Now that you are officially no longer with Google, is there anything that you have put off talking about that you now feel is the right time to do so?
Google Reader, man. Google Reader.
Staying with the US Digital Service
221–230 of 251 posts
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a shame. I remember the NSA and FBI having trouble finding techies because basically everyone they interviewed had smoked weed sometime in the last five years.
Which, particularly for those agencies, comes about due to the most absurd of reasons: 1. We'd treat drug using employees really seriously 2. Therefore you must not do drugs 3. Because we're so serious about this this becomes a major blackmailing vector. 4. So we need to make really sure you're a drug user. It's an entirely manufactured problem that could be solved overnight by them just saying "hey, don't show up hi…
and its ironic that all the major traitors Ames, Cambridge 5 etc where doing it for monetary reasons or for Ideological.
Don't seem to recall being blackmailed for drugs coming into it
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#223As a new grad, the USDS was my top choice but I was constantly stonewalled by recruiters saying that I wasn't experienced enough. For the USDS engineers on the thread--does the work really require 5+ years of work experience? Is there really no place for a passionate and moderately-experienced junior engineer in the organization? I would quit my job in a heartbeat if I got an offer.
It does help to have a few scars, in that many of the problems also have organizational aspects to them. So it's not just the ability to code; it also helps to have seen a lot of dysfunction within companies, bureaucracies, etc.
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#224Just a warning for everyone from California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc. They do require you to certify for the background screening that you have not done any federally illegal drugs in the last 12 months, and possibly do drug tests. Might not want to spend too much time on it if that applies to you. https://www.usds.gov/join#who
further warning, if you apply for a secret or ts clearance (which many, many IT jobs in the federal government require and particular anything that interacts with the DoD), you will be put through a polygraph... It's even more intrusive now and the background check is even more thorough in the post-snowden era.
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phone metadata isn't "large amounts of data," nor do the programs using it qualify as a "massive domestic surveillance program."
I admittedly have little visibility into the scope of NSA programs, so have to resort to media for subjective evaluation of what constitutes "massive" or "domestic". BBC called it "extensive internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23123964 Wired described "the vast scope of the government’s domestic surveillance programs" in reference to Snowden leaks. https:/…
The argument is to look at the primary documents that the journalists were working from, which shows collection that is far smaller than what the journalists claimed.
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#226Now that you are officially no longer with Google, is there anything that you have put off talking about that you now feel is the right time to do so?
Google Reader, man. Google Reader.
Agree, RIP RSS:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13440672
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#227Just a warning for everyone from California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc. They do require you to certify for the background screening that you have not done any federally illegal drugs in the last 12 months, and possibly do drug tests. Might not want to spend too much time on it if that applies to you. https://www.usds.gov/join#who
further warning, if you apply for a secret or ts clearance (which many, many IT jobs in the federal government require and particular anything that interacts with the DoD), you will be put through a polygraph... It's even more intrusive now and the background check is even more thorough in the post-snowden era.
> the background check is even more thorough in the post-snowden era.
Why is that?
I mean, this would be a case of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" except that Snowden would pretty clearly have passed a more thorough background check. His background wasn't the problem.
The only thing I can think of that might actually have preemptively filtered him (or those like him) out would be some sort of psych test biased toward authoritarianism.
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#228Just a warning for everyone from California, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc. They do require you to certify for the background screening that you have not done any federally illegal drugs in the last 12 months, and possibly do drug tests. Might not want to spend too much time on it if that applies to you. https://www.usds.gov/join#who
You would need to take a drug test to work for the USDS. To the best of my knowledge, you don't have to take a drug test to apply to 18F, although I believe that you may be asked the question as part of the application process for 18F.
I work at 18F but am speaking about my experience here and experiences heard from coworkers, not officially on behalf of 18F.
Applying to 18F didn't require a drug test for me. The application process asks this question in the background check part (details at "security clearance" at the bottom of https://pages.18f.gov/joining-18f/how-to-apply/ for anyone curious), but answering yes to the "have you ever done federally-illegal drugs" question is not an automatic disqualification. It can be a disqualification depending on the details of the drug use.
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've filled out multiple hundreds of pages of visa and immigration forms, and I have never had to tell them what religion I am. Barring the use of country of origin or other specious proxies for religion, the feds still have no idea what religion I am. Heuristic searches for muslims definitely exist - but they aren't as simple as you make them out to be.
They don't get the data for the (existing) Muslim registry by asking you. Just like the Stasi didn't send out a pre-persecution questionnaire to identify Catholics.
I'm not sure the surveillance state is anywhere near as pervasive as you think it is. It's important to realize that you don't yet live on the other side of the iron curtain, and that there is time to save yourself from that fate.
Re: Staying with the US Digital Service
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
further warning, if you apply for a secret or ts clearance (which many, many IT jobs in the federal government require and particular anything that interacts with the DoD), you will be put through a polygraph... It's even more intrusive now and the background check is even more thorough in the post-snowden era.
> the background check is even more thorough in the post-snowden era. Why is that? I mean, this would be a case of "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" except that Snowden would pretty clearly have passed a more thorough background check. His background wasn't the problem. The only thing I can think of that might actually have preemptively filtered him (or those like him) out would be some sort of ps…
because knee jerk reaction, assuming logical reasons for well thought out responses on the part of the federal government dinosaur apparatus will only make your head hurt.