Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio] • Hacker News Board

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#151

Post by Amadou » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 5:37 AM UTC

Kylekramer wrote: post #33

mikeash wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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).

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#152

Post by charonn0 » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 5:41 AM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #150

phaus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I joined the military, I was given the option to take the pledge without a reference to God. I suspect the same option is given to people in any government organization.

but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens. no religion is for the soul. it's all about control.

    but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens.

What would happen? (serious question)

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#153

Post by Amadou » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 5:43 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #92

jlgreco wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

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.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#154

Post by gaadd33 » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 6:08 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #71

eli wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I willingly live in a country that conducts surveillance. I could leave, but I don't. I guess I'm complicit too.

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.

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.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#155

Post by DannyBee » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 6:34 AM UTC

krichman wrote: post #147

DannyBee wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

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 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.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#156

Post by B0Z » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 6:36 AM UTC

droopyEyelids wrote: post #38

I have a trick I feel would make a confrontation like this better. Always speak under the assumption that the other person is 'good'. That means not calling them a liar. Instead, ask the questions that you feel would expose the inconsistency. That way they show everyone the point you're trying to make. Also it prevents personal animosity from obscuring the real content you might discover. Furthermore, it allows a 3rd…

In a sanitized or controlled scenario, this makes sense. Passion and emotion, however, are impossible to strip from opinions in the context of the Snowden revelations that started all of this. Having the scab ripped off the NSA has altered the perspective of entire generations. Frankly I think the students handled themselves remarkably well.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#157

Post by pfortuny » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 6:57 AM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #150

phaus wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I joined the military, I was given the option to take the pledge without a reference to God. I suspect the same option is given to people in any government organization.

but try to say So help me [allah|budah|spagetti] to see what happens. no religion is for the soul. it's all about control.

Well, there are some millions of people who disagree with you. I include myself in them.

Not that it matters, I just wanted to state the contrary.

"Contrarywise, said Tweedledee"

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#158

Post by VMG » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 7:31 AM UTC

calebhc wrote: post #81

mjn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know, it may usually (always?) be omitted. Oddly enough, it didn't require a Supreme Court decision, because the precedent was set with the first such oath: the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first to specify a legal oath ending with "so help me God", and it at the same time explicitly included an opt-out clause, after which that has been accepted practice. See Sec. 7 here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/am…

"So help me God" should be omitted since it doesn't even make any coherent sense. Might as well say "So help me snorkleflurp". Edit: The reason I say that phrase doesn't make any sense is because "God" has so many inconsistent, incoherent definitions that it seems nonsensical to request help from it. No idea what "God" even is.

It just signals other people in his social sphere that they can question his religiosity of he fails to uphold his oath, nothing more.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#159

Post by pyre » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 7:46 AM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #84

rhizome wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, "Business Insider," and a number-of-things article.

Sorry, I just picked the first result on Google. I learned this tidbit from a previous posting on HN; apparently the CIA (or NSA?) recruits heavily from Brigham Young University.

It was the CIA.

There is the possibility that they trend towards Mormons due to some belief/statistic that they are more likely to respect authority, or unquestioningly follow orders.

On the other hand, Mormons do a lot of missionary work where they learn the local language, in addition to customs, etc. This is also something extremely valuable to intelligence organizations.

Re: Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

#160

Post by krichman » Thu, Jul 04, 2013, 7:50 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #155

krichman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 answere…

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?