Sure, this seems like a problem:
Snowden was among tens of thousands of private intelligence contractors hired in the unprecedented push to “connect the dots” after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They work side by side with civil servants as analysts, technical support specialists and mission managers. An unknown number have access to secret and top-secret material.
But when there are limitations on what our intelligence can do yet unlimited expectations of success, what are we supposed to do but hire contractors?
As for the computer people, the very best often have personal backgrounds that get in the way of traditional security clearance checks that we require for government employees. Sure, your basic Ivy League graduate in political science would have no problem passing a security background check, but that grad would be a useless asset for cyber-war or computer technology. So contractors have more flexibility to meet government needs.
That's my understanding of the dilemma we have.
The laws are the laws. But the expectations of security don't make allowances for limitations in the laws. So there you go.
I'd expect Strategypage to address this soon. I believe my memory of understanding comes from old posts of theirs, after all.
