Slashdot Mirror


The NSA Is Looking For a Few Good Geeks

itwbennett writes "Dan Tynan noticed something curious when he was reading a TechCrunch story (about Google's mystery barges, as it happens). There was a banner ad promoting careers at the NSA — and this was no ad-serving network fluke. Tynan visited the TechCrunch site on three different machines, and saw an NSA ad every time. In one version of the ad, a male voice says, 'There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines. And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that. The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications.'"

252 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. world ramifications... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications."

    Like making the rest of the world distrust and hate the USA.

    1. Re:world ramifications... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You had to be pretty dumb to have trusted us any time since there wasn't a soviet union to worry about anymore(or before then, but at least you had a good reason).

    2. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Darn, I missed the ads cause of my adblocker.

    3. Re:world ramifications... by saihung · · Score: 1

      You mean other countries get angry when we spy on their leaders? And then blame the person disclosing the spying instead of, you know, apologizing? Really?

    4. Re:world ramifications... by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications."

      Like making the rest of the world distrust and hate the USA.

      They actually do quite a lot of other things as well there, like research into improving cryptography for example.

    5. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. I'd feel like a piece of shit if I worked for them.

    6. Re:world ramifications... by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1

      There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines. And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that.

      Yes, that headline reads "New NSA revelations reveal activities that violate our constitutional right to privacy" Not a headline I'd want to be associated with.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    7. Re:world ramifications... by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a podcast interviewing former NSA officer Brian Snow that was recorded before the Snowden leaks, and provides some valuable perspective on what the NSA does. I am probably going to get modded and/or flamed to oblivion for saying this, but listening to that podcast made me believe that not everything the NSA does is bad.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    8. Re:world ramifications... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For all Its faults, the NSA is more of a flawed character than an evil one. It does have a particular job to do, the job it's supposed to do is a worthwhile one, and for the most part "our"* criticism of it has to do with its methods, not its mandate. We do, actually, want to know what foreign governments are up to, especially in terms of what those governments might be planning that severely affects America's interests. We do, actually, want our government to know what terrorists are up to, as part of a combined good faith effort to counter-act them.

      We also, of course, want a lot of other things, but just as the most pacifist of us would stop short of demanding an end to the US military - at least, while other governments have one - few would demand an intelligence gathering organization cease to exist simply because of privacy issues. In both cases we might want to rein in the excesses, but we don't want to do away with them altogether.

      So no, I don't see it as completely unreasonable that the NSA would recruit from the nerd communities, leaving aside the somewhat inconvenient fact that they kinda need our skills these days...

      Would I take a job there? Probably not, largely because (post Snowden) I'd be concerned I'd be put in a position whether I have to choose between betraying my principles or betraying my promises. But others may feel much more comfortable with the possible boundaries the job has.

      * as left wing nerds - teahadists can pretend you're against it too, but be honest, you supported the darkest of Cheney's fantasies, we don't believe your sudden opposition to the NSA to be anything other than related to who's in the White House.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:world ramifications... by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.

      -The Seventy Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    10. Re:world ramifications... by mbkennel · · Score: 1


      Looking for a few good geeks, and a whole bunch o' bad ones.

    11. Re:world ramifications... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about security, is when things don't happen is when you do you job well.
      Oh look we found this guy who was getting radicalized. We tell the FBI. Then either he gets arrested or he is monitored so heavily that he will not try anything.

      The general public say, Yo NSA stop spying on people, it is not like there are a bunch of credible plots anyways.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:world ramifications... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Yes and stacking the membership on standards bodies to make sure those improvements are not useful to the general public. Here will give you a great cryptographic cipher but make sure your key exchange process is hopeless borked. Screw the NSA we'd all be safer without them.

      And no we don't need them for international spying we have the CIA for that and they have their own signals intelligence groups. The best thing for the nation would be if we just shuttered the whole agency tomorrow.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    13. Re:world ramifications... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      Where in the Constitution does it say we have a right to privacy?

      I'm not saying we *shouldn't* have it, I'm just asking where it actually says it.

    14. Re:world ramifications... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      A person I had an extremely high opinion of began working there in the mid-90s. A few years later, s/he hinted very vaguely of something unethical that was going on there but which s/he was not directly involved in. I knew better than to ask further about it, because I knew I'd get no answer.

      We've apparently drifted apart since then, but I sometimes wonder how all of this stuff is affecting this person.

    15. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Nazi war machine contributed to a several engineering accomplishments in history. Does that make World War 2 any less bad?

      Not being evil (or not 100% evil) is not an excuse for allowing evil people to take advantage of a seemingly unstoppable tool.

    16. Re:world ramifications... by number11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am probably going to get modded and/or flamed to oblivion for saying this, but listening to that podcast made me believe that not everything the NSA does is bad.

      Of course not. Very few things in life are all black or all white. The NSA is like the neighbor who poisons any dog that comes onto his property, and you're pretty sure he shoplifts, but if you need a hand hoisting an engine or a ride to the store, he's always willing to help.

      That doesn't mean he shouldn't be locked up, though.

    17. Re:world ramifications... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      The thing is the NSA has admitted that they domestic US spying has not given any results. It has been a colossal waste of money as well as a violation of the US constitution.

    18. Re:world ramifications... by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the context of the NSA's activities, my answer is "the fourth amendment."

    19. Re:world ramifications... by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For all Its faults, the NSA is more of a flawed character than an evil one

      We are what we do. The NSA is doing evil, regardless of what their intentions are.

    20. Re:world ramifications... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      "The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications."

      Like making the rest of the world distrust and hate the USA.

      Don't forget the rendition, torture, indefinite imprisonment and missile strikes on aspirin factories.

    21. Re:world ramifications... by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Informative

      The NSA is supposed to spy.. just not on civilian americans.

    22. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, you would not. Once upon the time, I worked for an organization named "Department of the Citizens' Safety". It was in a different time, in a different country, and I had not had a chance to say no - I knew computers, a few Western languages, and had passed (or failed) a bunch of IQ and psychology test. I had barely gotten my first star, and had only a few missions under my belt when the government fell, and I found myself out on my ass, forbidden from holding any government jobs at a time when the only legal jobs were either government, or you had to create them yourself.

      I'm fine now. I am neither dead, nor in organized crime, the way three quarters of my colleagues ended up. I know, now, that I was working for some pretty evil people, and what I was doing was pretty evil. I have pretended being a priest, and wiped my ass with the secret of confession, I have infiltrated literary clubs, and framed the most brilliant of their members for not-so-petty crimes, and I even killed in the line of duty once. It's all in the past, and I'm not even bothering to hide my IP - if you find out who I am, I'll just tell you that I was making shit up - on the internet, no one knows you are a dog.

      That said. Never in my life, not before, not since, had I felt that my life was so simple, that what I was doing was so right, that I was going to bed with such a clear conscience. And of course, never have I felt as powerful and untouchable, but that's a much easier state to achieve.

      When you work for this kind of organization, there is a support structure, a camaraderie, an atmosphere that insures that you are either out before you actually start, or that you are happy and confident with what you are doing, and the only real people are your colleagues. Well, at least it was for me, then. But I doubt the US NSA is testing, vetting, training and supporting their personnel less than my old country did in the late eighties.

    23. Re:world ramifications... by rk · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't say it directly, but one of the big reasons that some of the people responsible for the constitution didn't want the Bill of Rights was for that reason: They didn't want those to be interpreted as the only rights people had. To placate that argument is why the 9th amendment exists. It turns out that those people were exactly right because many make the assumption those are your only rights, even WITH the 9th amendment in place.

      Courts have repeatedly held that there is a de facto right to some level of privacy, regardless of its lack of constitutional enumeration, in part because it's highly implied by several of the amendments, especially the 4th.

    24. Re:world ramifications... by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The choice isn't between having the NSA or flushing that $10 billion down the toilet every year. The choice is between having the NSA or increasing the NASA budget by 50%. The choice is between having the NSA or better endowing social security. The choice is between having the NSA or paying down the national debt.

      You're right, not everything they do is bad, but what little good they have done is trivial compared to what $10 billion should have contributed to our society each year.

    25. Re:world ramifications... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For all Its faults, the NSA is more of a flawed character than an evil one.

      Breaking the law and a patent disregard constitutional rights is a "flaw"? It's not "evil" to make a secret court that makes secret laws that nobody is allowed to see? What the NSA is engaged in is an egregious exercise in government spying and spending "gone wild". Running unchecked and unrestrained. How the hell does anyone get tax dollars approved to build a replica of a Holodeck?

      We are not talking about a simple matter of other countries complaining they saw an SR71 blackbird over their air space, or that the shot down a US spy drone that wandered over their borders. We are talking about a government entity which has broken many laws and side-stepped the rules and regulations in place which were designed to prevent this exact thing from happening.

      The NSA and it's ilk have set up a system with a generic rubber stamp where they can excuse everything they do because "It got approved, see the stamp?". How is it a "flaw" that the public cannot lie under oath, yet the NSA director is somehow excused from that? No, sorry. I don't see anything reasonable about the "job" they did. Reason left a long time ago and now we have a runaway train doing whatever it wants with no regard to the law. I'm sure there's plenty we don't know about yet.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    26. Re:world ramifications... by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 1

      The fourth amendment:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

      I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find all of the things in that sentence that the NSA violates regularly.

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    27. Re:world ramifications... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just an important reminder:

      The US Constitution does not GIVE us rights. It enumerates areas where we allow the government to infringe upon our rights for the good of the nation. The first ten Amendments define some of our inalienable rights but are not a complete listing. Just because the right of privacy is not mentioned is not to imply it does not exist and cannot be claimed.

      While I am sure most people on this site (and probably the poster to whom I am responding as well) are aware of this, I feel it is still an important distinction to be made. Our language dictates our thoughts and actions; let's be clear on this very important matter. We live in an era when there is an increasing belief that our governments have rightful sway over all aspects of our lives and are the source of all corporal power. This is in direct contradiction to the intent of the so-called "Founding Fathers", where the freedom and liberty of the individual were paramount and were only sacrificed - by the individuals - for the advantage of the common weal.

      That is, the direction of power is from the people down to the government, and not the other way around. The people dictate, not the politicians. We willingly give, they do not grudgingly grant. Take and hold onto your rights; they are yours from birth, not a gift bestowed upon you by self-important men.

    28. Re:world ramifications... by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications.

      "Are you a douche? Well, why not be a douche at a global scale?"

    29. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Meyers v. Nebraska, privacy comes from the 14th amendment.

      14th amendment is for the type of privacy such as "you can't be prosecuted for something private".

      4th amendment is for the type of privacy such as "you can't have your life turned upside down for no reason".

      Captcha: civics

    30. Re:world ramifications... by fliptout · · Score: 4, Funny

      Way to insta-Godwin this discussion.

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    31. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you would not.

      You can't decide that for me; I would.

      But then again, I wouldn't work for them to begin with.

    32. Re:world ramifications... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This comment reminds me of the people that insist it was a major scandal that Obama didn't call Benghazi an act of "terror" (he did, but that doesn't stop people insisting on it.)

      I wouldn't say "flawed" is a synonym for "reasonable". In fact, I'd say the opposite. However, use of the word "evil" requires an assumption about the motives of the NSA, that I don't think you're willing to address, and I see no evidence, quite honestly, that the NSA has the wrong motives. Everything's it's done is in line with the concept of an organization that gathers intelligence to help protect national security. What it's done is cross the line, and in some cases done so terribly.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    33. Re:world ramifications... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I feel like you could apply this as a meta argument: not every godwin instance is bad.

    34. Re:world ramifications... by fliptout · · Score: 1

      Perhaps so, but why can't people think of more creative arguments rather than the crass obvious?

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    35. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      as left wing nerds - teahadists can pretend you're against it too, but be honest, you supported the darkest of Cheney's fantasies, we don't believe your sudden opposition to the NSA to be anything other than related to who's in the White House.

      FU jerkwad. Take a look at the vocal folk who hated the PATRIOT act. Most of their concerns were about what would happen when the next administration got its hands on the reins. That means they opposed it blanket out of principle as a bad law, not only because of who's in the white house.

    36. Re:world ramifications... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There's a podcast interviewing former NSA officer Brian Snow that was recorded before the Snowden leaks, and provides some valuable perspective on what the NSA does. I am probably going to get modded and/or flamed to oblivion for saying this, but listening to that podcast made me believe that not everything the NSA does is bad.

      People don't argue that point. It's the extent and the soft supervision of it, such that it could be trivially abused by political operatives in the US against other politicians (or business interests, for that matter.)

      A lot can be done with knowledge of who is talking to whom (just the metadata) to say nothing of call contents.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    37. Re:world ramifications... by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      That was kind of his point. Those who end up working for such agencies either start or end up the kind of people who do not feel like shit while doing so.

      What that says about them (and him) is a different story.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    38. Re:world ramifications... by gamanimatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Breaking the law and a patent disregard constitutional rights is a "flaw"? It's not "evil" to make a secret court that makes secret laws that nobody is allowed to see?

      I think I'm as concerned about the NSA's overreach as the next guy, but it should be noted here that it wasn't the NSA that established those secret courts and National Security Letters; it was our Congress.

      --
      cogito ergo dubito
    39. Re:world ramifications... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If only tech were easy-to-see good or bad, like checking if agents had green (or blue) or red lightsabers.

      OH MY GOD. Yoda, you idiot! It's so simple. A child could do it. A youngling I mean!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    40. Re:world ramifications... by X.25 · · Score: 1

      For all Its faults, the NSA is more of a flawed character than an evil one. It does have a particular job to do, the job it's supposed to do is a worthwhile one, and for the most part "our"* criticism of it has to do with its methods, not its mandate. We do, actually, want to know what foreign governments are up to, especially in terms of what those governments might be planning that severely affects America's interests. We do, actually, want our government to know what terrorists are up to, as part of a combined good faith effort to counter-act them.

      Blah, blah, blah.

      Tell me - what kind of society expects "population" to obey the rule of law, as long as "population" does not work in government agency?

      What exactly makes NSA cyber criminals immune to laws that are being applied to the rest of the population?

      The fact that they "work for government"?

      Everyone is equal before the law... unless they work for the government agency?

      Would you like me to explain you where that leads? Well, it doesn't really lead anymore, you've already go there.

    41. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You had to be pretty dumb to have trusted us any time since there wasn't a soviet union to worry about anymore

      Au contraire ...
       
      ... Lest you've forgotten, Uncle Sam reminds you (and whole damn world) that there's a North Korea, and then, North Korea's Bigger Brother next to it, China !
       
      Yeah, the despicable pair, no doubt about it, Jimbo !!

    42. Re:world ramifications... by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      Blowing up a crapload of innocent people has national and world ramifications.

      Tell me if that's a good thing.

    43. Re:world ramifications... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      The choice is between having the NSA or paying down the national debt.

      That's not one of the choices. The NSA budget hasn't been much bigger than 2% of the DEFICIT in a long time.

      If the NSA budget were zeroed and the money just not spent on anything else, you'd barely notice a change in either the federal budget or the deficit.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    44. Re:world ramifications... by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Would I take a job there? Probably not, largely because (post Snowden) I'd be concerned I'd be put in a position whether I have to choose between betraying my principles or betraying my promises.

      I have a feeling 'Slashdot User ID' is a checkmark against anyone wanting to get hired by a TLA-agency --News for nerds, Stuff that matters, Yo!

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    45. Re:world ramifications... by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he did say terrorism once. And then there were all these other "it was the video" incidents. If he felt it was terrorism, he should have shown it with his actions rather than doing whatever he could to place the blame on a video (the guy went to JAIL after all).

      If you can take a cartoon of it:
      http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/629942-barack-obama-white-house-benghazi-terrorist-attack

    46. Re:world ramifications... by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I said "paying down", not "paid off". 1 cent paid towards the debt is paying it down; $10 billion towards it is still paying it down.

      If the NSA budget were zeroed and the money just not spent on anything else, you'd barely notice a change in either the federal budget or the deficit.

      If I used my entire paycheck to pay down my mortgage, I'd barely notice a change. I think I'll just stop paying my mortgage then.

    47. Re:world ramifications... by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not every godwin instance is bad.

      Godwin isn't supposed to be bad in the first place: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

      It's a simple observation. It only posits that such comparison occurs. It doesn't say whether such comparisons are good or bad at all.

      Many people think Godwin's law is "Ha! You used the N word! You just lost the argument." or "If you bring up the Nazis you ruin the discussion" (what GP did in this case).

    48. Re:world ramifications... by shrikel · · Score: 1

      Come on, what's one measly little "A" going to change?

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    49. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the crass obvious fits the situation demonstrably well, why the actual fuck would you bother?

    50. Re:world ramifications... by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      The tiring part isn't the length (it's no worse than many academic &literary texts), it's the unfamiliar grammar,sentence structures and word definitions. For example, in Modern English, "secure" as a non-technical word refers to being protected from danger so "secure in your papers"makes very little sense; "the people...no Warrants shall issue"would sound like a clumsy way to say civilians can't create warrants.

      Iwonder how many more Americans would have a better grasp of our Bill of Rights and Constitution if they were translated into modern English...

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    51. Re:world ramifications... by tqk · · Score: 1

      If they do have so many good people in their ranks, why is there only one that stood up and exposed the other dirtbags?

      About that, ...

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    52. Re:world ramifications... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      That's alright. Increasingly American citizens have no rights either.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    53. Re:world ramifications... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Ya, your right. I'll work on that. Because the MI6 and MI5 would have us believe, "it's for the children."

    54. Re:world ramifications... by swillden · · Score: 1

      For all Its faults, the NSA is more of a flawed character than an evil one

      We are what we do. The NSA is doing evil, regardless of what their intentions are.

      Does changing what we do change what we are, or is it a one-way road -- once we do something evil are we irretrievably lost?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    55. Re:world ramifications... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Really? Which rights have been eliminated? I am under the impression that any changes to the existing rights require constitutional amendments. In the meantime if you feel someone has violated your rights there is a remedy commonly known as the court system. But to actually use the court system effectively you actually need proof that your rights were violated. Hyperbole, gross exaggerations, moral relativism, lies of omission, indignant rants and unrestrained accusations are not evidence.

    56. Re:world ramifications... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    57. Re:world ramifications... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      What I find somewhat unusual is the widespread belief that others are able to dictate ones rights.

    58. Re:world ramifications... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Eh, it's all semantics. From the outside looking in, one can say "that guy has a right to free speech and not being beaten" but to that guy, if every time you open your mouth some authority smacks it with a baseball bat, you have no right to free speech. Eventually you'll learn to keep your mouth shut or die. To me anyways, if you cannot exercise a right then you do not have it all. The people with the power "give" you your rights in that sense.

    59. Re:world ramifications... by Monolith1 · · Score: 1

      Are you part of the A-Team?

    60. Re:world ramifications... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      They think that because it is the accepted standard. Read this FAQ which Wiki linked me to. I found it quite interesting and certainly learned a couple things. I particularly like the Six Degrees of Godwin game that is mentioned in there. May have to trot it out if I get bored- it'll be a gas!

    61. Re:world ramifications... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      The NSA is supposed to spy.. just not on civilian americans.

      there are no civilian Americans, just enemy combatants

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    62. Re:world ramifications... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      Yeah but isn't one of the arguments why Americans in general aren't particularly outraged is because he killed that dog that tried to kill your kid, you know it, you saw him do it, and you decided to give him a pass cause that was pretty cool of him. It's not like you were gonna kill that dog anyway since you were just standing there frozen in horror.

      I don't believe this mind you, I just know the majority kind of expects the government is doing what it has to so you can do whatever it is you have to. You gotta trust em, somebody has to do that dirty work, and it certainly isn't gonna be that person.

    63. Re:world ramifications... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      This is not a Tort, but a Constitutional issue. We can start with "unreasonable search." Other noted 20th century powers have ignored this simple human right, and they are now only in the history books today. Another right is "freedom of the press", because of the NSA ignoring "unreasonable search" we are seeing a erosion of rights to print the truth. This is a contradiction to the chilling motto used by the CIA.

    64. Re:world ramifications... by Zynder · · Score: 1

      That is because you are a person, not a government. Governments aren't supposed to be breaking even or making a profit. You can't print money nor dictate law like they can and that is why people get all pissed about it. I agree with you partially, move the money to a better project but as a government you don't have to pay down your debt. Depending on who you ask, Clinton had our books balanced and I think we were on a good track to pay it off. But those guys are only in there for 8 years tops. Look what happened when the next asshole showed up. Flushed it all down the drain and ran it up higher. It still keeps getting ran up to this day. So what would the point of paying it down be? I'd rather take the extra money that, for all I know just vanishes, and instead give it to NASA, NOAA, whoever so that they will employ people with good paying jobs who will actually have that money in hand and will buy real stuff built by others who have good jobs. They already printed that money and ran inflation up, so reallocation would at least in someway help offset that for us normal folks.

    65. Re:world ramifications... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Everyone hated the US beforehand. It really doesn't matter anymore.

      Fortunately for the people of the US, we have all these other countries to look at that don't spy on their people or leaders of other nations. You know, because they all have people like Snowden revealing every secret of their spy agencies so we can compare their activities to ours.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    66. Re:world ramifications... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      If you really believe that every world government does not spy on other world governments, you're an idiot. If you think that friends don't spy on friends, you're an idiot. The NSA has a bigger budget, and probably more expertise and technology, but every country is doing it.

      All this supposed outrage by foreign leaders is simply to deflect attention from the fact that these same foreign leaders are currently spying on their own citizens just as much as the NSA is spying on US citizens. These foreign leaders don't want their citizens to ask questions about the other revelations, here, about a government spying on its own citizens, and instead be distracted by something that is obvious yet rarely talked about. Otherwise, the citizens of Germany might have questions about what intelligence the German government is collecting on them, for example.

      All the American citizens outraged that the NSA is spying on foreign government officials are absolutely crazy. That's the NSA's job, you fools. You should be outraged that the NSA is spying on YOU, decidedly against its mission statement, and in violation of your constitutional rights. I for one am glad the NSA is spying on foreign heads of state.

    67. Re:world ramifications... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      " The NSA Is Looking For a Few Good Geeks"...with no morals or ethics.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    68. Re:world ramifications... by Catiline · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution does not GIVE us rights. .... Just because the right of privacy is not mentioned is not to imply it does not exist and cannot be claimed.

      Exactly so. The Ninth amendment is worded in such a way as to deliberately outline this fact: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      In any case, a strong argument could also be made that the fourth amendment's phrasing ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...") is pretty much the textbook definition of "right to privacy".

    69. Re:world ramifications... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part about our Constitution-free zone?
      --------------------
      Â 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C.ÂÂÂ1357(a)(3), which simply provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR Â 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."
      --------------------

      What about "free speech zones?" You don't think that is an abridgment of our rights?

      What about asset forfeiture laws that are used against everyday citizens?

      Wake up.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    70. Re:world ramifications... by itsthebin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what sort of geek browses websites allowing banner ads with sound ?

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
    71. Re:world ramifications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Snowden is one of the 850 000; you don't hear of the other 849 999 people. Probably most of them are kind of happy with their job.

    72. Re:world ramifications... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      ... I see no evidence, quite honestly, that the NSA has the wrong motives.

      What about the evidence that the NSA's network is being used for industrial espionage? National security is one thing, but that one's impossible to justify.

    73. Re:world ramifications... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      In any case, a strong argument could also be made that the fourth amendment's phrasing ("...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches...") is pretty much the textbook definition of "right to privacy".

      The problem is this word unreasonable,/b>.

      Strike this word unreasonable; insert "without due process of law and" ahead of ", shall not be violated"

      Also, change

      secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

      To include

      secure in their persons, homes, offices, papers, transactions, private communications, business partners, and effects against

      change searches and seizures to

      searches, eavesdropping, recordings, or seizures except as both reasonable and necessary to protect the immediate life, liberty, or tangible property of citizens; OR, as indicated by public warrant

      Change

      probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      To

      probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things involved in suspected criminal acts to be seized; valuable property or equipment shall not be seized or damaged in searches, without prompt fair compensation for any loss of lawful use, loss or delay of benefits, loss or delay of business, profit, damage, depreciation, extra work, resale value, or extra costs, incurred on any party resulting from searches, seizures, or recordings.

    74. Re:world ramifications... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Most of their concerns were about what would happen when the next administration got its hands on the reins.

      That would be nice if it happened, but there never was any right wing opposition to the PATRIOT Act.

      That means they opposed it blanket out of principle as a bad law, not only because of who's in the white house.

      No, actually, were it true, it would mean the opposite. It would mean they were happy with the PATRIOT Act's powers as long as an administration like Bush/Cheney is in power.

      So, congratulations, the invisible conservative anti-PATRIOT Act people you're inventing would actually have proven and emphasized my point if they existed, not debunked it.

      As it is, Teahadists didn't say a damned thing during the Bush administration. Now they're up in arms simply because Obama's "doing it". And meanwhile liberals like Glenn Greenwald, are leading the charge against the NSA and what it's doing, with Teahadists merely turning up.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    75. Re:world ramifications... by Entropius · · Score: 2

      "Supposed" is a funny word. Who is doing the supposing? The American people? The American government? Which branch of it?

    76. Re:world ramifications... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Really? Which rights have been eliminated?

      Since it's impossible to tell if this is a question from ignorance or if you are trolling, I'll play along as if you were asking from ignorance.

      First amendment is virtually gone. Read up on "Free speech zones" and you will understand, maybe. Sure, those don't stop us from ranting individually. Individual ranting does not make change. Prior to "Free Speech Zones" permission was required for large gatherings. Go check some history on when they added "permit required" to gatherings in Washington DC for protests.

      Second amendment. Numerous locations deny you your rights to bear arms. Chicago for example, you know, the most corrupt city in the USA where criminals can have guns but you get to be a victim. Courts have upheld State and City rights to ban your 2nd amendment rights, so it's obviously no longer a "right".

      Fourth amendment. Two acronyms sum up your fourth amendment rights today, TSA and NSA. Those are the big ones of course, but there are more I won't spend time on.

      Fifth amendment. Double jeopardy has been legal for quite a while, OJ is a perfect example. Don't argue your own belief of guilt vs. innocence. He wad found not guilty in criminal court then tried in civil court for the same crime which is exactly the definition of Double Jeopardy. For the remainder of the 5th, see how Journalists have been forced to either give up source names or face penalty.

      Sixth amendment. Pretty much the whole set of rights has been scrapped. Speedy trials are extremely rare, but that's not the big one. In cases of the Government, people are often unable to see and question evidence. FISA courts obliterate that concepts in the 6th.

      Eighth amendment. Gitmo and Drones are all you need to consider here.

      And of course the tenth. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The US Government has no constitutional right to impose the ACA for example, none! But the people in office don't give a rats ass, and the majority of the people are kept ignorant so they don't know they should be fighting against things like ACA. If the Government has no power, they can't simply grab it. They have, they do, and we are paying the price for our ignorance and complacency.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    77. Re:world ramifications... by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 1

      Posts like this are what makes Slashdot worth reading. I wonder if that kind of stuff goes on in the US. It's all too easy for a secretive intelligence agency to slide down the slope of unchecked corruption into a mafia-like organization.

    78. Re:world ramifications... by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand how the debt based monetary system works. No debt equals no monetary system.

      I said "pay down", not "pay off". I used the the personal mortgage to illustrate the point of "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step", not "the US Federal government should have zero debt and thus lead to the collapse of the world economy".

      We both agree there's a "good" level of national debt. I just happen to think we're currently above that level.

    79. Re:world ramifications... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      What about the evidence that the NSA's network is being used for industrial espionage?

      What about it? It seems that 90% of the responses to my comment are along the lines of "By saying they're flawed you were saying they're wonderful and perfect." Even when I point this out, by making reference to the absurd "Obama sucks because on hearing about BENGHAZIII!!!! he didn't RIP HIS SHIRT OFF and scream TERRORISM! TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAA!", I still get responses like yours.

      The NSA is trying to gather information to protect American interests. Sometimes it crosses the line. You've just given another example of this. You haven't given an example of the NSA being evil per-se, just flawed.

      And yes, I'm aware you're claiming it's different because it's not to protect America's National Security, but I never claimed that the mandate they're trying to follow was purely related to security. Perhaps it should be, it is called the National Security Agency after all, but it isn't. It's mandate is about data interception and collection to protect American interests. That's what it's doing, but it's going too far in many instances.

      FWIW, and I'm not justifying it, just pointing out context which is important if you want to understand why an NSA agent might think something we consider crossing the line is standard practice, the NSA is hardly the only governmental agency engaging in industrial espionage. Pro-tip: if you have secrets you want to keep from a French competitor, do NOT, fly Air France (or at least, if you do, take carry-on luggage only and don't let it out of your sight.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    80. Re:world ramifications... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. It's absurd that the right - even ignoring the reality that he did - considers it a scandal that he didn't condemn the attack by describing it as "terrorism."

      That. Is. Not. A. Scandal. Not even if it were true. And neither is me accurately using the term "flawed" and rightly avoiding the term "evil" to describe the NSA. The insistence that you're not pure enough unless you condemn $THING_YOU_DO_NOT_LIKE using terminology that involves words you consider carry the minimum sense of negativity is ridiculous.

      Your thought process is exactly the same as Joe Biden's when he describes Snowden as a "terrorist", or when a Slashdotter describes having to pay slightly more than they would want for a piece of music as "being raped". It does not add to discourse, it does not add to the sum of knowledge, and it specifically avoids reason in favor of rhetorical extremism.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    81. Re:world ramifications... by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      You can't sue if every discovery motion gets met with "we can't tell you that because of National Security concerns". You can't sue if the court order permitting the search is sealed and you don't even know it exists.

      The NSA has managed to shield itself from the legal system. Congressmen have said that the concept of congressional oversight of the NSA is a joke, the intelligence services routinely withhold information from congress, and it took FISA years to find out about a collection program that was deemed unconstitutional.

      Recently we found out the NSA has tapped into Google's internal networks. In non-technical terms, this is the equivalent of stopping every FedEx truck and searching every package, then closing the packages and never telling you they were searched (and swearing the drivers to secrecy).

      Thankfully, we'll soon have all the evidence we need to prove that rights are be eroded. The question is, how far down this road are we willing to go? Given the apathy I'm seeing from most of the people around me, I think the U.S. is going to go much further before I realize how wrong it is.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    82. Re:world ramifications... by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Like making the rest of the world distrust and hate AMERICANS.

    83. Re:world ramifications... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      We're looking for a few good geeks. Chaotic good, to be precise.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    84. Re:world ramifications... by intermodal · · Score: 1

      The "first to mention the Third Reich loses" rule doesn't apply in contexts where it actually makes sense to compare it, but only in hyperbole.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    85. Re:world ramifications... by rk · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree, but rights are pretty much all about beliefs, and if the guys with the guns don't think you have a right you think you do, then you don't really have that right, and your beliefs don't really have any claim on them.

    86. Re:world ramifications... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      My case in point. Public evidence shows quite the opposite. Thank you Mr.Snowden?

    87. Re:world ramifications... by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      I agree with you though, I think what the president called the attack isn't a scandal at all. It was funny how it was argued about, but it wasn't important or meaningful.

      What is meaningful is what he has done about it and what he did on that night. Same goes for his advisors and commanders.

  2. America by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Enough advertising overcomes any negative consequences of your actions.

    1. Re:America by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Enough advertising overcomes any negative consequences of your actions.

      Pretty much this.!

      By "owning" it in advertising and public speeches and press releases, they hope to pull a "Toyota" maneuver.

      (When Toyota was facing run-away vehicles and brake problems with spectacular crashes, they began an ad campaign touting their safety. They are still at it today with a drumbeat of ads telling how safe their cars are and totally ignoring the massive recalls they were forced into. I suspect Toyota learned the technique from Iomega which did the same thing in the face of their Famous Click of Death drive series).

      I predicted this some months ago. I suspect going forward they will just start saying in effect: "Yeah, we read your mail. Get over it." Now that its out in the open, they will become bolder and brasher, and no mere legal barriers will stand in their way, (not that they ever did). There are just enough useful idiots out there that believe this is a "good thing" that the NSA will probably get away with this tactic.

      Technical solutions are going to have to be devised, better encryption, multi-path routing, etc. And instead of welcoming their contributions, crypto developers are going to have to understand that they can't be trusted.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:America by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      It appears that if one has completed a secondary education, then one is bypassed by the NSA?

    3. Re:America by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      2 of those have had more advertising directed at raising their profile than lowering them. And BP is quite happily back on a profitable path.

    4. Re:America by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Genocide denier eh?

      http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985----.htm

      did you really think an excerpt from 1980 wouldn't have been answered by now?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:America by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 2

      Your Genocide denier claim for Chomsky, are so very false (like most of the propaganda you peddle). It is curious that you repeat such an extremist claim given what Chomsky really said is on public record:

      "I see no antisemitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust".[170]

      I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it. In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite.[171]

      Chomsky's true harmonious crime is to speak truth to power, such as in this interview - which is the real reason why your here peddling flimsy ad hominems... but please, continue. It is amusing to watch this Cold Fjord account operator struggle with the real world...

    6. Re:America by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      You're a fucking retard. You really should do the world a favor: strap a large bomb to yourself, go and meet your masters, and blow yourself (and them) to hell.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    7. Re:America by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I never do that. Advertisers can burn in hell forever, and anyone who depends on them can adapt a new strategy or burn with them.

  3. well no shit by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    They fire everyone, and now they have to hire people? Imagine that.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:well no shit by icebike · · Score: 1

      They fire everyone, and now they have to hire people? Imagine that.

      Who got fired? (Other than Snowden). Even Snowden's company still in under contract.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:well no shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    3. Re:well no shit by icebike · · Score: 1

      Every other major company, has done that 10 years ago. There are entire software suites that do this.
      Having one admin for each machine or each rack is just not the way it is done.

      In all the numbers were about 1000 admins, but you know all of those are going
      to be re-assigned, not fired.

      (This is government, you can't really get Fired, just ask Kathleen Sebelius. Besides, they don't want to piss any of
      these people off. There is always a chance one or two of them will grow a conscious.)

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. i wonder... by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Funny

    why the NSA would need to seek out new team members, you would think they already know who the brightest and best are from the data collected!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:i wonder... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

      There was a purge....

    2. Re:i wonder... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well for one.
      I doubt there is a connection between their HR systems and their other systems.
      Secondly, the best and brightest will not probably be too happy if government officials knock on their door, and "offer them" a government job.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:i wonder... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      They have to redo all the contractor security clearances in the real world now and feel its better to start with new gov staff.
      The kind of individual who has seen the warrantless surveillance press reports yet still clicks the ads.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:i wonder... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Secondly, the best and brightest will not probably be too happy if government officials knock on their door, and "offer them" a government job.

      The type who would feel the NSA turning the world into a panopticon is a good thing would likely be ecstatic; rather than seeing it as creepy, they would see it as a competent organization they admired validating their own self worth.

      You may remember the old usenet .signature line: "The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and ask for one." It's a joke (or was)... but I've been told the source of this joke was an NSA staffer at a conference. They're proud of their capabilities, even if they can't reveal them.

    5. Re:i wonder... by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Don't stop reading halfway, even if the post is as long as that of GP. You missed his actual joke.

    6. Re:i wonder... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      And then they show ads to those people on their computers to recruit them.

      A while back I had a ton of ads asking me to serve my government... the Australian Government.

      I guess I'm not good enough for the NSA, but good enough for other countries to tempt me into defecting or something?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  5. Good geeks? by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.

    1. Re:Good geeks? by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like this post, because I can't tell if it means
      "No honorable person would work for the NSA"
      or
      "Anyone applying to the NSA is out to betray them."

    2. Re:Good geeks? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.

      Define 'good' and define 'geek'.

      If you think there aren't people who work in the tech field who will say "I'm totally in favor of this, because it protects us from the terrorists", you're likely sadly mistaken.

      Geeks aren't some uniform group of people who all believe the same things. Reading Slashdot should show you that quite readily in about 2 minutes.

      Many of us might say "yeah, not on your life", but I bet almost as many might say "sure, I'm in, sounds fun".

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Good geeks? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Except....if statement 2 is true, then statement 1 isn't.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Good geeks? by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.

      You can actually do quite a lot of good things at the NSA. Research and development of cryptography and cyber attack preventions for example.

    5. Re:Good geeks? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      And if those advances are used to violate the Constitution and perhaps impose tyranny, are they still "a lot of good things"?

    6. Re:Good geeks? by Minwee · · Score: 1

      It depends on what the meaning of the word "for" is.

    7. Re:Good geeks? by robmv · · Score: 1

      Why not? when an institution is failing in their duty because of bad management, corruption, whatever, it is the time for the good people to be part of it. Things don't get fixed by not participating.

    8. Re:Good geeks? by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      And I'm not sure I'd want to entrust National Security to anyone who browses the web without an adblocker in place...

    9. Re:Good geeks? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.

      You can actually do quite a lot of good things at the NSA. Research and development of cryptography and cyber attack preventions for example.

      Besides the fact it seems the NSA is far more interested in fucking up cryptography, what with their mandatory backdoors and all, what good is that research and development if the only people allowed to access or use it are TLA agents?

      Side note: This is at least the second post where you've made this claim about the "good side" of the No Such Agency, without citing a source that would verify any of it.

      Might seem kinda shill-y to some people here.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Good geeks? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.

      For certain values of "good." Those values aren't necessarily shared by all good people.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:Good geeks? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      1) the traitor geeks

      Sadly, one man's traitor is another man's patriot.

      I don't doubt that people sincerely believe they're doing the right thing, even if it means skirting around some laws.

      I don't agree with their conclusions, but I acknowledge that it's what they believe.

      I'd probably fit into 1(b), especially if I didn't have other options.

      So, you're saying that you're a traitorous whore who would sell out your principles if the money was right?

      And this makes you better than anybody working there, how, exactly?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Good geeks? by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      That depends on whether 'good' refers to morality or aptitude. Though, admittedly, when it refers to aptitude the sort of person that would qualify commonly has an NSA non-compliant set of morals.

    13. Re:Good geeks? by s.petry · · Score: 2

      I agree that geeks are not uniform. Sociopaths and Psychopaths that don't give a rats ass who they screw over as long as they Get PAID! come immediately to mind as people that will apply for NSA jobs. This is in addition of course to a whole lot of people that see it as a way to make a decent living, you know, because McDonald's does not pay very well. Lots of other people are simply ignorant to the happenings and still believe that there are all of these bogey men to hunt.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re:Good geeks? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Well your average geek (use what ever characteristics you want for the definition) tends to be a bit brighter than your average dim-bulb office pencil pusher or mill-rat.

      They can look to recent examples and notice that we aren't safer from terrorists, that the total surveillance mentality hasn't served us well, and bomber set bombs even when the Russians warn us about them in advance. Furthermore simply talking in code while posting on slashdot (and 3 zillion other forums) can transmit messages for any sort of operation hidden in discussions of cat videos or ranting about some changes to Linux or IOS.

      It doesn't work. It can't work. And Geeks realize this more than Joe Sixpack.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    15. Re:Good geeks? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Some geeks are not so political and would jump on being able to work with supercomputers and get paid for it.

      After WWII we got a lot of Rocket Scientists. Did these ex Nazi's have a change of heart? or they were just interesting go where there was interesting work for them to do. While working for the Nazi's they probably didn't care about the politics, but they liked the work, the same when they worked for the US for the cold war.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Good geeks? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you think there aren't people who work in the tech field who will say "I'm totally in favor of this, because it protects us from the terrorists", you're likely sadly mistaken.

      Anyone who would say this is not a good geek, because he lacks critical thinking skills.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:Good geeks? by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is exactly right, and those kinds of geeks are not "good" geeks. They are a kind of evil themselves.

      Your rocket scientist reference is both correct and a good example of that: Oppenheimer famously replied to someone asking if he was bothered by the fact that his work was being used to kill lots of innocent people and his response was that his only worry was getting them to go up. It was someone else's job to worry about where they come down.

      That's pure evil, right there.

    18. Re:Good geeks? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So it's news to you that NSA engages in research on cryptography and computer security?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    19. Re:Good geeks? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I swear I have heard that argument before.... Bubba? Is that you?

      "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'for' is. If 'for' means in the interests of - that is one thing. If it means in the employment of, that was a completely true statement."

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    20. Re:Good geeks? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      What would you know about good people? You are a terrible person.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    21. Re:Good geeks? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're described it pretty clearly as not evil, but ambivalence. A sin of omission vs. commission, if you will. Evil requires motivation.

      Google defines evil as "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Malevolent* is defined as "having or showing a wish to do evil to others."

      Wait...that's sort of a circular definition....hmmm....

      * syn. malicious: characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    22. Re:Good geeks? by Galatamon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pretty sure you're thinking of Von Braun.

    23. Re:Good geeks? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Following that same logic, all our ancestors were evil, because knapping flint knives was pure evil, right there - since they undoubtedly allowed countless other cavemen to be killed. Nevermind all that other good stuff toolmaking was used for and resulted in.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re:Good geeks? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      There's also the third group, who sees something wrong and thinks they might be able to exert a little positive influence once they are part of the machine.

      Perhaps a tiny bit naive, but certainly not something you can condemn them fore.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:Good geeks? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      ... unlike that particularly lame typo there. Feel free to condemn me "fore" that one all you want.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    26. Re:Good geeks? by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're an idiot.

      That was von Braun, for one. For another, Oppenheimer was aghast at the destruction caused by the atomic bomb (he quoted the Bhagvad Gita, "I am become Death -- the destroyer of worlds." after the Trinity Test) and actively campaigned for non-proliferation.

      If anything, his sympathies towards the other sides caused him to be a martyr to McCarthyism. Hell, even von Braun commented that, "In England, Oppenheimer would have been knighted."

      Oppenheimer is the poster child for how scientists have little control over the political consequences and use of their discoveries, and how the political institutions would happily discard them once they're wrung dry.

    27. Re:Good geeks? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      With apologies to the Bard*: There are more things in heaven and earth, Hatta, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

      *The Tragedy of Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 5, by William Shakespeare

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    28. Re:Good geeks? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      At this point, no "good" geek would work for the NSA.

      It's a little bit like the police. No good human being would ever join at this point (maybe generations past). These days it's only those looking for a legal sanction of their bullying fantasies.

      The NSA is looking for a few evil geeks.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    29. Re:Good geeks? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      This is exactly right, and those kinds of geeks are not "good" geeks. They are a kind of evil themselves.

      Your rocket scientist reference is both correct and a good example of that: Oppenheimer famously replied to someone asking if he was bothered by the fact that his work was being used to kill lots of innocent people and his response was that his only worry was getting them to go up. It was someone else's job to worry about where they come down.

      That's pure evil, right there.

      What a shock: when we grant a monopoly on snuffing out liberties to the state, the only people who are attracted to working for the state are those with desires to snuff out liberties.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    30. Re:Good geeks? by cffrost · · Score: 2

      Google defines evil [...]

      For the most part, I agree with this fragment of your sentence.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    31. Re:Good geeks? by captjc · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point, Von Braun (not Oppenheimer, as the GPP has stated) and many like him's only allegiance was to his work. He didn't care about governments or politics, all he cared about was his work and if Der Fuhrer was paying, he was playing.

      Not everybody cares about who they work for or shares the same goals of their employers, they just care about the work. I'm sure there are plenty of smart people who would love the opportunity to work in a place with the projects and resources of the NSA. Because, in the end not everyone cares what it is being used for because the interesting part is making it happen.

      Sure, there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance or some dubious morality but it isn't like they were keeping score of the number of people their missiles killed or throwing a party every time a city got leveled. Just as I'm sure that most people in the NSA are not masturbating to George Orwell books

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    32. Re:Good geeks? by Pav · · Score: 1

      There is also Leo Szilard who actually came up with the concept of a nuclear chain reaction, and has been practically obliterated from popular history because he tried to stop development of the atom bomb after Germany was defeated.

    33. Re:Good geeks? by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Ironically this great evil of making the atomic bomb, has for now mostly stopped major powers from fighting directly with each other.

    34. Re:Good geeks? by Hentes · · Score: 1

      You forgot the psychopats who want the power and the best toys. There are already many geeks who spy on other people (usually young women), now they can get paid for it, and will have access to the most powerful machines and the biggest vulnerability database. As ordinary hackers they couldn't even dream of power of that size.

    35. Re:Good geeks? by icebike · · Score: 1

      I rather suspect the Geeks around you have a similar opinion of you.

      They probably consider you a total technological misfit, more suited to an agrarian life style, without a care in the world as long as a circle of equally vapid friends are around to cheer you up with a constant stream of gossip and partying. Totally clueless about how anything around you works, but you happy as long as pushing the button gives you your Pavlovian reward so that you don't have to actually figure out anything works. You don't like to think about numbers greater than 10, or looking at written instructions. Your chances of survival after a flat tire depend solely on the next car that comes down the road, so you never venture out of walking distance to the next mall. Electricity is beyond your ken, plumbing is a black art, you have no idea where water comes from or where sewage goes to. Someone installed an operating system on your computer for you, and you've mastered pushing of buttons, but as soon as that fails, you will junk it and go get another computer.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    36. Re:Good geeks? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      And this makes you better than anybody working there, how, exactly?

      He never said he was. Read to me like he was, obliquely, applying for a job. Perhaps the algos that monitor /. will take notice...

    37. Re:Good geeks? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Ambivalence can be the most destructive form of evil.

  6. The logical deduction is that the ads are fake by cruff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Given that the NSA is recording everything, and probably has broken all your encryption keys, you would think the NSA would already know who to target for employment. Thus the obvious conclusion is that these ads are fakes or honeypots.

    1. Re:The logical deduction is that the ads are fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given that the NSA is recording everything, and probably has broken all your encryption keys, you would think the NSA would already know who to target for employment. Thus the obvious conclusion is that these ads are fakes or honeypots.

      or they are targeted to exactly the people found that the NSA was interested in hiring.

    2. Re:The logical deduction is that the ads are fake by icebike · · Score: 2

      Given that the NSA is recording everything, and probably has broken all your encryption keys, you would think the NSA would already know who to target for employment. Thus the obvious conclusion is that these ads are fakes or honeypots.

      My thoughts exactly. Even hovering your mouse over those ads is probably recorded.
      This can't be much besides a "trial balloon" to see how much "chatter" they can induce.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:The logical deduction is that the ads are fake by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Given that the NSA is recording everything, and probably has broken all your encryption keys, you would think the NSA would already know who to target for employment. Thus the obvious conclusion is that these ads are fakes or honeypots.

      If that is your "conclusion," then my conclusion is that you probably aren't the sort of talent they are looking for.

      Unless your resume is encoded in your encryption keys, or is an attachment to your emails, I don't see any of that as being useful as employment screening in terms of talent. That is even assuming that they have done all that. Your post is nonsense.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:The logical deduction is that the ads are fake by cruff · · Score: 1

      Your post is nonsense.

      Whoosh! The satire went right over your head.

  7. Not worth my time. by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I looked into the NSA and the CIA. neither pay anywhere near what the private sector pays. Both want to pump you up on "Doing your national duty", "Serving your country", and/or "Protecting your fellow Americans"

    If they want IT talent, they need to pony up the cash.

    1. Re:Not worth my time. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      ^ This... I looked into the CIA after 9/11, I also looked into the military (being a commercial helicopter pilot, I thought I could help).

      Neither of them are offering anything remotely close to what I'd call "reasonable pay" for what they want in return.

      They would have to double it to interest me, triple it to get me jumping up and down about it.

      They will fill their quota, but that doesn't mean they'll fill it with the best and brightest.

    2. Re:Not worth my time. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The best and brightest aren't necessarily primarily motivated purely by money. There are many that do a tour or two and get out.

      Not many civilian pilots get to fly AH-64 Apaches let alone fire their armament on a regular basis.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:Not worth my time. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      That is true, however I wasn't looking to fly the AH-64, actually I have friends that used to and frankly it looks nice and has its upsides, but that requires more extensive training than I would have wanted to do.

      Frankly, not having a military background, I wouldn't expect to be in a combat role, I know how to shoot a M-16, but that doesn't make me a soldier. What I can do is fly and they always need someone to fly something somewhere and rarely do they actually get shot at.

      I have experience flying heavy aircraft (about 3,000 hours total flight time, about 1,000 in heavies (over 12,500lbs), the cost to teach me to fly the Blackhawk would be a small fraction of what it costs them to train someone from scratch. But they aren't interested, they want me to go through the whole program and join up for 8 years. (they no longer do 4 year enlistments for pilots due to the cost of training, or they weren't back then).

      That's ok, life moves on, maybe they do it the way they do for a reason, or maybe they are just stuck in their ways, I really don't know.

    4. Re:Not worth my time. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I always thought the normal career was the other direction. Join the army, be trained for helicopter pilot (paid for by the government instead of using a study loan to pay for a commercial training), finish your contract, move to the private sector.

    5. Re:Not worth my time. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      It used to be, but the Army no longer trains that many pilots, they expect them to go career now. It used to be that you could do a 4 year enlistment as a warrant officer, but the cost to train those pilots is over a million dollars, so they want career pilots now.

      Civilian pilot schools now train about 2/3 of the helicopter pilots in this country, I was one of them. I also ended up with my fixed-wing ratings and I did that for awhile, but my real love is helicopters.

      Now I'm too old (without a waiver and those are harder to get these days) so that ship has sailed... but I did look into it back in 2001...

    6. Re:Not worth my time. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I see. Then they're going to have a problem finding good pilots when their salaries offered are low.

      People want to be paid for their services - if not in the form of training, it's got to be cash.

      Four year contracts are quite short, imho, when it includes such an expensive training. I expected more like eight or ten year contracts for those positions.

  8. If I didn't have any ethics... by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Like most of us on /., we have a group of brilliant individuals. Occasionally we come up with some excellent but immoral or illegal ideas that would very easily separate people from their money. These are different from our typical ideas that manage to separate people from their money, as we are all paid well for the work we do.

    Sometimes we will flesh these immoral or illegal business plans out a little bit, realize just what is involved in the process, and then sigh, "I could be rich if I didn't have any ethics."

    Many people make the news every day. Most often these include major scams and crimes or immoral behavior.

    Yes, there is work to be had and money to be found in those activities, and you can make global news from them. If you don't have any ethics.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  9. Hello ... by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... my name is Ted Stowden. I'd like some information on a career in your fine organization. No need to send me anything. I know which server its on.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Hello ... by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Hello, my name is Mr. Nedwons and I come from... someplace far away. Definitely nowhere near Moscow.

  10. Hello, future leakers! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    So, they are recruiting experts in a community that almost exclusively supports Snowden and despises the NSA's various mass-spying-on-civilians programs?

    1. Re:Hello, future leakers! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a very myopic view of the situation.

      People with expertise in data systems have a wide range of opinions and come from a variety of backgrounds. There is no monolithic community that is implied with possession of this knowledge.

      Even if you are in the subset that supports Snowden you don't have to have the opinion that what the NSA does is fundamentally wrong. It may be that all it really needs is more enlightened political leadership and restructured laws. After all even the most ideal free societies have opponents and will have a need to protect themselves to ensure their continuation.

    2. Re:Hello, future leakers! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      tech crunch is mostly abotu finding the next way to use peoples personal information to sell adds - with out that pesky FISA court getting in the way

    3. Re:Hello, future leakers! by davidhoude · · Score: 1

      It is nice of you to speak for the community, but I am a little curious as to where you developed this opinion? Sites like this are echo chambers for anti-anything speech, and it doesn't necessarily represent everyone's view equally.

    4. Re:Hello, future leakers! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So, they are recruiting experts in a community that almost exclusively supports Snowden and despises the NSA's various mass-spying-on-civilians programs?

      They appear to be recruiting from places other than Slashdot.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  11. What's the news here? by hubie · · Score: 1

    The NSA advertises jobs all the time in a variety of formats. They have recruitment booths at technical conferences, internships, etc.. They have a whole web site and all. What is particularly newsworthy about this?

    1. Re:What's the news here? by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right. They've been open about it for years. NSA has a long history in computing.

      At one time, going to NSA HQ was very mysterious, and travel expenses were paid with a check from a furniture company. But they gave up on that years ago. Now, like the CIA, they have signs outside.

      Until the USSR went down, all NSA really cared about was what the USSR was doing. Anything else had lower priority. After the USSR went down, there were lots of retirements and layoffs. After 9/11, everything changed. Suddenly the threat was from little groups, not a superpower. Huge internal realignment. Much more pressure for timely info (the USSR was a slow-moving opponent) and for data sharing with law enforcement. That's when NSA became more intrusive.

    2. Re:What's the news here? by hubie · · Score: 2

      I suppose I may click through to see what the actual ad said, because the person above suggested that it was at least indirectly addressing the Snowden situation, but for years I've seen them heavily active in recruitment and even small business outreach. If you go to a technical conference expo, it wouldn't be a surprise to see them have a booth, or the CIA, or FBI, or whatever. I think most people don't realize how big of a place the NSA is. Like all other large institutions (National Institutes of Health, any of the National Labs, all universities) they have divisions that specialize in work on this or that, so this group over there might be involved in the data surveillance thing, but these groups over there are doing completely different things. Any ad from them to recruit you to come work for them is going to say you'll do real cool work, and it will have an appeal to a sense of God and country. How else are you supposed to do the sell?

  12. Any SysAdmin positions? by komodo685 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know this former SysAdmin in Russia who had to resort to tech support FFS. Already has clearance. He'd be just what you deserve.

  13. Old joke... by jayveekay · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want to apply for a job at the NSA, just pick up the phone. Any phone.

  14. I gotta lead by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    There's an American dude named Edward, currently hanging out in Russia, who's currently looking.

  15. I'd shake anyone's hand that joined by Crashmarik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Post WWII the NSA/CIA and intelligence agencies of the free world have been vital for keeping the peace. I don't see that changing anytime soon. We are all likely alive at least in part due to their actions.

    1. Re:I'd shake anyone's hand that joined by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 2

      That was then. This is now. Most likely they spied on the USSR, and those people are retired or dead by now. Also, I'd like some verifiable proof, after all they are an agency that sees no need to tell the truth, before I go all gushy on how the agency of lies. If the proof shows that some people there had been amazing in the past then I would be sad for that since the NSA would have fallen since then, if not it's just gone from ineffective to horrible and ineffective.

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    2. Re:I'd shake anyone's hand that joined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? The USSR paranoia was such that moderate socialist governments in Latin America were overthrown with the help of said agencies. Result? Military juntas in the Western hemisphere. Compare and contrast this with the Scandinavian countries, which were just too inconvenient to get at for that sort of thing. The Swedes certainly had some choice words for the US at the time; but it just wasn't practical to do anything about them. The USSR didn't invade Scandinavia. It was more trouble than it was worth; but I digress.

      The proxy war in Latin America have an impact today, beyond the dictatorships and bloodshed. The popularity of a radical like Chavez is attributed to this somewhat. The idea is that if moderate socialism is going to get you punished by the CIA, you might as well go full bore and form alliances with Cuba and various other countries that hate the USA. So what is all this about keeping the peace?

      OK, so the agencies just shit in our own hemisphere, right? Wrong. Google the history of Iran the last 50 years. Wow, just wow. It's amazing that there are any Iranian people left who still like us; but there are because the ideals of the USA are powerful, even if the practice isn't. There's a lot of other crap in the Middle East and south Asia, those are just examples. Oh, the British were part of that too. I'm sure MI-6 or MI-69, or whatever it is they call themselves were all up in it too.

      I bet we still don't know the half of how these 3-letter ass holes are meddling in world affairs in ways that have nothing to do with "keeping the peace" and everything to do with the selfish interests of people in power at the time, or some combination of "this will be good for us, and yeah, as a side effect it'll keep our enemies in check a bit even if it kills 100 million brown people".

      Yeah. Kept the peace... riiiiight.

    3. Re:I'd shake anyone's hand that joined by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      But if you believe that freedom is what's important, none of that garbage is relevant, even in the unlikely event that it's true.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  16. "And I can say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...I know all about that, I had a hand in that."

    Umm, I'm pretty sure you can't say anything. Unless you want to spend a few weeks in the Moscow airport.

    1. Re:"And I can say... by Chas · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      "You opened your mouth. Zis is KAOS! Err... The NSA! We do not open our mouths here!"

      Anyone saying " And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that." is out of a job and probably getting a first class ticket to GITMO if they don't run first.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:"And I can say... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      "You had a hand in illegally wiretapping most of the country and getting away with it?"
      "Yeah, I was totally in on that."
      "Let me pat you on the back, buddy. Oops--lemme switch that knife to the other hand first..."

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  17. Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They actually do quite a lot of other things as well there, like research into improving cryptography for example.

    Seriously? Improving it as in finding holes that they can exploit and tell no one else about? Or spending millions on research into how to create holes they can hope to get included as encryption standards?

    From the link above:

    The N.S.A.'s Sigint Enabling Project is a $250 million-a-year program that works with Internet companies to weaken privacy by inserting back doors into encryption products. This excerpt from a 2013 budget proposal outlines some methods the agency uses to undermine encryption used by the public.

    1. Re:Give me a break. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2
      Yes, but the NSA's problem, in all fairness, is that properly written 256-bit encryption is uncrackable. Many people have made jokes saying, "it is safe, unless the NSA wants in.", but the truth is, without an exploit, proper encryption is uncrackable and will remain so for a very long time.

      There are evil people in the world that they want to listen to, the problem is that the good people use the same tools as the evil people.

      What would you use for a solution?

    2. Re:Give me a break. by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Boots on the ground? It always worked before we had high tech. I mean, before there were phones, they had to plant people inside an organization to learn its secrets unless they just happened to get lucky enough to catch a courier. The fact that communication channels are back to being moderately secure is uninteresting. It's really just a correction of a weakness that high tech introduced in the first place.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Give me a break. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't characterize the NSA as "good guys", but ignoring that for the sake of argument...

      If you really have to do general harm to listen in to the bad guys, then the solution is to give up on the notion of listening to them in that way. It makes the job harder, and that sucks for them, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

    4. Re:Give me a break. by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      President Carter make a rule that the CIA can't employ unsavory characters as local operatives (e.g., we can't have an actual terrorist as a mole in a terrorist organization). Our human intelligence took a nosedive and never really recovered. Maybe it's time to fix that (if we haven't already), and just live without the NSA for a while.

      I've said it before but: defund the NSA, fire everyone, bulldoze the buildings, and let it serve as an example to other agencies about overreach. Sure, loss of SIGINT will be a problem, but the NSA has become a bigger problem. End it, and start over once you're sure it's really gone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Give me a break. by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      That'd be a great idea.

      And they won't use all the blackmail they have to stop it either.

      No, sir.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    6. Re:Give me a break. by lgw · · Score: 1

      If all the politicians lose their jobs as a side effect, it's win-win! Hey, I didn't say it was likely, I said we should do it. (And, realistically, if we did fire everyone, making a bunch of new enemies is a poor way to begin one's job hunt.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Give me a break. by davydagger · · Score: 1

      what if the encryption is properly written by the NSA like AES.

      the most common 256 bit standard after the NSA pushed it

    8. Re:Give me a break. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      That is ultimately a question that challenges all intelligence organization at some point.

      Example:

      CIA officer has worked his way into "big bad terrorist organization". As a final test, they give him a gun and order him to shoot an innocent 10 year old girl.

      Does he? Does he refuse?

      Is it acceptable for a CIA officer (or other government paid employee) to execute an innocent person as part of his/her undercover role?

      If not, it would be pretty easy to weed out such people. If so, do we want to be doing that? Is it a better option than the NSA?

    9. Re:Give me a break. by lgw · · Score: 2

      That's not really what the CIA does. They aren't James Bond-style spies. They hire or subvert locals into being spies, often by posing as a member of some different intelligence org entirely.

      Should a government employee become a terrorist? No. Should someone in the CIA subvert someone already in a terrorist org (perhaps they pose as a leader of that terrorist org, if the org is so cell-based that the terrorist wouldn't know)? Certainly. Turing bad people who belong to bad organizations into informants is the heart of HUMINT, and it's also very cost-effective compared to the NSA, and easy to insure you don't snoop on innocent Americans.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Give me a break. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      We can debate semantics all you want, but the fact is that I was responding to the point that Jimmy Carter changed the CIA rules to prevent us from funding such people.

      The question comes back to, "do we want to provide money, support, employment, protection, etc. to someone who has to do, or has done, evil things, to prevent a larger evil?"

      BTW, if you say that the CIA doesn't actually insert officers into "big bad terrorist groups", then for sure other countries do. After all, we recently caught a dozen Russians who had been living long term in the US for just that reason.

      Frankly, if someone in the US government *isn't* inserting agents into other countries, then they should be ashamed.

    11. Re:Give me a break. by fatphil · · Score: 1

      They're not cracking 256-bit encryption. They don't need to. They're cracking key exchange.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    12. Re:Give me a break. by lgw · · Score: 1

      OK, sure, if you're not making that distinction than it's easy: yes, absolutely, and without question. We should absolutely subvert the enemy, even though (especially because) they're bad people. If it's a real terrorist cell (or enemy nation with hostile plans), then we're legitimately avoiding catastrophe. If it's not, and they weren't bad people after all, hey, no harm done and it's cheap at the price.

      It's win-win.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Give me a break. by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Hard for them to blackmail us if anyone of rank is sitting in solitary confinement at Gitmo, awaiting military tribunal for treason.

      Or dead.

      Just putting that out there.

    14. Re:Give me a break. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Hard for them to blackmail us if anyone of rank is sitting in solitary confinement at Gitmo, awaiting military tribunal for treason.

      Or dead.

      Just putting that out there.

      The problem is these people run gitmo sending them there won't be that effective.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    15. Re:Give me a break. by gman003 · · Score: 1

      We can send them there, then give Gitmo back to Cuba.

    16. Re:Give me a break. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      End it, and start over once you're sure it's really gone.

      Can't. Either your communication is secure or insecure. In this world where math determines truth, there is no place for fuzz.

      That's the problem with the NSA. Either they're breaking signals, or they're creating unbreakable signals. They can't be doing both, because these are mutually exclusive activities. The math behind the technology dictates this.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    17. Re:Give me a break. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I would just worry less about the evil people.

      Yes, they're out there: the North Korean government, for instance, tops the list. But the standard of living of a vast majority of people will be improved more by worrying about other things than evil people. As a proud American I think that our nation's response to the North Koreans should be to not worry about them so much and try to (for instance) find a cure for Alzheimer's disease.

    18. Re:Give me a break. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1
      While that is a great idea, what happens when the evil people decide that your way of life needs to end?

      Having a cure for Alzheimer's disease doesn't really help you much if you no longer exist, now does it?

    19. Re:Give me a break. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      The evil people are far less capable than you think.

    20. Re:Give me a break. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Maybe... But if you're wrong, there are no do overs... History is filled with evil people, and they don't always lose...

  18. It's a job... by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2

    Working for the NSA or any of their ilk is probably like any other job: day-to-day routine stuff and some really cool shit. With, of course, the proviso that you can never breathe a word of it to anybody, and they'd rather you not discuss the fact that you even work there.

    The MI5 recruiting web site discusses some of this. If you want the approval of others on what a neat job you have, think again. This certainly limits the pool of available candidates. I wonder what it means for the intelligence community in general.

    Hang on a sec...there's somebody at the door. GIDYW*(YW*DHNDW

    NO CARRIER

    1. Re:It's a job... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So is the day to to day routine stuff violating people's constitutional rights or is that the exciting stuff?

    2. Re:It's a job... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The NSA is secretly Candleja

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:It's a job... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Rights???? We don't need no stinking rights!!!

  19. Inner Party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines. And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that. The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications.'

    Become a member of the inner party today.

  20. So what does it pay? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    I want to know what exactly they are paying in exchange for being able to look at yourself in the mirror.

    1. Re:So what does it pay? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      I want to know what exactly they are paying in exchange for being able to look at yourself in the mirror.

      It's more than not being able to look yourself in the mirror. You can also never see the light of day. Thus, I think what they pay must be the blood of virgins. No one would admit anything about their job then.

  21. Perks? by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 1

    Does an employment contract come with the perk of war crimes indemnification in writing? Just curious.

  22. What is the story here? by ljhiller · · Score: 1
    1) the NSA is recruiting?

    2) the NSA is spying on everybody and recruiting by injecting banner ads into TCP streams to recruit TechCrunch readers?

    3) a banner ad company (unnamed) is serving NSA ads to anybody that searches or surfs pages where NSA occurs more than 5 times, then uses cookies, flash cookies, unique browser characteristics, and any other form of persistent storage and leaked information to continue to serve these ads across browsing sessions?

    4) That Dan Tynan, a TechCrunch writer and O'Reilly author, doesn't understand how ad distributors do business?

    1. Re:What is the story here? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Maybe that the NSA recruits the usual way, instead of approaching selected people with offers they cannot refuse? ;-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  23. Of course they are advertising for people. by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

    Snowden worked for a company that the NSA had subcontracted IT support to. Having seen this blow up in their face, they are dumping all those contracts and bringing it in house. Now this will mean that it is under very heavy security clearance and surveillance, but they need to do it quickly hence the need for direct advertising.

  24. Geeks or Leaks? by axehind · · Score: 1

    For some reason my mind replaced Geeks with Leaks. It caused me to do a double take!

  25. I had a hand in that! by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines. And I can say, I know all about that, I had a hand in that.

    That's silly/ There are not many headlines in the last few years that the NSA is proud of. And if you work at the NSA and had a hand in something that made front page headlines, you probably aren't allowed to talk about it anyway.

    My friends who work at the NSA hate when the NSA comes up as a topic, because it is never good news. They just have to hide their heads and walk out of the room. Sometimes that is because they are not allowed to talk about it. Other times it is because they are sick of hearing the flak.

  26. I got "felt out" few months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was at a friend's wedding in the vicinity of Electric Boat & there was a guy who did something DOD/submarine related (non-specific but enough to infer that) who took a strange interest in me. my friend (groom) introduced us, told him abridged version of my background and he started asking a lot of questions about my technical background, how I'd design/harden different things for sub applications, etc. he seemed to like my technical answers but every 4th or 5th question he'd ask me: "who do you work for?". the 2nd time he asked it I assumed he hadn't paid attention b/c the tech talk was more interesting but by the 4th time I realized it was some sort of psych test thing and said: "well, obviously you're looking for a specific specific answer I've not given you - am I supposed to say USA, you now or something to that effect?" to which he smiled, shook his head and said something to the effect "man, that's too bad..." I left with mixed feelings b/c while one the one hand I have no desire to support "the complex" I'm sure the problem space is fascinating/challenging & the resources effectively unlimited (kind of like a buddy of mine who was an AE on the F-22). I'm sure working for the NSA is that x100 - they may be evil but they do what they do better & on a scale bigger than any organization has ever done anything else in the history of the world so I could see the appeal of being part of that.

    that's one of the inherent problems w/being a geek - we're driven by the need to solve hard/interesting problems b/c we can! why did someone like Robert Oppenheimer build the bomb? yes, we needed to beat the Nazis but not kid ourselves - part of it was b/c he didn't have enough time/resources to build a death star...

  27. As the saying goes... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

    And you certainly can't beat them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  28. Obvious Failure of "Profiling" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We all know that so called ad targeting works by building up profiles on people intended to categorize their interests -- very much like the NSA's own automated profiling and analysis systems. But the profiling system can't tell the difference between a favorable interest and a disgusted interest (much like they can't tell if you've already bought those shoes you were searching for two weeks ago and so keep showing you ads for shoes).

    That they've decided to show the guy recruiting ads because he's been reading articles about how the NSA is a bunch of nationalistic spying assholes is the cherry on top, a perfect demonstration how pervasive surveillance can't actually understand the intent of people and thus will have an overwhelming percentage of false positives.

    If real people at the FBI can't even tell the different between someone reporting a threat against themselves and a threat against the FBI profiling systems can only automate keystone cop level of surveillance effectiveness.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  29. Has the NSA done anything? by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 2

    Do we really have proof we can verify that the NSA is actually worth having around?

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    1. Re:Has the NSA done anything? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Sure, just look at history. How about the battle of Midway?

      It's one example where such work was absolutely critical.

      http://www.nsa.gov/about/_files/cryptologic_heritage/publications/wwii/priceless_advantage.pdf

    2. Re:Has the NSA done anything? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the theories out there is that the downsizing of US SIGINT capability during the 1990's was the reason al-Qa'ida was successful in carrying out 9/11. This has some credibility because even though the FBI was tracking some of the perpetrators of 9/11, the NSA had no information on their intent.

      Then there is the fact that SIGINT played a large role in finding the location of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.

      No, the idea the NSA is not needed is hopelessly naive. What IS needed is getting rid of the Patriot Act and instituting real oversight.

    3. Re:Has the NSA done anything? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      In America: 200 times more people die every year in accidents than 9/11. Six times more people die of the flu than 9/11. 200 times more people die from heart attacks every year than 9/11. Your bathtub is more dangerous than multple 9/11 scale attacks EVERY YEAR. Even if they prevented EVERY terrorist attack ever, the NSA is PATHETIC and WORTHLESS, anyone who says otherwise should NEVER step a foot outside and only eat healthfood, because they're being delusional paranoid igroamouses.

      The cost is too great. The benefit is pathetic. Fuck the NSA. Cast out the fucking fear mongerers who are poisoning us. Do you think the reputation our government has lost is worth protection from 0.00025 times the threat we've "suffered" from cars and fast food over the last decade? NO THAT'S FUCKING MORONIC.

    4. Re:Has the NSA done anything? by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      NSA wasn't formed until 1952.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    5. Re:Has the NSA done anything? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, that's just because the NSA doesn't yet have enough surveillance capabilities. Otherwise the collected evidence could easily be used to remove bad drivers and flu-spreading individuals. Furthermore a constant surveillance of hearts could reduce the number of heart attack deaths considerably.

      Also thank you for making us aware of the dangers of bathtubs. We will start a bathtub video surveillance program as soon as possible, in order to fight this danger.

      Yours sincerely,
      the NSA.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  30. he's right by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    from the summary: "The things that happen here at NSA really have national and world ramifications."

    Yep, he's right. Things like destroying the United States Constitution. Nice work, NSA.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  31. Sign of Intelligence - NOT by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Apparently NSA does not learn. Geeks go wild. They're not domestic. They bite the hand that feeds them. The NSA has been burnt before yet they don't seem to be learning...

    1. Re:Sign of Intelligence - NOT by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. Their malicious software deployment system (FOXACID) is run by barely tech-literate morons following a fucking flow-chart. They needed the geeks once to build the infrastructure. Once it could be ran by idiots it was. This is exceedingly dangerous. It's the equivalent of being Very Strong and Dumb. In the NSA we have created Frankenstein's Monster. It's sad, but we have to put it down. It should have never existed in the first place.

  32. Go jump off a bridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There was a time 2000-2006 where I would have considered, but after learning more, Never. I will not be a traitor to the American People by working for your East German style intelligence agency.

  33. I have the perfect cartoon for you by swschrad · · Score: 1

    latest by Patrick Chappelle on cagle.com... multi-medalled muckety-muck in uniform in front of an endless form of servers, telling some hapless geek at a console, "We have all the phone calls. You sort out the threats."

    that's what they need. plodders to wade through the muck.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  34. We make front page news, maybe you noticed! by themushroom · · Score: 2

    "'There are activities that I've worked on that make, you know, front page headlines."

    Though not always in a positive light. Come join us and be part of the problem!
    Their employment ad slogan should be: We know you want to... we really do know this.

  35. And this geek responds... by Davorama · · Score: 1

    See figure one.

    --

    Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.

  36. Title Doesn't Lie by davydagger · · Score: 1

    At this point, you could say the same about any large gang, or mafia that gets caught.

    Making headlines in a downright terrible way is still making headlines.

  37. Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    m.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/quotes?qt=qt0408102

    Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot.
    Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break.
    Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well.
    But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East.
    Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed.
    Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a
    shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot.
    Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass.
    And 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, 'cause 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 we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price.
    And, of course, the oil companies used the 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. And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course,
    and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic.
    So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids.
    And meanwhile he's starvin', 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State.
    So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' 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.

  38. Current Slasdot Ad by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

    For what it's worth, I'm seeing the NSA recruiting advertisement here on /. at the moment.

    My only reason for not wanting to work for the NSA is their location. I'll take the thin, dry air of Colorado over the thick, humid stuff in northern Virginia, thank you very much.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:Current Slasdot Ad by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Utah is nice (similar climate to Colorado) but the Mormons tend to be a little overbearing. I'm a wino and a coffee addict so there would be some issues with my habits. Washington could be OK but depends on where. I get depressed when we have a cloudy day here so Seattle and such doesn't work for me. Hawaii is nice but expensive. Not sure I could handle living on an island. I like long road trips just to go someplace and see it or just for the drive.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
  39. why not work for the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm working at N.S.A. Somebody puts a code on my desk, something nobody else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it and maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. Once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels were hiding and fifteen hundred people I never met, never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', "Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area" 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there, gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called, 'cause they were pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie takin' shrapnel in the ass. And 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, 'cause 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 we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And, of course, the oil companies used the 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. And they're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, and maybe even took the liberty of hiring an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs, and it ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work and he can't afford to drive, so he's got to walk to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks 'cause the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorrhoids. And meanwhile he's starvin', 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' 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.

  40. Hire a web developer. by will_die · · Score: 1

    Really, that job search area is bad. Right click does not work in places, the search sucks, and really popping up your own window so I can search.

  41. Serious applicant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am a skilled analyst with social engineering skills. currently residing in russia, but willing to work remotely. previously have worked for contractors related to NSA work.

    1. Re:Serious applicant by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Dear applicant,

      We are pleased to receive your application and invite you to an interview at our U.S. headquarters. Please come as soon as possible.

      Sincerely,
      the NSA

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  42. NHTSA data by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    I thought the NHTSA data ultimately showed that the incidence of "run-away vehicles" was pretty much entirely mappable to the incidence of "old or confused person stomping on the wrong pedal", and that this incidence rate was in line with the average for all passenger cars?

    Okay, this prompted me to poke around again on the NHTSA page for Additional Information on Toyota Recalls and Investigations. Of particular note on the NHTSA-NASA Study of Unintended Acceleration in Toyota Vehicles page and the executive summary of the report linked from there:

    ...NASA did not find an electronic cause of large throttle openings that can result in UA [unintended acceleration] incidents. NHTSA did not find a vehicle-based cause of those incidents in addition to those causes already addressed by Toyota recalls.

    ...NHTSA's vehicle characterization analysis and testing supported NASA's review. NHTSA found no previously unknown defects in the test vehicles and determined that their braking systems were capable of overcoming all levels of acceleration, including wide open throttle.

    Those "other causes" appear to be primarily related to floor mats blocking free motion of the accelerator pedal. There was a recall related to this, to replace the driver's floor mat with a new mat cut differently to avoid the possibility of getting stuck under or behind the pedal. It sounds like Toyota were asshats about that, and they paid sizable fines for failing to tell the authorities about the problems. But a lot of the bad press about runaway cars turned out to be BS, such as these two incidents covered by CBS News.

    This is mostly a divergence from icebike's point about PR, which I think is mostly valid. I simply wanted to address what sounded a bit like misinformation about runaway cars. I happen to own a Prius, so I followed up on the stories and investigations in an effort to better understand my own risk.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:NHTSA data by icebike · · Score: 1

      NHTSA did not find a vehicle-based cause of those incidents in addition to those causes already addressed by Toyota recalls.

      The problem is that the timeline gets muddied here, because this "Did not find vehicle based cause" announcement came out in February 8, 2011, WELL after other FORCED recall, it this study was just to see if ALL the causes previously mandated to be fixed were in fact fixed on all the vehicle in question. Its by no means the exoneration you suggest, simply a statement that Toyota did not have a new issue after cleaning up the old ones dating back to 2005.

      The first recall was announced on September 26, 2007, and was followed by a subsequent one on October 6, 2009. The October recall was expanded on January 29, 2010, to include additional vehicles. The third recall, involving sticking gas pedals, was announced on January 21, 2010.

      Toyota has been in denial mode since 2005, and has paid in excess of 48 million in fines for foot dragging in addition to being forced to stage 3 separate recalls..

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:NHTSA data by oursland · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure that programming wasn't the source of the problem. There's been a lot of work to understand the ECU on the Camry and it is beginning to look like some severe bugs lurk within: http://www.viva64.com/en/a/0083/

    3. Re:NHTSA data by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      Points taken. To clarify, I'm not arguing that Toyota is problem-free. And I'm not arguing that unintended acceleration doesn't happen. That said, I *am* doubtful of the (older) cases of runaway vehicles, especially when "NHTSA ... determined that [the vehicles'] braking systems were capable of overcoming all levels of acceleration, including wide open throttle.". That's really what I was reacting to in your post -- the mention of runaway vehicles and brake problems.

      My perspective was somewhat narrower than yours, and it occurs to me that this where we may have been missing each other. My car is a 2005 Prius, and I hadn't been aware of the more-recent problems with 2010 models. I'm happy to admit that I may have missed something, but everything I've read so far about the older cars describes possible problems with the Prius accelerator pedal and the steering rack, but not with the brakes. If you're aware of any reported brake problems with the 2005 Prius in particular, I'm very interested to hear it.

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
    4. Re:NHTSA data by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thank you. As I just replied to icebike above, my perspective is as an owner of a 2005 Prius. Have you run across anything similar for that particular car?

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
    5. Re:NHTSA data by oursland · · Score: 1

      Nope. I'm only tangentially aware of this issue because this second analysis came out this last week and has been making the rounds.

  43. RE: The NSA Is Looking For a Few Good Geeks by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    I'm certain they have a wide variety of white collar criminals to choose from after all the U.S. tops the charts on percentage of population that are incarcerated.

  44. Re:I think a certain type of person could work the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many of the people complaining don't have the perspective of living with the Soviet Union and the US staring each other down for decades -- I barely remember it myself. But a lot of those same people post-9/11 basically said to their elected officials, "Don't ever let this happen again, no matter what it takes." I'm inclined to believe that a program like this is what it takes. Look how much damage two US residents did in Boston, and that wasn't even a large-scale or particularly well planned attack.

    Which is precisely the problem. We who have forgotten the history of the USSR and East Germany, two surveillance states that collapsed under the institutional paranoia and economic deadweight of their own security bureaucracies, have condemned ourselves to repeat it.

    For what it's worth (Cold War kid here), I'll make the tradeoffs as follows:

    1) If it saves a region from devastation or prevents the collapse of human civilization, surveil away.
    2) If it saves a city or prevents something that takes more than 1M lives, meh, OK, that might be worth giving up freedom. Because we sure as shit won't have freedom under martial law afterwards.
    3) If it saves us from 9/11: I'll take the billion dollars and month's worth of automobile accidents any day over the trillions we've wasted since.
    4) "Look at how much damage" Boston did? Dude, watch the six o'clock news every friggin' day. If that's the price of freedom, so be it. I'm not scared of terrorists. I'm scared shitless over people who can't do risk assessment.

    Everyone's entitled to make their own mental tradeoffs for themselves. Growing up with an armed and capable adversary that could (even if it didn't particularly want to) end civilization with the push of a button, and reading stories of my parents/grandparents wars (in which millions died and any individual battle cost thousands of lives) gave my tolerance for risk-of-death-at-the-hands-of-wartime-enemy vs risk-of-death-due-to-ones-own-totalitarian-government what it is.

    I'm not dissing "Kids these days...." -- if you grew up in the '90s, you grew up in an age in which "going to war" meant a few weeks of conflict and fewer than 300 US casuaties, (half of whom died from accidents or hardware malfunction vs. enemy fire!) If that's your idea of war, and if OKC or the Beirut Barracks Bombing was your idea of terrorism, I can't really blame you for saying "never again, even at the cost of our freedom" against 9/11. You just saw something that killed 10 times more Americans than Gulf War I, or any terrorist attack you saw in your lifetime. And it's easy to lose sight of what "our freedoms" mean when you don't have things like the USSR / Iron Curtain / rest of the Warsaw Pact for contrast them against.

    I suppose it's a little easier to appreciate our freedoms now that we're gone and we're living in a surveillance state whose capabilities exceed Stalin's wildest dreams. When those who have that power start to abuse it -- and even if it hasn't happened yet, history is pretty clear that it's a when, not an if, and it doesn't matter who -- it's too late.

  45. When they legalize marijauna, I'll sign up by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

    For'reals...

  46. NAS/NSA definition by non-e-moose · · Score: 1

    Alternative definition of "NSA" == Network Storage Attachment

    1. Re:NAS/NSA definition by Nov8tr · · Score: 1

      How much does their "cloud services" cost?

      --
      I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  47. bunk shot into the trophy bunker by epine · · Score: 2

    An old joke nearly served. The NSA is not a place where God coddles his minions.

    It seems there was this priest who just loved to play golf, but he had been very busy for many months and had not been able to get away to go golfing. Well, one Sunday morning he woke up and felt he just HAD to go golfing. The weather was just beautiful.

    He called up the Bishop and claimed he had a really bad case of laryngitis and couldn't preach, so the Bishop told him to rest for several days. He then got out his clubs and headed off for the golf course.

    He set up at the first hole, making sure no one was there to see him playing hooky, and blasted the ball with his wood. It was a beautiful shot! It went straight and true. It bounced, and bounced (right up onto the green) and rolled its way closer... and closer... a hole-in-one! The priest jumped up and down in his excitement, praising the Lord and shouting hallelujahs!

    He struts off to the green, collects his ball, and tees off at the second hole, repeating his performance on the first hole, much to his astounded delight. All this time St. Peter and God have been watching him from the gates of heaven. St. Peter has finally seen enough to pique his curiosity. "Lord," he says, "this priest seems to be a real trouble maker. He ignored his congregation and even lied to go golfing. Now you reward him with a hole-in-one! Why?"

    "Well, think about it for half a second, you sanctimonious prat. Who can he tell?"

  48. Work for the NSA?? by Nov8tr · · Score: 1

    Uh they don't have enough money to hire me. Wait. With the state of the economy they might literally not have enough money to hire me. And with all the fire that they are coming under worldwide for their more then underhanded tactics, not much job security there. Nevermind.

    --
    I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
  49. Re:i wonder...a by helobugz · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately they tend not to be able to hire "the brightest and best" because those folks tend not to always be on the up and up for the requisite 100% of the time... A little moral ambiguity or tarnished classified file => no bueno.

    Is it not messed up that two marines can now go blow each other but can't puff a joint? Even in the states that have declared it "not illegal"... wtf have we come to.

  50. Re:I think a certain type of person could work the by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    Agreed that conflicts have far fewer casualties than the WW 2 and even the Vietnam era. There's light years of difference between losing 1,000 men taking over a square mile of battlefield and pushing a button to wipe out your enemy from remote. In fact, the likelihood that we will never need to use the draft again will probably make interventions more palatable in the future, unfortunately. There's a huge difference in public opinion between a volunteer army which most see as a jobs program for the poor and forced conscription that may mean you or your offspring not coming back home.

    I also agree that terrorism isn't anything compared to the huge armed conflicts of the past, or even small scale stuff in the grand scheme of things. I wasn't one of the people I mentioned who wanted to prevent another 9/11 no matter what. But, there were plenty of other people who did.

    I'm not quite sure I agree with you and many others who feel the government is going to swoop in and become the Stasi or KGB. First, the US population is too fractured as it is -- there would be no way for anyone to agree on one particular platform to rally around. Anti-religion people hate the religious people. Liberals hate conservatives. Budget hawks hate progressives. Gun nuts hate non-gun nuts. Good luck getting anyone to agree on anything. Second, the government itself has too many internal issues to make anything like that happen. The only reason there was any cooperation on defense in the past was because there was, as you say, a well-armed and capable adversary that was at least making noises about our destruction. Even then, there was still a huge debate about the policy of containment, especially since Korea and Vietnam were such total wastes of life and money for, arguably, no gain.

    I'm not trying to generalize or rip down your view of things, but all the arguments I've seen about this have boiled down to "OMG, the evil government is out to get me personally, lock me up and take away my guns. It's like the Soviet Union all over again!" People give away so much more data to Facebook, Google, Apple, other big retailers and the various payment processing companies -- why aren't they paranoid about that? I'd be a lot more worried about Google and other private companies abusing their power. Not in a "send you off for re-education" sense, but in a forcing you to give them increasing amounts of money for essential services sense. There's a lot of this "defending my homestead" mentality that just makes people sound like they live on a 20-acre compound in the mountains with barbed wire fence and a private security force 24/7 just in case the government decides to try something. It just doesn't make sense in this modern era.