4 ms·

Not everyone will take a job that requires clearance because they are usually "defense" related.

nimih 6mo ago
Also, acquiring said clearance is not always straightforward, even if you lack sufficient scruples to be willing to pursue it in the first place.
- Suppafly 6mo ago
  >Also, acquiring said clearance is not always straightforward This, had a friend whose clearance was held up because he knew a bunch of foreign people, people that he had met through a government job with a lower level of clearance.
- b112 6mo ago
  even if you lack sufficient scruples to be willing to pursue it in the first place. What an absurd thing to say. As a Canuck, I may even spend some days wondering if I'll have to defend my country from the US, but I can clearly see that there are many governmental and military jobs that are incredibly valuable, ethical, beneficial. Wikipedia says there are ~2M US governmental employees, and ~2M in the military. The military doesn't use such clearances. When it comes to securing data systems for the government, a clearance is required, even if it's about any number of domestic things, some of which, yes, are valuable and helpful, and needed. It should be noted that there are all types of security clearances, including very simple ones. In Canada, we have (for example) 'enhanced reliability' and 'secret level II' for governmental work, the first being a simple background, criminal record check, with 10 year's history. Selling services, even say... cloud based wordprocessing software as a service would require most employees to have such clearances. But of course, what is effectively selling paper and pens, eg wordpro software, is a morally bankrupt thing in your context?! This is a governmental program: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42353#_Ref471832706 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42353#_Ref471832706 Description: Provides supplemental, nutrient-rich foods; nutrition education and counseling; and breastfeeding promotion and support to low-income women, infants, and children. But I guess, because this requires handling money, and therefore a security clearance, you'd be ethically challenged to seek clearance? Or to write software for this? To paint every job which requires a clearance as morally bankrupt, to paint working for the government to be morally bankrupt, is frankly disgusting. You should literally be ashamed of yourself. Get your head on straight. Please. Don't let whatever weirdo US team politics-of-the-day exists, leave you making overreaching statements. The US, as a nation, needs GOOD people in such programs, not ones feeling shame. I personally feel the US is on a terrible course currently, but it won't be fixed by tearing it down further. And if a time does come to change that course, the framework you have, needs to be filled with good people. Do you not realise that by acting this way, you're working to ensure that only morally bankrupt people will apply for such jobs? If you make working for the government a badge of shame, it will become true in time? That even the most noblest of jobs, such as helping to feed poor children will only be filled by those with no scruples? How is this attitude helping? How is it any better than whatever other team the US has?
  - vrganj 6mo ago
    To take this logic to it's extreme: Would you have signed up for a job in Nazi Germany that required clearance? If not, it's all down to value judgements and your personal evaluation of the current power structures. Personally, I would feel guilty if I did anything that empowered the Trump regime.
    - b112 6mo ago
      First, referencing "Nazi" has an age old tradition of immediately meaning you lose the debate. That's back to old Usenet and mailing list ethics. Regardless, absolutely, yes, I would take a job in Nazi Germany which required clearance, if that job was to feed poor children. What the hell? I literally used feeding babies as an example, please provide some context in where innocent babies should be left to starve. Children are literally the absolute concept of innocence, and a baby is beyond culpability! That is... unless you're advocating some form of weird let babies starve, because of the crimes of their parents?! Which is effectively along the lines of suggesting ethnic cleansing??? Any form of ideological stance which is this extreme, is realistically actually inline with fascism, for it puts politics before people.
      - dspillett 6mo ago
        > First, referencing "Nazi" has an age old tradition of immediately meaning you lose the debate. True. Though to be frank, before typing my longer response I did consider just telling you the same about the “but forget everything else and think of the children” line of reasoning.
      - vrganj 6mo ago
        First, I purposefully avoided drawing direct comparisons to the Nazis, I only used the extreme end of the logic to illustrate my point, that it's a spectrum and value judgement, not an absolute. Nobody said Trump is literally Hitler. But literal Hitler did exist, so it all becomes a question of where do you personally draw the line?. For you, it seems to be somewhere between Trump and Hitler. For me, it's somewhere before Trump. I'm not establishing equivalency, I'm establishing subjectivity. Along those lines, who said anything about crimes of parents? Let me be more concrete: Would you feed children on camera so the propaganda apparatus can film a movie about a concentration camp titled "The Führer gifts a City to the Jews"? [0] Everything you do can and will be instrumentalized by the regime. The innocents, too, are just a medium for their machinations. There is a treshold at which even nominally good acts become morally reprehensible because they serve to sustain a harmful system. The only question is which system do you consider harmful enough to pass that treshold? You're presenting your moral line as if it's objectively correct. I’m pointing out it's a judgment call with no easy absolutes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(1944_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(1944_film)
- drzaiusx11 6mo ago
  I'd argue there's easily more folks lacking said "scruples" in tech's private sector than the typical on the ground government employee or contractor. Half of what actually makes money in tech these days involves active spying on consumers or manipulation of base human desires at scale. Not exactly the paragon of morality.

nimih 6mo ago

Also, acquiring said clearance is not always straightforward, even if you lack sufficient scruples to be willing to pursue it in the first place.

Suppafly 6mo ago
>Also, acquiring said clearance is not always straightforward This, had a friend whose clearance was held up because he knew a bunch of foreign people, people that he had met through a government job with a lower level of clearance.
b112 6mo ago
even if you lack sufficient scruples to be willing to pursue it in the first place. What an absurd thing to say. As a Canuck, I may even spend some days wondering if I'll have to defend my country from the US, but I can clearly see that there are many governmental and military jobs that are incredibly valuable, ethical, beneficial. Wikipedia says there are ~2M US governmental employees, and ~2M in the military. The military doesn't use such clearances. When it comes to securing data systems for the government, a clearance is required, even if it's about any number of domestic things, some of which, yes, are valuable and helpful, and needed. It should be noted that there are all types of security clearances, including very simple ones. In Canada, we have (for example) 'enhanced reliability' and 'secret level II' for governmental work, the first being a simple background, criminal record check, with 10 year's history. Selling services, even say... cloud based wordprocessing software as a service would require most employees to have such clearances. But of course, what is effectively selling paper and pens, eg wordpro software, is a morally bankrupt thing in your context?! This is a governmental program: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42353#_Ref471832706 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42353#_Ref471832706 Description: Provides supplemental, nutrient-rich foods; nutrition education and counseling; and breastfeeding promotion and support to low-income women, infants, and children. But I guess, because this requires handling money, and therefore a security clearance, you'd be ethically challenged to seek clearance? Or to write software for this? To paint every job which requires a clearance as morally bankrupt, to paint working for the government to be morally bankrupt, is frankly disgusting. You should literally be ashamed of yourself. Get your head on straight. Please. Don't let whatever weirdo US team politics-of-the-day exists, leave you making overreaching statements. The US, as a nation, needs GOOD people in such programs, not ones feeling shame. I personally feel the US is on a terrible course currently, but it won't be fixed by tearing it down further. And if a time does come to change that course, the framework you have, needs to be filled with good people. Do you not realise that by acting this way, you're working to ensure that only morally bankrupt people will apply for such jobs? If you make working for the government a badge of shame, it will become true in time? That even the most noblest of jobs, such as helping to feed poor children will only be filled by those with no scruples? How is this attitude helping? How is it any better than whatever other team the US has?
- vrganj 6mo ago
  To take this logic to it's extreme: Would you have signed up for a job in Nazi Germany that required clearance? If not, it's all down to value judgements and your personal evaluation of the current power structures. Personally, I would feel guilty if I did anything that empowered the Trump regime.
  - b112 6mo ago
    First, referencing "Nazi" has an age old tradition of immediately meaning you lose the debate. That's back to old Usenet and mailing list ethics. Regardless, absolutely, yes, I would take a job in Nazi Germany which required clearance, if that job was to feed poor children. What the hell? I literally used feeding babies as an example, please provide some context in where innocent babies should be left to starve. Children are literally the absolute concept of innocence, and a baby is beyond culpability! That is... unless you're advocating some form of weird let babies starve, because of the crimes of their parents?! Which is effectively along the lines of suggesting ethnic cleansing??? Any form of ideological stance which is this extreme, is realistically actually inline with fascism, for it puts politics before people.
    - dspillett 6mo ago
      > First, referencing "Nazi" has an age old tradition of immediately meaning you lose the debate. True. Though to be frank, before typing my longer response I did consider just telling you the same about the “but forget everything else and think of the children” line of reasoning.
    - vrganj 6mo ago
      First, I purposefully avoided drawing direct comparisons to the Nazis, I only used the extreme end of the logic to illustrate my point, that it's a spectrum and value judgement, not an absolute. Nobody said Trump is literally Hitler. But literal Hitler did exist, so it all becomes a question of where do you personally draw the line?. For you, it seems to be somewhere between Trump and Hitler. For me, it's somewhere before Trump. I'm not establishing equivalency, I'm establishing subjectivity. Along those lines, who said anything about crimes of parents? Let me be more concrete: Would you feed children on camera so the propaganda apparatus can film a movie about a concentration camp titled "The Führer gifts a City to the Jews"? [0] Everything you do can and will be instrumentalized by the regime. The innocents, too, are just a medium for their machinations. There is a treshold at which even nominally good acts become morally reprehensible because they serve to sustain a harmful system. The only question is which system do you consider harmful enough to pass that treshold? You're presenting your moral line as if it's objectively correct. I’m pointing out it's a judgment call with no easy absolutes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(1944_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresienstadt_(1944_film)
drzaiusx11 6mo ago
I'd argue there's easily more folks lacking said "scruples" in tech's private sector than the typical on the ground government employee or contractor. Half of what actually makes money in tech these days involves active spying on consumers or manipulation of base human desires at scale. Not exactly the paragon of morality.