5 ms·

Charlie's argument is that the vast majority of people growing up today will not have sufficient loyalty to "the state" to fill the ranks of the state's spy app

by finnh 13y ago

Charlie's argument is that the vast majority of people growing up today will not have sufficient loyalty to "the state" to fill the ranks of the state's spy apparatus. While I find it persuasive that people's loyalty to institutions may be in decline, that population-wide generalization is not dispositive for the hiring ability of spy agencies. You don't need an entire generation of loyalists to fill out the NSA. You just need a couple percent, tops. And those people will always exist, helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job".

ansible 13y ago
And those people will always exist, helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job". I pity the fool who tries to build an effective agency out of those guys though. It will be a giant waste of money, and produce little of value to anyone. That's not to say that people won't try, however...
- echohack 13y ago
  You mean the TSA?
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    They meant Uncle Sam.
  - rev_null 13y ago
    I don't buy that the TSA is full of loyalists. I think it is mostly people who view it as a paycheck.
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
From what I've read it seems that both Manning and Snowden were gung-ho patriots when they signed up. When they signed up. It seems in this end game the HR departments are better off picking the cynical, venal and power-hungry. At least they don't have the "disillusioned idealist" failure mode. But you may end up with a kakistocracy.
- KaeseEs 13y ago
  Are there any articles out there detailing this? I've never heard this part of either story.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    Here's one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009...
- walshemj 13y ago
  Well originally mi5 and sis didn't recruit from university they preferred more experienced men - also because the salary was so low having a pension already helped.
msg 13y ago
"A" hires "A"; "B" hires "C". And Generation Z's "A" players will not work for the NSA. You don't just need loyalists. You need loyalists who are good enough to operate your systems, who are also conscience-free enough to dissociatively split what they're doing from how they do it, day to day. And you have to have 100% accuracy to avoid the next Snowden. Speaking as an engineer hiring for software, we are desperate for good people. It is a seller's market out to the horizon. "A" engineers will be picking among many options for at least the next decade, another generation of change. I am at the head end of Generation Y. I have a nice computer job. And in my personal life story I have already voted with my feet against working for similar institutions. I can pick my post, more or less, and I picked one that doesn't offend my personal convictions about privacy and power. Computer science does force you to think hard about bullshit. You can't bullshit a compiler. I remember thinking in an early experience with C, my code is right, there must a be a bug in the compiler. You get chastened in a hurry with that kind of attitude. I guess I'm just saying there is a negative correlation between the anti-knowledge you get from Fox News and the sense of mastery you get from making a computer do what you need it to. So the future of the NSA is decay.
- finnh 13y ago
  Well, to some extent the systems are already written. And there will always be private companies that manage to hire top talent while still selling shady shit to govt. (palantir, anyone?). Finally, it is absolutely the case that intelligence and morals do not go hand in hand. The history of the world is filled with counterexamples.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  >have to have 100% accuracy to avoid the next Snowden That's the classic security problem; you've gotta defend every attack but only need one attack to work. But there have been spies that have sold information before, instead of publishing it. Spy agencies have had this problem for a long time. At least with Snowden, they know he's out. With other long-time double agents, they had to deal with leaks over many years. Also, it's just silly to think that an org with unlimited money will have problems hiring technical talent.
frank_boyd 13y ago
> You don't need an entire generation of loyalists to fill out the NSA. You just need a couple percent, tops. Or even less, if you take into account the fact that technology kills jobs at an ever-increasing rate. Also, this trend will lower the "risk" of new leakers. Machines are 100% loyal.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> And those people will always exist, helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job". The loyalists will be recruited from credit card companies and water treatment plants, who daily watch vandals and foreign powers attack infrastructure. Security agencies can and should be staffed for pedestrian reasons. They can and should be seen as intellectual janitors, not as hotbeds of raving nationalism.
vidarh 13y ago
The point is not that you can't find them, but that you are less likely to be able to reliably filter and hire only people that are loyalists and will remain loyalists in the face of learning what the agencies actually do, including when you're placed in situations where you might incite reduced loyalty such as when firing people. Not only might they be facing a less loyal generation as your pool to hire from, but they can also expect to hire much more than they did a generation or two ago: These services have grown, and the average time people will stay employed there has nosedived, and the usage of short term contractors have skyrocketed Given that, it is not unreasonable to believe that the odds of slipping up and hiring the wrong people is rapidly rising, and also that the number of events that are high risk to maintaining loyalty, such as people feeling they are passed over for promotions or raises, or firings or other personell issues will go through the roof simply due to the increased number of people involved.
throwawayBecuz 13y ago
> helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job". If you think this is who works at NSA, or for defense contractors, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Fort Meade is located in Maryland, one of the bluest states in the nation. The defense-intelligence complex is in northern virginia ("NoVa"), another region that is exceedingly liberal. Add to that the fact that NSA disproportionately employs highly educated people, then it is clear the majority of their workers and civil servants are not the conservative "xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah type" bugbears you make them out to be.

by finnh 13y ago

ansible 13y ago

And those people will always exist, helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job". I pity the fool who tries to build an effective agency out of those guys though. It will be a giant waste of money, and produce little of value to anyone. That's not to say that people won't try, however...

echohack 13y ago
You mean the TSA?
- maxerickson 13y ago
  They meant Uncle Sam.
- rev_null 13y ago
  I don't buy that the TSA is full of loyalists. I think it is mostly people who view it as a paycheck.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago

From what I've read it seems that both Manning and Snowden were gung-ho patriots when they signed up. When they signed up. It seems in this end game the HR departments are better off picking the cynical, venal and power-hungry. At least they don't have the "disillusioned idealist" failure mode. But you may end up with a kakistocracy.

KaeseEs 13y ago
Are there any articles out there detailing this? I've never heard this part of either story.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  Here's one: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009-ed-snowden-said-leakers-should-be-shot-then-he-became-one/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/exclusive-in-2009...
walshemj 13y ago
Well originally mi5 and sis didn't recruit from university they preferred more experienced men - also because the salary was so low having a pension already helped.

msg 13y ago

"A" hires "A"; "B" hires "C". And Generation Z's "A" players will not work for the NSA. You don't just need loyalists. You need loyalists who are good enough to operate your systems, who are also conscience-free enough to dissociatively split what they're doing from how they do it, day to day. And you have to have 100% accuracy to avoid the next Snowden. Speaking as an engineer hiring for software, we are desperate for good people. It is a seller's market out to the horizon. "A" engineers will be picking among many options for at least the next decade, another generation of change. I am at the head end of Generation Y. I have a nice computer job. And in my personal life story I have already voted with my feet against working for similar institutions. I can pick my post, more or less, and I picked one that doesn't offend my personal convictions about privacy and power. Computer science does force you to think hard about bullshit. You can't bullshit a compiler. I remember thinking in an early experience with C, my code is right, there must a be a bug in the compiler. You get chastened in a hurry with that kind of attitude. I guess I'm just saying there is a negative correlation between the anti-knowledge you get from Fox News and the sense of mastery you get from making a computer do what you need it to. So the future of the NSA is decay.

finnh 13y ago
Well, to some extent the systems are already written. And there will always be private companies that manage to hire top talent while still selling shady shit to govt. (palantir, anyone?). Finally, it is absolutely the case that intelligence and morals do not go hand in hand. The history of the world is filled with counterexamples.
MichaelGG 13y ago
>have to have 100% accuracy to avoid the next Snowden That's the classic security problem; you've gotta defend every attack but only need one attack to work. But there have been spies that have sold information before, instead of publishing it. Spy agencies have had this problem for a long time. At least with Snowden, they know he's out. With other long-time double agents, they had to deal with leaks over many years. Also, it's just silly to think that an org with unlimited money will have problems hiring technical talent.

frank_boyd 13y ago

> You don't need an entire generation of loyalists to fill out the NSA. You just need a couple percent, tops. Or even less, if you take into account the fact that technology kills jobs at an ever-increasing rate. Also, this trend will lower the "risk" of new leakers. Machines are 100% loyal.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

> And those people will always exist, helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job". The loyalists will be recruited from credit card companies and water treatment plants, who daily watch vandals and foreign powers attack infrastructure. Security agencies can and should be staffed for pedestrian reasons. They can and should be seen as intellectual janitors, not as hotbeds of raving nationalism.

vidarh 13y ago

The point is not that you can't find them, but that you are less likely to be able to reliably filter and hire only people that are loyalists and will remain loyalists in the face of learning what the agencies actually do, including when you're placed in situations where you might incite reduced loyalty such as when firing people. Not only might they be facing a less loyal generation as your pool to hire from, but they can also expect to hire much more than they did a generation or two ago: These services have grown, and the average time people will stay employed there has nosedived, and the usage of short term contractors have skyrocketed Given that, it is not unreasonable to believe that the odds of slipping up and hiring the wrong people is rapidly rising, and also that the number of events that are high risk to maintaining loyalty, such as people feeling they are passed over for promotions or raises, or firings or other personell issues will go through the roof simply due to the increased number of people involved.

throwawayBecuz 13y ago

> helped along by talk-radio fear mongers who continually generate a stream of xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah types who will happily spy on their countrymen in exchange for that ever-elusive "secure job". If you think this is who works at NSA, or for defense contractors, then you have no idea what you are talking about. Fort Meade is located in Maryland, one of the bluest states in the nation. The defense-intelligence complex is in northern virginia ("NoVa"), another region that is exceedingly liberal. Add to that the fact that NSA disproportionately employs highly educated people, then it is clear the majority of their workers and civil servants are not the conservative "xenophobic, america-fuck-yeah type" bugbears you make them out to be.