12 ms·

Edward Snowden and Gen Y: a sign of leaks to come?

198 points by cstross 13y ago

nl 13y ago
Assange's seldom mentioned manifesto[1] talks about the goal of making secrecy impossible by making the secret systems either completely disconnected from the real world, or so liable to leaking that they are no longer secret. It's difficult imagining that goal being completely achieved, but it is interesting how closely the Snowden story matched Assange's thoughts. Note that Assange's writing is pretty.. umm.. dense. It is worth reading the commentary at [2] at the same time. This analysis is excellent: [Assange] decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make “leaks” a fundamental part of the conspiracy’s information environment.... the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf [2] http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/ http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-an...
- cstross 13y ago
  Yup. I note that Assange, aged 42, is a Gen-Xer. (I left him out of the essay because (a) mentioning his name would invite derailing discussion of other personality-related issues, and (b) his being an X-er would obscure the key message in the closing paragraphs.)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - igravious 13y ago
        Oh I see. Gotcha. Thx.
  - in2liberty 13y ago
    First, I'm a big fan... but: I'm struggling with why you don't open arms embrace the Gen-X / Gen Y's actual attitude towards a government that can grab any of them and shame them into compliance is the moral voting decision. There is an actual synthesis available, the state collects all kinds of data, but it cannot be used against its citizens. Using any that data to help solve ANY domestic crime becomes the greater crime - it is traitorous for any public employee to do so. We have a long legal history or fruit of the poisoned tree, Gen X / Gen Y can simply ensure PRISM and its ilk - we save and extend that, and harshly punish a few civil servants. Lesson taught. Its similar to the militarization of the police. Why not expect and cheer Gen Y / Gen X to say out loud, "we don't care if more cops die because they have only a vest"? Why not expect and cheer, the total destruction of the bureaucracy your work pillories? Why valorize the near criminal firm behavior the 40 year s and a watch created? I'm Gen X and I'm totally comfy with the idea of a state that has to rebuild itself around 1M Snowdens ready to heroically crush state malfeasance for $, fame, or patriotism. It dawns on me you aren't a fan of Nassim Taleb. I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it.
    - unalone 13y ago
      The government is not a monolithic entity. The evils of intrusive surveillance doesn't make, say, social programs, or economic regulation, evil just because they're other large government programs. Libertarianism is great if you're already wealthy; it's... problematic... if you're starting off from a position of relatively little power. > I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it. This is astonishingly condescending of you.
      - in2liberty 13y ago
        I'm not insisting we throw out the state because of PRISM. It seems like you basically agree with my question of CSTROSS. The last bit, was just me letting him know, putting his politics in front of his art means some won't make it to his art. I like keanu reeves bc he doesn't let me know what he thinks. I'm weird that way.
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  There is a third way: stop conspiring, then there's nothing to leak. In other words, Assange is conceiving an environment that asymmetrically favors transparent power over clandestine. Which probably also means good, or at least normative power. (Bad things can be normative eg: segregation, but most bad things are not.)
  - EthanHeilman 13y ago
    >an environment that asymmetrically favors transparent power over clandestine This asymmetry only exists as organisations scale. Keep your Clandestine organisations small and your transparent organisations big. But there are two problems with making Clandestine organisations small: 1. it is dangerous: smaller Clandestine organisations would by necessary concentrate more power in fewer hands, combined with secrecy that actually works and you have the perfect breeding ground for a coup, 2. it is politically sensitive: managers in organisations grow in status as they hire more people below them/lose status as they lose people below them, any budget or size cuts will be used as a way to past the blame after the next intelligence failure (consider how the NSA/CIA would've reacted to the post-9-11 review if Clinton had reduced their size to 0.1%).
    - ianterrell 13y ago
      > smaller Clandestine organisations would by necessary [sic] concentrate more power in fewer hands I think that "by necessity" is not true here. A smaller organization can not do as much as a larger organization. Ok, a handful of people could stage a coup. Then what? They still need bodies for tax collecting, law enforcement, jailers for the secret prisons, whatever. Those people need information to do their jobs, which increases the circle size, etc, and we're back where we started. Assange's insight into clandestine organizations as information networks that can be disrupted is profound. You get the choice between large, effective, and open; or small, ineffective, and clandestine.
      - EthanHeilman 13y ago
        >A smaller organization can not do as much as a larger organization. See 'The Mythical Man Month', SpaceX vs other aerospace companies or the writings of R. V. Jones on the advantages of keeping intelligence agencies small. >Ok, a handful of people could stage a coup. Then what? I agree staging a coup is not the same as running a government. Not sure what you point here is. >You get the choice between large, effective, and open; or small, ineffective, and clandestine. The current choice is between: large, ineffective and semi-transparent or large, even more ineffective and semi-opaque. I agree with Assange on this. The danger is that we could get small, effective and truly-opaque, but it is unlikely to happen due to political concerns.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. Consider this in that light: "NSA to cut system administrators by 90 percent to limit data access" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security-nsa-leaks-idUSBRE97801020130809 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security-ns...
- hedgie13 13y ago
  > "that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire" This was probably one of the big reasons USSR fell apart. The attempt to make everything secret made discussing real problems very difficult. This may work.... Of course, the other serious question if nation states as we know can exist without conspiracies and if we would be better without them.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Totes. The recent news that they would be reducing their outside sysadmin workforce by 90% I think may be the most interesting example of shooting themselves in the foot. Look at it this way: One sysadmin leaves with a lot of information and then leaks it to the press. In an effort to plug that hole, you announce that at some point in the future you are going to eliminate 90% of the people who did the job of that person. Now everyone who is currently doing this job looks around and thinks to themselves "Gee, I'm probably going to lose my job in a couple of months. I have two choices: try to apply for a direct employment role in the agency I was contracting for or I can choose not to utilize my top secret clearance and change jobs." Now I would bet that those 90% comprise thousands of people, some of which may have the same technical prowess as Snowden and who may also be as disillusioned with the corruption of the current system they are whoring themselves out to. I can only imagine that this reduction in force will lead to a lot of new juicy details of wrongdoing being leaked.
jacquesm 13y ago
Employee-employer loyalty in situations like these is often substituted or at least augmented by patriotism, the moral obligation to serve some conceptual ideal that is presumably exhibited by the motherland. Such motivations, especially when entrenched early in life can be quite powerful. I think there is some truth to the fact that Gen X/Y members will be harder to keep buttoned up when given secret clearances but it won't be quite as hard as it would be without the patriotic angle. What the probable response will be against these leaks is a change in hiring practices (less reliance on subcontractors) and more thorough vetting procedures. Rather than, what we'd all like to see (huge assumption on my part there): a more transparent and surgical use of these capabilities with much better oversight in place.
- MarcScott 13y ago
  I think that patriotism is a very powerful motivation in the actions of potential whistleblowers. Previous generations had the Nazis and then the Soviets as the 'enemy' and they were tangible opponents. Potential whistleblowers might have been able to convince themselves that they were acting for the greater good, and kept themselves quiet. The new 'enemy' are the terrorists, and they are neither particularly tangible or visible. It is not so easy to convince yourself you are acting for the greater good in these circumstances. In actuality, the reverse happens. Snowden's patriotism convinced him that the actions of the NSA could not be justified as 'greater goods', and so he became a whistleblower.
  - toble 13y ago
    Also, if newer generations are more independently minded, i.e. less influenced by patriotism and the like, then I guess they are likely to support a David over a Goliath. Pressuring people like Assange and Snowden is just making them into historic figureheads.
  - toyg 13y ago
    It's the double-edged nature of imaginary threats: you can invoke them to justify pretty much anything (invasive airport searches? Al Qaeda! invasive net censorship? Paedophiles!), but the number of people actually believing the bogeymen exist gets lower and lower every time you use them.
onedev 13y ago
Yup you can rest assured that if any of my future employers ever engages in such behavior, I won't rest easy and I hope today's young generation won't either.
bdg 13y ago
To the side of the discussion at hand: I don't think anyone except 'Gen Xers' call 'Gen Yers' as 'Gen Y'. That's not something we do. Ever.
- Helianthus 13y ago
  But what do Millenials think of the issues?
- mlwarren 13y ago
  I'm in the Gen Y bucket and I refer to people born in the mid to late 1980s until the mid 1990s as Gen Y. I'm not sure if this range is appropriate or the standard. I've made the distinction between Gen Y and the Millennial as "people who remember a time before computers were so ubiquitous" vs "people who have always lived entrenched in technology".
devx 13y ago
Leaking is also the future of investigative journalism. Investigative journalism already relies heavily on leaking, but I'm talking about "user-generated" leaking or Leaking 2.0 (as in Web 2.0). Even if the print media dies, and it's harder to do investigative journalism at the national level, and even more so at the local level, leaking by normal people will take its place. There's one caveat, though. We also need a system where it's easy to do it anonymously, so you don't face the repercussions from the powerful, and/or we need stronger laws to protect leaking of wrong behavior (whether "legal" or not).
lowglow 13y ago
I was hoping more people would leak/whistle blow, so I created http://valleyanon.com/ http://valleyanon.com/ which gives anonymous features to bloggers. Unfortunately, it is now riddled with spam. all the spam on the internet.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  The following might not help: - insanely long response time/application error - not on a secure server - hidden registration, so no way to check who backs this (it could be a honeypot).
badman_ting 13y ago
I refuse to focus on the man. He is not the story, what he told us is the story.
- ijk 13y ago
  Which is why you should probably read this article, and not just the title.
c3vin 13y ago
Brilliantly written - thank, you.
coldcode 13y ago
I don't think this has anything to do with Gen Y or whatever you want to call non-old people. Every generation begins with a desire to change what the previous generation did. Some of us don't lose that desire, many do as life's responsibility requires less desire to force change. Branding this as something new is what every generation thinks it is.
normloman 13y ago
The article makes sweeping generalizations about Gen X/Y based on just two annecdotes (Snowden, Manning). The author is eager to blame deregulation for the rise in leaks. But last I checked, people still leaked documents before the 1970s. Nice story. Simple, and reassuring. But complete BS.
- canistr 13y ago
  In agreement with you on this one. Exceptions to the rule don't make it the norm. In fact, people like Snowden and Manning are making it more difficult for Gen Y's to work in environments such as theirs because they are viewed cautiously by the people in power (Boomers).
  - normloman 13y ago
    I believe you made the same mistake as the article: Making sweeping generalizations about people of a certain age group without empirical evidence.
- mpyne 13y ago
  If anything, the mass availability of massively interconnected networks, and cheap compact and plentiful digital storage is what has led to Manning and Snowden-style leaks. As you mention it's not as if previous generations were less complacent about government. If anything generational angst was a far worse problem back then (e.g. late 1960s, or the Communist pushes in the late 40s, or the fascist sympathizers during the Great Depression). We don't hear about that angst for the most part since it didn't succeed, but it certainly left its mark at each point in time.
argumentum 13y ago
This article seems to moan the destruction of a job for life culture where employees value loyalty to their employer over their own free will. I think most on this forum celebrate that change instead, as the alternative seems like slavery.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  No. Is describes the unintended consequences of it. That's not moaning or complaining, its pointing something out.
  - argumentum 13y ago
    No. It claims these "consequences" are in some way negative, which is what I meant by "moan". In my view, every consequence mentioned is a good thing. It's a good thing people are not loyal to their employers. It's a good thing people want to change jobs regularly.
    - ijk 13y ago
      Do they want to or do they have to? People having the freedom to change jobs is a good thing. People being forced to change jobs against their will is a bad thing. Which factor is more prevalent today?
      - argumentum 13y ago
        People being used to having a "job for life", and society approving of this is a bad thing.
        ijk 13y ago
        Well today we have a society that approves of "jobs for life" and no jobs for life. The US has an employment-to-population ratio of 66%. Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.
dmix 13y ago
I normally hate articles that try to frame culture neatly into generations when its frequently very chaotic in reality. But despite depending on x/y for labeling the overall cultural change, covered in this article, away from jobs for life is very real. Most likely starting with our grandparents and more recently accelerating along with increases in university educations (not needing to be dependent career wise).
Shivetya 13y ago
I would give credit to the internet to making issues more readily available from a wide range of sources. Perhaps all generations now will get a full understanding of how invasive government is in their lives and just how far it has drifted from its intent. It would be a great disservice to focus just on intelligence agencies, all agencies of the government with their access to vast amounts of data should be subject to extra scrutiny. Not only does the NSA and FBI combined with the FISA courts pose a threat to the privacy if not freedom of Americans and others, the IRS has elements within it that show a disregard for expression of free speech. Combined with a Congress looking for more avenues to circumvent the Bill of Rights and Administrations who selectively apply the law and everyone is threatened. So perhaps with so much information at hand people will finally realize that big government may be too big to protect freedom.
rdtsc 13y ago
Yes. People in these position are selected for patriotism and devotion to their country. That cuts both ways. If they manage to convince them that government=country than whatever they are told they will listen and go to any lengths to execute orders. Some realize what is going on but saying anything would at best result in revocation of security clearance and loss of job, at worst imprisonment. BUT the other side is, some people don't think country=government. The see country=Constitution, country=citizens and so on. A different ideal. A very very tiny proportion of those people will have balls to come out and expose lies and shameful things hidden under the carpet at the cost of heavy possible repercussions. I am waiting and hoping for more Snowdens to show up.
tokenadult 13y ago
How well is this working in China? Is there the same generational effect there as there is claimed to be in this essay in NATO countries? In particular, do the intelligence services in China seem to be dead-end career paths for ambitious young people there? Who is providing leaks from those? (I ask, as a speaker of Chinese, because I like to reality-check statements about invariant social trends cross-culturally.)
jheriko 13y ago
i'd always hoped gen y were smart enough to not need to be told the obvious via leaks. i applaud snowden for his courage, but the aftermath is completely the wrong thing to have happened. its a fantastic distraction from the /really/ important issues which otherwise might have gotten some more attention... :/
cinquemb 13y ago
When I was reading about the loyalty bit discussed here, It made me think of these lyrics which kind of describes the break in the social contract between a large government and its citizens (I mention this because it seems to be the attitude of more and more of the young men I grew up with, maybe because of media like this…): 'Feel my pain, going insane, I’m ashamed. Cause I ain’t got shit but an EBT card from a fiend. That owe me and it’s in her daughter name. How the fuck is they pose to eat? How the fuck am I pose to eat? Got a nigga in the streets, no health care, Tryna slang weed just to put shoes on his feet. So fuck you, you don’t give a fuck about me. Can’t get a job if they drug test me. Got a nigga stressed depressed. Got a feeling in his chest. And the world’s stripped of happiness" And maybe more interestingly enough, the song is entitled "Terrorist Threats" Watch the imagery in the video and listen to the lyrics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_71q5lVEjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_71q5lVEjc Surprised hayden didn't mention them in his remarks…
hkarthik 13y ago
While there is some truth to this article about the change in work culture, there is a fundamental piece which isn't being addressed that makes me think the government will be able to prevent leaks quickly. Each successive post war generation has become increasingly complacent about government abuses of power. When the Snowden scandal came out, it felt like only 1 in 5 Gen-X/Gen-Yers even seemed to care. Most of the people I talk to say things like the following: "Well if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care that they are monitoring us?" "Of course they are monitoring everything, they have to do that since 9/11." "Are you actually surprised they can read your Gmail and Facebook messages?"
- RougeFemme 13y ago
  Without revealing my specific generation. . .and agreeing that these are common responses. . .the first response makes me want to scream, the second simply rubs me the wrong way.. .and I admit that the third is pretty close to my initial reaction. As someone said humorously/saracastically. . .NCIS has been one of the top-rated shows for about 10 years. Did you really think that everything McGee does is fiction?
  - supergauntlet 13y ago
    I don't believe anyone well versed in technology was really surprised. I didn't want to believe it initially as the proof seemed questionable at first, but when it did become obvious that PRISM was real, I was less surprised and more saddened.
    - hkarthik 13y ago
      Well I wasn't surprised that there were technical reasons they could do it, but I was surprised at the number of companies that were found to be complacent in the monitoring. It ran deeper than I ever expected.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
I'm not even going to bother reading this article. What the hell does "Gen Y" have to do with anything? Have there been big whistleblowers in the past? Yes, of course, some of them extremely big. The Pentagon Papers being an excellent example. Indeed, here's a list of major whistleblowers in relatively recent history (20th century): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers Keeping in mind the bias of any historical list toward the present, I don't see any evidence in this list which indicates "Generation Y" is somehow different in its ability or tendency toward whistleblowing.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > What the hell does "Gen Y" have to do with anything? and > I'm not even going to bother reading this article. Are a little silly in the same comment, since exactly that question is answered in the article at some length.
contingencies 13y ago
Generation identities? What a 'divide and conquer' tangent to the issues.

198 points by cstross 13y ago

nl 13y ago

Assange's seldom mentioned manifesto[1] talks about the goal of making secrecy impossible by making the secret systems either completely disconnected from the real world, or so liable to leaking that they are no longer secret. It's difficult imagining that goal being completely achieved, but it is interesting how closely the Snowden story matched Assange's thoughts. Note that Assange's writing is pretty.. umm.. dense. It is worth reading the commentary at [2] at the same time. This analysis is excellent: [Assange] decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make “leaks” a fundamental part of the conspiracy’s information environment.... the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire [1] http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf [2] http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/ http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-an...

cstross 13y ago
Yup. I note that Assange, aged 42, is a Gen-Xer. (I left him out of the essay because (a) mentioning his name would invite derailing discussion of other personality-related issues, and (b) his being an X-er would obscure the key message in the closing paragraphs.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - igravious 13y ago
      Oh I see. Gotcha. Thx.
- in2liberty 13y ago
  First, I'm a big fan... but: I'm struggling with why you don't open arms embrace the Gen-X / Gen Y's actual attitude towards a government that can grab any of them and shame them into compliance is the moral voting decision. There is an actual synthesis available, the state collects all kinds of data, but it cannot be used against its citizens. Using any that data to help solve ANY domestic crime becomes the greater crime - it is traitorous for any public employee to do so. We have a long legal history or fruit of the poisoned tree, Gen X / Gen Y can simply ensure PRISM and its ilk - we save and extend that, and harshly punish a few civil servants. Lesson taught. Its similar to the militarization of the police. Why not expect and cheer Gen Y / Gen X to say out loud, "we don't care if more cops die because they have only a vest"? Why not expect and cheer, the total destruction of the bureaucracy your work pillories? Why valorize the near criminal firm behavior the 40 year s and a watch created? I'm Gen X and I'm totally comfy with the idea of a state that has to rebuild itself around 1M Snowdens ready to heroically crush state malfeasance for $, fame, or patriotism. It dawns on me you aren't a fan of Nassim Taleb. I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it.
  - unalone 13y ago
    The government is not a monolithic entity. The evils of intrusive surveillance doesn't make, say, social programs, or economic regulation, evil just because they're other large government programs. Libertarianism is great if you're already wealthy; it's... problematic... if you're starting off from a position of relatively little power. > I prefer my sci-fi writers to be dedicated libertarians. So maybe, if you aren't, don't publicize it. This is astonishingly condescending of you.
    - in2liberty 13y ago
      I'm not insisting we throw out the state because of PRISM. It seems like you basically agree with my question of CSTROSS. The last bit, was just me letting him know, putting his politics in front of his art means some won't make it to his art. I like keanu reeves bc he doesn't let me know what he thinks. I'm weird that way.
JulianMorrison 13y ago
There is a third way: stop conspiring, then there's nothing to leak. In other words, Assange is conceiving an environment that asymmetrically favors transparent power over clandestine. Which probably also means good, or at least normative power. (Bad things can be normative eg: segregation, but most bad things are not.)
- EthanHeilman 13y ago
  >an environment that asymmetrically favors transparent power over clandestine This asymmetry only exists as organisations scale. Keep your Clandestine organisations small and your transparent organisations big. But there are two problems with making Clandestine organisations small: 1. it is dangerous: smaller Clandestine organisations would by necessary concentrate more power in fewer hands, combined with secrecy that actually works and you have the perfect breeding ground for a coup, 2. it is politically sensitive: managers in organisations grow in status as they hire more people below them/lose status as they lose people below them, any budget or size cuts will be used as a way to past the blame after the next intelligence failure (consider how the NSA/CIA would've reacted to the post-9-11 review if Clinton had reduced their size to 0.1%).
  - ianterrell 13y ago
    > smaller Clandestine organisations would by necessary [sic] concentrate more power in fewer hands I think that "by necessity" is not true here. A smaller organization can not do as much as a larger organization. Ok, a handful of people could stage a coup. Then what? They still need bodies for tax collecting, law enforcement, jailers for the secret prisons, whatever. Those people need information to do their jobs, which increases the circle size, etc, and we're back where we started. Assange's insight into clandestine organizations as information networks that can be disrupted is profound. You get the choice between large, effective, and open; or small, ineffective, and clandestine.
    - EthanHeilman 13y ago
      >A smaller organization can not do as much as a larger organization. See 'The Mythical Man Month', SpaceX vs other aerospace companies or the writings of R. V. Jones on the advantages of keeping intelligence agencies small. >Ok, a handful of people could stage a coup. Then what? I agree staging a coup is not the same as running a government. Not sure what you point here is. >You get the choice between large, effective, and open; or small, ineffective, and clandestine. The current choice is between: large, ineffective and semi-transparent or large, even more ineffective and semi-opaque. I agree with Assange on this. The danger is that we could get small, effective and truly-opaque, but it is unlikely to happen due to political concerns.
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. Consider this in that light: "NSA to cut system administrators by 90 percent to limit data access" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security-nsa-leaks-idUSBRE97801020130809 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/09/us-usa-security-ns...
hedgie13 13y ago
> "that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire" This was probably one of the big reasons USSR fell apart. The attempt to make everything secret made discussing real problems very difficult. This may work.... Of course, the other serious question if nation states as we know can exist without conspiracies and if we would be better without them.
malandrew 13y ago
Totes. The recent news that they would be reducing their outside sysadmin workforce by 90% I think may be the most interesting example of shooting themselves in the foot. Look at it this way: One sysadmin leaves with a lot of information and then leaks it to the press. In an effort to plug that hole, you announce that at some point in the future you are going to eliminate 90% of the people who did the job of that person. Now everyone who is currently doing this job looks around and thinks to themselves "Gee, I'm probably going to lose my job in a couple of months. I have two choices: try to apply for a direct employment role in the agency I was contracting for or I can choose not to utilize my top secret clearance and change jobs." Now I would bet that those 90% comprise thousands of people, some of which may have the same technical prowess as Snowden and who may also be as disillusioned with the corruption of the current system they are whoring themselves out to. I can only imagine that this reduction in force will lead to a lot of new juicy details of wrongdoing being leaked.

jacquesm 13y ago

Employee-employer loyalty in situations like these is often substituted or at least augmented by patriotism, the moral obligation to serve some conceptual ideal that is presumably exhibited by the motherland. Such motivations, especially when entrenched early in life can be quite powerful. I think there is some truth to the fact that Gen X/Y members will be harder to keep buttoned up when given secret clearances but it won't be quite as hard as it would be without the patriotic angle. What the probable response will be against these leaks is a change in hiring practices (less reliance on subcontractors) and more thorough vetting procedures. Rather than, what we'd all like to see (huge assumption on my part there): a more transparent and surgical use of these capabilities with much better oversight in place.

MarcScott 13y ago
I think that patriotism is a very powerful motivation in the actions of potential whistleblowers. Previous generations had the Nazis and then the Soviets as the 'enemy' and they were tangible opponents. Potential whistleblowers might have been able to convince themselves that they were acting for the greater good, and kept themselves quiet. The new 'enemy' are the terrorists, and they are neither particularly tangible or visible. It is not so easy to convince yourself you are acting for the greater good in these circumstances. In actuality, the reverse happens. Snowden's patriotism convinced him that the actions of the NSA could not be justified as 'greater goods', and so he became a whistleblower.
- toble 13y ago
  Also, if newer generations are more independently minded, i.e. less influenced by patriotism and the like, then I guess they are likely to support a David over a Goliath. Pressuring people like Assange and Snowden is just making them into historic figureheads.
- toyg 13y ago
  It's the double-edged nature of imaginary threats: you can invoke them to justify pretty much anything (invasive airport searches? Al Qaeda! invasive net censorship? Paedophiles!), but the number of people actually believing the bogeymen exist gets lower and lower every time you use them.

onedev 13y ago

Yup you can rest assured that if any of my future employers ever engages in such behavior, I won't rest easy and I hope today's young generation won't either.

bdg 13y ago

To the side of the discussion at hand: I don't think anyone except 'Gen Xers' call 'Gen Yers' as 'Gen Y'. That's not something we do. Ever.

Helianthus 13y ago
But what do Millenials think of the issues?
mlwarren 13y ago
I'm in the Gen Y bucket and I refer to people born in the mid to late 1980s until the mid 1990s as Gen Y. I'm not sure if this range is appropriate or the standard. I've made the distinction between Gen Y and the Millennial as "people who remember a time before computers were so ubiquitous" vs "people who have always lived entrenched in technology".

devx 13y ago

Leaking is also the future of investigative journalism. Investigative journalism already relies heavily on leaking, but I'm talking about "user-generated" leaking or Leaking 2.0 (as in Web 2.0). Even if the print media dies, and it's harder to do investigative journalism at the national level, and even more so at the local level, leaking by normal people will take its place. There's one caveat, though. We also need a system where it's easy to do it anonymously, so you don't face the repercussions from the powerful, and/or we need stronger laws to protect leaking of wrong behavior (whether "legal" or not).

lowglow 13y ago

I was hoping more people would leak/whistle blow, so I created http://valleyanon.com/ http://valleyanon.com/ which gives anonymous features to bloggers. Unfortunately, it is now riddled with spam. all the spam on the internet.

jacquesm 13y ago
The following might not help: - insanely long response time/application error - not on a secure server - hidden registration, so no way to check who backs this (it could be a honeypot).

badman_ting 13y ago

I refuse to focus on the man. He is not the story, what he told us is the story.

ijk 13y ago
Which is why you should probably read this article, and not just the title.

c3vin 13y ago

Brilliantly written - thank, you.

coldcode 13y ago

I don't think this has anything to do with Gen Y or whatever you want to call non-old people. Every generation begins with a desire to change what the previous generation did. Some of us don't lose that desire, many do as life's responsibility requires less desire to force change. Branding this as something new is what every generation thinks it is.

normloman 13y ago

The article makes sweeping generalizations about Gen X/Y based on just two annecdotes (Snowden, Manning). The author is eager to blame deregulation for the rise in leaks. But last I checked, people still leaked documents before the 1970s. Nice story. Simple, and reassuring. But complete BS.

canistr 13y ago
In agreement with you on this one. Exceptions to the rule don't make it the norm. In fact, people like Snowden and Manning are making it more difficult for Gen Y's to work in environments such as theirs because they are viewed cautiously by the people in power (Boomers).
- normloman 13y ago
  I believe you made the same mistake as the article: Making sweeping generalizations about people of a certain age group without empirical evidence.
mpyne 13y ago
If anything, the mass availability of massively interconnected networks, and cheap compact and plentiful digital storage is what has led to Manning and Snowden-style leaks. As you mention it's not as if previous generations were less complacent about government. If anything generational angst was a far worse problem back then (e.g. late 1960s, or the Communist pushes in the late 40s, or the fascist sympathizers during the Great Depression). We don't hear about that angst for the most part since it didn't succeed, but it certainly left its mark at each point in time.

argumentum 13y ago

This article seems to moan the destruction of a job for life culture where employees value loyalty to their employer over their own free will. I think most on this forum celebrate that change instead, as the alternative seems like slavery.

alan_cx 13y ago
No. Is describes the unintended consequences of it. That's not moaning or complaining, its pointing something out.
- argumentum 13y ago
  No. It claims these "consequences" are in some way negative, which is what I meant by "moan". In my view, every consequence mentioned is a good thing. It's a good thing people are not loyal to their employers. It's a good thing people want to change jobs regularly.
  - ijk 13y ago
    Do they want to or do they have to? People having the freedom to change jobs is a good thing. People being forced to change jobs against their will is a bad thing. Which factor is more prevalent today?
    - argumentum 13y ago
      People being used to having a "job for life", and society approving of this is a bad thing.
      - ijk 13y ago
        Well today we have a society that approves of "jobs for life" and no jobs for life. The US has an employment-to-population ratio of 66%. Sounds like the worst of both worlds to me.

dmix 13y ago

I normally hate articles that try to frame culture neatly into generations when its frequently very chaotic in reality. But despite depending on x/y for labeling the overall cultural change, covered in this article, away from jobs for life is very real. Most likely starting with our grandparents and more recently accelerating along with increases in university educations (not needing to be dependent career wise).

Shivetya 13y ago

I would give credit to the internet to making issues more readily available from a wide range of sources. Perhaps all generations now will get a full understanding of how invasive government is in their lives and just how far it has drifted from its intent. It would be a great disservice to focus just on intelligence agencies, all agencies of the government with their access to vast amounts of data should be subject to extra scrutiny. Not only does the NSA and FBI combined with the FISA courts pose a threat to the privacy if not freedom of Americans and others, the IRS has elements within it that show a disregard for expression of free speech. Combined with a Congress looking for more avenues to circumvent the Bill of Rights and Administrations who selectively apply the law and everyone is threatened. So perhaps with so much information at hand people will finally realize that big government may be too big to protect freedom.

rdtsc 13y ago

Yes. People in these position are selected for patriotism and devotion to their country. That cuts both ways. If they manage to convince them that government=country than whatever they are told they will listen and go to any lengths to execute orders. Some realize what is going on but saying anything would at best result in revocation of security clearance and loss of job, at worst imprisonment. BUT the other side is, some people don't think country=government. The see country=Constitution, country=citizens and so on. A different ideal. A very very tiny proportion of those people will have balls to come out and expose lies and shameful things hidden under the carpet at the cost of heavy possible repercussions. I am waiting and hoping for more Snowdens to show up.

tokenadult 13y ago

How well is this working in China? Is there the same generational effect there as there is claimed to be in this essay in NATO countries? In particular, do the intelligence services in China seem to be dead-end career paths for ambitious young people there? Who is providing leaks from those? (I ask, as a speaker of Chinese, because I like to reality-check statements about invariant social trends cross-culturally.)

jheriko 13y ago

i'd always hoped gen y were smart enough to not need to be told the obvious via leaks. i applaud snowden for his courage, but the aftermath is completely the wrong thing to have happened. its a fantastic distraction from the /really/ important issues which otherwise might have gotten some more attention... :/

cinquemb 13y ago

When I was reading about the loyalty bit discussed here, It made me think of these lyrics which kind of describes the break in the social contract between a large government and its citizens (I mention this because it seems to be the attitude of more and more of the young men I grew up with, maybe because of media like this…): 'Feel my pain, going insane, I’m ashamed. Cause I ain’t got shit but an EBT card from a fiend. That owe me and it’s in her daughter name. How the fuck is they pose to eat? How the fuck am I pose to eat? Got a nigga in the streets, no health care, Tryna slang weed just to put shoes on his feet. So fuck you, you don’t give a fuck about me. Can’t get a job if they drug test me. Got a nigga stressed depressed. Got a feeling in his chest. And the world’s stripped of happiness" And maybe more interestingly enough, the song is entitled "Terrorist Threats" Watch the imagery in the video and listen to the lyrics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_71q5lVEjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_71q5lVEjc Surprised hayden didn't mention them in his remarks…

hkarthik 13y ago

While there is some truth to this article about the change in work culture, there is a fundamental piece which isn't being addressed that makes me think the government will be able to prevent leaks quickly. Each successive post war generation has become increasingly complacent about government abuses of power. When the Snowden scandal came out, it felt like only 1 in 5 Gen-X/Gen-Yers even seemed to care. Most of the people I talk to say things like the following: "Well if you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care that they are monitoring us?" "Of course they are monitoring everything, they have to do that since 9/11." "Are you actually surprised they can read your Gmail and Facebook messages?"

RougeFemme 13y ago
Without revealing my specific generation. . .and agreeing that these are common responses. . .the first response makes me want to scream, the second simply rubs me the wrong way.. .and I admit that the third is pretty close to my initial reaction. As someone said humorously/saracastically. . .NCIS has been one of the top-rated shows for about 10 years. Did you really think that everything McGee does is fiction?
- supergauntlet 13y ago
  I don't believe anyone well versed in technology was really surprised. I didn't want to believe it initially as the proof seemed questionable at first, but when it did become obvious that PRISM was real, I was less surprised and more saddened.
  - hkarthik 13y ago
    Well I wasn't surprised that there were technical reasons they could do it, but I was surprised at the number of companies that were found to be complacent in the monitoring. It ran deeper than I ever expected.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

I'm not even going to bother reading this article. What the hell does "Gen Y" have to do with anything? Have there been big whistleblowers in the past? Yes, of course, some of them extremely big. The Pentagon Papers being an excellent example. Indeed, here's a list of major whistleblowers in relatively recent history (20th century): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers Keeping in mind the bias of any historical list toward the present, I don't see any evidence in this list which indicates "Generation Y" is somehow different in its ability or tendency toward whistleblowing.

jacquesm 13y ago
> What the hell does "Gen Y" have to do with anything? and > I'm not even going to bother reading this article. Are a little silly in the same comment, since exactly that question is answered in the article at some length.

contingencies 13y ago

Generation identities? What a 'divide and conquer' tangent to the issues.