8 ms·

Need of a support group or working for the surveillance apparatus does not imply idiocy, no more than you just implied being addicted to a substance implies the

Need of a support group or working for the surveillance apparatus does not imply idiocy, no more than you just implied being addicted to a substance implies the same. If someone is perfectly content with what they're doing, then this is not for them. Simple stuff. But it's a near certainty there are people in there who are not content with what they're doing, who think it's varying degrees of wrong but keep doing it anyways because job, family, patriotism, whatever. I would like to see our society stigmatize these kinds of jobs the same way an alcoholic is, FWIW. As in, if you're getting hired somewhere, having intelligence connections on your resumé is grounds for having it thrown in the trash. You need not be a moustache-twirling Saturday morning cartoon villain to be complicit in perpetrating a great wrong. And as far as brainwashing goes, you get wonderful things like this[1] being circulated in internal newsletters. It's bald-faced, pro surveillance propaganda designed to get those who it's intended for to stop thinking so hard about it. [1]: https://edwardsnowden.com/2015/08/25/the-sigint-philosopher-is-back-with-a-new-face/ https://edwardsnowden.com/2015/08/25/the-sigint-philosopher-...

pdabbadabba 11y ago
> Need of a support group or working for the surveillance apparatus does not imply idiocy, no more than you just implied being addicted to a substance implies the same. This is not a fair reading of GP's comment. The reason he said that people working for the NSA are not idiots is because people tend to imply that the only reason they continue working at the NSA is that they are idiots. GP was pointing out that there are other possible reasons, including that they are of the considered opinion that what they are doing is not wrong. For addictive substances there is an obvious alternative reason why people might need a support group to help quit: addiction! But I don't think anyone argues that NSA employees are addicted to snooping, so one is compelled to search for an alternative explanation.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  >GP was pointing out that there are other possible reasons, including that they are of the considered opinion that what they are doing is not wrong. And that would be sign of involvement in a cult, because that is how cults work. There are no human activities immune to the proclivity towards so-called reasoned association with idealistic/authoritarian ideology as a means of life experience. And it is precisely because of this fact that we must not allow the intelligence apparatus to gain so much ground in terms of having control over society. You might think that its okay to have spymasters, spying on everyone. But in a culture of effective, total secrecy between a people and its masters, who are actually supposed to be serving the people, there is much, much danger. Offering those 'in the cult' a way to re-integrate with society is the very first door towards resolution. If those doors are closed, we have the conditions ripe for exploitation by those who are, in fact, masters of infiltration, usurpation and total control over any human group. This is the power that the NSA/GCHQ cult-members have today.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    You cannot do politics by saying "everyone who disagrees with me is in a cult". That's pretty much exactly what McCarthyism was.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      You can overload cult with whatever psychosemantic meanings you wish, but let's compare the NSA's behavior with a checklist of cult behavior: [X] The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. - "Keeping the US safe" über alles, even the law and the wishes of society. [X] Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. - Directly corroborated by Snowden [X] The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. - Snowden again, and to a lesser extent, the leaked newsletter from earlier. [X] The leader is not accountable to any authorities - NSA lied before congress. Zero accountability. Also the "loveint" thing. [X] The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. - See: Every time an NSA spokesperson makes a statement [X] The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members. - See: Recruiting ads, the newsletter, etc. List from [1], and not including things I either couldn't substantiate or didn't think fit. [1]: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
      - Natsu 11y ago
        There are also a lot of items on that list that do not fit. As far as I know, you can quit/retire from the job - The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. ‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money. ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group. EDIT removed (was editing the wrong comment).
- schoen 11y ago
  Halvar Flake suggested in a talk that some people working for spy agencies are (or kind of might be) addicted to hacking. Or the agencies themselves. http://www.isaca.org/chapters2/Norway/NordicConference/Documents/14.pdf http://www.isaca.org/chapters2/Norway/NordicConference/Docum...
caskance 11y ago
>I would like to see our society stigmatize these kinds of jobs the same way an alcoholic is, FWIW. As in, if you're getting hired somewhere, having intelligence connections on your resumé is grounds for having it thrown in the trash. AKA guarantee that people working there keep working there?
- mapt 11y ago
  I suspect their resumes already look a bit like this: 10 years of experience in $redacted 5 years of writing operational manuals for OMS-SPEC-DCPINET 2 years performing $redacted for BLUE SPARROW 3 years as a project manager specializing in coordinating teams of $redacted for challenges like $redacted, $redacted, and ANST-PRMCON Kind of limits your options unless you're selling services to someone that's already within that sphere of influence and has both expectations for this sort of thing, and has clearance to know what some of them are.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I did programming work for a US defense contractor in the distant past. Had I been staying in the industry, and were I interested in moving to a new company, my resume would have looked more or less like your example. When I moved out of the industry, my resume focused on what I did and what I learned as part of the work whose details I can never talk about. The thing about programming on classified projects is that it's pretty much exactly like programming on unclassified projects, but with added data handling, reporting, and facility security headaches.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
walshemj 11y ago
Where do you draw the line then? would you include Google et all the local cops. And for some one who left redit in a huff because they clamped down on hate speech your a fine one to talk about eithics

pdabbadabba 11y ago

> Need of a support group or working for the surveillance apparatus does not imply idiocy, no more than you just implied being addicted to a substance implies the same. This is not a fair reading of GP's comment. The reason he said that people working for the NSA are not idiots is because people tend to imply that the only reason they continue working at the NSA is that they are idiots. GP was pointing out that there are other possible reasons, including that they are of the considered opinion that what they are doing is not wrong. For addictive substances there is an obvious alternative reason why people might need a support group to help quit: addiction! But I don't think anyone argues that NSA employees are addicted to snooping, so one is compelled to search for an alternative explanation.

fit2rule 11y ago
>GP was pointing out that there are other possible reasons, including that they are of the considered opinion that what they are doing is not wrong. And that would be sign of involvement in a cult, because that is how cults work. There are no human activities immune to the proclivity towards so-called reasoned association with idealistic/authoritarian ideology as a means of life experience. And it is precisely because of this fact that we must not allow the intelligence apparatus to gain so much ground in terms of having control over society. You might think that its okay to have spymasters, spying on everyone. But in a culture of effective, total secrecy between a people and its masters, who are actually supposed to be serving the people, there is much, much danger. Offering those 'in the cult' a way to re-integrate with society is the very first door towards resolution. If those doors are closed, we have the conditions ripe for exploitation by those who are, in fact, masters of infiltration, usurpation and total control over any human group. This is the power that the NSA/GCHQ cult-members have today.
- pjc50 11y ago
  You cannot do politics by saying "everyone who disagrees with me is in a cult". That's pretty much exactly what McCarthyism was.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    You can overload cult with whatever psychosemantic meanings you wish, but let's compare the NSA's behavior with a checklist of cult behavior: [X] The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law. - "Keeping the US safe" über alles, even the law and the wishes of society. [X] Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. - Directly corroborated by Snowden [X] The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. - Snowden again, and to a lesser extent, the leaked newsletter from earlier. [X] The leader is not accountable to any authorities - NSA lied before congress. Zero accountability. Also the "loveint" thing. [X] The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. - See: Every time an NSA spokesperson makes a statement [X] The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members. - See: Recruiting ads, the newsletter, etc. List from [1], and not including things I either couldn't substantiate or didn't think fit. [1]: http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm
    - Natsu 11y ago
      There are also a lot of items on that list that do not fit. As far as I know, you can quit/retire from the job - The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group. ‪ The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money. ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group. EDIT removed (was editing the wrong comment).
schoen 11y ago
Halvar Flake suggested in a talk that some people working for spy agencies are (or kind of might be) addicted to hacking. Or the agencies themselves. http://www.isaca.org/chapters2/Norway/NordicConference/Documents/14.pdf http://www.isaca.org/chapters2/Norway/NordicConference/Docum...

caskance 11y ago

>I would like to see our society stigmatize these kinds of jobs the same way an alcoholic is, FWIW. As in, if you're getting hired somewhere, having intelligence connections on your resumé is grounds for having it thrown in the trash. AKA guarantee that people working there keep working there?

mapt 11y ago
I suspect their resumes already look a bit like this: 10 years of experience in $redacted 5 years of writing operational manuals for OMS-SPEC-DCPINET 2 years performing $redacted for BLUE SPARROW 3 years as a project manager specializing in coordinating teams of $redacted for challenges like $redacted, $redacted, and ANST-PRMCON Kind of limits your options unless you're selling services to someone that's already within that sphere of influence and has both expectations for this sort of thing, and has clearance to know what some of them are.
- simoncion 11y ago
  I did programming work for a US defense contractor in the distant past. Had I been staying in the industry, and were I interested in moving to a new company, my resume would have looked more or less like your example. When I moved out of the industry, my resume focused on what I did and what I learned as part of the work whose details I can never talk about. The thing about programming on classified projects is that it's pretty much exactly like programming on unclassified projects, but with added data handling, reporting, and facility security headaches.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

walshemj 11y ago

Where do you draw the line then? would you include Google et all the local cops. And for some one who left redit in a huff because they clamped down on hate speech your a fine one to talk about eithics