Where does NSA get the money from to hire thousands (=multiple 1000s) of big tech workers? How comes big tech is laying them off but NSA can afford to hiring them, in the thousands?
Snapshots are valueless. The deficit shot up to 3T in 2020, though I'm not really sure why (;. Then, in 2022 it was cut in half. It looks like we're on track to hit pre-Iraq War levels of deficit in another few years.
We haven't run a surplus since 2001, and I'd be very surprised if we continue to see the deficit decline. You can think of 2020/2021 as outliers because of all the pandemic spending assistance, and then taking them out, we're back on the same trendline since 2015, i.e. up. Likely will be even steeper if we get a recession later this year or next.
In the past, the government workers got unpaid time off. Then Congress quietly voted to reinstate all of lost pay so it turned into extra paid time off that didn't count toward the vacation allowance.
It's not guaranteed, but I would guess that Congress would do the same thing again.
Blurb in the article: "The NSA declined to say how much taxpayer money is allotted for the hiring effort. Total spending on the intelligence community for fiscal 2022 was $89.8 billion."
Government budgets tend to be stable so I suspect they have always been hiring this many positions, but have had severe difficulties retaining talent with the lower salaries.
The gravy train isn’t running as well as it used too, and even during the glory days it’s not like every FAANG employee was on a half a mil+ total comp… and not ever tech worker worked for FAANG.
You can get a very decent salary with amazing benefits and job security working for the government, living in a far lower cost area than SF or Seattle and retire early on a very generous retirement plan.
Ok but like 80-90% of FB engineers are E5s making ~300k+. That’s a lot more than an upper limit of 160-185k (sibling comments). And cost of living in Seattle is not substantially higher than DC.
> That’s a lot more than an upper limit of 160-185k (sibling comments).
The GS upper limit is on base pay. Just as with FAANG, you'd have to look at bonus structures too.
It's definitely not the same as FAANG upper limits, but it's also going to be a more stable and steady-paced job that still pays more than the median developer salary.
There are a lot of burned out ex-FAANG employees out there who will gladly take a pay cut to work at a different pace. Not all of the FAANG jobs are like the "I only work 3 hours per day and make $300K per year" anecdotes that get posted here all the time.
I'd be keen to hear from anyone familiar with GS compensation about typical bonuses you might expect in any given year. I suspect it's a lot less than $100k.
All kinds of source I'm sure—for example, the CIA has financed all sorts of black operations with drug trafficking since at least WWII. Now, that money would not be used to hire the rank and file, but it does relieve pressure on the budget.
Ransomware attacks come to mind. It wouldn't be hard to subcontract that out and keep even the hackers themselves from knowing who they're working for.
NSA is part of the DoD - the DoD's annual budget at this point is north of $700 billion. While NSA's exact slice of the overall DoD budget is classified - they're by far the largest intelligence agency in U.S government. Many times larger than even the CIA. It's safe to say they have the funds to hire 1000s of tech workers.
You'd have to be ok with doing a lot of f-ed up shit working for the NSA. Enough shit to cause someone like Snowden to Exile himself as a whistleblower.
There is no-doubt in my mind a lot of those programs are still running and new ones have been initiated.
Although The government protects whistleblowers, the government does not really protect whistleblowers that whistleblow government shit.
> For example I don't think palantir works on shit like stuxnet or deploying stuxnet.
You mean they don't help prevent a hostile state from developing nuclear weapons? All withou causing anything approaching the collateral damage (and risk of open war) that a traditional attack on infrastructure would cause?
Setting aside the fact that the NSA work sounds a lot more interesting from a technical perspective [0], a lot of people would find the work far more fulfilling than convincing people to buy widgets they don't need.
[0] Especially considering that the day to day work of working for a large government organization is far more boring, even without the extra headache that comes with working with classified materials.
> You mean they don't help prevent a hostile state from developing nuclear weapons? All withou causing anything approaching the collateral damage (and risk of open war) that a traditional attack on infrastructure would cause?
I think the parent comment fully agrees with you on this. Their whole reply is just saying that despite paying more, Palantir isn't nearly as layoff-proof as NSA, and you don't get to work on such a wide range of "cool" things (such as stuxnet) at Palantir either.
> For example I don't think palantir works on shit like stuxnet or deploying stuxnet.
Stuxnet was developed in a way that Palantir or other people outside the ultra secrete government cyber weapons labs, could have been contracted to work on parts of it, government may have merely assembled parts of code sourced from private industry to create the malware.
The NSA’s TAO (tailored access operations), the group that wrote Stuxnet and is known to the cybersecurity community as The Equation Group, is not known to work with outside contractors to develop malware. They’re more likely to collaborate with GCHQ and Israel’s Unit 8200, but not contractors. The NSA does some of the most advanced malware and vulnerability research internally, no contractor has the capabilities they do internally. They might buy some premade malware from contractors, but for a highly targeted piece of malware like Stuxnet it would be developed internally.
>no contractor has the capabilities they do internally.
Thats where you are wrong! Capitalism enables the greatest number of (self/mon(k)ey token) motivated varieties, beit innovations, why do you think ESA just put out a request for idea's on the space suit to be used on the moon? The creativity of unrestricted thinking especially from kids, is massively untapped, they are natural operating-in-plain-site Dimenthyltryptamine users for a start, unconditioned by university's, culture and life in general!
Accidents happen. Prison happens. Intelligence gathering comes in all shapes and sizes, but one thing is for certain, it was previously thought being on the right side of the law was a psychological advantage, its not any more, it could be extremely risky. This is the era of psychological warfare, and the best candidates are those who volunteer for their trauma as any Emergency Response (Police/Fire/Ambulance) person knows.
Psychological trauma is a life long condition with no visible scars.
How you survive working for the state largely depends on your own intelligence, but you can bet your bottom dollar you will be experimented in ways that science dictates that subjects are not too be made aware of any said experiment.
The compartmentalization required for NSA TAO to interoperate with GCHQ or Israeli Unit 8200 or the French, Canadians, Germans, Australians etc, is the same as if they wanted to plug in code from some private network or PLC expert.
I'm not saying that they are going to subcontract out everything or the important things, but their advantage is being able to leverage private industry for specific knowledge and expertise.
Have you looked at Google Ads lately and the detail of categories they let you target people by? They do essentially the same, so I'm not sure how much different it would be. It's possibly easier to rationalize that you're doing this "for the security of the nation" and not "for Google's profit" when you add a way to find out whether someone is a woman who's about to be vulnerable to a certain kind of advertisement because the last child is moving out soon.
Or it's ... just different. I mean, I'm pretty sure most people agree that Iran not having nukes is a good thing. I'm also pretty sure that far fewer people agree that Google should have a far-reaching profile on every citizen who isn't aggressively blocking ads/tracking.
The government does shady stuff, but would you really have more trust in a corporation?
Not necessarily more trust for a corporation by virtue of the corporation not being government.
I have less trust for the NSA and CIA because of past infractions. For example how the CIA was selling coke to the US to fund their programs. That's next level shit that not even a corpo will do.
Corporations wouldn't get people hooked on drugs and misinform/bribe doctors to over-prescribe opioids to make a nice stack of dollars? I guess the motives are different, the CIA does their stuff to fund guerilla troops to overthrow uncooperative governments or battle the Soviets, the corporations do it so their owners can buy another 400ft yacht.
I think it's still easier to rationalize working for the CIA than Purdue, and easier to work on mass-surveillance for the NSA than for Google. National security vs private yachts. I mean, I'd understand if you say you wouldn't work for the CIA or NSA because you don't believe in their approaches to things, but I doubt you'd say "... but I have no problem writing software to push more oxy into rural communities and kill a few tens of thousands citizens a year as long as my bonus comes through".
> For the NSA I'm sure you'll literally be able to look up personal details on anyone.
This is contrary to everything I’ve heard about their internal controls, especially after Snowden. He was able to get as much as he could because he was a trusted administrator, and that was reportedly tightened significantly afterwards.
Snowden had mentioned that he had observed people within certain roles of electronic surveillance had almost unlimited ability to review personal text messages of arbitrary targets. He went on to say it was often by used/abused by them to verify the fidelity of each other's partners or romantic interests. I would say at the time, there was probably not adequate internal oversight.
Fair. I misspoke. Every computer literate person who looked at the documents Snowden leaked instead of just the batshit interpretation of the documents he gave to Greenwald knows he's an idiot.
During the first days of the Washington Post’s reporting on the Snowden documents, the outlet misreported the mechanism for how PRISM obtained it’s data. It was initially reported, seemingly based on Snowden’s misunderstanding of PRISM, that the NSA has a direct connection into the servers of Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. That wasn’t actually true, as the data for PRISM was obtained through Section 702 requests the FBI sent to tech companies which was a practice established in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
> That wasn’t actually true, as the data for PRISM was obtained through Section 702 requests the FBI sent to tech companies which was a practice established in the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
Nice. Not thrilling, but nice. I'm really sure that how they are working because i read it somewhere. /s
Then again ? Why do they need to tape telecom operators ?
>If you're smart enough to work in BigTech, you're smart enough to understand the programs, unlike Snowden.
There's really no such proof for this kind of casualization. To get in to big tech you mostly need to grind leetcode, a known set of problems that have already been solved and well documented. I met plenty of people who can grind leetcode but aren't really good at many other basic things in life like boiling some pasta or understanding why women's bathrooms have tampons. Just because you can grind leetcode, doesn't make you smart at everything else.
That's all you need to do to get hired in BigTech, but to work in BigTech, you need to understand system diagrams and be able to describe the pieces involved. This is exactly the thing that Snowden couldn't do, which put him in the situation he now finds himself in.
I'm in big tech and don't know what that is, know anyone else who knows what that is, and doubt my mostly-older-than-me coworkers are not just hiding it from me.
I mean, I know it's a Blind meme, but I assume they just made it up.
You're right that autocorrect doesn't speak English. It usually swaps one word in for another, often apostrophe errors but occasionally errors with larger edit distances like this one.
Snowden's exile has a lot more to do with Snowden than with the NSA. There are plenty of folks who think the NSA is actually doing meaningful defense work.
“Meaningful defense work” is not orthogonal to violating the 4th amendment. I don’t think I’ve heard Snowden argue that the NSA’s work is not meaningful. He mainly objected because it was unconstitutional.
"Although The government protects whistleblowers, the government does not really protect whistleblowers that whistleblow government shit."
Sort of true, but not exactly true. Thomas Drake was a whistleblower. Snowden might have started out as a whistleblower (without going through the proper process), but has released a lot of detailed information beyond what is necessary to be a whistleblower, which could even possiblt cause net harm.
People who care about the rule of law and not having the most powerful bureaucracy in the history of the universe point their targets at our fellow citizens for basically no reason.
If he hadn't released all the information proving that what he was saying was true, we'd be hearing about how he was just a disgruntled employee with personal issues who was making stuff up for the publicity so he could sell books, etc.
Civil disobedience or w/e against a surveillance state culminating in fleeing to Moscow says all you need to know about Snowden’s commitment to freedom and opposition to surveillance.
It tells me he's willing to risk his life and freedom, and take a big hit to his standard of living and lose a cushy job, and contact with most of his friends and family, to inform the American people of the crimes their government is committing against them.
You said he "sold" his country out, but you got it backwards. He didn't get paid for his whistleblowing, but did get paid to help break the constitution before that. It's those still working for the NSA that are selling you out.
Edit: it looks like you've been doing this repeatedly - e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34659122. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review the rules and fix this going forward, we'd appreciate it
I personally think setting up the kinds of mass surveillance systems in the United States that both the Gestapo and the STASI would have salivated over is fundamentally un-Constitutional and the people who did it and lied about it deserve serious investigation and probably prison sentences.
Also the whole "Russia fixed the 2016 election" line is nonsense. The real issue was that the neoliberal economic policies championed for decades by Team Clinton devastated this huge region of American now known as "The Rust Belt" and it was disenchanted voters in that region that flipped the election to Trump (not that he did anything to reverse those policies, of course). Without the Rust Belt flip, Clinton would have easily won. Incidentally Obama's diehard 2016 TPP promotion was a major factor in that outcome, not that any Democrat wants to admit it.
As far as why the Democrats pushed "Russia did it" so hard, it's because in normal politics, such a devastating lost to a reality TV clown would have led to a shake-up in party leadership, and that would have meant FDR-style Democrats taking over leadership positions, but that's not what the financial oligarchs who control media and the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted, hence Russia nonsense. Of course the 'intelligence community' got on board, because conflict with Russia is good for keeping the bloated budgets intact.
Also, the USA neocon crowd on the Republican side has been pushing for war with Russia since about 2003, when Putin rejected joining the petrodollar recycling club, as per Saudi Arabia. If he had, i.e. if Russian oil money was banked with Wall Street, there'd never have been the 2008 Georgia war or the 2014 Ukraine coup, and if Russia had invaded Ukraine, it'd have been treated just like the Saudi war on Yemen.
Notably the one thing Snowden couldn't get from his position is the budgetary outlay of the NSA, i.e. just how much money went to all the private contractors and their hangers-on. Pork city no doubt.
Snowden exposed a lot of gross corruption and un-Constitutional behavior within the US government, that's undeniable. He deserves complete amnesty and a medal for good citizenship.
I don’t think the NSA has ever been able to directly link any deaths to the Snowden leaks.
I also don’t see how the disclosure of NSA sources and methods had any impact on the Russians ability to get John Podesta to click on a phishing email.
A traitor to what? Not the country. Maybe to the NSA.
To be fair I think the NSA has done more to harm Americans than Snowden ever could have (and didn’t). If you want to call someone a traitor maybe point your finger at clapper and the other pieces of shit at the NSA that target Americans.
Basically everything I have said to anyone since I was a young child is sitting in their data center, ready to blackmail me if I ever tried to run for office or pursue any power.
Ditto for everyone else here that grew up in the age of the internet and the patriot act
The chilling effect it causes has already caused a ton of harm. For instance, I can never run for office because I don’t want the public to know what I said on Facebook when I was 16.
That's a possible theory. But then why wasn't that the case for Drake? And wouldn't it have been possible to do that with limited data release rather than as much as he did? For example, how is releasing lists of foreign cyber targets, or foreign embassy surveillance useful to he topic of domestic surveillance? It seems they released several thousand documents to prove his point, and yet it's believed that there are over 1M more that he exfiltrated. It seems like that's overkill for just proving you're telling the truth about domestic surveillance. This might have been a case where less is more - if he had taken/released just enough and limited the scope, then there would be more support for him.
I was a major skeptic of Snowden for the whole first year of Glenn Greenwald's releases. The Snowden leak was too convenient for folks like me that suspected it was going on for years, ever since the 1980's encryption scandal involving RSA and also PGP. They were clearly up to no good, but without evidence it was easy to dismiss.
Then almost a year to the date of the first publishing of the Snowden docs, along came heartbleed, which clearly showed the Snowden documents were legitimate. As more technical leaning documents came out, they also proved it. Without those documents though, we'd be told it was all a fairy tale.
Shit like looking at the data that Big Tech has been collecting on American citizens?
The NSA is incapable of building the type of mass surveillance infastructure we see today. That infrastructure is built and maintained by private tech companies. The NSA comes along repurposes that already collected data to their own ends.
Further, the NSA's usage of said information has never been linked to any population wide mental health crises, unlike big tech.
There is also a wide range of work the NSA does, and most people working there don't know much beyond their own need to know.
>The NSA is incapable of building the type of mass surveillance infastructure we see today. That infrastructure is built and maintained by private tech companies.
This is false, the snowden releases showed they have extensive infrastructure that aggregates data from many different sources.
Parent's point is that any NSA system falls far short (in comprehensiveness and freshness) of what Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple have (in addition to their analogs in other countries).
At the end of the day, worldwide profit scales systems faster than even national security dollars.
And parent's point is wrong, because A) the NSA has broader legal powers to collect and use data, and B) the NSA's mission is literally signal intelligence. They aren't in the business of making phones or serving ads. Of course without inside knowledge of how companies are collecting and using data and what exactly the NSA is doing there's no way to know for sure. But the public revelations of what the NSA are doing go far beyond what we've heard tech companies are doing.
Yet it was private companies that managed to get almost everyone to carry around a microphone, video camera, accelerometer, gps device which they also use to store and transmit the majority of their personal conversations.
Granted, they do not snoop on you to the maximum extent the hardware of these devices allow. But, take a look at [0]. Unless you are one of the few people who goes out of their way to limit tracking, do you think that the NSA would be able to get that detailed tracking of everyone's movements.
And this is just the obvious part (which Google is nice enough to share with its users as a feature). Big tech companies have also built detailed models of most people's interests; which is simply not possible without the large amount of data that comes from people actually interacting with them.
All of the NSA's dragnet surveillance is built on the back of private industry, and works because that private industry has convinced people to participate in it.
It's true that state surveillance infrastructure is mostly built on top of civilian infrastructure, the original post just made it sound like the NSA didn't have its own enormous datacenters and wasn't slurping and processing an extraordinary amount of data.
It's certainly another one of those public-private partnerships, for example the NSA keeps its fiber-optic splitters on domestic trunk lines in AT&T buildings, to vacuum up all traffic (including that between US citizens, of course, which seems to be something of a violation of warrantless spying):
"AT&T has a fiberoptic splitter copying our data to NSA" (eff.org)" (2011, 200 comments)
However there's also the massive Ogden Utah data storage center run by the NSA and contractors, which has a constant demand for 65 MW of power, I think that counts as mass surveillance infrastructure.
If someone is transiting sensitive data without encryption over the internet, and the NSA is included in their threat model, then they need to rethink a lot of things.
Assuming the NSA catches and stores the traffic (i.e. it passed a keyword/subject filter), they still have to break the encryption.
And even if they have devices capable of doing so, they don't have capacity to do so on an unlimited volume of messages.
A dystopian system would be more interested in the metadata, which can't really be hidden. The Gestapo or STASI would work by making graphs of who was in communication with who, and then, they'd go kick down doors and round up everyone on their list for interrogation, because they were somehow connected to some bad person via the metadata. Of course, this would have a stifling effect on communication and lead to constant fear and paranoia in the general population, which is precisely what an authoritarian regime would want.
They're still pushing this stuff today, not surprisingly:
> "WASHINGTON (AP) (Jan 12 2023) — A top U.S. intelligence official on Thursday urged Congress to renew sweeping powers granted to American spy agencies to surveil and examine communications, saying they were critical to stopping terrorism, cyberattacks and other threats."
"Other threats" such as what, populist movements unhappy with the increasingly feudalist-aristocratic nature of the United States and the gross corruption seen in Congress and the federal bureaucracy?
Metadata is increasingly shifting into the encrypted payload, and networks are shifting away (conceptually and physically) from p2p channel-based to packet-routed via intermediaries.
At some point, the metadata is (user X talks to SaaS service Y), and then the trail goes private.
The NSA isn't some all-powerful entity. They play by different rules, but there are still rules.
If ATT had really pushed back, the NSA would have been hard pressed to install and run tapping equipment. And that's on hardline voice, where CALEA obviously applies. But as far as I know ATT didn't really fight, once they were legally covered from liability.
The modern large scale cloud or social providers are younger companies, have fewer government ties, and (critically) have worldwide business.
I would automatically assume they all have data sharing agreements with the NSA, as a maximal threat assumption, but as a likely threat I expect it'd be a lot harder for the NSA to co-opt them.
I.e. why the NSA instead chose to tap Google's private fiber between their data centers
> If someone is transiting sensitive data without encryption over the internet, and the NSA is included in their threat model, then they need to rethink a lot of things.
You still think that the "security" certificates make you secure ? that s in https stands for security ?
Why would a spy agency collect TB of data without a mean to decrypt it ?
Data collection has never been used by government agencies to do bad stuff? You must have forgotten about Nazi Germany. Where it suddenly was very convenient the state knew who was Jewish.
The Holocaust would have been horrendously more effective had Nazi Germany convinced Europe's citizens to self-register on Facebook and declare their own religion.
Many of Europe’s citizens got to keep Jewish apartments, jewelry, and assets for free. Heck take Ukraine, where did all those Jewish belongings go? Ukraine had 1million Jews die in ww2. Even more fled. Yet all the wealth from those Jews was never returned to the families or survivors.
> Shit like looking at the data that Big Tech has been collecting on American citizens?
Yes. When we elect our officials we grant them significant power. We have rules they must abide by to protect us from that power (I.e. using this data to interfere with elections to continue/advance their power.)
This is substantially different than private industry. Don’t get me wrong, surveillance capitalism is its own shade of gray. But the government laundering away constitutional rights through collaboration with private industry and protecting themselves from prosecution for their crimes by labeling these collaborations a state secret?
Between their clandestine organizations, their militaries, and their law enforcement - the government is capable of perpetuating more crimes against humanity than their private industry counterparts.
Why is it always framed as a verses conversation? This isn't helpful. It is quite possible that people don't like either form of surveillance. But let's also not pretend that surveillance capitalism is identical to a surveillance state.
The NSA is a big old bitch,
"so are your fangs and VCs"
says the crowd who has the itch
for cool projects but sees
all really as prostitution. Stitch
up the foul mouth hey, one who pees
in the water is bound to filth drink,
work, make, grow rich but don't think.
In the context of this thread, because we are talking about the NSA hiring laid-off Big Tech workers. The question at issue is not, in general, if people have a problem with Government surveillance. Rather, the question is if people who have built their careers around private surveillance have a problem with government surveillance.
Large capital is indivisible from the state. I'm not sure making that distinction serves any real purpose, because a government that doesn't regulate surveillance capitalism effectively makes its stance pretty clear about surveillance in general.
I'm not defending big tech. That's a whole other topic. But as for the government, it is supposed to be held to a high(er) standard. This is codified into law: the limitations the constitution imposes on the government are not imposed on civilians/corporation. This is with good reason: quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
If you blow the whistle on big tech for doing something illegal, you get a pat on the back and a cash reward. Blow the whistle on the US government doing something illegal and you're either hanging out with your new friend Vlad or in pound me in the ass prison.
Seems nearly certain that they'll end up with employees that have a deeper understanding of how Twitter works and how it is vulnerable to attack than Twitter itself.
This article doesn't make sense. The NSA, which has to hire U.S. citizens and cannot touch H1Bs, is wooing laid-off big tech workers previously making 300K a year to work for <$150,000 in D.C. and Baltimore?
Patriotism is a good one. A lot of people want to serve their country but don’t want to run for office. This is one way to exercise your talents and also serve your country.
It’s easy to criticize the NSA because what we see in the news is mostly criticism of their failures and mistakes. My understanding from the little information I have ever received from former NSA colleagues is that the work they do is critical for global security. They actually prevent a lot of badness and people who work there feel they are making a difference.
The other thing I have gleaned is that the work involves tech that no one else would ever invest in. For example, a former professor of mine worked on an integrated circuit VLSI design that was, at the time, at least 10-fold larger than any commercial chip. Entirely in secret, of course.
The salary may not be world-beating, but - from what I can glean - the work is rewarding and meaningful in ways that compensate for the difference in pay.
Based on the way the government operates today, I feel like the private sector is better. Unless you get defined benefits like police and military. I'm not sure where NSA falls.
That doesn't look very appealing. Even after 30 years you'd only get 33% of your max pay, which is on the low end to begin with (GS13 is about $90k, which gives about $30k in retirement).
As stated, they are wooing you... At a time when you were let go for having nothing special to offer.
So now you get to decide if you want to be a pawn for the government and entertain their stupid offers so that you can essentially be a monkey in front of a keyboard, or if you want to wait and improve your skills for a time when they are not trying to take advantage of you being jobless and for when you have a newfound confidence in yourself.
It's a good job with great benefits, but idk how many FAANG employees wokld be eligible due to Drug Testing or Marijuana requirements (if you smoked within the last 10 years, you're ineligible).
The pay is pretty good for DMV and the hours are great (a strict 40 hours and work doesn't come back home)
edit: according to vlovich123, past drug use won't make you illegible anymore if you stop at the time of hire
I imagine lying on a federal form is going to be a risky move, especially when going to a spy agency that’s going to do background checks. I’d recommend being honest if you’re interested in this line of work.
People with security clearances spill their guts and tell all on their security clearance forms, because not doing so is a felony that the DOJ takes incredibly seriously. People’s most personal and intimate secrets are in those forms.
Never, ever lie or knowingly omit information on a security clearance form. If you tell the truth and you are disqualified, it’s extremely unlikely that information will be used against you. The FBI isn’t going to come after you for doing mushrooms. If you lie to the federal government while trying to obtain a security clearance, they will put you in federal prison.
What kind of person would even want to falsify/lie throughout the clearance process. It's such a long and arduous process and the payoff is basically nothing. If it's actually an illegal trying to get into the system, they'd be better off going into politics where you gain automatic 'need to know' and have no repercussions for lying.
It is more than a risky move. It can carry up to five years in prison. The statute governing this has been enforced in the past in some relatively unfair ways (getting past job details incorrect on the application).
The forms are just materials they lean on during your security interviews. They kind of want you to lie about something to give them fodder to yell/break you. You're not going to prison for lying on your SF86. The polygraph hasn't even caught a traitor, they're all tools for breaking people
Every marijuana seller, “legit” or not is breaking numerous federal laws. If the Feds are interested in you, your drug dealer will happily give them whatever they need.
If the position requires a Top Secret clearance (as many of them do), the background check is quite extensive. Expect your family, neighbors, former colleagues, college roommates, etc to get knocks on the door from guys in suits that will ask them questions.
Are you serious? You think they'd knock on someone's door and start asking questions? And why would people even agree to talk to them? Especially relatives and friends.
Ok, it sounds like you're not working a job relevant to national security?
Google/etc doesn't care who you are as long as you can make them profits - bad person, good person, etc. I'm glad to see that at least the government takes seriously the matter of who influences the system with so much power.
>"Ok, it sounds like you're not working a job relevant to national security?"
Nope. Never wanted to work in such areas. Prefer normal life.
>"...who influences the system with so much power."
You mean someone who uses private email server, keeps classified docs in wrong places (how is it even possible), says that it is all Russia's fault that Trump wins etc. etc. Yeah I feel so much safer.
You mean a system that has:
- Executed US citizens, including children, without a trial
- Operates and/or assists the operation of torture facilities in multiple countries and
- Conducts mass surveillance without a warrant.
Yes, it’s definitely a system that is picking effective people who will help further the goals of those in power without doubts.
In this case it wouldn't be 'some weirdos', it'd probably be US federal employees.
You'd be within your legal rights to turn them away, of course, but I also feel that it's easier to imagine doing that when one doesn't have three armed suits standing on the porch. I think the vast, vast majority of Americans would prefer just answering a couple questions about their neighbour as opposed to willingly putting themselves on the radar.
I'm not sure how much you've dealt with the feds, but in my experience they're not the kind of folks that like hearing "go away, I refuse to answer your questions."
>"I'm not sure how much you've dealt with the feds, but in my experience they're not the kind of folks that like hearing "go away, I refuse to answer your questions."
So you are telling that one can be harassed / threatened for unwillingness to discuss their friend's / relative's? Very nice. How about "we are a nation of laws"?
I was a reference for a friend in college that applied to intern at the CIA. I had someone in my dorm room asking me questions and there questions related to drug use.
My friend barely drank alcohol and never used illegal drugs, but the interviewer pressed a few times even saying things like “come on, not even once? everyone does in college”
As for why I agreed to talk? He wanted the position, so I was glad to help if I could.
In some cases yes, although depending on the clearance they might be ok with phone calls. In general relatives and friends are going to try and help their relative/friend get the job.
Security clearances often involve polygraph tests. On top of that they will interview a ton of people you know. So not only do you have to commit a federal crime to cover it up and learn how to fool a polygraph, you also have to convince a bunch of people that know you to commit a federal crime for you.
> but idk how many FAANG employees wokld be eligible due to Drug Testing or Marijuana requirements (if you smoked within the last 10 years, you're ineligible).
Large numbers of adults have either never smoked, or have not smoked within a decade.
Marijuana use is common, but it's not 100% ubiquitous. It only feels like that when you're in certain social bubbles.
The illegal restriction will definitely reduce the number of applicants, but it's not as severe as you're implying. The number of "boring" adults who work in Big Tech is quite high.
says >"...a strict 40 hours and work doesn't come back home..."<
It is unlikely anyone will throw out an eager beaver working voluntary overtime. Plenty of stories about this in both private and government organizations. In fact, IIRC Snowden mentions working over once or twice.
How extensive are the other background checks they perform (information seeking behavior online, contacting elementary school teachers, neighbors, etc.)?
Depends on the level of clearance you're going for. TS/SCI w/ Full-Scope Polygraph (the highest intelligence community level) covers the last 10 years, with a heavy emphasis on your activities in the last 5. They'll interview friends, employers, teachers, neighbors, etc. going back 5 years (but you get to pick the ones to be interviewed). They'll also run FBI background checks on you and your family (including extended family) and you'll be required to turn in financial info annually.
There are published guidelines within the agency, your recruiting human capital person or hiring manager could tell you more.
There’s no negotiation though, either the billet is part of the program (CISA calls their CTMS) or it’s not, and either you check the box (usually with a certification) or you don’t.
for an ambitious person the appeal of the NSA would be to do a few years of work and then team up with a lobbyist type to start a consulting business that makes a fortune. Or use the connections and authority to raise money for a startup
wayrec says >""I got an offer from the NSA" would be a good synonym for "I have a very clean and rather thoroughly checked background"."<
Or perhaps not. Complete the initial phrase: "I got an offer from the NSA to be a hitman." hardly qualifies one for general employment! I would prefer to not be the one who turns down such an applicant for a job.
Some years ago there was a "Intelexit" campaign to try persuading
agency staff to quit. Problem with convincing the most morally
upstanding people get out is - who does that leave behind? I'm not
sure bad crowds can be changed from the inside, because you'd have a
hard time smuggling a truly sceptical mind past indoc, but an
optimistic take is you could see this as an opportunity to change
things for the better.
Someone who is morally upstanding will not pass changes through a corrupt political process, because executing change requires power which is why the process is corrupt in a first place.
In contrast, if people refuse to work for rogue agencies, it has real and immediate effects. First, it increases staffing costs as the pool of immoral prospects is heavily in demand from the private sector. This means funds that could have gone to other rogue agencies must go to this one. Second, it reduces the quality of output as competence and morality tend to be correlated.
It's a shame you're being downvoted for this, especially when the reference (or the reference's author) is one of the more highly-upvoted suggestions on the yearly book recommendation thread on HN.
Here is a useful comment: working for that agency results in a strong technical experience, a security stamp of approval, and a social network that often leads to very high paying contractor jobs or the development of startup businesses that end up being worth tens of millions.
Did you ever wonder why there is so much wealth in the Maryland-DC-Northern Virginia area? Well, now you know.
Is there really such a big leap going from working for Facebook to working for the NSA except the spying you are doing is much more direct and not surrounded in business speak?
People can (mostly) opt out of Facebook. There's no opting out of government surveillance. There's no opting out of zero days and built in backdoors and secretly modified hardware.
Facebook builds shadow profiles for people that don't have accounts. I have a dormant account and checked out my profile and they've linked together multiple email addresses I've never given them. Ad blocking and tracking protection aren't sufficient because retailers give data to Facebook. There are ways to delete data now, which is a welcomed improvement, but that's after it's already been collected.
With that said, I understand the larger point you're making about government surveillance. I just don't see most people being able to opt out of Facebook. Moreover, the government can compel Facebook to hand over whatever data is provided by users voluntarily, making the private/public split less than airtight.
I think OPs point is there is probably very little ethical difference between Google, Facebook, and the NSA. The people at all three probably aren't also climbing moral mountain either. Most people in tech probably have to struggle or ignore both morals and ethics, maybe not directly about their job but definitely about the companies they work for. You can't really opt out of what Google and Facebook do, because a big part of it is industry influencing and their own opt-out features are rarely comprehensive enough to be useful.
Yeah, facebook is definitely tracking everyone, whether or not they use facebook.
Remember a few years ago (maybe even 10 years now) when facebook started testing their facial recognition capabilities? You'd post a photo, and it would highlight all the faces, tell you who they were, and ask if you wanted to tag them. It likely has a photo of 99.99% of living people at this point, and has profiles on them, cross-linked with any relevant discussion people have had about them (even if they're not on facebook).
Any site that allows you to "log in with facebook" is running their analytics which tracks you across sites, and builds your "profile", and if you have a gravatar on one of those sites, there's a good chance Facebook can now associate you with any photo that has been uploaded of you, even if you just happened to be in the background.
People were writing about this stuff in the '80s; it seems like some don't realize we're already there.
I consider myself fairly patriotic and I'd never work for the NSA, because I can think of few things that are more antithetical to this country's (hypothetical) ideals than mass surveillance. The Patriot Act has to be the most ironically named piece of legislation in history.
I mean, I’d say there’s a big positive leap in working for the NSA rather than Facebook. (And I’m not American, so I’m an explicit target of the NSA in ways that Americans aren’t.)
This needs to be upvoted! He's right! DMV has a similar energy and vibe to how the Bay Area felt in the early 2000s, and that's definetly because of the cybersecurity ecosystem that has been cultivated there since Obama 1
There's growing evidence that social media is also bad for teenagers. Rates of teenage depression and suicidality have increased in recent years, and there is a direct correlation to social media use.
Cigarette companies are viewed as evil because they peddled addictive, cancer-causing products to kids. Our industry is peddling a different type of poison, and I suspect we'll have a similar legacy.
I don’t carry around in my head that Bill Gates or any other person is worth fiat money.
It’s a social meme I just don’t buy into, like opinions on movies and memes.
Every rich person is just one of billions, their fiat wealth is based upon mathematical inference, information shaping, nation state propaganda.
Depending on my mood, if we were together I may ignore Bil Gates, punch is teeth out, or ask about the weather; I would not treat him as special.
I’ve worked with people who have answered fundamental questions about reality. Some nerds who read a consumer machines manual and structured syntax appropriately are far dumber than that. There was no manual for folks building LHC.
I always figured that the DC area was wealthy due to mostly political corruption and creating government contracts that enlist a 30 person team over 5 years to design a toilet seat for a plane that will be used twice. I didn't know it was this mecha of tech expertise and problem solving.
It's much more "middle class" than wealthy imo. For example, most lobbyists for top firms earn less than an L3 at Google and less than a GS-15 or SES1 employee, and with much less job security (for example, if you were an ex-Trump staffer, your political currency is useless on the Hill at the moment).
There definetly is old money in the city, but it's honestly about as prominent as Pac Heights old money in the Bay Area and absolutely gets dwarfed by out of towners.
Unlike San Francisco, Washington, DC was a backwater until the 1960s. For most of the country's history Federal policy was to avoid centralization of government administration to prevent Washington becoming as economically prominent as Paris, London, or countless other capital cities.
But things began to change during the Cold War, and then accelerated during the military buildup under Reagan. The Washington metro area began to explode economically as defense contractors that had once been spread around the country started moving to DC. The acceleration was compounded again under Bush with the war on terror attracting a broader range of security and IT companies wanting to cash in on Federal largesse. A big part of the reason for this is that Republicans preferred outsourcing Federal work to contractors, to avoid Federal unions. Federal policy didn't care where the contractors headquarters were located, whereas older agencies like the Social Security Administration, Federal Reserve, etc, had always been forced to locate most of their work elsewhere, both the labor and most of management--mostly only the political appointees were in DC.
What the government should do is return to the old policies of pushing administrative agencies back out into regional centers. Though it would probably look different in the sense that what's more important now is pushing agency directors and other political appointees along with their teams out of DC, whereas in the bygone era the emphasis was on the mass of Federal workers. You want the leadership teams out of DC because that's what's attracting the companies, not Congress.
But DC has probably grown too economically powerful to reverse the course of things.
Not sure if that was a typo, but the term is "mecca", not "mecha", referencing the place in Saudia Arabia, where Muslims are supposed to make a pilgrimage at least once in their lives.
>>30 person team over 5 years to design a toilet seat for a plane that will be used twice.
Talk to the carpenters and plumbers working on wealthy houses. Once you see people regularly dropping 200k+ to redo a bathroom, those government toilet seats don't seem all that extreme.
I thought the toilet seat thing was explained long ago. Some of those bills were essentially money laundering for covert ops with extremely high security clearances. $50 for a seat, $1200 to pay salaries.
Some of it is also the logistics chain. A commercial enterprise can get away with purchasing a screw. A military airplane tracks the screw from its lathing, to rod forming, to steel production, to iron production + coke production, to iron ore and coke inputs. All this so that when a certain part fails all related parts can be checked for similar failures.
Apple is the only commercial enterprise I am aware of that attempts to have similar supply chain controls, and their products aren’t cheap.
>unless your only purpose is more overly simplistic "free market" cheerleading typical of HN.
yeah, people who actually create surplus value through their labor tend to get irritated by people who steal their wealth for themselves via political corruption. I'm sure Boeing and Lockheed earned their contracts fair and square despite SpaceX being 20x cheaper. Definitely wasn't their lobbying payoffs
>yeah, people who actually create surplus value through their labor
How about people who time and again been bailed out by government, had friends in power pass laws and generally benefited from corruption, tax cuts, and special subsidies, or just piled up externalities cost on society and the environment?
You know, like most of the "surplus value creating" private sector...
Its not. jschveibinz is straight wrong. I worked in the area for quite some time, with security clearance, and in the software sector for several contractors dealing with 3 letter agencies.
The wealth in the area (if you can even call it that) exists because of networking, namely people with connections to decision makers in the government are very valuable because they can bring in companies lots of money when they win contracts. The way you get promoted in the area into the high paying exec roles is solely though people skills. The amount of metaphorical dick sucking that goes on would make any sane person barf (on one occasion I was working in the Pentagon with setting up some software, as a civilian, and my boss who was there with me told me to stand up when some upper rank military guy came in the room to show respect, because otherwise it would look bad for the company). If you aren't connected or know anyone, you basically fit into the standard working class, and really don't make that much money factoring in high cost of living
And those people pretty much are working towards making in the 200s. My friend who was in "systems engineering" (i.e microsoft word/excel operations) got a position where he made 220-260 depending on bonus, and that was considered EXTREMELY good for the area. I didn't have the heart to tell him that a fresh hire at Amazon can work 2 years and make that much at a minimum.
The thing also with government contracts is that government sets rates for how much companies can charge the government for a certain person with certain qualifications, and companies essentially try to pay people as little as possible under that value to maximize profit. This also drives salaries down.
And because that area is filled with those type of people who by their nature tend to be pretty materialistic (in addition to a lot of foreign presence with Korean and Middle eastern people who also tend to be materialistic), seeing endless bmws/mercs/audis may make it seem like there is wealth in the area, but there really is not - you can easily do the math on cost of living versus salary and figure out
that all that shit is financed at maximum length loan terms. Have been in conversations where people talk about having 30k worth of CC debt like its a normal thing.
As far as tech goes, there are 2 things that happen. First, a lot of the work gets subcontracted out by the 3 letter agencies to all the companies in the area, and 2, the work is VERY compartmentalized. So if you do end up working on something in the NSA or on a contract for the NSA it could be literally some basic shit, like a library to parse some stuff out of http, and you ship that and you never see it used or know what the bigger picture is. So no, working for NSA, other 3 letter agencies, or contractors of, won't give you an advantage in terms of experience.
You may get a clearance but that is only valuable to companies in the area since they will hire you because of your clearance then shove you onto a project that you may be ever so slightly qualified for, so they can collect money from the government while not having to pay for your clearance.
TLDR; that area sucks, no smart people ever go work for government or contractors of. Because smart people realize that they can not only make more money in the private sector, but have favorable living arrangement, especially with remote work, and can do engineering instead of circle jerking management to get promoted.
To engage with your comment - some of this experience will not be transferable outside government - is this a big problem? Also, is DC really that wealthy, compared to Silicon Valley?
Govt experience can translate well into Federal Sales and Solutions Engineering and Product Management. I've found ex-Govt engineers to be amazing salespeople, because they understand both the technical AND the organizational aspects in implementing technical projects.
Also, DC is much less wealthy than the Bay Area. The upper bound on salaries in the DMV is around $150-200k with 15-20 years of experience because of how prominent government employment is. It's a very solidly middle class feeling metropolitan area.
The greater DC and Bay Area have the top 8 counties by median household income, and 13 of the top 20 counties. [0]
Sure, it's just a bunch of doctors (NIH), lobbyists, defense contractors and government lawyers that skew that towards only being upper middle class and probably not as many ultra high net worth people, but it's extremely affluent.
That's a fair point. DMV definetly skews top 10%, but I feel the affordability skew doesn't feel as crazy compared to the Bay Area. At least there's plenty of building occurring in DC and NoVA that helps keep prices manageable at the moment.
First we were looking for potential uranium deposits with satellite imagery. When that was no longer necessary we switched to identifying targets for aerial strikes. The imagery was pretty outdated but they needed a set amount of targets each week so we weren't very accurate.
I got the job through family, my uncle was able to get in the industry in the 80s.
> I don't think that enabling capricious air strikes is the kind of work that is going to allay most people's ethical concerns.
Seriously for a second I was like, maybe the NSA isn't such a bad idea anymore. They're out there making Ghidra and other open source tools so that's nice. And then I read this and immediately thought of that monologue from Good Will Hunting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJHvSp9AKYg
> working for that agency results in a strong technical experience, a security stamp of approval, and a social network that often leads to very high paying contractor jobs or the development of startup businesses that end up being worth tens of millions.
Even without going into contracting or starting a business, having worked a high level job at an agency like the NSA comes with a resume boost. It may not mean much to a mid-level hiring manager on the west coast who only knows about the NSA from what they read on Twitter, but it carries some weight in communities that understand what goes into these careers.
I wonder if there is risk that a typical hiring manager would consider three letter agency experience to be a red flag if they disagree with the agency’s behavior
It makes sense that some folks may not have favorable opinions of government employment. At the same time, it's worth considering alternate perspectives, too. Any single grunt worker has little hope to sway the trajectory of top-down mandates at federal security agencies. Even if the individual disagrees with the decree.
Should similar forms of micro-judgement stemming from macro concerns also be applied to candidates from other industries such as adult entertainment or legal cannabis operations?
Edit: blep_, all salient points, thanks for sharing.
If you think those things are as immoral as what the NSA does (I don't), then yes, that seems like a conclusion you might reach.
But it doesn't actually matter: we're talking about "are there people who believe this and will that belief negatively affect me", not "should those people believe this".
In the real world, I haven't known many hiring managers who would discriminate based on former employment.
Hiring managers need to build out their team with whoever will do the best job. You aren't entering into a relationship with their former employer, you're hiring the employee for what they can do for you.
HN commenters might say they'll discriminate against FAANG employees or NSA employees or otherwise hold weird grudges against employees of companies they don't like, but that's mostly just internet bluster. Real hiring managers (that you'd actually want to work for) aren't going to discriminate against good candidates just because they worked for a big company that the hiring manager doesn't like.
I suppose there are exceptions to this. If you were head of financial controls at FTX, you're in trouble. But if you were a front-end developer at FTX and you do good work, I'm not going to hold FTX's failure against you.
There is absolutely money in work that requires a clearance. There always has been.
I would also point out that, historically, a lot of "startup" culture comes directly from people fleeing from the more conservative east cost workplace culture. Consider if you can get the life you want working for a security service.
Obviously making between 100 and 200k is a healthy salary, but we shouldn't pretend that it's at the top of the industry. You're agreeing to a very particular work culture in return for middle-industry compensation.
>>You're agreeing to a very particular work culture
There is also still a concept of national service in such places. Even as a civilian, some people would rather design systems to protect their county than design systems to support real estate in the metaverse. Do you want to do data analysis to catch terrorists or track international drug shipments, or design another algorithm to better serve ads to elderly people needing regular diabetic testing supplies?
Exactly. It seems most feel they’re above this, while taking everything given to them for granted. This is especially true of people who become libertarians after they get rich, forgetting everything that made that possible, and then wanting to keep it all for themselves.
Like the steady stream of 50+yo tech millionaires who buy boats. After decades of working to minimize their individual tax burdens and arguing for small government they suddenly expect a giant helicopter full of trained government employees to appear and lift them out of whatever dangerous situation they got themselves into.
Any $1m+ yacht that finds itself needing naval government services should absolutely be expecting a bill for services rendered. I don't know if the law exists. I'm not here to ascertain what the fine print would look like, only of the spirit of such law.
Sure man - nothing I said disagrees with that. The parent comment wasn't saying "they do good work - you should consider it," it was talking about compensation. If you want to work for a three-letter-agency then go do it - you don't need me to give you permission.
Edit: I also want to point out that there are many tech jobs available in the government sector (state / transit / local / etc). They generally pay less, but are also less restrictive. You don't have to sign up for an intelligence service (and everything that means) to serve your country.
A few months back the US Navy's CTO asked LinkedIn why technically-talented people were leaving his organization and hundreds of people flocked to the comments to answer him [1]. Based upon some of the replies there are secondary considerations that override the concept of "national service" and stop people from working in this space.
I’ve been working for myself in the government contracting industry. Started off with a job, switched to 1099 sub-contracting, and now still bill myself out with a few employees.
If you have tech skills and a clearance you could probably bill around 200/hour for full time work which would be pretty healthy income.
Why are you pretending that $100k-$200k is the ceiling in the defense industry, when the comment you’re replying to is specifically pointing out that it’s frequently a stepping stone to more lucrative career options?
Not to mention that those nominally earning more in SF/SV often have worse quality of life than those earning less elsewhere due to housing prices and overall cost of living.
I'm not pretending anything? I'm saying that's a normal salary - not bad but not high. Not a very good basis, by itself, for picking a job.
Also, low cost of living is great. I have a fully work from home position so I could move to a lower cost of living location if I wanted. That kind of flexibility is unusual in government work in my experience.
Edit: Also - I wasn't saying the pay was bad, or that 200k was the max you'd get - I was saying it comes with a work culture you might not like. It's not a situation where the pay is so much better in return for restrictive culture.
Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. Let's assume you don't owe spy agency contractors better—you still owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Edit: also, you've been doing this quite a bit and we've asked you more than once before. We end up having to ban accounts that post like that. I don't want to ban you, so could you please review the rules and fix this?
I have worked with a few folks who did stints with various 3 letter government agencies.
My takeaway is that you get to do some very technically interesting and challenging work. But politics, both organizational and electoral, means your cool thing is likely to sit on a shelf. They are good places to be if you like building for the sake of building. Not so good if you like both building and shipping.
> Did you ever wonder why there is so much wealth in the Maryland-DC-Northern Virginia area? Well, now you know.
There’s an entire industry built around influencing how the Federal government allocates the vast sums of money that it allocates. Everyone in the industry is wealthy and nearly all of them live in that area. But yeah, it’s because the NSA.
The relationship of the Washington Times with Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church is well-founded and widely known. The nature of the Unification Church similarly. From its founder's obituary in The Washington Post:
"Sun Myung Moon dies at 92; Washington Times owner led the Unification Church" (2012)
Sun Myung Moon, a self-professed messiah who claimed millions of religious followers in his Unification Church and sought to become a powerful voice in the American conservative movement through business interests that included the Washington Times, has died. He was 92....
His stated ambition was to rule the world and replace Christianity with his own faith, which blended elements of Christianity, Confucianism and Korean folk religions....
His most prominent investment was the Washington Times, founded in 1982 as a conservative counterbalance to what Mr. Moon perceived as The Washington Post’s liberal bias....
When I was at the University of Maryland in the late 70s, we had a student chapter of the ACM that met regularly. Once a year (or semester, I forget) we had "Career Night" when local IT companies would do a presentation of what they had to offer to future comp. sci. grads. We always had a good turn out for Career Night since the vendors provided the refreshments, which were orders of magnitude better that what we had at a regular meeting. NSA was always one of the presenters, and it was an amusing talk because they couldn't really tell us anything about what we'd be doing. They just said they had interesting problems, pretty much any hardware you could name, and decent salaries and benefits. I don't think any of my friends ended up working for them, but I have known quite a few NSA employees over the years. A friend who worked as a Russian language specialist had little good to say about the IT system they had to use. I imagine the cryptanalysts were the ones with the really good systems.
They try their damndest, but the systems can be a hot piece of garbage. That said, it isn't drastically worse than other foreign agencies I've dealt with.
SES pay has a different salary cap. IIRC it's something weird like they can be paid as much as the third most highly compensated member of the president's cabinet.
It’s less the NSA specifically and more civil service in general that you should worry about. Civil service is the opposite of everything that you love in big tech - it’s neither fast, nor efficient, nor progressive, the people you work with will not be “best and brightest”, the technology you work with will not be latest and greatest.
You know how anytime you see more then one cop they are always talking about seniority and benefits and how many years, months, and days until their next pay grade or benefit tier kicks in? That will be you every day for thirty years. I knew people who got jobs at NASA, their life long dream, finished their first project in record time - were informed the project was a three year contract so even though they were done they needed to fill the desk for the next two and a half years - so they left.
326 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 280 ms ] thread[1] - https://archive.ph/OPror
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/natio...
It's not guaranteed, but I would guess that Congress would do the same thing again.
You can get a very decent salary with amazing benefits and job security working for the government, living in a far lower cost area than SF or Seattle and retire early on a very generous retirement plan.
If you're talking about DMV, it's not that different.
This random calculator has SF[1] as 15% more expensive and Seattle[2] as slightly less expensive
[1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/real-estate/cost-of...
[2] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/real-estate/cost-of...
And GS salaries are bad. GS-15 tops out at like 160k at the most senior levels.
Maybe NSA puts them on a special track, but even that isn’t very good.
The GS salary, as you noted, is the bigger issue.
The GS upper limit is on base pay. Just as with FAANG, you'd have to look at bonus structures too.
It's definitely not the same as FAANG upper limits, but it's also going to be a more stable and steady-paced job that still pays more than the median developer salary.
There are a lot of burned out ex-FAANG employees out there who will gladly take a pay cut to work at a different pace. Not all of the FAANG jobs are like the "I only work 3 hours per day and make $300K per year" anecdotes that get posted here all the time.
Ransomware attacks come to mind. It wouldn't be hard to subcontract that out and keep even the hackers themselves from knowing who they're working for.
There is no-doubt in my mind a lot of those programs are still running and new ones have been initiated.
Although The government protects whistleblowers, the government does not really protect whistleblowers that whistleblow government shit.
Also the scope of the NSA is much more broad and you'll also have the possibility to work on stuff that could be closer to ops stuff as well.
For example I don't think palantir works on shit like stuxnet or deploying stuxnet.
Last I read about palantir it was some boring ass search graph relationship thing.
You mean they don't help prevent a hostile state from developing nuclear weapons? All withou causing anything approaching the collateral damage (and risk of open war) that a traditional attack on infrastructure would cause?
Setting aside the fact that the NSA work sounds a lot more interesting from a technical perspective [0], a lot of people would find the work far more fulfilling than convincing people to buy widgets they don't need.
[0] Especially considering that the day to day work of working for a large government organization is far more boring, even without the extra headache that comes with working with classified materials.
I think the parent comment fully agrees with you on this. Their whole reply is just saying that despite paying more, Palantir isn't nearly as layoff-proof as NSA, and you don't get to work on such a wide range of "cool" things (such as stuxnet) at Palantir either.
Stuxnet was developed in a way that Palantir or other people outside the ultra secrete government cyber weapons labs, could have been contracted to work on parts of it, government may have merely assembled parts of code sourced from private industry to create the malware.
Saying that though, working for govt in any form comes with its own risks. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:NSA_GCHQ_and_the_Death_... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6585263/Damning-new... https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Chelsea_Manning https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Julian_Assange
Sometimes being in the public spotlight is the less dangerous path, which these NSA jobs are not. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Bill_Clinton
Accidents happen. Prison happens. Intelligence gathering comes in all shapes and sizes, but one thing is for certain, it was previously thought being on the right side of the law was a psychological advantage, its not any more, it could be extremely risky. This is the era of psychological warfare, and the best candidates are those who volunteer for their trauma as any Emergency Response (Police/Fire/Ambulance) person knows.
Psychological trauma is a life long condition with no visible scars.
How you survive working for the state largely depends on your own intelligence, but you can bet your bottom dollar you will be experimented in ways that science dictates that subjects are not too be made aware of any said experiment.
I'm not saying that they are going to subcontract out everything or the important things, but their advantage is being able to leverage private industry for specific knowledge and expertise.
For the NSA I'm sure you'll literally be able to look up personal details on anyone.
NSA is waaay worse then Google. Or waaay cooler. Depends on your perspective.
The government does shady stuff, but would you really have more trust in a corporation?
I have less trust for the NSA and CIA because of past infractions. For example how the CIA was selling coke to the US to fund their programs. That's next level shit that not even a corpo will do.
I think it's still easier to rationalize working for the CIA than Purdue, and easier to work on mass-surveillance for the NSA than for Google. National security vs private yachts. I mean, I'd understand if you say you wouldn't work for the CIA or NSA because you don't believe in their approaches to things, but I doubt you'd say "... but I have no problem writing software to push more oxy into rural communities and kill a few tens of thousands citizens a year as long as my bonus comes through".
This is contrary to everything I’ve heard about their internal controls, especially after Snowden. He was able to get as much as he could because he was a trusted administrator, and that was reportedly tightened significantly afterwards.
Without a warrant? That would attract all sorts of creeps and stalkers to the organisation.
So if I don't "know" that he's an idiot, then I am computer illiterate. Great argument.
Nice. Not thrilling, but nice. I'm really sure that how they are working because i read it somewhere. /s
Then again ? Why do they need to tape telecom operators ?
There's really no such proof for this kind of casualization. To get in to big tech you mostly need to grind leetcode, a known set of problems that have already been solved and well documented. I met plenty of people who can grind leetcode but aren't really good at many other basic things in life like boiling some pasta or understanding why women's bathrooms have tampons. Just because you can grind leetcode, doesn't make you smart at everything else.
I mean, I know it's a Blind meme, but I assume they just made it up.
Ha, ha! It's the little things that mark a poster as natively non-English speaking. But I see you corrected it quickly!
Sort of true, but not exactly true. Thomas Drake was a whistleblower. Snowden might have started out as a whistleblower (without going through the proper process), but has released a lot of detailed information beyond what is necessary to be a whistleblower, which could even possiblt cause net harm.
Edit: why disagree?
You mean his government.
Civil disobedience or w/e against a surveillance state culminating in fleeing to Moscow says all you need to know about Snowden’s commitment to freedom and opposition to surveillance.
You said he "sold" his country out, but you got it backwards. He didn't get paid for his whistleblowing, but did get paid to help break the constitution before that. It's those still working for the NSA that are selling you out.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it looks like you've been doing this repeatedly - e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34659122. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please review the rules and fix this going forward, we'd appreciate it
Also the whole "Russia fixed the 2016 election" line is nonsense. The real issue was that the neoliberal economic policies championed for decades by Team Clinton devastated this huge region of American now known as "The Rust Belt" and it was disenchanted voters in that region that flipped the election to Trump (not that he did anything to reverse those policies, of course). Without the Rust Belt flip, Clinton would have easily won. Incidentally Obama's diehard 2016 TPP promotion was a major factor in that outcome, not that any Democrat wants to admit it.
As far as why the Democrats pushed "Russia did it" so hard, it's because in normal politics, such a devastating lost to a reality TV clown would have led to a shake-up in party leadership, and that would have meant FDR-style Democrats taking over leadership positions, but that's not what the financial oligarchs who control media and the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party wanted, hence Russia nonsense. Of course the 'intelligence community' got on board, because conflict with Russia is good for keeping the bloated budgets intact.
Also, the USA neocon crowd on the Republican side has been pushing for war with Russia since about 2003, when Putin rejected joining the petrodollar recycling club, as per Saudi Arabia. If he had, i.e. if Russian oil money was banked with Wall Street, there'd never have been the 2008 Georgia war or the 2014 Ukraine coup, and if Russia had invaded Ukraine, it'd have been treated just like the Saudi war on Yemen.
Notably the one thing Snowden couldn't get from his position is the budgetary outlay of the NSA, i.e. just how much money went to all the private contractors and their hangers-on. Pork city no doubt.
Snowden exposed a lot of gross corruption and un-Constitutional behavior within the US government, that's undeniable. He deserves complete amnesty and a medal for good citizenship.
I also don’t see how the disclosure of NSA sources and methods had any impact on the Russians ability to get John Podesta to click on a phishing email.
Yes, how many ?
To be fair I think the NSA has done more to harm Americans than Snowden ever could have (and didn’t). If you want to call someone a traitor maybe point your finger at clapper and the other pieces of shit at the NSA that target Americans.
Ditto for everyone else here that grew up in the age of the internet and the patriot act
You’re demonstrating a two dimensional, emotionally charged view of complex topics, which doesn’t reflect well.
My apologies for the modest challenge my comments created for your worldview.
Then almost a year to the date of the first publishing of the Snowden docs, along came heartbleed, which clearly showed the Snowden documents were legitimate. As more technical leaning documents came out, they also proved it. Without those documents though, we'd be told it was all a fairy tale.
The NSA is incapable of building the type of mass surveillance infastructure we see today. That infrastructure is built and maintained by private tech companies. The NSA comes along repurposes that already collected data to their own ends.
Further, the NSA's usage of said information has never been linked to any population wide mental health crises, unlike big tech.
There is also a wide range of work the NSA does, and most people working there don't know much beyond their own need to know.
This is false, the snowden releases showed they have extensive infrastructure that aggregates data from many different sources.
At the end of the day, worldwide profit scales systems faster than even national security dollars.
Granted, they do not snoop on you to the maximum extent the hardware of these devices allow. But, take a look at [0]. Unless you are one of the few people who goes out of their way to limit tracking, do you think that the NSA would be able to get that detailed tracking of everyone's movements.
And this is just the obvious part (which Google is nice enough to share with its users as a feature). Big tech companies have also built detailed models of most people's interests; which is simply not possible without the large amount of data that comes from people actually interacting with them.
All of the NSA's dragnet surveillance is built on the back of private industry, and works because that private industry has convinced people to participate in it.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/timeline
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2348156
"AT&T has a fiberoptic splitter copying our data to NSA" (eff.org)" (2011, 200 comments)
However there's also the massive Ogden Utah data storage center run by the NSA and contractors, which has a constant demand for 65 MW of power, I think that counts as mass surveillance infrastructure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
Seems pretty Orwellian.
Assuming the NSA catches and stores the traffic (i.e. it passed a keyword/subject filter), they still have to break the encryption.
And even if they have devices capable of doing so, they don't have capacity to do so on an unlimited volume of messages.
They're still pushing this stuff today, not surprisingly:
https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/NSA-director-pushes-C...
> "WASHINGTON (AP) (Jan 12 2023) — A top U.S. intelligence official on Thursday urged Congress to renew sweeping powers granted to American spy agencies to surveil and examine communications, saying they were critical to stopping terrorism, cyberattacks and other threats."
"Other threats" such as what, populist movements unhappy with the increasingly feudalist-aristocratic nature of the United States and the gross corruption seen in Congress and the federal bureaucracy?
At some point, the metadata is (user X talks to SaaS service Y), and then the trail goes private.
If ATT had really pushed back, the NSA would have been hard pressed to install and run tapping equipment. And that's on hardline voice, where CALEA obviously applies. But as far as I know ATT didn't really fight, once they were legally covered from liability.
The modern large scale cloud or social providers are younger companies, have fewer government ties, and (critically) have worldwide business.
I would automatically assume they all have data sharing agreements with the NSA, as a maximal threat assumption, but as a likely threat I expect it'd be a lot harder for the NSA to co-opt them.
I.e. why the NSA instead chose to tap Google's private fiber between their data centers
You still think that the "security" certificates make you secure ? that s in https stands for security ?
Why would a spy agency collect TB of data without a mean to decrypt it ?
And the NSA is doing that because they can break a percentage of it, or anticipate they can in the future.
And it's order of exabytes of data.
Yes. When we elect our officials we grant them significant power. We have rules they must abide by to protect us from that power (I.e. using this data to interfere with elections to continue/advance their power.)
This is substantially different than private industry. Don’t get me wrong, surveillance capitalism is its own shade of gray. But the government laundering away constitutional rights through collaboration with private industry and protecting themselves from prosecution for their crimes by labeling these collaborations a state secret?
Between their clandestine organizations, their militaries, and their law enforcement - the government is capable of perpetuating more crimes against humanity than their private industry counterparts.
If the paycheck is ok
But either way, it's the same thing.
https://youtu.be/mJHvSp9AKYg
This is just a paid advertisment.
Then again, they probably both have lots of jobs where they do very little work.
The other thing I have gleaned is that the work involves tech that no one else would ever invest in. For example, a former professor of mine worked on an integrated circuit VLSI design that was, at the time, at least 10-fold larger than any commercial chip. Entirely in secret, of course.
The salary may not be world-beating, but - from what I can glean - the work is rewarding and meaningful in ways that compensate for the difference in pay.
https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/fers-information/
Sure there’s a chance, which is equal to the chance the NSA will coerce you into it by blackmailing you based on the info they have on you.
So now you get to decide if you want to be a pawn for the government and entertain their stupid offers so that you can essentially be a monkey in front of a keyboard, or if you want to wait and improve your skills for a time when they are not trying to take advantage of you being jobless and for when you have a newfound confidence in yourself.
The pay is pretty good for DMV and the hours are great (a strict 40 hours and work doesn't come back home)
edit: according to vlovich123, past drug use won't make you illegible anymore if you stop at the time of hire
They can't know.
Also I would argue people in the NSA are less honest then normal despite the background checks.
Never, ever lie or knowingly omit information on a security clearance form. If you tell the truth and you are disqualified, it’s extremely unlikely that information will be used against you. The FBI isn’t going to come after you for doing mushrooms. If you lie to the federal government while trying to obtain a security clearance, they will put you in federal prison.
Google/etc doesn't care who you are as long as you can make them profits - bad person, good person, etc. I'm glad to see that at least the government takes seriously the matter of who influences the system with so much power.
Nope. Never wanted to work in such areas. Prefer normal life.
>"...who influences the system with so much power."
You mean someone who uses private email server, keeps classified docs in wrong places (how is it even possible), says that it is all Russia's fault that Trump wins etc. etc. Yeah I feel so much safer.
You'd be within your legal rights to turn them away, of course, but I also feel that it's easier to imagine doing that when one doesn't have three armed suits standing on the porch. I think the vast, vast majority of Americans would prefer just answering a couple questions about their neighbour as opposed to willingly putting themselves on the radar.
I'm not sure how much you've dealt with the feds, but in my experience they're not the kind of folks that like hearing "go away, I refuse to answer your questions."
So you are telling that one can be harassed / threatened for unwillingness to discuss their friend's / relative's? Very nice. How about "we are a nation of laws"?
My friend barely drank alcohol and never used illegal drugs, but the interviewer pressed a few times even saying things like “come on, not even once? everyone does in college”
As for why I agreed to talk? He wanted the position, so I was glad to help if I could.
If friend / relative warned / asked for it then sure.
Large numbers of adults have either never smoked, or have not smoked within a decade.
Marijuana use is common, but it's not 100% ubiquitous. It only feels like that when you're in certain social bubbles.
The illegal restriction will definitely reduce the number of applicants, but it's not as severe as you're implying. The number of "boring" adults who work in Big Tech is quite high.
It is unlikely anyone will throw out an eager beaver working voluntary overtime. Plenty of stories about this in both private and government organizations. In fact, IIRC Snowden mentions working over once or twice.
https://join.tts.gsa.gov/compensation-and-benefits/
There’s no negotiation though, either the billet is part of the program (CISA calls their CTMS) or it’s not, and either you check the box (usually with a certification) or you don’t.
Edit: found this on their site.
https://dhscs.usajobs.gov/assets/pdf/Career_Level_Guide.pdf
Absolutely wild and shortsighted.
Or perhaps not. Complete the initial phrase: "I got an offer from the NSA to be a hitman." hardly qualifies one for general employment! I would prefer to not be the one who turns down such an applicant for a job.
In contrast, if people refuse to work for rogue agencies, it has real and immediate effects. First, it increases staffing costs as the pool of immoral prospects is heavily in demand from the private sector. This means funds that could have gone to other rogue agencies must go to this one. Second, it reduces the quality of output as competence and morality tend to be correlated.
Here is a useful comment: working for that agency results in a strong technical experience, a security stamp of approval, and a social network that often leads to very high paying contractor jobs or the development of startup businesses that end up being worth tens of millions.
Did you ever wonder why there is so much wealth in the Maryland-DC-Northern Virginia area? Well, now you know.
With that said, I understand the larger point you're making about government surveillance. I just don't see most people being able to opt out of Facebook. Moreover, the government can compel Facebook to hand over whatever data is provided by users voluntarily, making the private/public split less than airtight.
Remember a few years ago (maybe even 10 years now) when facebook started testing their facial recognition capabilities? You'd post a photo, and it would highlight all the faces, tell you who they were, and ask if you wanted to tag them. It likely has a photo of 99.99% of living people at this point, and has profiles on them, cross-linked with any relevant discussion people have had about them (even if they're not on facebook).
Any site that allows you to "log in with facebook" is running their analytics which tracks you across sites, and builds your "profile", and if you have a gravatar on one of those sites, there's a good chance Facebook can now associate you with any photo that has been uploaded of you, even if you just happened to be in the background.
People were writing about this stuff in the '80s; it seems like some don't realize we're already there.
The surgeon general recently suggested that children should stay off of social media because it's bad for their psychological development: https://www.edweek.org/leadership/surgeon-general-kids-under...
There's growing evidence that social media is also bad for teenagers. Rates of teenage depression and suicidality have increased in recent years, and there is a direct correlation to social media use.
Cigarette companies are viewed as evil because they peddled addictive, cancer-causing products to kids. Our industry is peddling a different type of poison, and I suspect we'll have a similar legacy.
It’s a social meme I just don’t buy into, like opinions on movies and memes.
Every rich person is just one of billions, their fiat wealth is based upon mathematical inference, information shaping, nation state propaganda.
Depending on my mood, if we were together I may ignore Bil Gates, punch is teeth out, or ask about the weather; I would not treat him as special.
I’ve worked with people who have answered fundamental questions about reality. Some nerds who read a consumer machines manual and structured syntax appropriately are far dumber than that. There was no manual for folks building LHC.
Often I've found that the people who think money isn't important think nothing is important.
There definetly is old money in the city, but it's honestly about as prominent as Pac Heights old money in the Bay Area and absolutely gets dwarfed by out of towners.
But things began to change during the Cold War, and then accelerated during the military buildup under Reagan. The Washington metro area began to explode economically as defense contractors that had once been spread around the country started moving to DC. The acceleration was compounded again under Bush with the war on terror attracting a broader range of security and IT companies wanting to cash in on Federal largesse. A big part of the reason for this is that Republicans preferred outsourcing Federal work to contractors, to avoid Federal unions. Federal policy didn't care where the contractors headquarters were located, whereas older agencies like the Social Security Administration, Federal Reserve, etc, had always been forced to locate most of their work elsewhere, both the labor and most of management--mostly only the political appointees were in DC.
What the government should do is return to the old policies of pushing administrative agencies back out into regional centers. Though it would probably look different in the sense that what's more important now is pushing agency directors and other political appointees along with their teams out of DC, whereas in the bygone era the emphasis was on the mass of Federal workers. You want the leadership teams out of DC because that's what's attracting the companies, not Congress.
But DC has probably grown too economically powerful to reverse the course of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca
I understand there is some exaggeration here, but this take is far more accurate than the parent comment.
Personally I've definitely heard arguments from both sides, but I've never known which one was "more" true.
Talk to the carpenters and plumbers working on wealthy houses. Once you see people regularly dropping 200k+ to redo a bathroom, those government toilet seats don't seem all that extreme.
Apple is the only commercial enterprise I am aware of that attempts to have similar supply chain controls, and their products aren’t cheap.
Just say "F-35"...unless your only purpose is more overly simplistic "free market" cheerleading typical of HN.
yeah, people who actually create surplus value through their labor tend to get irritated by people who steal their wealth for themselves via political corruption. I'm sure Boeing and Lockheed earned their contracts fair and square despite SpaceX being 20x cheaper. Definitely wasn't their lobbying payoffs
How about people who time and again been bailed out by government, had friends in power pass laws and generally benefited from corruption, tax cuts, and special subsidies, or just piled up externalities cost on society and the environment?
You know, like most of the "surplus value creating" private sector...
The wealth in the area (if you can even call it that) exists because of networking, namely people with connections to decision makers in the government are very valuable because they can bring in companies lots of money when they win contracts. The way you get promoted in the area into the high paying exec roles is solely though people skills. The amount of metaphorical dick sucking that goes on would make any sane person barf (on one occasion I was working in the Pentagon with setting up some software, as a civilian, and my boss who was there with me told me to stand up when some upper rank military guy came in the room to show respect, because otherwise it would look bad for the company). If you aren't connected or know anyone, you basically fit into the standard working class, and really don't make that much money factoring in high cost of living
And those people pretty much are working towards making in the 200s. My friend who was in "systems engineering" (i.e microsoft word/excel operations) got a position where he made 220-260 depending on bonus, and that was considered EXTREMELY good for the area. I didn't have the heart to tell him that a fresh hire at Amazon can work 2 years and make that much at a minimum.
The thing also with government contracts is that government sets rates for how much companies can charge the government for a certain person with certain qualifications, and companies essentially try to pay people as little as possible under that value to maximize profit. This also drives salaries down.
And because that area is filled with those type of people who by their nature tend to be pretty materialistic (in addition to a lot of foreign presence with Korean and Middle eastern people who also tend to be materialistic), seeing endless bmws/mercs/audis may make it seem like there is wealth in the area, but there really is not - you can easily do the math on cost of living versus salary and figure out that all that shit is financed at maximum length loan terms. Have been in conversations where people talk about having 30k worth of CC debt like its a normal thing.
As far as tech goes, there are 2 things that happen. First, a lot of the work gets subcontracted out by the 3 letter agencies to all the companies in the area, and 2, the work is VERY compartmentalized. So if you do end up working on something in the NSA or on a contract for the NSA it could be literally some basic shit, like a library to parse some stuff out of http, and you ship that and you never see it used or know what the bigger picture is. So no, working for NSA, other 3 letter agencies, or contractors of, won't give you an advantage in terms of experience.
You may get a clearance but that is only valuable to companies in the area since they will hire you because of your clearance then shove you onto a project that you may be ever so slightly qualified for, so they can collect money from the government while not having to pay for your clearance.
TLDR; that area sucks, no smart people ever go work for government or contractors of. Because smart people realize that they can not only make more money in the private sector, but have favorable living arrangement, especially with remote work, and can do engineering instead of circle jerking management to get promoted.
Also, DC is much less wealthy than the Bay Area. The upper bound on salaries in the DMV is around $150-200k with 15-20 years of experience because of how prominent government employment is. It's a very solidly middle class feeling metropolitan area.
Sure, it's just a bunch of doctors (NIH), lobbyists, defense contractors and government lawyers that skew that towards only being upper middle class and probably not as many ultra high net worth people, but it's extremely affluent.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...
I got the job through family, my uncle was able to get in the industry in the 80s.
I don't think that enabling capricious air strikes is the kind of work that is going to allay most people's ethical concerns.
Seriously for a second I was like, maybe the NSA isn't such a bad idea anymore. They're out there making Ghidra and other open source tools so that's nice. And then I read this and immediately thought of that monologue from Good Will Hunting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJHvSp9AKYg
That's gonna be a no from me dawg.
Even without going into contracting or starting a business, having worked a high level job at an agency like the NSA comes with a resume boost. It may not mean much to a mid-level hiring manager on the west coast who only knows about the NSA from what they read on Twitter, but it carries some weight in communities that understand what goes into these careers.
Although, ex-mil psyops are not much lower on the list...
Should similar forms of micro-judgement stemming from macro concerns also be applied to candidates from other industries such as adult entertainment or legal cannabis operations?
Edit: blep_, all salient points, thanks for sharing.
But it doesn't actually matter: we're talking about "are there people who believe this and will that belief negatively affect me", not "should those people believe this".
Hiring managers need to build out their team with whoever will do the best job. You aren't entering into a relationship with their former employer, you're hiring the employee for what they can do for you.
HN commenters might say they'll discriminate against FAANG employees or NSA employees or otherwise hold weird grudges against employees of companies they don't like, but that's mostly just internet bluster. Real hiring managers (that you'd actually want to work for) aren't going to discriminate against good candidates just because they worked for a big company that the hiring manager doesn't like.
I suppose there are exceptions to this. If you were head of financial controls at FTX, you're in trouble. But if you were a front-end developer at FTX and you do good work, I'm not going to hold FTX's failure against you.
Nobody who's ever read their pay stub wonders.
I would also point out that, historically, a lot of "startup" culture comes directly from people fleeing from the more conservative east cost workplace culture. Consider if you can get the life you want working for a security service.
Obviously making between 100 and 200k is a healthy salary, but we shouldn't pretend that it's at the top of the industry. You're agreeing to a very particular work culture in return for middle-industry compensation.
There is also still a concept of national service in such places. Even as a civilian, some people would rather design systems to protect their county than design systems to support real estate in the metaverse. Do you want to do data analysis to catch terrorists or track international drug shipments, or design another algorithm to better serve ads to elderly people needing regular diabetic testing supplies?
Edit: I also want to point out that there are many tech jobs available in the government sector (state / transit / local / etc). They generally pay less, but are also less restrictive. You don't have to sign up for an intelligence service (and everything that means) to serve your country.
A few months back the US Navy's CTO asked LinkedIn why technically-talented people were leaving his organization and hundreds of people flocked to the comments to answer him [1]. Based upon some of the replies there are secondary considerations that override the concept of "national service" and stop people from working in this space.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/don-yeske-b7957510_peoplefirs...
If you have tech skills and a clearance you could probably bill around 200/hour for full time work which would be pretty healthy income.
Edit: article I wrote about the topic:
https://blog.clearedjobs.net/leveraging-your-clearance-to-be...
Not to mention that those nominally earning more in SF/SV often have worse quality of life than those earning less elsewhere due to housing prices and overall cost of living.
Also, low cost of living is great. I have a fully work from home position so I could move to a lower cost of living location if I wanted. That kind of flexibility is unusual in government work in my experience.
Edit: Also - I wasn't saying the pay was bad, or that 200k was the max you'd get - I was saying it comes with a work culture you might not like. It's not a situation where the pay is so much better in return for restrictive culture.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: also, you've been doing this quite a bit and we've asked you more than once before. We end up having to ban accounts that post like that. I don't want to ban you, so could you please review the rules and fix this?
My takeaway is that you get to do some very technically interesting and challenging work. But politics, both organizational and electoral, means your cool thing is likely to sit on a shelf. They are good places to be if you like building for the sake of building. Not so good if you like both building and shipping.
There’s an entire industry built around influencing how the Federal government allocates the vast sums of money that it allocates. Everyone in the industry is wealthy and nearly all of them live in that area. But yeah, it’s because the NSA.
because they are parasites leeching off the tax payers via corruption?
>a social network that often leads to high paying jobs
at least you are honest about it
Decades of blank DoD checks for ya
"Sun Myung Moon dies at 92; Washington Times owner led the Unification Church" (2012)
Sun Myung Moon, a self-professed messiah who claimed millions of religious followers in his Unification Church and sought to become a powerful voice in the American conservative movement through business interests that included the Washington Times, has died. He was 92....
His stated ambition was to rule the world and replace Christianity with his own faith, which blended elements of Christianity, Confucianism and Korean folk religions....
His most prominent investment was the Washington Times, founded in 1982 as a conservative counterbalance to what Mr. Moon perceived as The Washington Post’s liberal bias....
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/sun-myung-...>
Not sure how requirements work when your “customer” is intelligence chiefs and requirements relate to gaining access to data in …unconventional ways
Same problem as submarine recruiting. Lots of 'really cool' stuff going on, none of it available for discussion.
My impression is that so many people move from IC to Manager at startups because they seek comp increases.
You know how anytime you see more then one cop they are always talking about seniority and benefits and how many years, months, and days until their next pay grade or benefit tier kicks in? That will be you every day for thirty years. I knew people who got jobs at NASA, their life long dream, finished their first project in record time - were informed the project was a three year contract so even though they were done they needed to fill the desk for the next two and a half years - so they left.