3 ms·

Why not? Mercenary tech didn't exist 15 years ago, so it's not like an industry is needed to create useful state hackers. Top talent would just continue to be n

• AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  These are just like any other weapons manufacturer, really. Top talent will make way more in private firms, it's the only way to make a ton of money. Government pay is basically capped. The government pay also encourages the government employees to hire contractors, because that's how you get side benefits (not bribes! tooootallly not bribes), like ultra cushy jobs for relatives, a "consulting" job once you get sick of the government, etc. I'd say it's like aerospace contractors. Just wayyyy to high tech for a government project and mediocre pool. Even NASA can't efficiently design complicated engineering projects, and they probably are the only government agency with a good reputation and decent people. The only interesting thing about these vendors is that their weapons are in active, constant use, but it's not that obvious to the victims.
  • Sporktacular 5y ago
    "Even NASA can't efficiently design complicated engineering projects" Um, the Apollo Program... or did you mean cost efficient? Mercenaries are a better analog. Are you saying that soldiers of fortune make better soldiers? Better armies? The public vs private sector debate isn't as simple or settled as you suggest. For example, and more on topic, given relatively modest salaries the NSA has produced some of the most capable, respected hackers in existence. Creating a parasitic new industry just isn't necessary. Creating risks to global stability isn't either.