5 ms·

> The fact that "NSA should not be in any position in the cryto committee" is too far. Why? There's absolutely zero reason to allow people taking part in the N

by walls 13y ago

> The fact that "NSA should not be in any position in the cryto committee" is too far. Why? There's absolutely zero reason to allow people taking part in the NSA's antics into groups deciding public policy. We need to make working for the NSA a big red 'untrustworthy ' flag, regardless of alleged level of involvement.

yeukhon 13y ago
I meant to say NSA employee. My response is directly to this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03556.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03556.h... The moral issue is about someone's affiliation with NSA makes him or her a spy, unworthy in the crypto community. If people have different opinion when they were young (or in the case of a student who just want a god damn internship), it sounds like we will punish them and discriminate them in the future, given their past involvement with NSA.
- bandushrew 13y ago
  I dont think we will punish them. We simply cannot trust them. If they want to be trusted, they need to stand apart from the people who are lying and deceiving us about their tactics and their data gathering.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    > I dont think we will punish them. We simply cannot trust them. Will you risk your company's integrity and reputation over hiring someone who had worked for NSA? An undergraduate? A father who had three kids to feed and just took the job to make a living? Not trusting often turns out to be punishing. And in many cases we simply just discriminate them. This is a serious issue, a real moral issue.
    - bandushrew 13y ago
      as always, people have to make choices. I cannot save others from the impact of the choices they make. and I would not want to. You appear to be arguing that we should not judge people based on their actions - I am unsure where that leaves us?
      - yeukhon 13y ago
        You guys totally mistook the issue. The issue is that from the start we are discriminate everyone who is or was a NSA employee from the start. So a driver who drunk drive and lost their legs should have a tag "I was a killer killing fifteen people five years ago and don't build an accessible platform for me"? No of course we don't do that.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        You picked about the worst possible example. Drivers like that are the kinds of scumbags that make me question my opposition to capital punishment. You're not going to get the result you want trying to compare them to NSA employees.
        yeukhon 13y ago
        You are mistaken. To some, NSA employees are just as bad as the scumbag drivers. To redeem themselves, some might argue they need to be Snowden and face the public, have their knees down and apologize. The two examples are the same if we just think killing democracy is the same as killing someone's life physical (because now we can't trust anyone and we live with doubts and skeptics).
        nknighthb 13y ago
        I have no idea what this comment says.
        hobs 13y ago
        You can take the crown of lies off of your head, but it will always leave a stain. Should we try to help those people with disabilities? Yes. Should we go out of our way to help those who decided that they could drive under the influence, and kill 15 people because of their negligence? I think you will find that most people wouldn't even waste the spittle on that person's face.
  - kenjackson 13y ago
    Do you hire those who worked as Los Alamos? People from the South? South Africa? People who worked at Facebook? The US Military? Paid taxes to the US govt? I should add all of these to my CV just to avoid ppl who would irrationally discriminate (although I'd then be lying on my CV).
    - bandushrew 13y ago
      sounds good to me :) I am pretty comfortable with not hiring people who lie on their CV.
- walls 13y ago
  In my personal opinion, that's just something that will have to happen before engineers start taking the subject seriously. If a year or two of NSA interns have to learn the hard way that they'll never find employment anywhere else afterwords, too bad. You can bet your ass that, by the third year, nobody will be accepting those positions without fully intending on being there forever, and committing to the degradation of privacy.
  - yeukhon 13y ago
    Yes, I do warn my lower classmen not to get those jobs. But schools can mislead them and the "internship" experience can mislead them. It doesn't matter whether how we try to prevent them from doing it, the issue is how we the cryto community, how we Americans, and how we the society perceives and accepts NSA employees (ex/current). It is this "discrimination" I am questioning. I don't think I can trust someone worked at NSA for many years either. I will give you that. But how should companies deal with these applicants? > If a year or two of NSA interns have to learn the hard way that they'll never find employment anywhere else afterwords, too bad. And that's exactly why my question is important to raise: how do we choose not to "discriminate" them. EDIT Downvoting on a moral issue? Really?
    - walls 13y ago
      Again, just my personal opinion, but I believe they should be seen as 'tainted' and a potential threat to any employer, forever. If we started ostracizing only long-term hires, the NSA would just have more motivation to 'turn' their short-term hires. I feel that without a sort of "zero tolerance" policy towards NSA employment, there will always be a way for them to get around imposed restrictions.
    - quim06 13y ago
      "We Americans"... Next time you feel compelled to use this kind of political spiel on the internet, remember that YOU Americans only count for around 4.5% of the world's population.
    - girvo 13y ago
      As far as I'm concerned those kids made a choice. If they choose to help the NSA in any capacity, well then yeah I'd consider them tainted. They require a certain kind of person, and I don't think they have the best interests of worldwide privacy at heart. FYI, you shouldn't have been downvoted, your argument has merit even if I disagree with it. Upvoted.
- a3n 13y ago
  The man in question, and the employees in general, have unfortunately been tainted by the behavior of their employer. For the moment, until or unless there's a sea change of public accountability and trust with respect to the NSA (which would likely take years if not generations), it's safest and most sensible to treat these employees as potentially suspect in any area where their employer has been shown to be an adversary.

by walls 13y ago

yeukhon 13y ago

I meant to say NSA employee. My response is directly to this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03556.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg03556.h... The moral issue is about someone's affiliation with NSA makes him or her a spy, unworthy in the crypto community. If people have different opinion when they were young (or in the case of a student who just want a god damn internship), it sounds like we will punish them and discriminate them in the future, given their past involvement with NSA.

bandushrew 13y ago
I dont think we will punish them. We simply cannot trust them. If they want to be trusted, they need to stand apart from the people who are lying and deceiving us about their tactics and their data gathering.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  > I dont think we will punish them. We simply cannot trust them. Will you risk your company's integrity and reputation over hiring someone who had worked for NSA? An undergraduate? A father who had three kids to feed and just took the job to make a living? Not trusting often turns out to be punishing. And in many cases we simply just discriminate them. This is a serious issue, a real moral issue.
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    as always, people have to make choices. I cannot save others from the impact of the choices they make. and I would not want to. You appear to be arguing that we should not judge people based on their actions - I am unsure where that leaves us?
    - yeukhon 13y ago
      You guys totally mistook the issue. The issue is that from the start we are discriminate everyone who is or was a NSA employee from the start. So a driver who drunk drive and lost their legs should have a tag "I was a killer killing fifteen people five years ago and don't build an accessible platform for me"? No of course we don't do that.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        You picked about the worst possible example. Drivers like that are the kinds of scumbags that make me question my opposition to capital punishment. You're not going to get the result you want trying to compare them to NSA employees.
        yeukhon 13y ago
        You are mistaken. To some, NSA employees are just as bad as the scumbag drivers. To redeem themselves, some might argue they need to be Snowden and face the public, have their knees down and apologize. The two examples are the same if we just think killing democracy is the same as killing someone's life physical (because now we can't trust anyone and we live with doubts and skeptics).
        nknighthb 13y ago
        I have no idea what this comment says.
      - hobs 13y ago
        You can take the crown of lies off of your head, but it will always leave a stain. Should we try to help those people with disabilities? Yes. Should we go out of our way to help those who decided that they could drive under the influence, and kill 15 people because of their negligence? I think you will find that most people wouldn't even waste the spittle on that person's face.
- kenjackson 13y ago
  Do you hire those who worked as Los Alamos? People from the South? South Africa? People who worked at Facebook? The US Military? Paid taxes to the US govt? I should add all of these to my CV just to avoid ppl who would irrationally discriminate (although I'd then be lying on my CV).
  - bandushrew 13y ago
    sounds good to me :) I am pretty comfortable with not hiring people who lie on their CV.
walls 13y ago
In my personal opinion, that's just something that will have to happen before engineers start taking the subject seriously. If a year or two of NSA interns have to learn the hard way that they'll never find employment anywhere else afterwords, too bad. You can bet your ass that, by the third year, nobody will be accepting those positions without fully intending on being there forever, and committing to the degradation of privacy.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  Yes, I do warn my lower classmen not to get those jobs. But schools can mislead them and the "internship" experience can mislead them. It doesn't matter whether how we try to prevent them from doing it, the issue is how we the cryto community, how we Americans, and how we the society perceives and accepts NSA employees (ex/current). It is this "discrimination" I am questioning. I don't think I can trust someone worked at NSA for many years either. I will give you that. But how should companies deal with these applicants? > If a year or two of NSA interns have to learn the hard way that they'll never find employment anywhere else afterwords, too bad. And that's exactly why my question is important to raise: how do we choose not to "discriminate" them. EDIT Downvoting on a moral issue? Really?
  - walls 13y ago
    Again, just my personal opinion, but I believe they should be seen as 'tainted' and a potential threat to any employer, forever. If we started ostracizing only long-term hires, the NSA would just have more motivation to 'turn' their short-term hires. I feel that without a sort of "zero tolerance" policy towards NSA employment, there will always be a way for them to get around imposed restrictions.
  - quim06 13y ago
    "We Americans"... Next time you feel compelled to use this kind of political spiel on the internet, remember that YOU Americans only count for around 4.5% of the world's population.
  - girvo 13y ago
    As far as I'm concerned those kids made a choice. If they choose to help the NSA in any capacity, well then yeah I'd consider them tainted. They require a certain kind of person, and I don't think they have the best interests of worldwide privacy at heart. FYI, you shouldn't have been downvoted, your argument has merit even if I disagree with it. Upvoted.
a3n 13y ago
The man in question, and the employees in general, have unfortunately been tainted by the behavior of their employer. For the moment, until or unless there's a sea change of public accountability and trust with respect to the NSA (which would likely take years if not generations), it's safest and most sensible to treat these employees as potentially suspect in any area where their employer has been shown to be an adversary.