8 ms·

I have some sympathy for our fellow hackers who work as contractors or in big companies, many of them with security clearance. Database engineers, software deve

by chippy 12y ago

I have some sympathy for our fellow hackers who work as contractors or in big companies, many of them with security clearance. Database engineers, software developers, data experts - the five eyes intelligence agencies directly and indirectly fund many of you readers of HN. They might be becoming increasingly disillusioned with their chosen life and/or unable to change course. Perhaps the money is too good, perhaps their contracts too restrictive. They might have inside knowledge and believe that the NSA is in the right, but they would not be able to voice that belief to us, their friends and colleagues. Unable or unwilling to change course if they believe their country is in the wrong and unable or unwilling to speak up in defence if they think it is in the right. I'd certainly like to talk (in private) to those I knew who at the start of the Snowden affair openly said that he was a traitor and hear what they now think.

Sven7 12y ago
Their opinions are bought and paid for. At current rates its 75 Billion dollars a year.
- cjslep 12y ago
  If you would like to put words in my mouth, please at least put the right ones in there for me. Otherwise, I'll take that $75 billion you are referring to and let you say whatever you want on my behalf. In all seriousness, you can support the Federal Government and still have constructive debates. EDIT: My point is no person is getting $75 billion just to shut up and have their opinion swayed. Being loyal to the Federal Government does not bar you from using its processes to improve its processes.
  - Sven7 12y ago
    Good luck. That $75 Billion is only going up. It stops when we can't afford it. Until then everyone can keep debating all they want. This script has already played out in the sphere of Nuclear Disarmament. The day I take the defense and intelligence communities opinions seriously is the day they drastically change their goalposts. Spend the same amounts on world peace or just take the cash and prey on people's fear of the next ISIS or Boston bomber. Everybody knows what the easy choice is.
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    His point is that the military industrial complex is a serious issue - its not just the NSA. Even if we get rid of the NSA today, there's still going to be a billion dollar industry around making the world a nastier place to be.
diafygi 12y ago
I work in the solar industry, and utilities are increasingly losing talent to the solar industry (my co-founder is one of them). The main reason people are switching is because they see themselves as having a more successful career in the solar industry. How can we make it so security talent has a better career working somewhere else? It could be multi-pronged. A combination of increasing private sector jobs and pay, decreasing public sector funding, and a healthy dose of public shaming might drain spying organizations of some more talent. Other thoughts?
- ethbro 12y ago
  > How can we make it so security talent has a better career working somewhere else? It could be multi-pronged. A combination of increasing private sector jobs and pay, decreasing public sector funding, and a healthy dose of public shaming might drain spying organizations of some more talent. Other thoughts? You're never going to get open publishing / access to NSA research / infrastructure. So it's always going to be an interesting place to work. Of the options, I think public shaming is the most viable. It's ridiculous IETF / IEEE / {insert org here} doesn't throw people out (to my knowledge?).
karmacondon 12y ago
I have no problem voicing my beliefs publicly. I'm always more than willing to explain the policies of the NSA, and happy to denounce the actions of Edward Snowden. I don't think he was a traitor, by definition, but what he did was wrong. It isn't necessary to divulge confidential information, the situation is pretty clear. I don't see any point in re-litigating the whole thing on this particular thread though, it would be off topic. I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Only a small minority of people who work for the government, directly or as contractors, are ashamed of their employer or having a crisis of conscience. In general, nothing polarizes people and brings them together like an external threat. If everyone is shouting that you're bad, the most basic human instinct is to shout back even louder. This whole thing has been a delight for management in the intelligence services. Some employees and contractors are much more motivated now. And many of those who support Snowden are still indifferent about the issues that he raised. It's either "go team!" or "eh, a job's a job." Only a minority are racked with self-doubt because of what's being posted about their employer on hackernews and reddit. Most will gladly tell you what they think, openly or in private, with no fear of criticism or backlash.
- bhayden 12y ago
  So is that essentially to say you agree with surveillance of citizens, without warrant or probable cause?
  - pyre 12y ago
    It's ok because: - only the "good guys" do it - No one ever abuses it. - Even if someone abuses it they would never just get a slap on the wrist (maybe just fired, and security clearance revoked) rather than criminal charges. - The disincentive for abuse is "patriotism" and no one has ever decided not to be a "patriot"... ever. - Absolutely zero people in government seek out power, or have weird ideas about controlling what other people can do or think. - No one in the intelligence "community" would ever abuse surveillance to (e.g.) blackmail politicians for funding/votes/more power. Because every single one of them always make 100% perfect moral choices. - It's only used for "threats to national security"... except when it isn't, but the winning the "War on Drugs"/spying on animal rights activists/making sure US companies win bids for foreign contracts/making sure that the correct politicians are re-elected really all fall under the umbrella of "National Security" if you think about it... /s
cryoshon 12y ago
Why sympathize with them? They either decided in bad faith that working on an interesting problem was more important to them than acting ethically, or they are saying "I'm just doing my job" also in bad faith. These philosophical decisions are simply malicious relative to the rest of us. There is also the possibility that they have been deluded by nationalism or propaganda in order to believe that a panopticon is acceptable in a democracy, but there isn't much we can do to help these people connect the dots between the panopticon they are helping to build and Orwellian thoughtcrime-- we simply don't have access to them that we could use to be persuasive, as you mentioned. I think this population of people is actually pretty large among the government contractors. Finally, though you are correct that NSA employees would probably mention this, for the purposes of agencies operating in the public interest in a democracy, the concept of "insider knowledge" is not permissible. I say this not to suggest that we make all the operations of our clandestine groups transparent, but rather to suggest that the complete ignorance the American public has found itself to be in is a byproduct of intentional grooming along the lines of "national security secrets" which really are intentionally crafted backdoors to the process of informed democracy. The citizens not involved in agency day-to-day have a firm need to know the methods and rationales used, and they need to have direct and powerful oversight. We don't have any of these things, currently.
- tommytwoeyes 12y ago
  Why sympathize with them? Because you would undoubtedly appreciate me second-guessing decisions you made in complex, nuanced situations to which I was not a party, just as much as they likely appreciate the way you've reduced their dilemma to a ridiculously over-simplified, cut-and-dry model of reality that is no more fair than it is accurate. That's why. Don't excoriate these people based on your assumptions. Do we currently have the ideal balance between the need to protect our citizens and national interests, and the need to protect the rights of our citizens that our Constitution guarantees? Hell no, we obviously don't have it. Is that something most NSA employees have control over? No. You may be the one who is deluded if you think someone can just raise their hand at the NSA and say, what?, "I think we should re-think how we're doing business, because we might be infringing on the rights of everyday Americans." It's a bureaucracy. To address these issues, we need to be suggesting solutions instead of perpetually yelling at each other like opposing fans at a football game. I don't want to live in a panopticon anymore than you do. My point is that we don't live in a perfect world, and that none of us are perfect (I hold myself up as a prime example). We need to recognize the difficult situation we've put the people who serve our country through the intelligence community; we've asked them to protect us from our enemies, but we expect them to accomplish their mission without encroaching on our privacy or violating our rights. And WE SHOULD expect them to do both; that's the nature of the job. I'm just pointing out that we should recognize and acknowledge the position this puts them in and stop demonizing them. It's counter-productive at best. I do not accept that all of the communications of every American must be surveilled and stored in order to accomplish the mission. We need to find the right balance between security and citizens' rights. But that's not something that can be accomplished by software engineers at the NSA, nor even by the head of the NSA. We need to elect political leaders who we trust to work towards finding that balance. And we need to recognize that not only will it be an uphill battle, but a long one: we will always struggle to find the right balance between privacy and security. It's been going on since the Declaration of Independence, and I'd bet my money it'll still be going on at the quinticentennial.
Lagged2Death 12y ago
They might have inside knowledge and believe that the NSA is in the right, but they would not be able to voice that belief to us, their friends and colleagues. Given the way classified work is compartmentalized, I think any such belief would be either very narrow and heavily qualified or - more likely - mostly a matter of faith, emotion, and ego. No grunt knows what all the grunts are doing.

by chippy 12y ago

Sven7 12y ago

Their opinions are bought and paid for. At current rates its 75 Billion dollars a year.

cjslep 12y ago
If you would like to put words in my mouth, please at least put the right ones in there for me. Otherwise, I'll take that $75 billion you are referring to and let you say whatever you want on my behalf. In all seriousness, you can support the Federal Government and still have constructive debates. EDIT: My point is no person is getting $75 billion just to shut up and have their opinion swayed. Being loyal to the Federal Government does not bar you from using its processes to improve its processes.
- Sven7 12y ago
  Good luck. That $75 Billion is only going up. It stops when we can't afford it. Until then everyone can keep debating all they want. This script has already played out in the sphere of Nuclear Disarmament. The day I take the defense and intelligence communities opinions seriously is the day they drastically change their goalposts. Spend the same amounts on world peace or just take the cash and prey on people's fear of the next ISIS or Boston bomber. Everybody knows what the easy choice is.
- fit2rule 12y ago
  His point is that the military industrial complex is a serious issue - its not just the NSA. Even if we get rid of the NSA today, there's still going to be a billion dollar industry around making the world a nastier place to be.

diafygi 12y ago

I work in the solar industry, and utilities are increasingly losing talent to the solar industry (my co-founder is one of them). The main reason people are switching is because they see themselves as having a more successful career in the solar industry. How can we make it so security talent has a better career working somewhere else? It could be multi-pronged. A combination of increasing private sector jobs and pay, decreasing public sector funding, and a healthy dose of public shaming might drain spying organizations of some more talent. Other thoughts?

ethbro 12y ago
> How can we make it so security talent has a better career working somewhere else? It could be multi-pronged. A combination of increasing private sector jobs and pay, decreasing public sector funding, and a healthy dose of public shaming might drain spying organizations of some more talent. Other thoughts? You're never going to get open publishing / access to NSA research / infrastructure. So it's always going to be an interesting place to work. Of the options, I think public shaming is the most viable. It's ridiculous IETF / IEEE / {insert org here} doesn't throw people out (to my knowledge?).

karmacondon 12y ago

I have no problem voicing my beliefs publicly. I'm always more than willing to explain the policies of the NSA, and happy to denounce the actions of Edward Snowden. I don't think he was a traitor, by definition, but what he did was wrong. It isn't necessary to divulge confidential information, the situation is pretty clear. I don't see any point in re-litigating the whole thing on this particular thread though, it would be off topic. I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Only a small minority of people who work for the government, directly or as contractors, are ashamed of their employer or having a crisis of conscience. In general, nothing polarizes people and brings them together like an external threat. If everyone is shouting that you're bad, the most basic human instinct is to shout back even louder. This whole thing has been a delight for management in the intelligence services. Some employees and contractors are much more motivated now. And many of those who support Snowden are still indifferent about the issues that he raised. It's either "go team!" or "eh, a job's a job." Only a minority are racked with self-doubt because of what's being posted about their employer on hackernews and reddit. Most will gladly tell you what they think, openly or in private, with no fear of criticism or backlash.

bhayden 12y ago
So is that essentially to say you agree with surveillance of citizens, without warrant or probable cause?
- pyre 12y ago
  It's ok because: - only the "good guys" do it - No one ever abuses it. - Even if someone abuses it they would never just get a slap on the wrist (maybe just fired, and security clearance revoked) rather than criminal charges. - The disincentive for abuse is "patriotism" and no one has ever decided not to be a "patriot"... ever. - Absolutely zero people in government seek out power, or have weird ideas about controlling what other people can do or think. - No one in the intelligence "community" would ever abuse surveillance to (e.g.) blackmail politicians for funding/votes/more power. Because every single one of them always make 100% perfect moral choices. - It's only used for "threats to national security"... except when it isn't, but the winning the "War on Drugs"/spying on animal rights activists/making sure US companies win bids for foreign contracts/making sure that the correct politicians are re-elected really all fall under the umbrella of "National Security" if you think about it... /s

cryoshon 12y ago

Why sympathize with them? They either decided in bad faith that working on an interesting problem was more important to them than acting ethically, or they are saying "I'm just doing my job" also in bad faith. These philosophical decisions are simply malicious relative to the rest of us. There is also the possibility that they have been deluded by nationalism or propaganda in order to believe that a panopticon is acceptable in a democracy, but there isn't much we can do to help these people connect the dots between the panopticon they are helping to build and Orwellian thoughtcrime-- we simply don't have access to them that we could use to be persuasive, as you mentioned. I think this population of people is actually pretty large among the government contractors. Finally, though you are correct that NSA employees would probably mention this, for the purposes of agencies operating in the public interest in a democracy, the concept of "insider knowledge" is not permissible. I say this not to suggest that we make all the operations of our clandestine groups transparent, but rather to suggest that the complete ignorance the American public has found itself to be in is a byproduct of intentional grooming along the lines of "national security secrets" which really are intentionally crafted backdoors to the process of informed democracy. The citizens not involved in agency day-to-day have a firm need to know the methods and rationales used, and they need to have direct and powerful oversight. We don't have any of these things, currently.

tommytwoeyes 12y ago
Why sympathize with them? Because you would undoubtedly appreciate me second-guessing decisions you made in complex, nuanced situations to which I was not a party, just as much as they likely appreciate the way you've reduced their dilemma to a ridiculously over-simplified, cut-and-dry model of reality that is no more fair than it is accurate. That's why. Don't excoriate these people based on your assumptions. Do we currently have the ideal balance between the need to protect our citizens and national interests, and the need to protect the rights of our citizens that our Constitution guarantees? Hell no, we obviously don't have it. Is that something most NSA employees have control over? No. You may be the one who is deluded if you think someone can just raise their hand at the NSA and say, what?, "I think we should re-think how we're doing business, because we might be infringing on the rights of everyday Americans." It's a bureaucracy. To address these issues, we need to be suggesting solutions instead of perpetually yelling at each other like opposing fans at a football game. I don't want to live in a panopticon anymore than you do. My point is that we don't live in a perfect world, and that none of us are perfect (I hold myself up as a prime example). We need to recognize the difficult situation we've put the people who serve our country through the intelligence community; we've asked them to protect us from our enemies, but we expect them to accomplish their mission without encroaching on our privacy or violating our rights. And WE SHOULD expect them to do both; that's the nature of the job. I'm just pointing out that we should recognize and acknowledge the position this puts them in and stop demonizing them. It's counter-productive at best. I do not accept that all of the communications of every American must be surveilled and stored in order to accomplish the mission. We need to find the right balance between security and citizens' rights. But that's not something that can be accomplished by software engineers at the NSA, nor even by the head of the NSA. We need to elect political leaders who we trust to work towards finding that balance. And we need to recognize that not only will it be an uphill battle, but a long one: we will always struggle to find the right balance between privacy and security. It's been going on since the Declaration of Independence, and I'd bet my money it'll still be going on at the quinticentennial.

Lagged2Death 12y ago

They might have inside knowledge and believe that the NSA is in the right, but they would not be able to voice that belief to us, their friends and colleagues. Given the way classified work is compartmentalized, I think any such belief would be either very narrow and heavily qualified or - more likely - mostly a matter of faith, emotion, and ego. No grunt knows what all the grunts are doing.