3 ms·

"but that does not mean every single person working for them is an evil person out to get you." I agree. Those engineers are just following orders. They bear n

"but that does not mean every single person working for them is an evil person out to get you." I agree. Those engineers are just following orders. They bear no personal responsibility at all...

johncolanduoni 11y ago
I think he meant that not everyone in these organizations is working on unsavory projects like this one, not that those who do are free from blame.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Lieutenant General David Morrison of the Australian Army was giving a strong message[1] against against sexism when he said, "The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept." People working at GCHQ (or the NSA) may not be working specifically on an unsavory project, but they are still choosing to support the organization. Also, how do they know the real nature of their project? In a compartmentalized ("need to know") environment, it can be hard or impossible to know the real purpose of any particular task. Jacob Appelbaum gave a very interesting talk[2] about a month ago where he specifically addressed[3] this problem (among other topics - the entire talk is worth watching). He even gets a question from someone from the NSA[4] who was in the audience, who also asked about this problem. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=3160 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=3160 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=4028 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=4028
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    > In a compartmentalized ("need to know") environment, it can be hard or impossible to know the real purpose of any particular task. There are definitely a lot of areas that wouldn't suffer from this problem. I'd be surprised if a cryptographer couldn't distinguish between working on civilian signals intelligence vs military (since the first will be using published ciphers). Any how far does the scope of assisting the organization go? If you work for the FBI in a non-surveillance capacity, are you still part of the machine since the FBI and NSA cooperate on counter-terrorism? Should everybody at the FBI with a conscience quit because some in the organization have taken advantage of overextended surveillance powers?
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  People who worked for the SS in random roles like radio operator are still being prosecuted for murder. The precedent set after 1945 is that working in an organisation that breaks basic human rights is a crime against humanity in and of itself virtually irrespective of your role in the organisation. Also it's not like the UK has conscription into GCHQ.

"but that does not mean every single person working for them is an evil person out to get you." I agree. Those engineers are just following orders. They bear no personal responsibility at all...

johncolanduoni 11y ago

I think he meant that not everyone in these organizations is working on unsavory projects like this one, not that those who do are free from blame.

pdkl95 11y ago
Lieutenant General David Morrison of the Australian Army was giving a strong message[1] against against sexism when he said, "The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept." People working at GCHQ (or the NSA) may not be working specifically on an unsavory project, but they are still choosing to support the organization. Also, how do they know the real nature of their project? In a compartmentalized ("need to know") environment, it can be hard or impossible to know the real purpose of any particular task. Jacob Appelbaum gave a very interesting talk[2] about a month ago where he specifically addressed[3] this problem (among other topics - the entire talk is worth watching). He even gets a question from someone from the NSA[4] who was in the audience, who also asked about this problem. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=3160 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=3160 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=4028 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4#t=4028
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > In a compartmentalized ("need to know") environment, it can be hard or impossible to know the real purpose of any particular task. There are definitely a lot of areas that wouldn't suffer from this problem. I'd be surprised if a cryptographer couldn't distinguish between working on civilian signals intelligence vs military (since the first will be using published ciphers). Any how far does the scope of assisting the organization go? If you work for the FBI in a non-surveillance capacity, are you still part of the machine since the FBI and NSA cooperate on counter-terrorism? Should everybody at the FBI with a conscience quit because some in the organization have taken advantage of overextended surveillance powers?
JupiterMoon 11y ago
People who worked for the SS in random roles like radio operator are still being prosecuted for murder. The precedent set after 1945 is that working in an organisation that breaks basic human rights is a crime against humanity in and of itself virtually irrespective of your role in the organisation. Also it's not like the UK has conscription into GCHQ.