For most, Internet == World Wide Web, which TimBL bears credit for creating. I think "Internet founder" is a fair enough descriptor for laymen. (Note also that it didn't say the founder, implying others, which is accurate.)

It's a difficult distinction to make, I don't see the harm.

There's far more harm to be found in the article.

For one thing, Snowden wasn't a "CIA agent". He was a contractor working for the NSA. There is NO evidence he ever "worked" for the CIA or the NSA directly. All of his work was via third-parties.

In journalism, the facts are what come first. If this author can't be bothered to confirm basic facts about Snowden, then we are left with little choice but to disregard the rest of the article as poorly researched.

Snowden himself disagrees with you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Career

It's not entirely clear from that entry whether he worked directly for the CIA or through a subcontractor - which, I think, is a distinguishing point Nrsolis was trying to make. Any other sources that indicate he worked directly for the CIA?

One of the news articles the Wikipedia article cites [1] refers to Snowden explicitly as a "former CIA employee."

[1] http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-09/news/chi-nsa-p...

However, he says he worked as a systems administrator, which I don't think is a "CIA agent" - I believe (although I'm not 100% certain) that "agent" refers specifically to a spy.

You're mostly correct.

The CIA doesn't have "agents", it has "officers". And they are mainly involved with recruiting and running sources of information, mainly foreign.

The context is the use of 'CIA agent' in the linked article. Is that label true enough to be used in a news account? Most would say it is, if by no other reason than Snowden's own description of his work, as corroborated by other sources. The NYTimes has also described Snowden as an "ex-CIA worker" in headlines:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/10/us/former-cia-worker-says-...

So what if technically Snowden was on someone else's payroll – that's how a lot of work for government agencies, covert or not, is done. And, lots of 'agents' for intelligence outfits are actually on other payrolls – often that's the whole point, serving multiple masters ambiguously! A journalist who cuts through the layers and describes the real supervisory relationship is doing their job, not carelessly getting things wrong (as alleged by Nrsolis).

I disagree.

I've worked for the government. We all understand the difference between employee/officer/agent/contractor.

For one thing, there are different rules and regulations. You are legally responsible as an agent in a way you aren't as an officer. Same for employee vs contractor.

The CIA is not the same thing you see in the movies. Don't get your information from Hollywood.

The use of the word "agent" has a very specific meaning within the context of government employment. It denotes a certain level of accountability and vetting that indicates that the person serves as a representative of the government within the duties they are assigned.

For example, the FBI has "special agents".

A little research goes a long way and this article doesn't even have a byline. Blogger or journalist? Who can tell anymore.

Wikipedia is not a primary source.

And he doesn't get to define his relationship with the CIA unilaterally.

Snowden was an IT guy. He was not a spy. He was not an agent. He did not run assets.

For comparisons sake, calling Snowden a spy is the same as calling the guy who unclogs the toilets at a police station a "cop."

In common parlance, 'CIA agent' means 'someone who works for the CIA', with a slight connotation of 'on secret things' or 'under cover'. It can even loosely mean someone who helps the CIA - 'agent' being a general word for someone who acts for on behalf of another. (A high-ranking foreign government official who helps the CIA in return for money or favors can and will be described as a 'CIA agent', no matter their lack of paystubs or 'Officer' titles.)

Snowden worked for the CIA in a foreign country under diplomatic cover. Most of the English-speaking world, and especially the readers of this Irish-based publication, understand that to make him a "CIA agent".

I think you're stating your own opinion as fact.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who work on "classified" projects or systems. They don't think of themselves as "spies".

Learn to listen when you're talking to someone who has more experience and information than you do. It's a reliable survival strategy in a chaotic world.

Where did the word 'spy' come in? You criticized the labeling of Snowden as a "CIA agent". "Spy" is a different word with different meanings, not used by the article you criticized.

Snowden himself has used that word to describe his work.

And your example (someone involved in "covert" activity) fits the colloquial use of the term "spy".

In any case, this isn't an English lesson.

What I'm trying to say here is that Snowden wants the world to believe he was doing much more important work than he was actually doing. I don't think the public discourse is served by misstating his role within the "black" world.

He uncovered some wrongdoing but I don't buy the story that he was just a good American that is trying to right a wrong. He had an agenda.

Are you testifying based on personal knowledge of the actual work Snowden was doing for the CIA in Switzerland? Please, tell us more.

Testifying? God no.

I have never worked for the CIA in any capacity.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your points, but you are asserting your own opinions as fact. Do you have any sources to support this? I personally think there is a distinction and it is important to be known.

Look up 'agent'. Pull up uses of 'CIA agent' in discourse around the world. Both the logical composition of 'CIA' and 'agent', and some of the extant uses, will be of people generically working for (or alleged to be working for) the CIA regardless of their title or nationality or formal employment relationship.

Just the search ["CIA agent" Snowden] will turn up a variety of writers, foreign and domestic, who have described Snowden that way.

Searching for ["CIA agent" Waldheim] shows multiple sources (including the NYTimes) addressing the speculation that Kurt Waldheim, former president of Austria and Secretary-General of the UN, may have at some point been a "CIA agent". (The latest and most official evidence: he wasn't.)

Also check out the passage "Agent or Employee" in the 'Encyclopedia of the CIA':

http://books.google.com/books?id=1Jc9wBsImOIC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6...

It pretty strongly confirms what I described: in common usage, 'agent' means anyone working for the CIA, but in some contexts it also applies to foreign nationals helping the CIA. (Apparently, in the CIA itself, 'agent' is specifically reserved for helpful foreign nationals. But internal bureaucratic distinctions can't override the plain meaning of 'agent' and global usage, to mean both that and more.)

I was questioning the accuracy/legitimacy of your assumptions around what "[m]ost of the English-speaking world" think.

I think the reasoning and references I've provided justify that claim pretty strongly, but I guess we'll have to wait for a linguistic poll to be sure!

Al Gore.