued by their work at a deeper level of abstraction - not as separate components, but as a general system.



I thought a lot about this when I drove to Lindsay and to local college. At the wheel, I was always thinking, and moving home and to work along the Washington ring road was a long one. A software developer, or programmer, manages vacation spots on road exits, and makes sure that the franchises of all fast food and gas station outlets meet each other and the user's expectations; an iron specialist builds infrastructure, paves roads; a network specialist is responsible for traffic management, traffic signs and traffic lights to bring crowds of users to their goals.



A system specialist is similar to a city planner who takes all the available components and guarantees the maximum effectiveness of their interaction. It was like you were getting paid for playing God, or at least a small dictator.



System engineers come in two forms. One gets the entire system at its disposal and supports it, gradually increasing efficiency and fixing failures. This post is called the system administrator, or system administrator. The second analyzes the problem, for example, how to better store data, or how to organize a database search, and comes up with solutions by combining existing components or inventing completely new ones.



This, the most prestigious position, is called a system engineer. As a result, I did both, and first, having worked on it as an administrator, and then becoming an engineer. I did not pay attention to how this intense interaction with the deepest levels of computer technology integration affects my political beliefs.



Try not to be too abstract, but try to imagine a system. It doesn’t matter which one - it can be a computer system, a legal system, or even a government one. Remember, a system is just a bunch of parts working together as a whole, which most people remember only when something breaks in it. One of the most annoying facts of working with systems is that usually you notice a malfunction not in that part of the system that malfunctions. And in order to understand why the system crashed, you have to start from the point where you found the problem and logically go through the system through all the components.



Since the systems work according to instructions or rules, such an analysis ultimately boils down to finding which rules did not work, how and why, and trying to identify those points where the intent behind the rule was not adequately expressed through its wording or application . Did the system fail because some information did not reach the addressee, or because someone used the system for other purposes, and got access to the prohibited resource, or did he use the allowed resource too zealously? Has one component stopped another, or has it broken? Has one program, or computer, or group of people taken away more resources from the system than it should?



Over the course of my career, it has become increasingly difficult for me to separate the technology questions that I was responsible for from the questions for my country. And I became more and more annoyed at the fact that I was able to repair the first, but not the second. I ended up working in intelligence with the conviction that my country's operating system — its government — decided that it worked best in a broken state.