I have some sympathy for the recruiters since they really have no say in the high level decision making in the organization. They may not even be involved with domestic spying of citizens.
But on the other hand they continue to stay at the organization so while I do feel some sympathy for their predicament,I guess it's really just up to each person to figure out whether they're really okay with staying there, given all the pros and cons involved.
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.
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"
> 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.
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.
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.
Thanks, I know it's meant well, but I disagree that it implies appeal to authority; simply ignore the author name and source and notice how the words stand on their own... anything else is a strawman, not any appeal I am actually making. I'm just a quote geek and like tipping my hat that way, when I remember someone having said what I'm getting at in a beautiful or precise fashion. How that seems doesn't really bother me too much: if someone is open to the point I'm making, they will hardly mind a quote; if they're not, even my nickname might be an excuse, or the time of day.
I just love quotes, I even collect the from perfectly "normal" people including HN. Like finding shells on the beach and going "look! someone said this! :D". I also collected quotes them mostly because they fit to what I was thinking (at the time), instead of, say, adapting what I'm thinking to random stuff random people said throughout history. Things aren't this or that way because Chomsky says so, but rather Chomsky is a genius for some of the things he says, and what ultimately matters are those things.
Having own ideas is nice, but noticing that your own ideas are similar with stuff that's been said a million times before, or is currently being said by others, is also nice. Many, if not most ideas aren't really new anyway, they get rediscovered and rephrased all the time.. what matters is if and how we implement them. I think Goethe said something about that :D
Wanna know my favourite quote?
"I saw a human pyramid once. It was totally unnecessary." -- Mitch Hedberg
You can put that on my tombstone, to date I found no better summary of my experience on Earth.
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.
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.
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.
I understand the point you're making, I just don't think it's obvious that the NSA is unimportant. As well as detecting terrorism, they may well be doing a lot of other things to protect the us against then machinations of others e.g. Russia and china.
Also, don't underestimate terrorism. Over decades, the IRA did a lot to disrupt the UK, including killing cabinet ministers, and two nearly successful assassination attempts against the prime minister. Ultimately the UK conceded and the new Irish government contained ministers who had been leaders of the terrorist movement.
The NSA's efforts against Russia and China and other geopolitical enemies of the day are probably not much influenced by wholesale surveillance of American citizens. If the question is what the NSA as a whole is doing, the answer is, "a lot". I was concentrating on this one particular bit.
As far your IRA example, the US doesn't face anything like that, and shows no prospect of doing so. Even if it did, I'm not convinced that efforts like the NSA's would be very helpful in combating it, and given the example of the last 12 years, I'm quite sure that the US government's reactions as a whole would be far more damaging than the terrorism itself.
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.
I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever, then that is [...] what we are going after. That is the intelligence target we are going after because it is the requirement."
I think as engineers, we have a certain degree of responsibility for how our work is used. To say your work is apolitical when you're in the business of spying on people is quite the statement, especially if "people" is basically everybody. (I am aware that the speaker is probably not an engineer and it wasn't an engineering recruiting program, but the same can be said about their field, I'd assume.)
Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should. I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P
This is a very good point that I keep coming back to as the NSA scandal continues to unfold. You may think that as an engineer your concern is the engineering and going heads down on technical issues is the end of your responsibility but it is not.
Nothing absolves you of your fundamental responsibility to behave ethically to the best of your abilities. There's a good article on this topic here:
There's no such thing as a job where you will never have to make an ethics based decision and you need to be prepared to do the right thing. Philip Zimbardo (sp?)(Stanford prison experiment) talks about the necessity of training people to be heroes before they face ethical conundrums to short circuit our natural instincts and take action. I think this is an important thing to do from time to time - ask yourself if you are compromising your ethics in some way. Look in the mirror and remind yourself that you're going to do the right thing especially when its hard. Make the decision ahead of time so its easier to follow through when it counts.
Here's hoping there are folks at the NSA and elsewhere asking themselves these kind of questions and rereading that oath to protect the constitution.
I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement".
People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders".
A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys.
I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt.
I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney.
This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.
To convince oneself against one's better knowledge that something is right when it's not, because one wants to be able to sleep at night of all things is not amoral? To "just follow orders" isn't amoral? Adolf Eichmann wasn't amoral? What, then, is amorality?
Are you perhaps confusing "amoral" with "immoral"? "Amoral" means without moral consideration ("pragmatic", "calculating"), "immoral" means in violation of moral consideration ("evil", "malicious").
No, I'm aware of that, and I mean amoral. Could be the person I replied to confused them, but I actually think amoral is more fitting, since numbing your conscience may be immoral, but effectively makes you behave amorally, no?
Though I do think being amoral is a position on the moral spectrum - wether amoral people want to see it or not - and to me it kinda implies immorality. I find amorality much more dangerous than mere immorality, also because it can often seem benign and go unnoticed much longer.
Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.
I'm sorry, what?
The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again?
Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like:
Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman
Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it.
No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1].
I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system.
[1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.
Yes, the purpose of the trial itself is to determine guilt or innocence. I'm suggesting that the purpose of a legal system like ours is to ensure everyone's right to a fair trial in the first place; more generally, our goal is to ensure that innocent people are not put in jail. Defense lawyers make sure that guilt, if determined, is done legally and that sentencing is arrived at fairly.
If a defendant wants to skip the trial and admit guilt, that's a different matter.
No, actually, the purpose of our legal system is to have some fair form of crime and punishment system.
A fair trial is not a purpose, it's a means to an end (punishing people fairly).
It is not even a necessary component. The only reason it exists at all is because of our inability to objectively determine guilt in most cases. The rest are tacked on (IE determinations of what crime has been committed. Even this would be solved if you could objectively determine what occurred)
However, again, if the defendant admits guilt (even if not in public), but still wants a trial, can you explain how the system is served by a fair trial on guilt or innocence for him, rather than a fair sentencing hearing?
In that case, the guilt or innocence is not in question.
The same is true when they only admit guilt to a defense attorney.
Defending the client, and trying to get them off during the trial stage, does not serve the ends of the system.
It may, depending on how formulated, serve some of the means, but that's kind of irrelevant.
Well let's first assume that the client not only admitted that he did it but also really did it.
The system is best served by not being allowed to randomly put whomever in jail for whatever [1]. So we would require the prosecution present legally-obtained evidence that the defendant has committed a crime to establish that fact. Defence attorneys are to ensure that there is a fair fight because we cannot expect all of the accused to be legally savvy. To make this effective, the defence must be able to speak to them in confidence, ergo attorney-client privilege. So the defendant admits to his lawyer that he killed a woman. If the state is overreaching on charges, let's say murder one when he did it on a whim, he actually should not be convicted of it. Giving a good defence is supposed to ensure that when an accused is convicted they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. "Better one thousand guilty walk free..."
Also in that case the defence would likely advise the culprit to admit guilt to a second or third-degree murder.
[1] Although I don't think it's succeeding very well at this due to overreach by the states as far as charging too much to get a plea bargain.
"The system is best served by not being allowed to randomly put whomever in jail for whatever [1]."
They aren't randomly putting whomeever. They are putting a guy who admitted to a crime, and is in fact, guilty, in jail. And not even in jail. My only objection was to the trial, not a sentencing hearing. They are welcome to argue whatever factors/mitigations/excuses they want at that hearing.
You still haven't answered what the trial buys you there.
The rest is a discussion about why we have an adversarial system for the case where guilt is not objectively known.
I don't at all disagree with that part (though i agree both sides are blameworthy for various things and in various ways).
IE "Giving a good defence is supposed to ensure that when an accused is convicted they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt."
But he admitted he did it, and actually did it. You objectively know they did it. The "reasonable doubt" standard is a subjective standard, which is standing in for the lack of objective knowledge. Here, we have that objective knowledge. So what exactly is the subjective standard buying you in that case, and why does that serve the end goal, rather than the current means, of the system.
How can you claim we objectively know that someone is guilty or even that a crime was committed at all? Even the lawyer hearing the confession cannot possibly assert beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true with no other evidence.
So what's the scientific way? Maybe present evidence to an unaligned third decider that the crime happened and that the most likely explanation is that the accused committed the crime?
I'm sorry, are you to claim in the second paragraph that the way our system works in front of a jury is a scientific way of determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
If so, I invite you to visit the court room more.
As for the first, you can objectively know if the person is guilty in a number of ways. For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence that they did it. It happens plenty of times.
If your answer is "nothing is enough to objectively know", then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Also, note that "reasonable doubt" is a very modern standard. It's not clear why you seem to be holding it up as the "only" or "right" standard.
> For example, maybe they admit it, plus there is authenticated video + eyewitness + whatever you like evidence that they did it.
Then that would be good enough to convince a jury the accused is guilty. You can't allow the defence to just claim "well, he did it", as you appear to desire, because that's ripe for abuse.
> No, actually, the purpose of our legal system is to have some fair form of crime and punishment system.
Notice that this is one approach, the traditional (dare I say right wing?) one. It's exemplified in the Saudi's punishment of cutting off thieves hands. OTOH, it's mostly rejected in Europe, where justice is supposed to rehabilitate, not punish. That's why there isn't death penalty, and why there are notoriously comfortable prisons; "justice as punishment" is seen there mostly as backwards and barbaric (probably because of all these socialists there :).
has
It serves no direct purpose to the parties of a criminal case to defend someone you know to be guilty. But doesn't it serve an important indirect purpose in allowing the system to function despite (necessarily) complex laws that laypeople can't navigate on their own?
It's a somewhat common problem faced by recruiters, with different levels of severity and different levels of justification. For example, in the '90s and early 2000s, MSR recruiters trying to get researchers to jump ship from academia got sometimes combative questions, especially from grad students, relating to Microsoft's business practices. In most cases the MSR representative had little ability to respond to those questions, since they had nothing to do with business strategy, and possibly didn't even have any particular knowledge of it. About all they could offer was that working at MSR itself was different, and you wouldn't be related to the controversy. Nowadays it occasionally comes up with Google recruiters, though not very often thus far.
Oddly it doesn't seem to come up often with recruiters from companies that I would think have considerably more questionable practices. When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset.
> When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset.
Or more options. By the time a petroleum engineer student becomes a grad student they have probably either figured out that they will most likely be working for one of those companies, or they will have left the field for a more agreeable one. If they've got a problem with BP, chances are they have a problem with Exxon as well...
On the other hand, Computer Science students have a wider variety of companies they can work for. Disagreeing with one or two in particular is unlikely to push them into another field.
The part where they try to hide behind "we are just doing our jobs" and "it's the politicians who generate the requirements" reminded me of SS members or concentration camp guards who later also claimed we just did our job.
As things are, this is one of the few points of contact for public feedback with the NSA. They describe themselves as apolitical tools for the administration, well, that's a pretty big hammer to give a future unknown with no public oversight.
I hate to invoke Godwin's Law because it never helps any discussion, so instead I'll refer to the discussion of Death Star politics and the impact on contractors:
But on the other hand they continue to stay at the organization so while I do feel some sympathy for their predicament,I guess it's really just up to each person to figure out whether they're really okay with staying there, given all the pros and cons involved.