Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Def Con Hackers On Whether They'd Work For the NSA

Posted by timothy on from the well-wouldja? dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes "Premier hacker conference Def Con, which just wrapped up its 21st year, played host to security professionals who all had very different opinions on what the NSA is up to. In fact, the only thing everyone could agree on is that the PRISM revelations came as no surprise. Even if it isn't news to this crowd, it is still a significant development in the general climate of government surveillance and national security. And at Def Con, where government recruitment was hampered this year by conference founder Jeff Moss's requesting that feds stay away, it seemed like a good idea to walk around asking people if they would still want to work for the NSA."

13 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. The only reason worth working for the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is continuing Edward Snowden's great work.

  2. Terrified, I'm sure... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Hey, you, geek. We've got cash, huge fucking computers, and it's totally legal* to hack whoever you want. You in?"

    I'm inclined to guess that, between the people who love toys or have mortgages and the people who think that the NSA is A-OK(tm), they aren't too worried(plus, if your area of expertise or interest is something related to data mining, the NSA might count as honest work compared to, say, Facebook)...

    1. Re:Terrified, I'm sure... by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it's one thing to be righteously fighting for principles against the Man, but it's a whole different ball game when you got mouths to feed. Or an fresh, empty resume to build. Or a mountain of loans to pay. Then you can't be so picky when trying to secure a decent source of income.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Terrified, I'm sure... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those of us who breed responsibly and only buy shit we can afford have very little sympathy for this point of view. And there's no reason to whore yourself out these days for evil in order to fill an empty resume -- this isn't post-Dot Com nuclear winter, not in the tech sector anyway. In summary, what you describe is the very reason our country is fucked up at this point. Folks who are willing to rationalize evil and immoral deeds for personal gain, at the expense of everyone else and our Constitutional rights, ABSOLUTELY are the problem.

  3. Yes by shuz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite opinions on ethics for or against, the NSA is still widely considered to have interesting technologies to play with and viewed as leaders in computer system security development. I'm in IT because I love problem solving and the adrenaline rush of having to solve difficult problems under pressure. The responsibility of my job comes first. The only ethical dilemma for me is if someone with authority were to ask me to let a system fail to prove some kind of point.

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
    1. Re:Yes by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?

        That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun."

    2. Re:Yes by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are legally obliged in working for the NSA to put the US Constitution first. Any work requirement that asks you to violate the constitution is illegal. So you would willfully be violating your primary objective by "putting your job first".

    3. Re:Yes by nbauman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Despite opinions on ethics for or against, the NSA is still widely considered to have interesting technologies to play with and viewed as leaders in computer system security development. I'm in IT because I love problem solving and the adrenaline rush of having to solve difficult problems under pressure. The responsibility of my job comes first. The only ethical dilemma for me is if someone with authority were to ask me to let a system fail to prove some kind of point.

      With all due respect to Godwin, this ethical debate started during the cold war when everybody was thinking about the Nazis in WWII.

      I aim at the stars, says Werner von Braun.
      The rockets go up, and where they come down,
      that's not my department, says Werner von Braun.
      Sometimes I miss, I hit England.
      But I aim at the stars, says Werner von Braun.

      After they thought about WWII, a lot of scientists decided that it was wrong to just be a scientist and work on an interesting technical problem that can kill people at the end.

      In particular, the top people who worked on nuclear weapons did some calculations and realized that they had constructed a machine that could destroy humanity. The people who worked on the intercontinental ballistics missiles developed some of the most advanced, cost-is-no-object integrated circuit chips, and every other technology.

      Most good engineers will think out the end purpose of the work they're doing. They worked during WWII to save their country. During the cold war, they were working to destroy their country. I appreciate the adrenalin rush of problem-solving too, but you have to resist it if it's leading towards turning New York and Moscow into Hiroshima.

      During the 1960s, a lot of people thought that the Vietnam war was horribly wrong (and after 3 million Vietnamese were killed in a country that now makes our sneakers, you can see their point). If you're an engineer, then on some level you want to contribute to society. Killing 3 million people in a stupid war is going in the opposite direction.

      You wouldn't kill prisoners of war in order to solve an interesting scientific problem, would you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Why is that different from helping to kill 3 million Vietnamese in exchange for working on an interesting technical problem?

      Of course, maybe you're totally immoral. Maybe you want to be like Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold the Pakistani nuclear weapons secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya. I'm not sure what to say to those people.

    4. Re:Yes by nbauman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, look at it in context. We killed 3 million Vietnamese because the war hawks told us that if Vietnam fell to Communism, all the other southeast countries will fall to Communism, like dominoes. Vietnam fell to Communism. The dominoes didn't fall. They were wrong. 3 million lives destroyed for nothing. The war contractors made billions. Sound familiar? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

  4. Good Will Hunting 1997 says it for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  5. Depends by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Work for the NSA, doing what? The NSA does more than one thing. I'd be more than happy to work on developing next-generation crypto algorithms, for example. There is probably some work at the NSA that's compatible with my view of the law and common decency -- and much that is not.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  6. Re:Maybe by chill · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...heavy bureaucracy, political infighting, mediocre employees. It's just unattractive all around.

    How is that different from the private sector?

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  7. Re:I'd do it... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The NSA does introspection?

    If the recent reports that they can search a substantial percentage of the planet's internet activity; but not their own mailserver are accurate, I'd be inclined to go with "Apparently not".