8 ms·

I have some sympathy for the recruiters since they really have no say in the high level decision making in the organization. They may not even be involved with

I have some sympathy for the recruiters since they really have no say in the high level decision making in the organization. They may not even be involved with domestic spying of citizens. But on the other hand they continue to stay at the organization so while I do feel some sympathy for their predicament,I guess it's really just up to each person to figure out whether they're really okay with staying there, given all the pros and cons involved.

martin_k 13y ago
I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever, then that is [...] what we are going after. That is the intelligence target we are going after because it is the requirement." I think as engineers, we have a certain degree of responsibility for how our work is used. To say your work is apolitical when you're in the business of spying on people is quite the statement, especially if "people" is basically everybody. (I am aware that the speaker is probably not an engineer and it wasn't an engineering recruiting program, but the same can be said about their field, I'd assume.)
- DannyBee 13y ago
  I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders". A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt. I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney. This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.
  - robbiemitchell 13y ago
    Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again? Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it. No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1]. I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system. [1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.
      - robbiemitchell 13y ago
        Yes, the purpose of the trial itself is to determine guilt or innocence. I'm suggesting that the purpose of a legal system like ours is to ensure everyone's right to a fair trial in the first place; more generally, our goal is to ensure that innocent people are not put in jail. Defense lawyers make sure that guilt, if determined, is done legally and that sentencing is arrived at fairly. If a defendant wants to skip the trial and admit guilt, that's a different matter.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        No, actually, the purpose of our legal system is to have some fair form of crime and punishment system. A fair trial is not a purpose, it's a means to an end (punishing people fairly). It is not even a necessary component. The only reason it exists at all is because of our inability to objectively determine guilt in most cases. The rest are tacked on (IE determinations of what crime has been committed. Even this would be solved if you could objectively determine what occurred) However, again, if the defendant admits guilt (even if not in public), but still wants a trial, can you explain how the system is served by a fair trial on guilt or innocence for him, rather than a fair sentencing hearing? In that case, the guilt or innocence is not in question. The same is true when they only admit guilt to a defense attorney. Defending the client, and trying to get them off during the trial stage, does not serve the ends of the system. It may, depending on how formulated, serve some of the means, but that's kind of irrelevant.
- meowface 13y ago
  Quite true. The policy makers and intelligence directors can't have huge spying apparatuses if they have no engineers willing to build them.
- angersock 13y ago
  "Once the rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down? That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.
  - doktrin 13y ago
    Nitpick : the above almost makes it look as if von Braun made that statement, which he didn't. It's from a satirical song by Tom Lehrer.
    - angersock 13y ago
      Quite right. Lehrer had some fantastic lyrics to his credit.
- md224 13y ago
  Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should. I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P
  - maxcan 13y ago
    Don't hire Newman. But we knew that already..
  - baconner 13y ago
    This is a very good point that I keep coming back to as the NSA scandal continues to unfold. You may think that as an engineer your concern is the engineering and going heads down on technical issues is the end of your responsibility but it is not. Nothing absolves you of your fundamental responsibility to behave ethically to the best of your abilities. There's a good article on this topic here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-of-evil http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-... There's no such thing as a job where you will never have to make an ethics based decision and you need to be prepared to do the right thing. Philip Zimbardo (sp?)(Stanford prison experiment) talks about the necessity of training people to be heroes before they face ethical conundrums to short circuit our natural instincts and take action. I think this is an important thing to do from time to time - ask yourself if you are compromising your ethics in some way. Look in the mirror and remind yourself that you're going to do the right thing especially when its hard. Make the decision ahead of time so its easier to follow through when it counts. Here's hoping there are folks at the NSA and elsewhere asking themselves these kind of questions and rereading that oath to protect the constitution.
mikeash 13y ago
I have no sympathy. They willingly represent the organization. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They could leave, but they don't, thus implicitly accepting it.
- Kylekramer 13y ago
  I imagine the fear of not being able to provide for you or your family takes precedence over privacy concerns for the vast majority of people. There was a news report about how 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck last week. I'd argue saying "they could leave" assumes a lot.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    If something in the exterior world makes you discontent, then it is not that object which troubles you, but rather your judgement of it; yet to blot out this judgement instantly is within your power. And if your dissatisfaction is based on the condition of your soul, who can prohibit you from correcting your views? Likewise, if you are discontent because you are not doing what seems reasonable to you, why not be active rather than discontent? "But something stronger than me is obstructing me." Still, do not be discontent; for the cause for your inaction is not within you. "But life has no meaning for me if this is not done." Well then, end your life, as calm as if you had succeeded; but don't forget to forgive your adversaries. -- Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations" Everybody dies. Few people live.
  - md224 13y ago
    This is a valid point, and it underscores the importance of being technologists in a (relatively) strong tech job market... we have the luxury of turning down jobs that we feel are part of detrimental systems. And we should take advantage of this luxury whenever we can. Others aren't so lucky.
    - phaus 13y ago
      Exactly, I spoke about this issue briefly in the comment below. The sad part is, I'm a technologist (although not a developer) and I still struggled. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5967067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5967067
mjn 13y ago
It's a somewhat common problem faced by recruiters, with different levels of severity and different levels of justification. For example, in the '90s and early 2000s, MSR recruiters trying to get researchers to jump ship from academia got sometimes combative questions, especially from grad students, relating to Microsoft's business practices. In most cases the MSR representative had little ability to respond to those questions, since they had nothing to do with business strategy, and possibly didn't even have any particular knowledge of it. About all they could offer was that working at MSR itself was different, and you wouldn't be related to the controversy. Nowadays it occasionally comes up with Google recruiters, though not very often thus far. Oddly it doesn't seem to come up often with recruiters from companies that I would think have considerably more questionable practices. When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset. Or more options. By the time a petroleum engineer student becomes a grad student they have probably either figured out that they will most likely be working for one of those companies, or they will have left the field for a more agreeable one. If they've got a problem with BP, chances are they have a problem with Exxon as well... On the other hand, Computer Science students have a wider variety of companies they can work for. Disagreeing with one or two in particular is unlikely to push them into another field.
tippytop 13y ago
As things are, this is one of the few points of contact for public feedback with the NSA. They describe themselves as apolitical tools for the administration, well, that's a pretty big hammer to give a future unknown with no public oversight.
HSO 13y ago
The part where they try to hide behind "we are just doing our jobs" and "it's the politicians who generate the requirements" reminded me of SS members or concentration camp guards who later also claimed we just did our job.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Conveniently forgetting the whole, "defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic," thing.
malandrew 13y ago
I hate to invoke Godwin's Law because it never helps any discussion, so instead I'll refer to the discussion of Death Star politics and the impact on contractors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

martin_k 13y ago

I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever, then that is [...] what we are going after. That is the intelligence target we are going after because it is the requirement." I think as engineers, we have a certain degree of responsibility for how our work is used. To say your work is apolitical when you're in the business of spying on people is quite the statement, especially if "people" is basically everybody. (I am aware that the speaker is probably not an engineer and it wasn't an engineering recruiting program, but the same can be said about their field, I'd assume.)

DannyBee 13y ago
I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders". A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt. I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney. This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.
- robbiemitchell 13y ago
  Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again? Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it. No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1]. I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system. [1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.
    - robbiemitchell 13y ago
      Yes, the purpose of the trial itself is to determine guilt or innocence. I'm suggesting that the purpose of a legal system like ours is to ensure everyone's right to a fair trial in the first place; more generally, our goal is to ensure that innocent people are not put in jail. Defense lawyers make sure that guilt, if determined, is done legally and that sentencing is arrived at fairly. If a defendant wants to skip the trial and admit guilt, that's a different matter.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        No, actually, the purpose of our legal system is to have some fair form of crime and punishment system. A fair trial is not a purpose, it's a means to an end (punishing people fairly). It is not even a necessary component. The only reason it exists at all is because of our inability to objectively determine guilt in most cases. The rest are tacked on (IE determinations of what crime has been committed. Even this would be solved if you could objectively determine what occurred) However, again, if the defendant admits guilt (even if not in public), but still wants a trial, can you explain how the system is served by a fair trial on guilt or innocence for him, rather than a fair sentencing hearing? In that case, the guilt or innocence is not in question. The same is true when they only admit guilt to a defense attorney. Defending the client, and trying to get them off during the trial stage, does not serve the ends of the system. It may, depending on how formulated, serve some of the means, but that's kind of irrelevant.
meowface 13y ago
Quite true. The policy makers and intelligence directors can't have huge spying apparatuses if they have no engineers willing to build them.
angersock 13y ago
"Once the rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down? That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.
- doktrin 13y ago
  Nitpick : the above almost makes it look as if von Braun made that statement, which he didn't. It's from a satirical song by Tom Lehrer.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Quite right. Lehrer had some fantastic lyrics to his credit.
md224 13y ago
Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should. I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P
- maxcan 13y ago
  Don't hire Newman. But we knew that already..
- baconner 13y ago
  This is a very good point that I keep coming back to as the NSA scandal continues to unfold. You may think that as an engineer your concern is the engineering and going heads down on technical issues is the end of your responsibility but it is not. Nothing absolves you of your fundamental responsibility to behave ethically to the best of your abilities. There's a good article on this topic here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-of-evil http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-... There's no such thing as a job where you will never have to make an ethics based decision and you need to be prepared to do the right thing. Philip Zimbardo (sp?)(Stanford prison experiment) talks about the necessity of training people to be heroes before they face ethical conundrums to short circuit our natural instincts and take action. I think this is an important thing to do from time to time - ask yourself if you are compromising your ethics in some way. Look in the mirror and remind yourself that you're going to do the right thing especially when its hard. Make the decision ahead of time so its easier to follow through when it counts. Here's hoping there are folks at the NSA and elsewhere asking themselves these kind of questions and rereading that oath to protect the constitution.

mikeash 13y ago

I have no sympathy. They willingly represent the organization. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They could leave, but they don't, thus implicitly accepting it.

Kylekramer 13y ago
I imagine the fear of not being able to provide for you or your family takes precedence over privacy concerns for the vast majority of people. There was a news report about how 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck last week. I'd argue saying "they could leave" assumes a lot.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  If something in the exterior world makes you discontent, then it is not that object which troubles you, but rather your judgement of it; yet to blot out this judgement instantly is within your power. And if your dissatisfaction is based on the condition of your soul, who can prohibit you from correcting your views? Likewise, if you are discontent because you are not doing what seems reasonable to you, why not be active rather than discontent? "But something stronger than me is obstructing me." Still, do not be discontent; for the cause for your inaction is not within you. "But life has no meaning for me if this is not done." Well then, end your life, as calm as if you had succeeded; but don't forget to forgive your adversaries. -- Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations" Everybody dies. Few people live.
- md224 13y ago
  This is a valid point, and it underscores the importance of being technologists in a (relatively) strong tech job market... we have the luxury of turning down jobs that we feel are part of detrimental systems. And we should take advantage of this luxury whenever we can. Others aren't so lucky.
  - phaus 13y ago
    Exactly, I spoke about this issue briefly in the comment below. The sad part is, I'm a technologist (although not a developer) and I still struggled. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5967067 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5967067

mjn 13y ago

It's a somewhat common problem faced by recruiters, with different levels of severity and different levels of justification. For example, in the '90s and early 2000s, MSR recruiters trying to get researchers to jump ship from academia got sometimes combative questions, especially from grad students, relating to Microsoft's business practices. In most cases the MSR representative had little ability to respond to those questions, since they had nothing to do with business strategy, and possibly didn't even have any particular knowledge of it. About all they could offer was that working at MSR itself was different, and you wouldn't be related to the controversy. Nowadays it occasionally comes up with Google recruiters, though not very often thus far. Oddly it doesn't seem to come up often with recruiters from companies that I would think have considerably more questionable practices. When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset.

jlgreco 13y ago
> When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset. Or more options. By the time a petroleum engineer student becomes a grad student they have probably either figured out that they will most likely be working for one of those companies, or they will have left the field for a more agreeable one. If they've got a problem with BP, chances are they have a problem with Exxon as well... On the other hand, Computer Science students have a wider variety of companies they can work for. Disagreeing with one or two in particular is unlikely to push them into another field.

tippytop 13y ago

As things are, this is one of the few points of contact for public feedback with the NSA. They describe themselves as apolitical tools for the administration, well, that's a pretty big hammer to give a future unknown with no public oversight.

HSO 13y ago

The part where they try to hide behind "we are just doing our jobs" and "it's the politicians who generate the requirements" reminded me of SS members or concentration camp guards who later also claimed we just did our job.

rhizome 13y ago
Conveniently forgetting the whole, "defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic," thing.

malandrew 13y ago

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law because it never helps any discussion, so instead I'll refer to the discussion of Death Star politics and the impact on contractors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA