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

Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

soundcloud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

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

#31

Post by Osmium »

Gorpus wrote: post #22

Wow I bet this girl is real proud of herself. But why is she trying to have this debate with recruiters? How immature. I hope NSA switches up their recruitment a little bit, make it easier for technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys to get a job there. I'd love to work for them. Surveillance isn't going away, and I bet the technology side of it is fascinating, full of interesting problems.

I'm sure you realise you're been obtuse, but here it goes:

I really do hope this girl is proud of herself! She should be. For all we know, she might be an excellent candidate for an NSA job and have a real interest in working for them, provided that in doing so she doesn't have to sacrifice her integrity as an American. Given what we currently know from the press, her questions seem to be entirely reasonable. And if they aren't, that's not her fault, because she can only ask questions based on what she believes to be true. In short, don't shoot the messenger.

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

#32

Post by PavlovsCat »

DannyBee wrote: post #26
martin_k wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever, then that is [...] what we are going after. That is the intelligence target we are going after because it is the requirement." I think as engineers, we have a ce…

I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders". A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personall…

To convince oneself against one's better knowledge that something is right when it's not, because one wants to be able to sleep at night of all things is not amoral? To "just follow orders" isn't amoral? Adolf Eichmann wasn't amoral? What, then, is amorality?

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

#33

Post by Kylekramer »

mikeash wrote: post #17
hkmurakami wrote: post #4

I have some sympathy for the recruiters since they really have no say in the high level decision making in the organization. They may not even be involved with domestic spying of citizens. But on the other hand they continue to stay at the organization so while I do feel some sympathy for their predicament,I guess it's really just up to each person to figure out whether they're really okay with staying there, given a…

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.

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

#34

Post by DannyBee »

robbiemitchell wrote: post #29
DannyBee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders". A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys. I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personall…

Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.

I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again?

Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it. No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1].

I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system.

[1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.

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

#36

Post by md224 »

Gorpus wrote: post #22

Wow I bet this girl is real proud of herself. But why is she trying to have this debate with recruiters? How immature. I hope NSA switches up their recruitment a little bit, make it easier for technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys to get a job there. I'd love to work for them. Surveillance isn't going away, and I bet the technology side of it is fascinating, full of interesting problems.

I hate when comments people disagree with get downvoted, because now nobody's going to see this and we're missing a great opportunity to debate with someone who shares a drastically different viewpoint than the rest of us.

> "technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys"

I'm curious, are you referring dismissively to people with a steadfast commitment to their own ethical compass? And if so, why?

Edit: I think Gorpus is dead now. I misinterpreted his comment about choir boys though, he was just saying they only hire people with completely spotless records, drug testing, etc.

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

#37

Post by angersock »

doktrin wrote: post #30
angersock wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Once the rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down? That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.

Nitpick : the above almost makes it look as if von Braun made that statement, which he didn't. It's from a satirical song by Tom Lehrer.

Quite right. Lehrer had some fantastic lyrics to his credit.

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

#38

Post by droopyEyelids »

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 party who hears the discourse more freedom to make up their mind, whereas they might naturally go against your point of view because it's being pushed down their throat.

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

#39

Post by Gorpus »

md224 wrote: post #36
Gorpus wrote: post #22

Wow I bet this girl is real proud of herself. But why is she trying to have this debate with recruiters? How immature. I hope NSA switches up their recruitment a little bit, make it easier for technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys to get a job there. I'd love to work for them. Surveillance isn't going away, and I bet the technology side of it is fascinating, full of interesting problems.

I hate when comments people disagree with get downvoted, because now nobody's going to see this and we're missing a great opportunity to debate with someone who shares a drastically different viewpoint than the rest of us. > "technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys" I'm curious, are you referring dismissively to people with a steadfast commitment to their own ethical compass? And if so, why? Edit:…

What I meant was that they have requirements for employment (regarding drug use, travel history, etc.) that disqualify otherwise qualified individuals.

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

#40

Post by adammil »

Gorpus wrote: post #22

Wow I bet this girl is real proud of herself. But why is she trying to have this debate with recruiters? How immature. I hope NSA switches up their recruitment a little bit, make it easier for technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys to get a job there. I'd love to work for them. Surveillance isn't going away, and I bet the technology side of it is fascinating, full of interesting problems.

Anyone who represents the NSA in public is absolutely the appropriate person to confront about their organization's illegal activities. They are civil servants after all.
Post reply on HN