6 ms·

For one, Microsoft. And would you argue that the NSA has seen no meaningful reduction in access to talent?

by awkward 11y ago

brandmeyer 11y ago
How can you make a meaningful argument either way without access to NSA's actual hiring data?
- CodeWriter23 11y ago
  NPR seems to have made that argument http://www.npr.org/2015/03/31/395829446/after-snowden-the-nsa-faces-recruitment-challenge http://www.npr.org/2015/03/31/395829446/after-snowden-the-ns...
  - rfrey 11y ago
    That article says the NSA is a bit worried about recruitment problems, but hasn't seen any yet. It also says that increasing salaries at SV companies is a far greater challenge in recruiting than reputation.
    - CodeWriter23 11y ago
      That's because they know the backbone of their organization is training people NOT to talk about what they are actually doing, nor the implications of those actions.
- ajkjk 11y ago
  Hm? It's easy to make a meaningful argument without raw data. You just extrapolate from what you know. I know that I have had the opportunity to apply to work at the NSA. When I was looking for job opportunities after college I perused lists of government jobs, including positions at the NSA. I know that today, I would not apply to work there. I'm one person, but I know many engineers of a similar mindset and read about many more, so I assume it's a trend. I definitely don't know what rate of potential applicants conform to this mindset, but I know some do (me, the people I know like me, and voices I've heard on the internet). Therefore, I can meaningfully argue that they would have a harder time hiring. Of course I might be wrong but that's what you get when you operate with incomplete data.
  - qbrass 11y ago
    There's a smaller pool of candidates, but the ones that remain are more likely to be okay with what the NSA does.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Many of us have always had that mindset about the NSA. However, it takes a special type of odd personality to work there (doing amazingly cool stuff but not being able to talk about lots of it). The personalities that fit there well don't fit elsewhere very well.
    - irishcoffee 11y ago
      > The personalities that fit there well don't fit elsewhere very well. Source? I think NSA employs over 30k people. You're going to make a baseless claim that they all share one common personality trait, making them a poor fit for any other possible place of employ, in the whole world? Really?
      - bsder 11y ago
        Um, yes. Really. We know, for a fact, that the vast majority of NSA employees are willing to subject themselves to enhanced scrutiny (limited travel), behavioral controls (they will discuss your porn and online accounts), and submission to a fairly arbitrary set of rules (such as polygraph tests) that have no proven connection toward their job or efficacy. Okay, so, we HAVE demonstrated that NSA employees do share at least one common personality trait that is reasonably unusual in the general population. Perhaps I was being a bit overzealous and should provide a bit of exception. People who stay with the NSA for very long don't fit elsewhere very well. Now, this probably doesn't apply to those who don't have security clearances. But then, you're basically claiming that the NSA is just like a standard employer--and that's not normally what people think of when they think of "working for the NSA".
        hayd 11y ago
        > personality trait that is reasonably unusual in the general population I'm not sure this part is true. "submission to a fairly arbitrary set of rules" sounds like every job. > that's not normally what people think of when they think of "working for the NSA". Most people working for the NSA aren't working as a "Jason Bourne"-type (which is what we think of as "working for the NSA). I would claim the NSA's very much like a standard employer... but with a (significantly) more heavily enforced NDA.

For one, Microsoft. And would you argue that the NSA has seen no meaningful reduction in access to talent?

by awkward 11y ago

For one, Microsoft. And would you argue that the NSA has seen no meaningful reduction in access to talent?

brandmeyer 11y ago

How can you make a meaningful argument either way without access to NSA's actual hiring data?

CodeWriter23 11y ago
NPR seems to have made that argument http://www.npr.org/2015/03/31/395829446/after-snowden-the-nsa-faces-recruitment-challenge http://www.npr.org/2015/03/31/395829446/after-snowden-the-ns...
- rfrey 11y ago
  That article says the NSA is a bit worried about recruitment problems, but hasn't seen any yet. It also says that increasing salaries at SV companies is a far greater challenge in recruiting than reputation.
  - CodeWriter23 11y ago
    That's because they know the backbone of their organization is training people NOT to talk about what they are actually doing, nor the implications of those actions.
ajkjk 11y ago
Hm? It's easy to make a meaningful argument without raw data. You just extrapolate from what you know. I know that I have had the opportunity to apply to work at the NSA. When I was looking for job opportunities after college I perused lists of government jobs, including positions at the NSA. I know that today, I would not apply to work there. I'm one person, but I know many engineers of a similar mindset and read about many more, so I assume it's a trend. I definitely don't know what rate of potential applicants conform to this mindset, but I know some do (me, the people I know like me, and voices I've heard on the internet). Therefore, I can meaningfully argue that they would have a harder time hiring. Of course I might be wrong but that's what you get when you operate with incomplete data.
- qbrass 11y ago
  There's a smaller pool of candidates, but the ones that remain are more likely to be okay with what the NSA does.
- bsder 11y ago
  Many of us have always had that mindset about the NSA. However, it takes a special type of odd personality to work there (doing amazingly cool stuff but not being able to talk about lots of it). The personalities that fit there well don't fit elsewhere very well.
  - irishcoffee 11y ago
    > The personalities that fit there well don't fit elsewhere very well. Source? I think NSA employs over 30k people. You're going to make a baseless claim that they all share one common personality trait, making them a poor fit for any other possible place of employ, in the whole world? Really?
    - bsder 11y ago
      Um, yes. Really. We know, for a fact, that the vast majority of NSA employees are willing to subject themselves to enhanced scrutiny (limited travel), behavioral controls (they will discuss your porn and online accounts), and submission to a fairly arbitrary set of rules (such as polygraph tests) that have no proven connection toward their job or efficacy. Okay, so, we HAVE demonstrated that NSA employees do share at least one common personality trait that is reasonably unusual in the general population. Perhaps I was being a bit overzealous and should provide a bit of exception. People who stay with the NSA for very long don't fit elsewhere very well. Now, this probably doesn't apply to those who don't have security clearances. But then, you're basically claiming that the NSA is just like a standard employer--and that's not normally what people think of when they think of "working for the NSA".
      - hayd 11y ago
        > personality trait that is reasonably unusual in the general population I'm not sure this part is true. "submission to a fairly arbitrary set of rules" sounds like every job. > that's not normally what people think of when they think of "working for the NSA". Most people working for the NSA aren't working as a "Jason Bourne"-type (which is what we think of as "working for the NSA). I would claim the NSA's very much like a standard employer... but with a (significantly) more heavily enforced NDA.