4 ms·

I'm happy to state it directly: One ought not be an NSA employee.

by semiel 13y ago

yeukhon 13y ago
That's rather radical and unprofessional to say. One can say such thing to Google, Facebook, Adobe or any company out there if they dislike that company. Any nsa contractor who depends on government contract to feed their families - is it wrong? If I can't find a job at private industry but NSA hired me for 3 months is it wrong that I did it for the money for my family? How would you know that was my story? You won't and you will just penalize me for being a contractor once. And people have different degree of tolerance and standard for patriotism. i don't endorse what they do, but that's exact false attitude we have toward NSA affiliations. We put government's fault onto the workers and it is wrong.
- bandushrew 13y ago
  "That's rather radical and unprofessional to say." In what sense is it unprofessional? "Any nsa contractor who depends on government contract to feed their families - is it wrong? " in a moral sense? who knows. but from a practical sense it genuinely does mean I cannot trust you. hey, I understand what you are saying - and I sympathise, but at the end of the day there are clear, solid reasons why I cannot trust an ex NSA employee. "And people have different degree of tolerance and standard for patriotism. i don't endorse what they do, but that's exact false attitude we have toward NSA affiliations." working for the NSA is not patriotic. it is the opposite of patriotic. it is associating with sneaky people who deceive and lie.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Unprofessional because we put the government's fault onto an employee's fault. Let's take a secretary. There is no technical skill she did. She was just a secretary under some general at NSA. Sure she could be a spy. So now every NSA employee is marked as "untrustworthy". If I may allowed to be radical in my own response, isn't this what the red scared is all about. You are a friend to X who is a known communist and now I cannot trust you. You were a secretary for this communist spy, I cannot trust you even though you didn't know. You just deal his daily accounting. There are simply people who work for NSA for reason like employment. > working for the NSA is not patriotic. Yes, I will agree that jeopardizing democracy and liberty is not patriotic. But I am saying from the guy who started out at age 20 and thought it was everything he could do for the country, and now he realized he was wrong. Now do you trust him? The ultimate issue is again, we are equating NSA is untrustworthy == employees are untrustworthy people.
    - summerdown2 13y ago
      I'm not sure this is equivalent to the red scare. If you have a friend who is a known communist (assuming for the sake of argument that communism is bad here), then it might be you have tolerated that friend for the sake of other good qualities. However, if you work in a place, there is the Buddhist question of "right livelihood." I'm sorry that I don't know any better way to put it. Given that the NSA has been doing some things that seem objectionable, shouldn't everyone who contributes to that effort begin examining their conscience? And yes, a secretary does contribute to that effort. Now it might be that the latest report will make some well-needed changes. And heaven knows, countries need intelligence to combat things like terrorism. But still. If you were part of the NSA, two things would today be true: a) You knew what went on, and agreed with it. Well, maybe your ethics are not what we would all like. or b) You didn't know what went on, and aren't impressed now you do. I suggest it's now time for you to consider whether this is an enterprise you should contribute time and effort towards. And if that comes at odds to feeding your family, well, maybe you can't just resign. But you certainly can look for more ethical work, or take part in internal conversations about how the organisation can become more ethical.
      - yeukhon 13y ago
        > And if that comes at odds to feeding your family, well, maybe you can't just resign. But you certainly can look for more ethical work, or take part in internal conversations about how the organisation can become more ethical. And we continue to be scared because of their background, previous involvement. > a) You knew what went on, and agreed with it. Well, maybe your ethics are not what we would all like. Not everyone is a saint and some are utilitarian and some are not. People also change they way they perceive things.
    - bandushrew 13y ago
      that is because the work that makes the NSA untrustworthy is done by its employees. why on earth should they get a free pass for that? have you seen the scope of the damage they have done?
      - 13y ago
- cbhl 13y ago
  > Any nsa contractor who depends on government contract to feed their families - is it wrong? Anyone who chooses to work (directly or indirectly) for the Government should realize that the public good (not to be confused with "good for the government") must come above "feeding the family". It is very easy to fall into atrocities and "following orders" when you do things in the name of "feeding the family". For example, spend a few hours playing "Papers, Please"[0] (or, even better, watching other people play it) and you'd be surprised how easily people start looking at the characters crossing the border as adversaries. [0] http://papersplea.se/ http://papersplea.se/ (It's on sale in the Humble store for $4.99 USD.)
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Realization and reality are two things. If we want to give people a second chance after they have committed a crime (the same argument that public good over 'feeding the family' or self-interest), do we say the same to the ex-NSA employees? I do realize what is meant to have virtue ethics (Hursthouse's paper on abortion is a great paper).
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  > That's rather radical and unprofessional to say. Radical, certainly. Unprofessional? Professions usually have ethical codes of conduct. If you violate those ethics, you're not a professional. We don't have a unified professional ethical code, but ethics is absolutely an important part of professionalism.
  - treekiller 13y ago
    All this arguing about blacklisting ex-NSA/US intelligence misses the point. Ex-NSA will just lie about being NSA. A system of shunning will be pointless, or worse. Then it becomes a witch hunt. You have to start shunning based on just suspicions.
- w_t_payne 13y ago
  Just like Google or Facebook, or any other organisation that you might care to mention, the NSA is a group of people, human beings, and fellow travellers on our annual circumlocution of Sol. I don't want to spit vile hatred, nor make any man my enemy, but I do want to communicate the depth and breadth of my concern for the things that we do, and the situations that we end up sleep-walking into. These matters are serious enough that I would implore individuals to consider their own position, and to deeply reflect on what their actions mean in a broader context; to step outside their mental comfort zone and seek another - any other - perspective with which to view their actions. If such reflection reinforces their sense or purpose, and the righteousness and justice of their mission, then so be it. If it causes them to question, and to ponder, and to debate, then so much the better. It is too much to ask for people to turn through 180 degrees - and perhaps the wrong direction to pick, also, but it is not too much to ask for a conversation that goes beyond mutual recrimination and hatred.
gohrt 13y ago
That just fills the NSA with worse people. If the NSA is broken, it must be fixed or destroyed. Will draining the NSA of its ethical population improve it? Perhaps -- by hastening its demise -- but that is not the obvious result. Needs further analysis and argument.
a3n 13y ago
I trot this out every few years or so; it's worth thinking about: A professor of mine who was active in the peace movement in the eighties was talking to me about employment at defense contractors like Boeing or Lockheed. He said "If ethical people always choose to not work for defense contractors, then only non-ethical people will be working for defense contractors. Do you want defense contractors to be composed solely of non-ethical people?"
- bonemachine 13y ago
  That's rather specious reasoning. Any employment-offering entity (EOE) $foo can be substituted in the pace of Boeing or Lockheed in that argument: "the mob", "the Stasi", "revenge porn sites", etc. So it really does boil down to intrinsics, after all. If we're going to commit ourselves to ending perennial abuses perpetrated by EOEs that seem entrenched and averse to wisdom and self-reflection (like large military contractors, or our so-called intelligence agencies)... then perhaps it should no longer be socially acceptable to work for them.

I'm happy to state it directly: One ought not be an NSA employee.

by semiel 13y ago

I'm happy to state it directly: One ought not be an NSA employee.

That's rather radical and unprofessional to say. One can say such thing to Google, Facebook, Adobe or any company out there if they dislike that company. Any nsa contractor who depends on government contract to feed their families - is it wrong? If I can't find a job at private industry but NSA hired me for 3 months is it wrong that I did it for the money for my family? How would you know that was my story? You won't and you will just penalize me for being a contractor once. And people have different degree of tolerance and standard for patriotism. i don't endorse what they do, but that's exact false attitude we have toward NSA affiliations. We put government's fault onto the workers and it is wrong.

bandushrew 13y ago
"That's rather radical and unprofessional to say." In what sense is it unprofessional? "Any nsa contractor who depends on government contract to feed their families - is it wrong? " in a moral sense? who knows. but from a practical sense it genuinely does mean I cannot trust you. hey, I understand what you are saying - and I sympathise, but at the end of the day there are clear, solid reasons why I cannot trust an ex NSA employee. "And people have different degree of tolerance and standard for patriotism. i don't endorse what they do, but that's exact false attitude we have toward NSA affiliations." working for the NSA is not patriotic. it is the opposite of patriotic. it is associating with sneaky people who deceive and lie.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Unprofessional because we put the government's fault onto an employee's fault. Let's take a secretary. There is no technical skill she did. She was just a secretary under some general at NSA. Sure she could be a spy. So now every NSA employee is marked as "untrustworthy". If I may allowed to be radical in my own response, isn't this what the red scared is all about. You are a friend to X who is a known communist and now I cannot trust you. You were a secretary for this communist spy, I cannot trust you even though you didn't know. You just deal his daily accounting. There are simply people who work for NSA for reason like employment. > working for the NSA is not patriotic. Yes, I will agree that jeopardizing democracy and liberty is not patriotic. But I am saying from the guy who started out at age 20 and thought it was everything he could do for the country, and now he realized he was wrong. Now do you trust him? The ultimate issue is again, we are equating NSA is untrustworthy == employees are untrustworthy people.
  - summerdown2 13y ago
    I'm not sure this is equivalent to the red scare. If you have a friend who is a known communist (assuming for the sake of argument that communism is bad here), then it might be you have tolerated that friend for the sake of other good qualities. However, if you work in a place, there is the Buddhist question of "right livelihood." I'm sorry that I don't know any better way to put it. Given that the NSA has been doing some things that seem objectionable, shouldn't everyone who contributes to that effort begin examining their conscience? And yes, a secretary does contribute to that effort. Now it might be that the latest report will make some well-needed changes. And heaven knows, countries need intelligence to combat things like terrorism. But still. If you were part of the NSA, two things would today be true: a) You knew what went on, and agreed with it. Well, maybe your ethics are not what we would all like. or b) You didn't know what went on, and aren't impressed now you do. I suggest it's now time for you to consider whether this is an enterprise you should contribute time and effort towards. And if that comes at odds to feeding your family, well, maybe you can't just resign. But you certainly can look for more ethical work, or take part in internal conversations about how the organisation can become more ethical.
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      > And if that comes at odds to feeding your family, well, maybe you can't just resign. But you certainly can look for more ethical work, or take part in internal conversations about how the organisation can become more ethical. And we continue to be scared because of their background, previous involvement. > a) You knew what went on, and agreed with it. Well, maybe your ethics are not what we would all like. Not everyone is a saint and some are utilitarian and some are not. People also change they way they perceive things.
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    that is because the work that makes the NSA untrustworthy is done by its employees. why on earth should they get a free pass for that? have you seen the scope of the damage they have done?
    - 13y ago
cbhl 13y ago
> Any nsa contractor who depends on government contract to feed their families - is it wrong? Anyone who chooses to work (directly or indirectly) for the Government should realize that the public good (not to be confused with "good for the government") must come above "feeding the family". It is very easy to fall into atrocities and "following orders" when you do things in the name of "feeding the family". For example, spend a few hours playing "Papers, Please"[0] (or, even better, watching other people play it) and you'd be surprised how easily people start looking at the characters crossing the border as adversaries. [0] http://papersplea.se/ http://papersplea.se/ (It's on sale in the Humble store for $4.99 USD.)
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Realization and reality are two things. If we want to give people a second chance after they have committed a crime (the same argument that public good over 'feeding the family' or self-interest), do we say the same to the ex-NSA employees? I do realize what is meant to have virtue ethics (Hursthouse's paper on abortion is a great paper).
steveklabnik 13y ago
> That's rather radical and unprofessional to say. Radical, certainly. Unprofessional? Professions usually have ethical codes of conduct. If you violate those ethics, you're not a professional. We don't have a unified professional ethical code, but ethics is absolutely an important part of professionalism.
- treekiller 13y ago
  All this arguing about blacklisting ex-NSA/US intelligence misses the point. Ex-NSA will just lie about being NSA. A system of shunning will be pointless, or worse. Then it becomes a witch hunt. You have to start shunning based on just suspicions.
w_t_payne 13y ago
Just like Google or Facebook, or any other organisation that you might care to mention, the NSA is a group of people, human beings, and fellow travellers on our annual circumlocution of Sol. I don't want to spit vile hatred, nor make any man my enemy, but I do want to communicate the depth and breadth of my concern for the things that we do, and the situations that we end up sleep-walking into. These matters are serious enough that I would implore individuals to consider their own position, and to deeply reflect on what their actions mean in a broader context; to step outside their mental comfort zone and seek another - any other - perspective with which to view their actions. If such reflection reinforces their sense or purpose, and the righteousness and justice of their mission, then so be it. If it causes them to question, and to ponder, and to debate, then so much the better. It is too much to ask for people to turn through 180 degrees - and perhaps the wrong direction to pick, also, but it is not too much to ask for a conversation that goes beyond mutual recrimination and hatred.

gohrt 13y ago

That just fills the NSA with worse people. If the NSA is broken, it must be fixed or destroyed. Will draining the NSA of its ethical population improve it? Perhaps -- by hastening its demise -- but that is not the obvious result. Needs further analysis and argument.

a3n 13y ago

I trot this out every few years or so; it's worth thinking about: A professor of mine who was active in the peace movement in the eighties was talking to me about employment at defense contractors like Boeing or Lockheed. He said "If ethical people always choose to not work for defense contractors, then only non-ethical people will be working for defense contractors. Do you want defense contractors to be composed solely of non-ethical people?"

bonemachine 13y ago
That's rather specious reasoning. Any employment-offering entity (EOE) $foo can be substituted in the pace of Boeing or Lockheed in that argument: "the mob", "the Stasi", "revenge porn sites", etc. So it really does boil down to intrinsics, after all. If we're going to commit ourselves to ending perennial abuses perpetrated by EOEs that seem entrenched and averse to wisdom and self-reflection (like large military contractors, or our so-called intelligence agencies)... then perhaps it should no longer be socially acceptable to work for them.