>Are you giving the green light to guilt via association? Just because someone worked at GCHQ that does not mean they have done something unethical. If the NSA

>Are you giving the green light to guilt via association? Just because someone worked at GCHQ that does not mean they have done something unethical. If the NSA would like to declassify it's employees job history in a credible and verifiable fashion, I'd be keen to take this on a case by case basis. It is possible that the NSA is hiring engineers for benign reasons. If that's the case, I assume they are not classifying that work. After all, the government should not be withholding information from the public without cause. As it stands, it is reasonable, in light of the revelations of the last several years, to suppose that any engineer who cannot reveal their work history with an intelligence agency has performed unethical work. This is what's known as "preponderance of evidence". >Who are you associated with that I (or society) doesn't like? What a fascinating question. So many insights to your character. I'm entitled to associate with whom I like, and your seedy, toad-like implication that for even suggesting such a thing as personal accountability, I must be a state enemy has the delicious tang of a low quality KGB-centric TV serial. You know, the kind in which the plucky all-american hero fights back against the oppression of a totalitarian russian government. It would be funny if global law enforcement wasn't looking towards digitally predicted thought crime as a genuine goal. So speculate freely, because the real answer is terribly dull: I'm a normal citizen, posting my opinions on an internet forum and associating with you.