7 ms·

If you find it "creeeeeeepy" what they do, why would you look into working there?

by chinathrow 11y ago

smcl 11y ago
Perhaps they looked into working there before finding out the true nature of the work.
- sageabilly 11y ago
  That was exactly it. It was a big flashy up and coming place to work in DC back in 2012-2013ish, so I poked around the careers page and was interested until I read all of the accounts on Glassdoor of how horrid working there was. Later I researched their technologies as part of a project I was working on for my employer, and came to learn of their involvement in the US Government's efforts to spy on everyone.
  - pinewurst 11y ago
    A while ago, I remember looking at the Palantir Glassdoor comments and being appalled. But now they've been whitewashed with a total flood of "5 stars". Curious whether there was an internal campaign to do so... Update: and from GD itself, "actively asking employees to write positive Glassdoor reviews because reality has become too scathing for us to handle."
DanBC 11y ago
Good people working for bad companies have some small ability to change culture. "Is this legal?", "Do I need a warrant to do this intercept?", "Is this compatible with our rules?", "What would our regulators say if they knew we did this?", "How will the oversight and scrutiny committee respond to this action?" It's not much, but it's about as good as me from the outside writing a letter to my MP which is about all I can do. EDIT: to expand on this a bit. Imagine you're a mathematician and that you have a neuro-diversity. In the past you may have struggled to get a job because employers sometimes discriminate against neuro-atypicality. GCHQ definitely does not do so - they mention in press releases they recognise the advantages of neuro-diversity. So one option would be something like the Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research. As an employer Google gives you 20% time. Heilbronn gives you 50% time, 50% of the time you're doing work directed by GCHQ/CESG, the rest of the time you do what you like. That is potentially interesting maths with interesting people. The money at GCHQ isn't great compared to the SV bubble, but for the UK it's okay, and there other benefits. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/research/heilbronn/ http://www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/research/heilbronn/ http://web.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/heilbronn_institute/ http://web.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/heilbronn_institute/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11111584/GCHQ-employs-more-than-100-dyslexic-and-dyspraxic-spies.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11111584/...
- a3n 11y ago
  A professor in college suggested to me that if good people don't work for defense companies, then only bad people will be working in defense companies.
  - forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
    With everything revealed in the Snowden leaks, it doesn't seem like the good people are having much of an impact.
    - vocatus_gate 11y ago
      I left the NSA a few months ago after working for them four years for that very reason. I realized nothing I did was going to affect what they were doing, and while I personally couldn't effect any change, I could at least leave and not contribute to it. So I did.
      - pvnick 11y ago
        I just wanted to say that reading your comment was encouraging and made me happy.
      - chinathrow 11y ago
        Thanks for posting this.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        Did you consider IAD or one of the defense contractors focused on highly-secure technology? Hell, even groups doing R&D funded by NSF or DARPA on secure systems work. There's a ton of stuff going on out there that either (a) benefits security of government/military or (b) could benefit everyone at some point. I can understand if (a) didn't interest you but being ex-NSA might help with positions doing (b). Not sure how INFOSEC people would react given the climate, though. Wise ones should see a skill and character reference from getting and quiting the job respectively.
      - 11y ago
branchless 11y ago
Exactly my question - can't believe you are being downvoted. Says something about the mindset of tech. These guys are the bad guys. The idea that people can "change the culture" is at best naive.
anExcitedBeast 11y ago
Probably because of the first part ("...doing some of the coolest most innovative big data parsing that there is"). "Creeeeeepy" companies tend to offer good pay to do cool work with smart people. Something that hits 3/4 targets can be tempting (pay, work, people, values).

If you find it "creeeeeeepy" what they do, why would you look into working there?

smcl 11y ago

Perhaps they looked into working there before finding out the true nature of the work.

sageabilly 11y ago
That was exactly it. It was a big flashy up and coming place to work in DC back in 2012-2013ish, so I poked around the careers page and was interested until I read all of the accounts on Glassdoor of how horrid working there was. Later I researched their technologies as part of a project I was working on for my employer, and came to learn of their involvement in the US Government's efforts to spy on everyone.
- pinewurst 11y ago
  A while ago, I remember looking at the Palantir Glassdoor comments and being appalled. But now they've been whitewashed with a total flood of "5 stars". Curious whether there was an internal campaign to do so... Update: and from GD itself, "actively asking employees to write positive Glassdoor reviews because reality has become too scathing for us to handle."

DanBC 11y ago

Good people working for bad companies have some small ability to change culture. "Is this legal?", "Do I need a warrant to do this intercept?", "Is this compatible with our rules?", "What would our regulators say if they knew we did this?", "How will the oversight and scrutiny committee respond to this action?" It's not much, but it's about as good as me from the outside writing a letter to my MP which is about all I can do. EDIT: to expand on this a bit. Imagine you're a mathematician and that you have a neuro-diversity. In the past you may have struggled to get a job because employers sometimes discriminate against neuro-atypicality. GCHQ definitely does not do so - they mention in press releases they recognise the advantages of neuro-diversity. So one option would be something like the Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research. As an employer Google gives you 20% time. Heilbronn gives you 50% time, 50% of the time you're doing work directed by GCHQ/CESG, the rest of the time you do what you like. That is potentially interesting maths with interesting people. The money at GCHQ isn't great compared to the SV bubble, but for the UK it's okay, and there other benefits. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/research/heilbronn/ http://www.bristol.ac.uk/maths/research/heilbronn/ http://web.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/heilbronn_institute/ http://web.maths.bris.ac.uk/research/heilbronn_institute/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11111584/GCHQ-employs-more-than-100-dyslexic-and-dyspraxic-spies.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11111584/...

a3n 11y ago
A professor in college suggested to me that if good people don't work for defense companies, then only bad people will be working in defense companies.
- forgotpasswd3x 11y ago
  With everything revealed in the Snowden leaks, it doesn't seem like the good people are having much of an impact.
  - vocatus_gate 11y ago
    I left the NSA a few months ago after working for them four years for that very reason. I realized nothing I did was going to affect what they were doing, and while I personally couldn't effect any change, I could at least leave and not contribute to it. So I did.
    - pvnick 11y ago
      I just wanted to say that reading your comment was encouraging and made me happy.
    - chinathrow 11y ago
      Thanks for posting this.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      Did you consider IAD or one of the defense contractors focused on highly-secure technology? Hell, even groups doing R&D funded by NSF or DARPA on secure systems work. There's a ton of stuff going on out there that either (a) benefits security of government/military or (b) could benefit everyone at some point. I can understand if (a) didn't interest you but being ex-NSA might help with positions doing (b). Not sure how INFOSEC people would react given the climate, though. Wise ones should see a skill and character reference from getting and quiting the job respectively.
    - 11y ago

branchless 11y ago

Exactly my question - can't believe you are being downvoted. Says something about the mindset of tech. These guys are the bad guys. The idea that people can "change the culture" is at best naive.

anExcitedBeast 11y ago

Probably because of the first part ("...doing some of the coolest most innovative big data parsing that there is"). "Creeeeeepy" companies tend to offer good pay to do cool work with smart people. Something that hits 3/4 targets can be tempting (pay, work, people, values).