5 ms·

Dear worthless drone. In order to improve our national security, you have the honor being sacrificed for a greater cause. Remember that your experience with u

Dear worthless drone. In order to improve our national security, you have the honor being sacrificed for a greater cause. Remember that your experience with us is secret, and due to the necessities of the state we expect you will continue to do your protective duty in silence. As protocol dictates, we gratefully extend your $1432.67 severance for your 12 years, 5 months, and 3 days of effort. Thank you for your service. Goodbye.

stephengillie 13y ago
Enough hyperbole. These people aren't being killed, they're being released back into the labor pool to either find new jobs, or make new jobs. Maybe some of these admins will start their own datacenters or consulting firms instead of working for someone else's.
- stasmo 13y ago
  No humour allowed!
- sophacles 13y ago
  Stop looking for nonexistent hyperbole - There is nothing in the post which suggests people are being killed. There is a bit of hyberbole about the "automation of tasks" and the "small severance/bureaucratic manner", both of which are (get this craziness): funny.
- kbenson 13y ago
  I, for one, would be hesitant to hire a former NSA admin. There's a lot of things to consider: Will they be approached at a later date by past acquaintances to circumvent normal mechanisms and allow access data? Can they be coerced to circumvent normal mechanisms and allow access to data? How much were they aware of about what the NSA was doing, and were they aware it may have/definitely did break the law? Should that even be considered? I'm not saying it would prevent hiring, but it would sure be on my mind.
  - hox 13y ago
    Why have such a narrow view? Have you considered that 99% of NSA employees might be just like you and me, have absolutely no malicious intent, and have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the programs the NSA is reported to practice? Look at the converse - these employees have already been through a thorough background investigation and have been entrusted with highly secure data. These employees probably also have a higher (or at least average) tolerance against "being coerced" as you say into circumventing security mechanisms enforced by their employer - I can only imagine the counterintelligence nightmare that would exist if the clearance vetting process didn't try to weed out easily coerced individuals. My point being: try not to focus on the negatives of the news, and remember that these are real people, many incredibly talented and trustworthy.
    - Torgo 13y ago
      This is the problem with the Deep State. When a huge portion of what the government does is deception and subterfuge, it should not be a surprise that everyone becomes suspicious of government.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      I don't know about you, but someone who works at the NSA and isn't at least aware of some of the crap they're doing (which has been reported from the mainstream media, mind, this isn't exactly suppressed news) is someone who I wouldn't consider aware of their surroundings, and therefore unsuited to the task. So, these real people. One of them comes to you for a sysadmin job. NSA and a high-ish security clearance is on their resumé. Are they ignorant, apathetic, or malicious? It's one of the three. They either don't know what their government is perpetrating (and aren't paying attention), they know and don't care (because the dollar overrides all morals), or they know, care, and are playing for the other team. "They're real people" is just an emotional appeal that ignores a very real ethical dilemma. Real people actually suck sometimes.
      - gwright 13y ago
        > Are they ignorant, apathetic, or malicious? Nice use of the 'false choice' rhetorical device. I'm not sure why you think that every employee of a large organization is somehow ideologically synchronized, operationally involved, and morally responsible for every policy decision made by the organization. That isn't even true in small organizations, never mind large need-to-know organizations.
- user24 13y ago
  " released back into the labor pool " is a wonderfully sweet way of saying fired.
  - stephengillie 13y ago
    Thanks. I studied a lot of economics in college, and putting things in terms of bigger pictures this way keeps my perspectives in line.
    - user24 13y ago
      So you see mass layoffs as a good thing generally speaking then?
      - stephengillie 13y ago
        I see them as a "thing". Things merely are. I don't want to prejudge them with loaded terms such as as "bad" or "good". Sometimes events which would appear to benefit an individual are harmful to that individual or other individuals, and sometimes events which seem harmful are beneficial. Yes, it's unfortunate that those individuals will have to expend more effort to prove their value to other people, but this is something which we all must do.
        user24 13y ago
        I mean it quite literally when I say that I think your viewpoint is inhuman. You're suggesting that phenomena have no intrinsic right and wrong? From the perspective of the universe-at-large you are quite correct. But not from the human perspective. Sure it's important to see the big picture. But it's also important to give a shit about the little picture.

stephengillie 13y ago

Enough hyperbole. These people aren't being killed, they're being released back into the labor pool to either find new jobs, or make new jobs. Maybe some of these admins will start their own datacenters or consulting firms instead of working for someone else's.

stasmo 13y ago
No humour allowed!
sophacles 13y ago
Stop looking for nonexistent hyperbole - There is nothing in the post which suggests people are being killed. There is a bit of hyberbole about the "automation of tasks" and the "small severance/bureaucratic manner", both of which are (get this craziness): funny.
kbenson 13y ago
I, for one, would be hesitant to hire a former NSA admin. There's a lot of things to consider: Will they be approached at a later date by past acquaintances to circumvent normal mechanisms and allow access data? Can they be coerced to circumvent normal mechanisms and allow access to data? How much were they aware of about what the NSA was doing, and were they aware it may have/definitely did break the law? Should that even be considered? I'm not saying it would prevent hiring, but it would sure be on my mind.
- hox 13y ago
  Why have such a narrow view? Have you considered that 99% of NSA employees might be just like you and me, have absolutely no malicious intent, and have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the programs the NSA is reported to practice? Look at the converse - these employees have already been through a thorough background investigation and have been entrusted with highly secure data. These employees probably also have a higher (or at least average) tolerance against "being coerced" as you say into circumventing security mechanisms enforced by their employer - I can only imagine the counterintelligence nightmare that would exist if the clearance vetting process didn't try to weed out easily coerced individuals. My point being: try not to focus on the negatives of the news, and remember that these are real people, many incredibly talented and trustworthy.
  - Torgo 13y ago
    This is the problem with the Deep State. When a huge portion of what the government does is deception and subterfuge, it should not be a surprise that everyone becomes suspicious of government.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    I don't know about you, but someone who works at the NSA and isn't at least aware of some of the crap they're doing (which has been reported from the mainstream media, mind, this isn't exactly suppressed news) is someone who I wouldn't consider aware of their surroundings, and therefore unsuited to the task. So, these real people. One of them comes to you for a sysadmin job. NSA and a high-ish security clearance is on their resumé. Are they ignorant, apathetic, or malicious? It's one of the three. They either don't know what their government is perpetrating (and aren't paying attention), they know and don't care (because the dollar overrides all morals), or they know, care, and are playing for the other team. "They're real people" is just an emotional appeal that ignores a very real ethical dilemma. Real people actually suck sometimes.
    - gwright 13y ago
      > Are they ignorant, apathetic, or malicious? Nice use of the 'false choice' rhetorical device. I'm not sure why you think that every employee of a large organization is somehow ideologically synchronized, operationally involved, and morally responsible for every policy decision made by the organization. That isn't even true in small organizations, never mind large need-to-know organizations.
user24 13y ago
" released back into the labor pool " is a wonderfully sweet way of saying fired.
- stephengillie 13y ago
  Thanks. I studied a lot of economics in college, and putting things in terms of bigger pictures this way keeps my perspectives in line.
  - user24 13y ago
    So you see mass layoffs as a good thing generally speaking then?
    - stephengillie 13y ago
      I see them as a "thing". Things merely are. I don't want to prejudge them with loaded terms such as as "bad" or "good". Sometimes events which would appear to benefit an individual are harmful to that individual or other individuals, and sometimes events which seem harmful are beneficial. Yes, it's unfortunate that those individuals will have to expend more effort to prove their value to other people, but this is something which we all must do.
      - user24 13y ago
        I mean it quite literally when I say that I think your viewpoint is inhuman. You're suggesting that phenomena have no intrinsic right and wrong? From the perspective of the universe-at-large you are quite correct. But not from the human perspective. Sure it's important to see the big picture. But it's also important to give a shit about the little picture.