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.
