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

81–90 of 196 posts

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

#81

Post by calebhc »

mjn wrote: post #55
ajuc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even atheists must do the part with God?

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.

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

#82

Post by mikeash »

jlgreco wrote: post #72
gojomo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quitting in disgust is one signal a person can send. But what if that makes the problem worse rather than better, by removing from the agency those people most able to sense and push-back against secret abuses?

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.

Yes, it's important to note that there are not people who are simply toiling away, objecting to the work, and reluctantly carrying it out. These are people publicly advocating for the organization, and trying to get more people to join it.

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

#83

Post by PavlovsCat »

embolism wrote: post #51
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.

Except that we don't really know what the organization does. We only have insinuations by Snowden and detractors against the US. We do have evidence that they conduct massive surveillance could be unconstitutional. We do not have evidence that they are abusing this, and more importantly we don't know whether they have been able to save lives. It could be that the people who work there know about positive life-saving…

Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, 16 years old, born to the "wrong father" and killed by a drone strike 2 weeks after his father was murdered. I say murdered because without a trial and imminent threat, that's what it is. And this is not a solitary incident either, just a rather poignant one. Next question?

edit:

http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/05/24/what-not-specifically-t...

In other words, it sounds like some in the Administration suspect that someone within the targeting chain of command may have invented the Ibrahim al-Banna presence as a way to get at Awlaki’s son.

If this doesn't make you throw up, what will?

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

#84

Post by colanderman »

rhizome wrote: post #66
colanderman wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be surprised if the three-letter agencies don't screen out atheists. They screen in Mormons [1]. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didn...

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.

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

#85

Post by embolism »

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.

Presumably this is because a lot of people think that other countries are involved in espionage and some are involved in terrorism and it's not actually clear that the US is doing anything that unusual or acting against the interests of its citizens.

I don't want to live in a surveillance state, but nobody is even discussing realistic actions. It's all just expressions of disgust and anti-us sentiment.

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

#86

Post by jlgreco »

Sven7 wrote: post #77
HSO wrote: post #50

This is brilliant. Instead of that less than half-assed interview Charlie Rose did with Obama, we should have had those students go at it.

Students can ask all the questions they want (of Facebook and Goldman Sachs too). At the end of the day the only question that matters is who is going to pay off those little student loans.

> "little student loans."

You are correct on the "little" front. While it may seem astronomical to people in countries with different educational systems and people without career prospects, the median and mean student loan debt is under $30k.

So long as they are in a field with more than one major employer, then the NSA is hardly has significant power over them.

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

#87

Post by dhimes »

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…

This is very wise advice, and has served me well also. Always give the benefit of the doubt and let them show why there should be no doubt- either way.

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

#88

Post by embolism »

mikeash wrote: post #75
embolism wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that we don't really know what the organization does. We only have insinuations by Snowden and detractors against the US. We do have evidence that they conduct massive surveillance could be unconstitutional. We do not have evidence that they are abusing this, and more importantly we don't know whether they have been able to save lives. It could be that the people who work there know about positive life-saving…

There is no need to demonstrate that the intelligence is actively being misused. The simple fact that collecting it is unconstitutional and abusive is enough.

It's certainly enough to warrant an open political inquiry and changes of policy, as well as resignations from those politically responsible.

It's not at all obvious that all the NSA staff should just walk away from their jobs. If the NSA is actually protecting people, that would be just as irresponsible.

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

#89

Post by maxcan »

md224 wrote: post #24
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…

Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should . I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P

Don't hire Newman. But we knew that already..

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

#90

Post by baconner »

md224 wrote: post #24
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…

Indeed. Engineers need to understand that the things they build may be "cool," but they have higher-order consequences beyond that. Just because we can build something doesn't mean we should . I mean really, didn't anyone learn anything from Jurassic Park? :P

This is a very good point that I keep coming back to as the NSA scandal continues to unfold. You may think that as an engineer your concern is the engineering and going heads down on technical issues is the end of your responsibility but it is not.

Nothing absolves you of your fundamental responsibility to behave ethically to the best of your abilities. There's a good article on this topic here:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-architecture-...

There's no such thing as a job where you will never have to make an ethics based decision and you need to be prepared to do the right thing. Philip Zimbardo (sp?)(Stanford prison experiment) talks about the necessity of training people to be heroes before they face ethical conundrums to short circuit our natural instincts and take action. I think this is an important thing to do from time to time - ask yourself if you are compromising your ethics in some way. Look in the mirror and remind yourself that you're going to do the right thing especially when its hard. Make the decision ahead of time so its easier to follow through when it counts.

Here's hoping there are folks at the NSA and elsewhere asking themselves these kind of questions and rereading that oath to protect the constitution.

Post reply on HN