5 ms·

Yes, of their actual job they probably do very little. This is already part of being secret and fighting secrets. Being secret means there is no way you need to

by erikb 9y ago

Yes, of their actual job they probably do very little. This is already part of being secret and fighting secrets. Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. And fighting secrets is hard. You can even see that when working in a team of considerable size (e.g. 10+ people). It's hard even to track all the open, important and even marketed information. Think about how many actual secrets there are that are kept by people who really try. But there are other things these agencies do wonderfully. A) When you have a real hint, and even if it is just a competitor, you can employ lots of fighting power, technology etc to track them. This in itself is already worth much. Think about bugging another country's chancelor's phone. Awesome! B) Scaring your own population into behaving. If you think you are observed all day by CIA, FBI and NSA you are more likely to do stupid things that harm the common piece. C) Doing things that would be illegal for the government, like funding dictatorships delivering weapons to drug lords, etc. So I think even if everybody knows that spies don't really succeed as much as people thought we will still continue to have spy agencies.

sdrothrock 9y ago
> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I'm not following the link between "you don't need standards/reviews" and "your work ethic must not be very high" -- could you elaborate, please? Or was this a typo?
- erikb 9y ago
  Yes, I can elaborate. Standards are a set of procedures to cooperate and provide a certain level of minimum quality. For many single person hackers not having standards may result in much better quality, but for teams of people who do this because they need to pay rent the quality is always pointed towards the possible minimum, not maximum. Therefore standards usually improve the work of paid teams. But standards aren't followed per se. Only when your activities are logged and public do you even try (you=normal human being working a day job). But only when ass-kicking or termination of regular payment is feared do people really care about the details. And these usually come from reviews. So if you have neither standards, nor public exposure (forgot that one), nor reviews your team's quality is probably low.
  - sgift 9y ago
    The same argumentation is usually used to argue that people have to be in the office or they won't do work - it's wrong in that case, it is wrong in this case. People often do good work without being forced to.
    - erikb 9y ago
      Well, I can only say I'm happy you made this experience. In no company I worked until now I could see this. The quality was always horrible, and only carrot&stick could at least improve it to bearable.
      - sgift 9y ago
        It seems you've worked in some horrible companies - good luck in finding better ones in the future. (no sarcasm intended, I really think it's horrible if the only option to get colleagues to work is carrot&stick)
    - Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
      Based on my life experience it is absolutely true that average people work much less if not in an office or other organized workplace. Many times even by their own accounts. This does not mean that there is a minority that can work wherever, or that work even better at home. It all depends on their interest, on the job etc. But yes, offices provide a lot of productivity boosts.
      - 13of40 9y ago
        I went from a private office to an open office and worked there for two years a while back. One of my fears going in was that the increased visibility would force people to work more, but in the end it seemed like there was a silent agreement that we'd all turn a blind eye to the fact we were all working six hour days, including the boss...
    - saint_fiasco 9y ago
      If morale is high, people are motivated (like a nonprofit working for a praiseworthy cause) and there are other feedback mechanisms (like market forces in a startup) then you don't need your employers to be in an office, constantly monitored. But none of that is true for the NSA.
beagle3 9y ago
> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, everyone is free to choose their own; It's a question of what likelihood you assign a-priori for ethics and morals to be chosen, and a question of empirical data as well, which likely no one has, so no statement can be disproved and everything is "equally right". (Was this paragraph about spies or about atheists?)
- sametmax 9y ago
  Except you are mixing individuals with groups. The NSA is not an individual. It's an entity that has no moral, composed of thousand of people with their own agenda, and nothing to check what's going on.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    No, I was talking about the individuals working for the NSA, for which my statement is not confused at all. And I took "they" in the GP post to mean "the people who work for the NSA" although it possibly refers to the NSA itself - in which case, it is also true of any large corporation -- composed of thousands of people with their own agenda, no morals and very little to check what's going on in many respects -- see, e.g. pharma pricing.
- erikb 9y ago
  See the other subtree for more detailed opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 In any case the major point I was trying to make is that spy agencies have side gigs that are so attractive to the governments that the spy agencies will keep their position, even if they don't do their main job well.
- rubber_duck 9y ago
  Even if you don't believe god is watching you you're still living in a society - if you want to be a part of it you have to follow the rules. With secrecy social repercussions go away. Everyone has some moral instincts (social animals and all that) but those can be overridden with right incentives.

by erikb 9y ago

sdrothrock 9y ago

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I'm not following the link between "you don't need standards/reviews" and "your work ethic must not be very high" -- could you elaborate, please? Or was this a typo?

erikb 9y ago
Yes, I can elaborate. Standards are a set of procedures to cooperate and provide a certain level of minimum quality. For many single person hackers not having standards may result in much better quality, but for teams of people who do this because they need to pay rent the quality is always pointed towards the possible minimum, not maximum. Therefore standards usually improve the work of paid teams. But standards aren't followed per se. Only when your activities are logged and public do you even try (you=normal human being working a day job). But only when ass-kicking or termination of regular payment is feared do people really care about the details. And these usually come from reviews. So if you have neither standards, nor public exposure (forgot that one), nor reviews your team's quality is probably low.
- sgift 9y ago
  The same argumentation is usually used to argue that people have to be in the office or they won't do work - it's wrong in that case, it is wrong in this case. People often do good work without being forced to.
  - erikb 9y ago
    Well, I can only say I'm happy you made this experience. In no company I worked until now I could see this. The quality was always horrible, and only carrot&stick could at least improve it to bearable.
    - sgift 9y ago
      It seems you've worked in some horrible companies - good luck in finding better ones in the future. (no sarcasm intended, I really think it's horrible if the only option to get colleagues to work is carrot&stick)
  - Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
    Based on my life experience it is absolutely true that average people work much less if not in an office or other organized workplace. Many times even by their own accounts. This does not mean that there is a minority that can work wherever, or that work even better at home. It all depends on their interest, on the job etc. But yes, offices provide a lot of productivity boosts.
    - 13of40 9y ago
      I went from a private office to an open office and worked there for two years a while back. One of my fears going in was that the increased visibility would force people to work more, but in the end it seemed like there was a silent agreement that we'd all turn a blind eye to the fact we were all working six hour days, including the boss...
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    If morale is high, people are motivated (like a nonprofit working for a praiseworthy cause) and there are other feedback mechanisms (like market forces in a startup) then you don't need your employers to be in an office, constantly monitored. But none of that is true for the NSA.

beagle3 9y ago

> Being secret means there is no way you need to follow any standards or reviews. So your work ethic must not be very high. I don't know if you are right or wrong, but your statement sounds to me almost exactly like the one that I hear from religious zealots about atheists: "No one to answer to, therefore, no morals or ethics". There is a point of view from which this makes sense: Since there is no standard code, everyone is free to choose their own; It's a question of what likelihood you assign a-priori for ethics and morals to be chosen, and a question of empirical data as well, which likely no one has, so no statement can be disproved and everything is "equally right". (Was this paragraph about spies or about atheists?)

sametmax 9y ago
Except you are mixing individuals with groups. The NSA is not an individual. It's an entity that has no moral, composed of thousand of people with their own agenda, and nothing to check what's going on.
- beagle3 9y ago
  No, I was talking about the individuals working for the NSA, for which my statement is not confused at all. And I took "they" in the GP post to mean "the people who work for the NSA" although it possibly refers to the NSA itself - in which case, it is also true of any large corporation -- composed of thousands of people with their own agenda, no morals and very little to check what's going on in many respects -- see, e.g. pharma pricing.
erikb 9y ago
See the other subtree for more detailed opinion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14504119 In any case the major point I was trying to make is that spy agencies have side gigs that are so attractive to the governments that the spy agencies will keep their position, even if they don't do their main job well.
rubber_duck 9y ago
Even if you don't believe god is watching you you're still living in a society - if you want to be a part of it you have to follow the rules. With secrecy social repercussions go away. Everyone has some moral instincts (social animals and all that) but those can be overridden with right incentives.