Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#21

Post by kristofferR »

badlucklottery wrote: post #13
drawnwren wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. NSA is definitely 10 years [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Scope_Background_Invest...

You can still pass your investigation if you've done drugs in the last 10 years but you do have to disclose it and sign a form that states you won't do it again or associate with anyone who does while you have a clearance (edit: or at least that's how it was 10 years ago). The purpose of clearance investigations isn't to dig up dirt in order to hurt you you, it's to find out what dirt foreign intel services can dig u…

> or associate with anyone who does

No wonder they're having problems finding candidates. Hackers are probably way more likely to use certain drugs like weed, MDMA and psychedelics than the general population, due to their intellectual curiosity and intelligence levels (which I assume are significantly higher than the average).

Do they really force applicants to disassociate with their friends and family, like in Scientology, or is it just a rule they only care really about in the most serious cases (if friends are dealers or have drug problems etc)?

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#23

Post by jrockway »

Does the FBI's salary compare favorably with what people get at big software companies? I'm guessing that's the real problem.

Going deeper, what's the career progression like at the FBI? Do you work your way up to being a higher-titled software engineer, or do you have to transition into a different role in order to get paid more? Guess what, that's another problem the private sector has solved.

How much did we pay for that joint strike fighter? That's how much reasonable cybersecurity is going to cost.

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#24

Post by iamdave »

duncan_bayne wrote: post #11

The same FBI that fights the War on Drugs and the War on Whistle-blowers so violently? The FBI that was behind COINTELPRO ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO )? The FBI that recommended against prosecution of Clinton despite finding that she was negligent in her handling of classified information? Cry me a river.

I'm going to agree with you re: Whistleblowers & COINTELPRO, but was Clinton criminally negligent or just "Best practices were not adhered to" negligent? My impression from Comey's statements are the latter.

Asking this genuinely, since I didn't read far into the story beyond said statements.

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#26

Post by skafjvhs »

kristofferR wrote: post #21
badlucklottery wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still pass your investigation if you've done drugs in the last 10 years but you do have to disclose it and sign a form that states you won't do it again or associate with anyone who does while you have a clearance (edit: or at least that's how it was 10 years ago). The purpose of clearance investigations isn't to dig up dirt in order to hurt you you, it's to find out what dirt foreign intel services can dig u…

> or associate with anyone who does No wonder they're having problems finding candidates. Hackers are probably way more likely to use certain drugs like weed, MDMA and psychedelics than the general population, due to their intellectual curiosity and intelligence levels (which I assume are significantly higher than the average). Do they really force applicants to disassociate with their friends and family, like in Sci…

Well, they make everyone sign the papers, and they frequently polygraph. It's risky to get a clearance if you are breaking the rules. You'd have to keep your story straight, and have the ability to defeat test anxiety. Maybe that's a good process if you are trying to find a good spy. Not very good for recruiting a hacker.

I hear they bend the rules for extraordinary candidates - maybe that applies to all hackers these days.

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#27

Post by mwfunk »

kbd wrote: post #3

Stupid requirements lead to poor hiring. It's the government's own fault. I always wonder how much of their workforce a company like Google would have to fire if they drug tested.

Honestly, with all the big tech companies in SV that would be anywhere from 20-30% IME. And many of them would be among the best people at those companies.

I can't imagine a better way to needlessly drive away good people than to have a zero-tolerance policy for weed. It's crazy that any employer still cares about this, as long as people are getting their work done and aren't using it on the job.

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#28

Post by badlucklottery »

kristofferR wrote: post #21
badlucklottery wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still pass your investigation if you've done drugs in the last 10 years but you do have to disclose it and sign a form that states you won't do it again or associate with anyone who does while you have a clearance (edit: or at least that's how it was 10 years ago). The purpose of clearance investigations isn't to dig up dirt in order to hurt you you, it's to find out what dirt foreign intel services can dig u…

> or associate with anyone who does No wonder they're having problems finding candidates. Hackers are probably way more likely to use certain drugs like weed, MDMA and psychedelics than the general population, due to their intellectual curiosity and intelligence levels (which I assume are significantly higher than the average). Do they really force applicants to disassociate with their friends and family, like in Sci…

>Do they really force applicants to disassociate with their friends and family

Anecdotal but it wasn't enforced at all. I suspect it was a CYA measure for firing someone with undesirable connections but no illegal activities.

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#29

Post by flukus »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #20
nefitty wrote: post #2

Three years seems like an unreasonable timespan. They might end up with people who have little to no social skills with that kind of policy. I don't mean to say that not abstaining for that length of time is abnormal, but young people who are the most adept and skilled with new technologies are bound to find themselves in a situation where they take a hit. I wonder if the drug tests after that are regularly scheduled…

Now that it's been legalized in Oregon, there are marijuana stores all over. But before that, I don't even know where'd you'd get the stuff. Occasionally when I'd ride a train to work at 4 AM, somebody would come up and try to buy it from me; so I guess I look like a drug dealer. In states where it's illegal, do you just wander the streets at night asking people for pot, and hope it's not laced with rat poison? I've…

It's about knowing the right people, you have to know someone, or know someone that knows someone. Ideally that someone is near the end of the supply chain.

Have you asked around your circle of friends? Or asked them to ask around for you? You probably aren't too many hops away from a supplier.

Re: The FBI Says It Can't Find Hackers to Hire Because They All Smoke Pot (2014)

#30

Post by xenadu02 »

iamdave wrote: post #24
duncan_bayne wrote: post #11

The same FBI that fights the War on Drugs and the War on Whistle-blowers so violently? The FBI that was behind COINTELPRO ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO )? The FBI that recommended against prosecution of Clinton despite finding that she was negligent in her handling of classified information? Cry me a river.

I'm going to agree with you re: Whistleblowers & COINTELPRO, but was Clinton criminally negligent or just "Best practices were not adhered to" negligent? My impression from Comey's statements are the latter. Asking this genuinely, since I didn't read far into the story beyond said statements.

The email thing is just a conservative smoke smear. Reading the FBI investigation files makes that extremely clear... and obvious why she wasn't charged: no crime was committed. She even went so far as to avoid Colin Powel's advice on how to hide her emails from FOIA requests.
Post reply on HN