41–50 of 76 posts
So even the article says the main reason they can't hire good hackers is that the can't offer reasonable compensation, long term career prospects etc. But het, much easier to blame those hackers for smoking pot. This is just a stupid excuse for why he is not doing his job effectively.
I doubt many young people even want "long term" prospects anymore.
I applied to the FBI, made it all the way through the hiring process and then failed the polygraph portion. It was 100% a false positive... Maybe they should look at utilizing a method other than the polygraph for assessing deception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An agency whose reason for existing is enforcing the law can't really be expected to flout the law with its own personnel. It's not like the FBI itself legislated against marijuana.
They don't really have to do drug tests though. Should they for example install monitoring in employees cars to make sure they never speed?
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.
An agency whose reason for existing is enforcing the law can't really be expected to flout the law with its own personnel. It's not like the FBI itself legislated against marijuana.
I applied to the FBI, made it all the way through the hiring process and then failed the polygraph portion. It was 100% a false positive... Maybe they should look at utilizing a method other than the polygraph for assessing deception.
I thought polygraphs were so well discredited by now that no-one used them; is the FBI still screening with them? What sort of questions are they asking and disqualifying you on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Using BleachBit on servers, smashing devices with hammers to destroy hard drives, and straight up losing dozens of devices with classified information on them? At best its got some real subpar optics, and even being charitable and assuming no ill intent, it looks bumbling and incompetent.
Okay.
But are those things criminal? The parent of this chain mentioned the FBI recommending against prosecution, implying criminal acts occurred, so I think this posit is non-ignorable.
So even the article says the main reason they can't hire good hackers is that the can't offer reasonable compensation, long term career prospects etc. But het, much easier to blame those hackers for smoking pot. This is just a stupid excuse for why he is not doing his job effectively.
> long term career prospects I doubt many young people even want "long term" prospects anymore.
Job security was the number one concern overall (63% of said so). Income was only in fifth place. There was a big difference between the sexes, the share of women who wanted to work for the government was much higher (42% vs. 23% of men).
But that's not all - most students prefer to work for very large companies, giants like Siemens, BMW etc. regularly top the ranking of places where students want to go to. Few want to go to small and medium companies, even though we have a lot of them. Even fewer want to work for a startup or even found one.
I am certainly not critical of that attitude, I doubt that throughout history there ever was a big part of humanity that preferred insecurity and excitement and (often dubious) "chances" that actually depend on quite a bit of luck quite heavily over friends, family and a solid secure basis. That is if that was available of course, often people were forced into being more adventurous by circumstances.
[0] (in German) http://www.spiegel.de/karriere/berufsstart/jeder-dritte-stud...
[1] (PDF) http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-Studentenstudie-...
Having dealt with the government as a customer, no thank you. Endless sea of red tape, outdated tools and practices, stupid requirements, paper security (I call that security driven by a checklist on a form. A system is deemed secure if it passes all those checks. Which often make no difference or makes things even worse when it comes to actual security).
Them: So we'd like your skills as a hacker, but one last thing.
Have you ever actually hacked something? (wink, wink)
You: Ye...
Them: (winking intensifies)
You: err....no. Definitely never done that. That would be illegal.
Them: Excellent. Also, you never smoked dope right?
You: Not the devil's weed! Why I'd never!
Them: Right! Welcome to the team!Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thes…
Using a broken lie detection methodology? Is that even legal? Polygraph evidence is not admissible in US courts anymore.