14

Zero Days documentary about stuxnet malware features a "identity protected" NSA employee who reveals information about classified NSA tactics.

She claims "I would NEVER compromise ongoing operations in the field."

Well it's too bad that Amazon Prime Video and IMDB don't share your values. They have compromised your name, Joanne Tucker, and the other films you were in.

Nice acting though. You really have people believing you were a real source!

Comments
  • 14
    Hey that's a good documentary don't you dare talk shit about me 😂😂😂😂
  • 4
    @Stuxnet You're a fine piece of work. But people are trying to turn you into the Kim Kardashian of malware. 😂
  • 4
    @preventiveintel but I mean to be fair you can't honestly think anyone willing to leak *classified* information would actually be willing to show their face. Especially on this scale.

    You'd either get the a witness against the Clinton's treatment or spending the rest of your life in jail if they catch you.
  • 3
    @Stuxnet But from all the research done, and laws of giving credit in movies, the producer should have hired a homeless woman with no previous appearances so it would seem more believable. As there would be no IMDB profile attached.
  • 6
    @preventiveintel
    Not sure what you want to say, but the role is the unnamed "NSA Character" w/o a name, played by Joanne Tucker.
    I have serious doubts that the real NSA employee has the same name.

    In documentaries it is common to let actors / actress "replay" certain parts to protect sources, as displaying pictures or even voice exposes them a huge risk.

    @stuxnet
    Snowden let journalist film him, as he wanted to prove trustworthy of the leaked documents.
  • 2
    @sbiewald Snowden also hasn't come back to America since he did that and never will unless he's in cuffs.

    Some people leak information without wanting to lose their job, which I'm willing to be was the case in this situation. Doubt Snowden wanted to hang around.

    @preventiveintel most people are casual viewers and they don't dig that deep and they don't care that much lmao
  • 2
    You don't think film makers are that naive, to publish body parts of a protected asset/witness.

    Most likely thing that happened here is that she was hired to do the voice-over and visuals from a written statement.
  • 0
    @sbiewald I am simply saying that anyone can hire an actress, give them a script, and say it's an NSA or CIA employee. Didn't mean that it was truely a real source. It's a documentary not a congressional hearing. He is free to script his documentary as falsely as he wants under protection of the first amendment. But normal employees would not have had access to the operation.

    I was in Langley during Neptune Spear and heard not so much as a hint of what was going on in Abbottabad and Osama bin Laden until after the fact. There is very limited personnel per operation and entry level staff, as were the staff she described, would not have access to the operation nor knowledge thereof. Something of the magnitude of Stuxnet would not have taken place inside HQ.

    Nice documentary, but purely a fiction based on true events.
  • 1
    @Stuxnet That entirely depends on the leakers reasons/motives. If a leaker leaks information on ethical grounds, they might not want their face publicly revealed for obvious privacy reasons.
  • 0
    @linuxxx based on the fact they wanted to remain anon makes me think they didn't have many ethical issues with their job, rather they just wanted to truth out there to silence rumors and false info flying around. Otherwise they'd have pulled a Snowden.

    Which even then if I remember correctly, the leaker bashed Snowden for his actions.
  • 1
    @Stuxnet Just wondering, would you be against or in favor of what snowden did?

    Also, any clue as for the title of this documentary?
  • 0
    @linuxxx It's called Zero Days (I've only watched it like 5 times 😂😂)

    I'm kinda torn and I honestly haven't read that much into what he did to give an educated opinion, but even if I did, I'd probably still be torn.
  • 1
    @Stuxnet Oh that one! Yeah watched it multiple times 😄

    Fair enough. When someone leaks something which is done lawful, I'd say its bad but if its done illegally, well, how can you hold people accountable for that when you're not allowed to expose it but it's illegal...
  • 2
    The whole idea is that the NSA employee was anonymised so ofc they’d have an actor sit in a dark room and play out a secretive interview. It is after all a documentary, there has to be something on screen
  • 2
    @Stuxnet the reasoning for not wanting to be identified as a leaker can fall in to 2 primary categories: fear of reprisal or fear of future impact.

    At the end of the day, the leaker has to have a job and being publicly labelled a leaker kinda kills your job prospects
Add Comment