I think she has some interesting points, but they don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. Occam's Razor says that we should be skeptical of conspiracy theories and require a lot more evidence than a celebrity's hunch.
On the issue of hiring a filmmaker, a little investigation suggests that Greenwald might have had a prior connection with her. The filmmaker's name is Laura Poitras [1]. There's a New York Times article covering her involvement in making the video [2]. In April 2012, Greenwald wrote an article about the U.S. detaining her at the border [3]. I think it's reasonable to believe that Greenwald may have had a prior connection with her.
Also, as I mentioned in another comment [4], history shows that reformers learn from their predecessors' successes and mistakes. The way he orchestrated the release of the documents could be a symptom of his learning from previous whistle-blowers.
It's unfortunate that the best part of her post was at the very end. Regardless of the merits of the rest of her post, I think her last statement is worth remembering: "But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?"
Some things about Snowden's story feel more like spy fiction than reality. I have a feeling there is more to Snowden than mere IT guy for intelligence agencies. But any theory of what else he could be that I can come up with, goes off the rails into wackyland pretty quickly.
That last point would be incredibly salient it if it weren't for the fact that East Germany had no claim to legitimacy via the will of the people or a Constitution that guaranteed life, liberty and and the pursuit of happiness. It had legitimacy because it was the state, and it had the guns.
The implication in the United States is more serious -- the secrecy and double-talk around surveillance means that a Big Brother state can be implemented, and that the people are lied to, and perhaps the Constitution is not being upheld after all.
On the issue of hiring a filmmaker, a little investigation suggests that Greenwald might have had a prior connection with her. The filmmaker's name is Laura Poitras [1]. There's a New York Times article covering her involvement in making the video [2]. In April 2012, Greenwald wrote an article about the U.S. detaining her at the border [3]. I think it's reasonable to believe that Greenwald may have had a prior connection with her.
Also, as I mentioned in another comment [4], history shows that reformers learn from their predecessors' successes and mistakes. The way he orchestrated the release of the documents could be a symptom of his learning from previous whistle-blowers.
It's unfortunate that the best part of her post was at the very end. Regardless of the merits of the rest of her post, I think her last statement is worth remembering: "But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?"
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/media/filmmaker-l...
[3] http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885959