> Hiring dropouts is extremely untypical.

It isn't that untypical. Microsoft, Google, and (to a lesser extent) Facebook have famously hired many high school dropouts.

> Why was Booz Allen paying him (again, as a dropout) $200k for a sysadmin job? Were they?

Because competent sysadmins are hard to find. I'm not at all surprised by this, heck, I got offered $100k for a sysadmin job despite (by my own estimation) not being a very competent sysadmin.

> Why did he choose Hong Kong?

He mentioned the reasons in the interview. But, consider also that he's been working for intelligence agencies for quite some years and thus probably has a better idea of the realities of 'freedom of speech' and surveillance technologies than a lot of us outside it.

edit: it's too bad you deleted your comment -- probably because of the downvotes? I wish you hadn't -- disagreements need to take place for meaningful discussion to happen. Also it breaks the conversation and makes it harder to follow.

Doesn't seem very smart to out himself in Hong Kong when Xi Jinping is visiting with Obama. Can you imagine the conversations those two are having right now?

"So...you do it too. hahaha. But seriously, I never want to hear this 'spying on your own citizens' crap again. It was funny before, but now it's pathetic."

"Most favored nations give us a hand, from time to time. I would appreciate it as a personal favor if you would put this guy on a plane."

> I clarified that I mean at CIA

No matter if you're CIA, Google, or Facebook, you're still competing against each other to find competent sysadmins from the same pool of limited applicants. When a promising applicant finally lands in your hands, you don't dismiss him just because he doesn't have a piece of paper.

> That's not a surprising figure to me, but $200k is

That's a nice perk, along with Hawaii relocation isn't it. It's basically a little something to make his life so comfortable that when the decision to be a whistle-blower is being measured, the amenities are a factor in the equation against it.

1. He went out of his way to obtain that information because there's no point being a whistle blower without having some evidence to back up your claims.

2. He's a college drop out, not a high school drop out (or at least that how it reads to me - a non-US citizen. I may have misunderstood how your education system works). Also, his family also works for government agencies, so that probably added weight to his application.

3. Because of the secrecy of his job and the clearance he had. It doesn't sound to me like he was your typical sysadmin.

4. He actually addressed that one himself: On May 20, he boarded a flight to Hong Kong, where he has remained ever since. He chose the city because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent", and because he believed that it was one of the few places in the world that both could and would resist the dictates of the US government.

I can actually sympathize with your skepticism there. Some bits of his story does sound quite hard to swallow. But on the whole I'd say his story seems more plausible than made up. Personally I find it less likely that the US government aren't recording and monitoring that amount of traffic, even if the whistle blower does turn out to be a hoax. And I'm sure many other "democratic" counties are doing the same as well. We've seen how the content industry can basically buy police time and have servers taken unlawfully (in the case of Kim Dotcom) - so I'd be astonished if the government themselves didn't have even further reaching powers.

edit: I really wish you hadn't deleted your comment because while some of the questions had already been answered in the Guardians report, you did raise some worthwhile points. I just hope it wasn't kneejerk down-voters that made you choose to delete your comment (as such voting -in my opinion- hinders discussion)

Re 2 read again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-n...

"His understanding of the internet and his talent for computer programming enabled him to rise fairly quickly for someone who lacked even a high school diploma."

High school.

It also says:

"In order to get the credits necessary to obtain a high school diploma, he attended a community college in Maryland, studying computing, but never completed the coursework. (He later obtained his GED.)"

Presumably he obtained his GED at some time after he joined the CIA (when he lacked a high school diploma).

Of course from a semantic perspective you could argue having dropped out of high school he is and forever will be a high school drop out. But as I understand it this is not the traditional way the term "high school drop out" is used.

Indeed, but he later gained that diploma via extra credits from community college - which he latter dropped out of. Which is why I stated him being a college drop out rather than a high school drop out.

Or does your education system not work this way? ie once you've dropped out of high school, you're permanently branded a "drop out" even if you later complete your high school diploma?

My country's high schools operate very differently, so the confusion here might be cultural. But in higher education you can leave college / university and later return to complete the course and not be considered a "drop out"

Our community college systems are often a hybrid of three things for their students: a place to get their GED which is sort of a "generic high-school diploma," an Associate's Degree which is a 2 year degree that can be thought of as a certification in certain fields, or as a transitionary phase before the student transfers into a traditional 4 year college (this last sort of education is also sometimes offered at "junior colleges").

A high-school diploma or GED is generally acquired by the age of 18 in the US, and a GED is often the result of a student "dropping out" of high-school for whatever reason and then continuing their education at that point or at a later time.

A college is generally a small post-secondary educational institution either dedicated to a specific subject matter or a general liberal arts education. A university consists of at least two colleges.

And then we have "for-profit" post-secondary institutions like ITT Tech or University of Phoenix that are run as corporations and often target "non-traditional" students such as working students, parents, and older students. Confusing, I know.

I guess, about the salary, that there's a multiplying factor when your job involves high-clearance national secrets. If the threat of persecution is not enough to dissuade you from leaking, then maybe a sweet $200k job on Hawaii is.

It's pretty easy to figure the salary:

1) He's not on the GS schedule because he's a contractor 2) His clearance level 3) He works for one of the big 5 consulting firms that is considerably higher on the list if you rank by government/CIA/NSA engagements.

As a federal employee, you don't get a multiplying factor for having higher clearance. You merely get to have the job. You actually get a higher boost from living in an area with a locality adjustment due to cost of living adjustments.

$200K as a contractor is pretty easy. It's $100/hr. Fifteen years ago every 19 year old contract sysadmin I knew was making that much in Chicago. It's more a factor of how long you can stomach being a sysadmin for a bank, insurance company or screwed up DoD project.

You might want to actually read the article and watch the video before asking questions that have already been answered.