21–30 of 106 posts
"it's significant that the NSA's massive XKeyscore program runs on a Linux cluster." Is there an option in Creative Commons or GPL to exclude government use?
The "Top Hackers" certainly still will work for the government.....Why do you think so many are in DC
"it's significant that the NSA's massive XKeyscore program runs on a Linux cluster." Is there an option in Creative Commons or GPL to exclude government use?
If they modified GPL code, maybe they can be sued to release changes.
There have always been reasons to object to working in national defense. During the Cold War quite a few physicists and engineers chose not to go into defense work because they did not want to feel like they were hastening nuclear Armageddon. And yet, the U.S. government developed effective new defense and energy technologies during this time. There are reasons to work for the government that are attractive to top te…
Robert Oppenheimer, the "Father of the Atomic Bomb," lost his security clearance and his position on the Atomic Energy Commission for voicing concerns and refusing to directly help build the hydrogen bomb in the 50s. He argued it was against the United States' best interests to develop it, because the USSR had no cities large enough to use it on, while the United States did. The United States also had plenty of large atomic bombs with pretty high yield already that were much cheaper to build. Thus, when the Soviets eventually created their own, they would be ones with a reason to have it, while we wasted tons of money giving it to them that could have been spent elsewhere.
Just for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Openheimer#Atomic_Energy...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078037/ Great miniseries on Oppenheimer done by the BBC, if one can find it.
not work for the government, but for the democrats. will hackers work for democrats in the next presidential election? if it's disappointment with obama, will switching to clinton be enough? and will we see a move to 'blame obama' near the end of his term to help clinton?
There have always been reasons to object to working in national defense. During the Cold War quite a few physicists and engineers chose not to go into defense work because they did not want to feel like they were hastening nuclear Armageddon. And yet, the U.S. government developed effective new defense and energy technologies during this time. There are reasons to work for the government that are attractive to top te…
> "There have always been reasons to object to working in national defense. During the Cold War quite a few physicists and engineers chose not to go into defense work because they did not want to feel like they were hastening nuclear Armageddon." Robert Oppenheimer, the "Father of the Atomic Bomb," lost his security clearance and his position on the Atomic Energy Commission for voicing concerns and refusing to direct…
http://www.amazon.com/American-Prometheus-Triumph-Tragedy-Op...
There have always been reasons to object to working in national defense. During the Cold War quite a few physicists and engineers chose not to go into defense work because they did not want to feel like they were hastening nuclear Armageddon. And yet, the U.S. government developed effective new defense and energy technologies during this time. There are reasons to work for the government that are attractive to top te…
> most of their product development treads on or over the privacy line of their customers. I think most people now understand and have well-embraced the idea of "if you don't pay for a product you are the product." Given the relative odds of being injured or killed by a terrorist attack, it's debatable if any utility is gained from giving up your privacy to government.
The reality is that not only does money do a fine job of buying talent, but, if it's the USG you're thinking about, they don't even have to try hard; extremely qualified engineering graduates compete to secure positions at NSA, which has been ~10 years ahead of private industry for the last couple decades, before which time they were even further ahead.
Part of the reason the USG doesn't actually have a problem recruiting people is that actually believe in training people. I don't know how effective they really are at it, but I do know that our industry is fundamentally unserious about training. The kinds of commercial organizations that take in raw recruits generally turn out extremely mediocre J2EE and .NET developers. The rest, to a first approximation, run their recruiting programs based on measurements of reproductive organs. Giant defense contractors haul in green IT graduates by the truckload and adapt them to jobs that command significant premiums on the private market. Again, I'm not saying defense contractors can turn information management grads into electronic supersoldiers, but: they're not hurting for recruits.
The reason I think you care about this is because it informs you of a hidden handicap that private industry and activist groups have when facing down the government. I'm very sorry if I'm the first person to break this to you, but if you're an activist targeting the USG, your adversary isn't stupid. In fact, I think it's likely that they're significantly smarter than any of us. Bear that in mind when you design your NSA-proof email applications.
I don't do work for the USG, and haven't before, but I'm realistic about the impact of that decision; it has more to do with my own psychological welfare than it does with anyone else's.
Even before seeing that the submission was from techdirt, the headline itself contains the type of assertion that is highly questionable on its face. 1. What is a "top" hacker? Someone who has hacked the most systems? Hacked the most secure system? Created the most cleverest exploit? 2. How do you know that it's actually the "top" hackers who are refusing to work with the USG? Because quite conceivably, there are gre…