I agree. The interviewee sounds more like a script kiddie with a very powerful script than anyone of note at the NSA.

What qualifies someone to be "of note"?

In the context of my comment, I meant someone deeply involved in the technical implementation of collection techniques or strategy. The interviewee comes across as someone who is skilled at a small process but doesn't seem to be the person who discovered the exploit or did a significant part of the creative thinking involved in the exploit.

For the purposes of an article like this, I don't think technical prowess would be very useful. He's providing an opinion informed by speaking with a variety of people with clearance speaking freely about their work. That's pretty rare in its own right.

While you are correct, my intent was to serve as a counterpoint to statements like this in the article, "He identified himself and his highly trained colleagues at the NSA as a breed apart — a superior breed, much in the way that soldiers look down on weekend paintballers. Perhaps this shouldn’t be altogether surprising, because arrogance is one of the unfortunate hallmarks of the male-dominated hacker culture."