5 ms·

Frankly, who Snowden's employer was on paper is irrelevant. There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any

by Amadou 13y ago

Frankly, who Snowden's employer was on paper is irrelevant. There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. Everybody goes through the same vetting process by the same government agency to receive a clearance. If anything, a contractor is going to have additional vetting. As an employer, the federal government is bound by constitutional restrictions that private employers are not. For example suspicion-less drug testing is not a requirement for a clearance (affirmation that you haven't used illegal drugs is a requirement, but actual testing is not). However most private employers are all gung-ho on the drug testing front and do force employees to be tested to whatever level their local state laws permit (there is significant variance by state as to what a private employer can require).

dragonwriter 13y ago
> There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. A government employee might be getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's. A government contractor is, by definition, getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's.
- Amadou 13y ago
  That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itself because the contract employer is answerable to the government. Most contract employers live and die at the whim of their single customer.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itsel Whistleblowing, sure, generally. Espionage on behalf of a foreign power, probably; espionage on behalf of the company itself... heck, government contractors in non-security related fields not-infrequently expend considerable effort to gather non-public information about their current and potential employers and competitors.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      I'd say you have a point when talking about wholesale outsourcing of an entire division to a private contractor. But individuals who report to managers which are government employees are not a consequential risk. Even then it isn't quite espionage that's the problem but simply working to steer more business their way - inside information on operations feeds into the lobbying arm of the contractor and the lobbyists convince congress to create or expand the work available for which the contractor has a high probability of winning the bid.

by Amadou 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> There is nothing about being a government employee that makes one more loyal or trustworthy or any other characteristic. A government employee might be getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's. A government contractor is, by definition, getting paid by a third party whose interest diverge from the government's.

Amadou 13y ago
That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itself because the contract employer is answerable to the government. Most contract employers live and die at the whim of their single customer.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > That's an over-simplification that obscures the important issues. What matters is in what way their interests diverge - espionage and whistle-blowing are of no more interest to a contract employer than to the government itsel Whistleblowing, sure, generally. Espionage on behalf of a foreign power, probably; espionage on behalf of the company itself... heck, government contractors in non-security related fields not-infrequently expend considerable effort to gather non-public information about their current and potential employers and competitors.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I'd say you have a point when talking about wholesale outsourcing of an entire division to a private contractor. But individuals who report to managers which are government employees are not a consequential risk. Even then it isn't quite espionage that's the problem but simply working to steer more business their way - inside information on operations feeds into the lobbying arm of the contractor and the lobbyists convince congress to create or expand the work available for which the contractor has a high probability of winning the bid.