I have no sympathy. They willingly represent the organization. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They could leave, but they don't, thus implicitly accepting it.
I imagine the fear of not being able to provide for you or your family takes precedence over privacy concerns for the vast majority of people. There was a news report about how 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck last week. I'd argue saying "they could leave" assumes a lot.
> I imagine the fear of not being able to provide for you or your family
I'll buy that argument for people doing menial customer service work. I don't buy it for people with jobs like these - these sorts of people have all kinds of options available to them. At the very least they probably have TS clearances which is going to open a ton of other doors (maybe just as tainted, but maybe not).
This is a valid point, and it underscores the importance of being technologists in a (relatively) strong tech job market... we have the luxury of turning down jobs that we feel are part of detrimental systems. And we should take advantage of this luxury whenever we can. Others aren't so lucky.
You do not have to sell your soul to feed your family. Trust me, they can get another job. The reality is the pay is good and these people do not care what their organization does.
You saying "trust me" doesn't feed their family. Looking at my Facebook page, there are dozen of people I personally know desperate for jobs. Even their belief that working for the NSA was selling their soul was taken for granted, most of them would take it.
Anyone you know from FB who is unemployed probably isn't eligible to work at the NSA. We aren't talking about WPA jobs after all. I understand your point, lots of people can't be choosy about where they work. But those aren't the people we're talking about here. We're talking about people who currently work at the NSA and I assure you they have skills that are highly sought after in many industries. They definitely don't need their NSA jobs to feed their families.
I don't get the impression that there are a lot of jobs out there for pure mathematicians. The conventional wisdom, at least, is that you have three options: tenured professor, NSA, or abandon pure math entirely. And it's not too easy to get a tenured professorship.
Here's an idea: don't make babies before you found an ethical way to provide for them? You make it seem like people just wake up one day with families and a job at the NSA as the only option.
As general rule: if you could say it in defense of being a member of the Waffen-SS, it's probably not a very solid argument. Everybody has their sob story, but long after those people are dead others will STILL have to deal with the messy, fucked up and stupid structures cowards erected. And with that in mind, my sympathy kinda fades.
And that your friends would do it is no argument either, people always seem to have this idea that they themselves (or their friends) are special and ought to not be criticized. Everybody is so fucking magical when it's about them. Contrast this with how we talk and think about people of the past, of other countries or other social groups.
Also there are the people blown up by drones, or the ones threatened with it http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/will-nsa-whistleblower-edwa... (because who needs trials when you have "intelligence") Those don't even get to the point of worry about job security, and they don't seem to even figure into any of this.
1. Omniscience is a commodity now? Please let me know where I can find out all of the information (past, present, and future) about every company I may want to work for -- maybe this database you have access to also has information on what my salary will be a few years from now so I can plan out exactly how many children I want to have. This knowledge base you have access to also lets me know if and when I will lose any job I'm holding at any point in the future, right? I wouldn't want something, uh, unexpected, to occur after having children. Those pesky things -- you just can't seem to take them back!
2. The "ethics" of the NSA can be changed by Congress at any time. Why direct your energy at relatively low-level employees when you (assuming you're a US citizen) have the power to effect change top-down?
3. Vice is not a reputable source. It's actually comical that you'd use them of all publications as a source considering that their claim to fame is conspiring with one of the most totalitarian regimes in history (NK) for press and pageviews.
Your points may be valid for the typical company, but recent revelations show that these sort of morally questionable roles are apparently quite widespread even down to rank-and-file level within the NSA. The scale and depth of these roles are also another thing that sets it apart from the typical company job, so making excuses about your children are less passable here.
P.S. a tip for PavlovsCat if you're still reading this thread, quote less. It's an implicit appeal to authority (a fallacy) and it makes you sound like you don't have your own ideas.
I stand by the GP. It's really not that hard for federal employees to transfer: what's hard is getting on board. It's largely done online, so your friends can check it out.
If you work in a high-technology field, as federal employee, you are often underpaid in comparison to the private sector. I'm a contractor and I make 1/3 less than I did when I was still in the military.
I've found that agencies often lie with regard to rates and get away with it because of their leverage due to the panels. If you check the governments mandatory reporting regarding contracts (often very hard to search) you might find they're paying far more for you than for military staff, regardless of what you're receiving.
Financial considerations aside, leaving an organization is probably not as easy as it may sound.
When evaluating alternatives, it can be challenging to identify employers that have and will continue to maintain a flawless moral track record, not only for their own organization but also for the customers and vendors they support.
If asked to name such an organization on the fly, one might be hard pressed to pick one that would hold up to HN scrutiny.
I thought the NSA hires only the best and the brightest. Why would they have such a difficult time finding new jobs?
Hell, I would even consider having "NSA xxxx - summer of 2013" on your resume to be an indicator that you are a person with backbone and a sense of morality. Bonus points right there.
I don't see why not; everybody is hiring straight from colleges these days. Who couldn't use another good recruiter?
I don't believe for one instant that these are people just desperately trying to feed their starving family. They have options, they choose to stay on.
How many options are there for someone whose primary skill is conversational fluency in and syntactic mastery of Arabic, Russian, and English? We don't see many articles about a commercial shortage of translators.
I haven't looked into it, but perhaps the students in this audio clip can help you out there. They don't seem to concerned about burning this particular bridge.
If something in the exterior world makes you discontent, then it is not that object which troubles you, but rather your judgement of it; yet to blot out this judgement instantly is within your power. And if your dissatisfaction is based on the condition of your soul, who can prohibit you from correcting your views? Likewise, if you are discontent because you are not doing what seems reasonable to you, why not be active rather than discontent? "But something stronger than me is obstructing me." Still, do not be discontent; for the cause for your inaction is not within you. "But life has no meaning for me if this is not done." Well then, end your life, as calm as if you had succeeded; but don't forget to forgive your adversaries. -- Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Indeed. Any of us as US citizens frankly are only slightly less to blame than those employees. We elected those people passing the orders. I haven't heard of a single recall vote as a result of this. Not even one riot. And we enjoy whatever fruits are the result of the surveillance.
I'm really disappointed with the actions and arguments.
Presumably this is because a lot of people think that other countries are involved in espionage and some are involved in terrorism and it's not actually clear that the US is doing anything that unusual or acting against the interests of its citizens.
I don't want to live in a surveillance state, but nobody is even discussing realistic actions. It's all just expressions of disgust and anti-us sentiment.
Would a riot actually change anything? I know a lot of football schools riot when their team loses but that doesn't seem to change a thing or even get press coverage outside of the immediate area.
Are you actively supporting those parts of the country that do it? There's a vast gulf between simply living there, and actively recruiting new spies to spy on your own people.
I am literally paying for it with my tax dollars. I honestly do not see a vast gulf between that and working for the NSA as a recruiter. I guess because I don't believe spying is 100% evil?
Except that we don't really know what the organization does. We only have insinuations by Snowden and detractors against the US.
We do have evidence that they conduct massive surveillance could be unconstitutional.
We do not have evidence that they are abusing this, and more importantly we don't know whether they have been able to save lives.
It could be that the people who work there know about positive life-saving results from the work they do and that's why they continue to do it.
(Edit: downvotes are fine, but it would be nice to also see a single link to evidence that the intelligence itself is being misused as opposed to protecting people)
Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, 16 years old, born to the "wrong father" and killed by a drone strike 2 weeks after his father was murdered. I say murdered because without a trial and imminent threat, that's what it is. And this is not a solitary incident either, just a rather poignant one. Next question?
In other words, it sounds like some in the Administration suspect that someone within the targeting chain of command may have invented the Ibrahim al-Banna presence as a way to get at Awlaki’s son.
No, murdered by sending out drones in random directions without any targeting info. These things and their programming just pop out of thin air, after all. And then they track just by scent, for weeks even.
Or is this a reason to bring down the entire US?
For someone in the third world who may have little to lose and becomes witness to such senseless slaughter? Maybe.
But then again I'm not quite sure what you're even asking, maybe elaborate. Do you think maybe cutting down on the nazi stuff a liiiittle bit would endanger the US in any meaningful way?
No, murdered by sending out drones in random directions without any targeting info. These things and their programming just pop out of thin air, after all. And then they track just by scent, for weeks even.
I'm pretty sure that's not how drones work. They're not autonomous, self-aware predators that can smell a Muslim from a mile away, and make their own decisions about when and how and who to kill. I'm pretty sure there's always a pilot with a joystick watching a camera and pulling a trigger.
Not that that makes it any better, but unless you can provide some proof what you're describing seems like science fiction.
I'm pretty sure there's always a pilot with a joystick watching a camera and pulling a trigger.
Just like there is always a president near the top signing the order, in some shape or other. And: people collecting intelligence about whoever they are asked to collect intelligence about, because that's just the "requirements handed down to them". Which was the point I hid under my sarcasm.
I'm pointing out that espionage is a part of real world statecraft and that it's naïve to just rail against the NSA for doing it.
I do believe that there should be consequences for a lot of these actions. I'd just rather people were discussing what we actually know and how things could realistically be improved (by individuals, corporations, and'the government) than just jeering like an angry mob.
There is no need to demonstrate that the intelligence is actively being misused. The simple fact that collecting it is unconstitutional and abusive is enough.
It's certainly enough to warrant an open political inquiry and changes of policy, as well as resignations from those politically responsible.
It's not at all obvious that all the NSA staff should just walk away from their jobs. If the NSA is actually protecting people, that would be just as irresponsible.
I think it's safe to say that they are not protecting people to any major degree. When pressed, the only justification they can come up with is "terrorism", which is a completely insignificant threat.
I think they are trying to protect people. It's just that they have been tasked with a pointless job. I don't think they're deliberately evil, they're just a massive overreaction to an irrelevant threat.
Basically, what do you think the immune system in somebody with a bee allergy is actually doing when that person gets stung by a bee? It's only trying to help, of course. But that doesn't change the fact that 1) a bee sting can be ignored and 2) the massive allergic reaction threatens the person's life.
Quitting in disgust is one signal a person can send.
But what if that makes the problem worse rather than better, by removing from the agency those people most able to sense and push-back against secret abuses?
So is the hypothesis that these recruiters are continuing to publicly defend and sell the NSA so that behind closed doors they can spend their time trying to rein the NSA back in? I don't buy it, and even if it were true I would not accept that is a proper tradeoff.
They are still trying to recruit a diverse, capable group of patriotic employees, so that the workforce has the full range of skills and opinions for it to do its proper mission, and identify and correct any abuses.
If the armchair-ethicist standard is: "if you have any qualms, you'll quit" – then the type of people doing recruiting, and being recruited, and staying in the agency, all become even more self-selected for total devotion to total surveillance than may already exist. Whatever oversight or shame might remain as an internal check would decay. Whatever hints/leaks we get would dry up even further.
That isn't necessarily any better of a result for us. It doesn't necessarily bring reform/correction any sooner.
I think the better result for us is that the more monolithic the thinking is within the NSA the more they are going to over-step in such a way that even their most ardent supporters outside the agency will have to abandon them.
I'd like to think the no-fly-zoning of Bolivia's president is an example of that sort of thinking exposing itself for public embarrassment/criticism. Here's hoping they keep digging their own hole deeper and deeper.
If we want to keep the "bad people" diluted in these organizations, then should all of us be looking for the next Enron so that we can do some community service by hopping on that ship?
I'm not arguing that there's a duty to join-and-reform. (Though, if that were the only or best way to fix the problem, it would be the most sensible thing to do, even if somewhat uncomfortable.)
I'm just saying the simplistic "you must quit if you have qualms" standard shouldn't have an automatic presumption of either effectiveness or righteousness.
This is especially true about an old, powerful, and sovereignty-claiming institution like the USG and its security organs. They are beyond easy influence through either simple boycotts or idealistic infiltrations, and you can't easily ignore them or wait-them-out.
Yes, it's important to note that there are not people who are simply toiling away, objecting to the work, and reluctantly carrying it out. These are people publicly advocating for the organization, and trying to get more people to join it.
Given that the NSA is likely to exist in some form no matter what, would an NSA with more fresh blood in it, of varying ages and competencies and ideologies, be more prone to abuse, or less prone to abuse?
You seem to be assuming that every person joining the NSA makes it worse, and that's not clear to me. In particular, a small, cohesive, monocultural institution will be more likely to commit abuses and more able to keep them secret.
And you seem to be assuming that the NSA's abusiveness can be determined by the rank-and-file, when it looks to me to be completely due to orders from the top (up to and including the President).
So a good guy joins the NSA and tries to effect change. What happens? They tell him "no". If he refuses to carry out his job, they replace him and get somebody else. If he shuts up and works within the system and eventually reaches a position of real power, then refuses to abuse... the people with power over the NSA as a whole replace him and get somebody else.
Definitely a thorny issue... I think it comes down to weighing your potential for positive influence vs. the (in)direct damage being done by your role or the organization overall.
Since things usually have to get worse before they get better, the situation you describe would merely accelerate the disease that causes the NSA to be a problem for us all.
That's one theory of change. Unfortunately, the oppressiveness of domestic surveillance could get a lot worse before it gets better. There might even be a point of no return, where the system decays into something like North Korea, rather than bouncing back to a better state.
I doubt the NSA/FBI/DoD/etc are going away anytime soon, so a simplistic strategy of "try to deny them good people, force them to get worse so they eventually collapse" is unlikely to result in either marginal improvements in their behavior, or their wholesale replacement by better institutions. This 'talent boycott' could just mean more acrimony, abuse, and even violence without ultimate remedy.
Some diseases don't get worse before they get better. They get worse before they get fatal.