Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio] (opens in new tab)

Even atheists must do the part with God?

Perhaps they should all be fired.

Perhaps they should have to solemnly swear to read it as well.

> my suggestion here is not meant to prevent either the CIA or NSA from doing their jobs

Quite the contrary. The conclusion of your suggestion is the CIA and the NSA actually doing the job they need to do rather than making more enemies to a country that has already amassed an impressive amount of them.

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 certain degree of responsibility for how our work is used. To say your work is apolitical when you're in the business of spying on people is quite the statement, especially if "people" is basically everybody. (I am aware that the speaker is probably not an engineer and it wasn't an engineering recruiting program, but the same can be said about their field, I'd assume.)

It's a somewhat common problem faced by recruiters, with different levels of severity and different levels of justification. For example, in the '90s and early 2000s, MSR recruiters trying to get researchers to jump ship from academia got sometimes combative questions, especially from grad students, relating to Microsoft's business practices. In most cases the MSR representative had little ability to respond to those questions, since they had nothing to do with business strategy, and possibly didn't even have any particular knowledge of it. About all they could offer was that working at MSR itself was different, and you wouldn't be related to the controversy. Nowadays it occasionally comes up with Google recruiters, though not very often thus far.

Oddly it doesn't seem to come up often with recruiters from companies that I would think have considerably more questionable practices. When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset.

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.

The part where they try to hide behind "we are just doing our jobs" and "it's the politicians who generate the requirements" reminded me of SS members or concentration camp guards who later also claimed we just did our job.

As things are, this is one of the few points of contact for public feedback with the NSA. They describe themselves as apolitical tools for the administration, well, that's a pretty big hammer to give a future unknown with no public oversight.

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law because it never helps any discussion, so instead I'll refer to the discussion of Death Star politics and the impact on contractors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

According to one of the students involved[1], the confrontation wasn't premeditated so they probably weren't really considering how it might look to outside observers.

But there is value in making NSA employees feel bad about what their organization is doing and whether they are personally accountable for it. In fact, this seems like a spontaneous incident of "Haunting" officials from Gene Sharp's list of 198 methods of nonviolent action. I hope others learn from this example and make the jobs of all NSA recruiters difficult everywhere they go.

This incident reminded me of the scene from Good Will Hunting where Will explains why he might not want to work for the NSA after all[2]. Everyone who works for the NSA should be asking themselves that question every single day.

[1] http://mobandmultitude.com/2013/07/02/the-nsa-comes-recruiti...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw

+1. It is very important always to keep in mind that the person you are talking to is a human being. And if you're talking to someone at a recruiting fair, they don't make policy. They're just trying to do their jobs so they don't get fired and they can continue to pay the mortgage and put food on the table.

Which is not to say that you should not call them out, just that you should do it respectfully and with compassion for a fellow human who might be in a very difficult position.

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.

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.

I have a trick too, ask about a worst case scenario, in the case of the NSA spying it might go as follows-

Given that throughout history every intelligence organization has been penetrated by those hostile to it, having a system like PRISM means that the hostile agencies would be able to do more damage to the USA that they would otherwise. A hypothetical case would be a hostile agency gaining information to blackmail a guard at a nuclear weapons storage facility, allowing the USA to be decimated from the inside with its own nuclear weapons stockpile.

Then allow them to contemplate it, be completely silent. There are really only two responses to this, either it starts to dawn on them that what they are doing could harm many innocent people or they will BS, not want to talk about "hypotheticals" and generally evade the possibility just laid out. The former means they are human, the second, probably a sociopath.

They are publicly (mis)representing their organization, the line of questioning is more than fair. They are not somehow entitled to only receive questions that they planned for.

A lot of people just don't care. They want a job with other smart people and neat technology where they can do math in peace and quiet.

See also "You don't need to worry if you don't have anything to hide" etc.

I spoke to the NSA at a career fair. They weren't full-time recruiters, so I asked them how much they ran into brick walls of politics and bureaucracy in their day-to-day work. Their response was "well... not all of the time". I walked to the next booth.

The TSA hardly has a shortage of employees. Why would the NSA have problems? I have more disgust for TSA than NSA currently, albeit by a very small margin.

> I have to imagine their recruiting is going to suffer greatly due to the recent revelations.

On the contrary, it might improve. The Snowden sympathisers won't waste their time applying and the Snowden opponents will rush to the NSA's assistance.

> Very few smart people are going to want to join an organization that spies on their fellow citizens.

Smart people may realize that we're on the edge of an abyss with little way out, and that abyss involves complete control over everybody's lives -- this appeals to some people. What you can control cannot hurt you, and I think that feeling resonates with everybody that has a sense of self-preservation.

Seems like it would only lead to increased reliance on contractors, no?

Yep. Probably even more than they realize. What percent of top CS talent do you think reads HN?

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.

You'll still get "the requirements are handed down to us" though, which is the classic Eichmann defense.

Yes. See http://mobandmultitude.com/2013/07/02/the-nsa-comes-recruiti...

Sales of horse meat rose after food contamination scares in UK.

Also, we want ethical people working for them, because then there's more people to say "Is this legal?" when an order for intelligence comes in.

Then I hope they get recorded and posted as well, because this made my heart sing with joy.

"I mean, I think the question here is, do you actually think about the ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk?"

Because these things are usually planned far in advance and they are just now executing on their earlier plans.

Its a good speech. I transcribed it a while back:

Why shouldn't I work for the NSA? That's a tough one. But I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at the NSA, and somebody puts a code on my desk, something no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cuz I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East, and once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hiding. Fifteen hundred people that I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are saying, "Oh, send in the marines to secure the area", 'cuz they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, getting shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cuz they were pulling a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there taking shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cuz he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helping my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're taking their sweet time bringing the oil back, of course, maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, it ain't too long till he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walking to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is giving him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starving 'cuz every time he tries to get a bite to eat the only blue plate special they're serving is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holding out for something better. I figure: fuck it, while I'm at it why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected President.

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.

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.

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.