3 ms·

This reads like the rest of the industry's pitch for automation against the cries of, "but you're automating me out of a job!" Automation, done right, does rep

This reads like the rest of the industry's pitch for automation against the cries of, "but you're automating me out of a job!" Automation, done right, does replace low-skill labor. In QA (my perspective), automation replaces the need to run regression tests for each build. That means if a person's job is primarily comprised of executing regression tests, they're not likely going to have much to do once regression tests get automated. Similarly, if the NSA hired systems administrators to primarily do things like deploy servers etc., then those people can be replaced by automation. However, your "average" systems administrator job is as much about firefighting, troubleshooting, and customer service (internal customers) as it is deploying servers and managing other (automatable) technical problems. Some of NSA systems administrators are possibly working on optimizing and scaling, or implementing what the NSA's developers and architects have designed and written - stuff that can't realistically be automated. That said, they probably could play games with titles if they really wanted to get this done without losing their ability to function. Rename a bunch of sysadmin positions as "automation engineers", or reclassify their current sysadmins as "developers" or "systems engineers", and continue on their merry way, happy to have satisfied some congressional pressure without having slowed operations.

rst 13y ago
Automation, done right, does replace low-skilled labor --- but doing it right involves completely re-engineering the tasks to support it. In system administration, for instance, the scripts to configure (and monitor, and alert about malfunctions on) new servers don't write themselves, and they can be really tricky. So, achieving those benefits in a re-engineered version of an existing system can be a long, hard slog. That said, if NSA's really doing this to improve security (if only by reducing exposure to malcontents), then doing it right is the only option. So long as there are the same number of hands on the same number of keyboards, doing the same sort of thing, relabeling them does nothing to reduce the risk.
quanticle 13y ago
That reminds of a conversation I had with a sysadmin colleague about this very thing. He said, "Yeah, knowing the government, what they're going to do is rename a bunch of sysadmins as 'devops' or something and just carry on as if nothing happened."
walshemj 13y ago
But the NSA CIA etc is not low skill labor and has specialized needs I could see replacing 90% of the contractor Sysadmins bringing the job in house would mean better control. And in high security environments you want to strictly limit what one person can do this is security 101. The NSA has talked about implementing the two-man rule and presumably making much more use of discretionary access control which increases staff requirements.
- diminoten 13y ago
  Why wouldn't there be some low-skill labor involved? Someone has to physically place the server blades into the racks, install operating systems and necessary libraries, manage raid setups, configure the network, etc. Sure these government orgs have special needs as well, but they don't magically do away with the mundane needs. They are, after all, building a huge data center - someone (or something) is going to have to manage the space. Sure, Ed Snowden wasn't a low-skill labor IT worker, but I bet when they did an internal audit, they discovered a bunch of low-skill IT workers with more access than they needed, and it was at that point they realized not everyone is doing a job a human has to. But again, I bet this is going to be more reclassification than it is going to be actually having less warm bodies on the project.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Well building a secure system for a TLA isn't low skill labor It needs to be built to very high standards googles data centers have poor physical security for example. For this sort of use case you need to trust the people who are building your DC's just as much as your sysadmin with root access. Why do you think the FO in the UK has people whose job is to design and build secure sites and to oversee contractors - to avoid the unfortunate experience of finding bugs in your embassy as the USA has done in the past.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      Designing? Not low skill. Actually building? Possibly less skilled. Frank Gary doesn't need master carpenters to get his dream created.

rst 13y ago

Automation, done right, does replace low-skilled labor --- but doing it right involves completely re-engineering the tasks to support it. In system administration, for instance, the scripts to configure (and monitor, and alert about malfunctions on) new servers don't write themselves, and they can be really tricky. So, achieving those benefits in a re-engineered version of an existing system can be a long, hard slog. That said, if NSA's really doing this to improve security (if only by reducing exposure to malcontents), then doing it right is the only option. So long as there are the same number of hands on the same number of keyboards, doing the same sort of thing, relabeling them does nothing to reduce the risk.

quanticle 13y ago

That reminds of a conversation I had with a sysadmin colleague about this very thing. He said, "Yeah, knowing the government, what they're going to do is rename a bunch of sysadmins as 'devops' or something and just carry on as if nothing happened."

walshemj 13y ago

But the NSA CIA etc is not low skill labor and has specialized needs I could see replacing 90% of the contractor Sysadmins bringing the job in house would mean better control. And in high security environments you want to strictly limit what one person can do this is security 101. The NSA has talked about implementing the two-man rule and presumably making much more use of discretionary access control which increases staff requirements.

diminoten 13y ago
Why wouldn't there be some low-skill labor involved? Someone has to physically place the server blades into the racks, install operating systems and necessary libraries, manage raid setups, configure the network, etc. Sure these government orgs have special needs as well, but they don't magically do away with the mundane needs. They are, after all, building a huge data center - someone (or something) is going to have to manage the space. Sure, Ed Snowden wasn't a low-skill labor IT worker, but I bet when they did an internal audit, they discovered a bunch of low-skill IT workers with more access than they needed, and it was at that point they realized not everyone is doing a job a human has to. But again, I bet this is going to be more reclassification than it is going to be actually having less warm bodies on the project.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Well building a secure system for a TLA isn't low skill labor It needs to be built to very high standards googles data centers have poor physical security for example. For this sort of use case you need to trust the people who are building your DC's just as much as your sysadmin with root access. Why do you think the FO in the UK has people whose job is to design and build secure sites and to oversee contractors - to avoid the unfortunate experience of finding bugs in your embassy as the USA has done in the past.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    Designing? Not low skill. Actually building? Possibly less skilled. Frank Gary doesn't need master carpenters to get his dream created.