Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

https://soundcloud.com/madiha-1/students-question-the-nsa-at

by martin_k • 13 years ago

241 180 13 years ago

soundcloud.com

fvrghl• 13 years ago

Why are they doing student recruiting right now? I imagine all sessions would go like this.

PavlovsCat14• 13 years ago

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

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

DanBC3• 13 years ago

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

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

jlgreco10• 13 years ago

Horse meat was not the issue; the issue was mislabeled cow meat. What did cow meat sales do after the cow meat contamination news in the UK?

I don't buy the classic "change the organization from within" line. If that were the proper thing to encourage then we should all be running out looking for the most despicable corporations to work for and the most horrendous governments to pay taxes to.

adammil2• 13 years ago

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

martin_k2• 13 years ago

Some background on the event and recording: http://mobandmultitude.com/2013/07/02/the-nsa-comes-recruiti...

edit: Cached version http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

hkmurakami2• 13 years ago

I have some sympathy for the recruiters since they really have no say in the high level decision making in the organization. They may not even be involved with domestic spying of citizens.

But on the other hand they continue to stay at the organization so while I do feel some sympathy for their predicament,I guess it's really just up to each person to figure out whether they're really okay with staying there, given all the pros and cons involved.

martin_k2• 13 years ago

I found this part particularly interesting: "Our business is apolitical, okay? We do not generate the intelligence requirements. They're levied on us. And so if there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue or this region or whatever, then that is [...] what we are going after. That is the intelligence target we are going after because it is the requirement."

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

meowface• 13 years ago

Quite true. The policy makers and intelligence directors can't have huge spying apparatuses if they have no engineers willing to build them.

angersock6• 13 years ago

"Once the rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down? That's not my department", says Werner von Braun.

md2244• 13 years ago

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

DannyBee5• 13 years ago

I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders".

A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys.

I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt.

I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney.

This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.

mikeash8• 13 years ago

I have no sympathy. They willingly represent the organization. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They could leave, but they don't, thus implicitly accepting it.

Kylekramer3• 13 years ago

I imagine the fear of not being able to provide for you or your family takes precedence over privacy concerns for the vast majority of people. There was a news report about how 76% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck last week. I'd argue saying "they could leave" assumes a lot.

eli3• 13 years ago

I willingly live in a country that conducts surveillance. I could leave, but I don't. I guess I'm complicit too.

embolism9• 13 years ago

Except that we don't really know what the organization does. We only have insinuations by Snowden and detractors against the US.

We do have evidence that they conduct massive surveillance could be unconstitutional.

We do not have evidence that they are abusing this, and more importantly we don't know whether they have been able to save lives.

It could be that the people who work there know about positive life-saving results from the work they do and that's why they continue to do it.

(Edit: downvotes are fine, but it would be nice to also see a single link to evidence that the intelligence itself is being misused as opposed to protecting people)

gojomo5• 13 years ago

Quitting in disgust is one signal a person can send.

But what if that makes the problem worse rather than better, by removing from the agency those people most able to sense and push-back against secret abuses?

mjn5• 13 years ago

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

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

jlgreco10• 13 years ago

When oil companies and defense contractors recruit in engineering departments, they typically don't get much flack. Maybe computer scientists have more of a idealist mindset.

Or more options. By the time a petroleum engineer student becomes a grad student they have probably either figured out that they will most likely be working for one of those companies, or they will have left the field for a more agreeable one. If they've got a problem with BP, chances are they have a problem with Exxon as well...

On the other hand, Computer Science students have a wider variety of companies they can work for. Disagreeing with one or two in particular is unlikely to push them into another field.

tippytop• 13 years ago

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

HSO2• 13 years ago

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

rhizome5• 13 years ago

Conveniently forgetting the whole, "defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic," thing.

malandrew2• 13 years ago

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

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

blantonl• 13 years ago

NSA Recruiting sessions are staffed by NSA recruiters - i.e. sales people. There might be the token engineer on hand to answer in very generic terms about technology etc, but to think that any questions would be met with useful responses is like asking the President's press secretary information on details of classified operations.

You'll get nothing more than spin at best.

PavlovsCat14• 13 years ago

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

c0ur7n3y• 13 years ago

I have to imagine their recruiting is going to suffer greatly due to the recent revelations. Very few smart people are going to want to join an organization that spies on their fellow citizens. Plus, the NSA is going to have to be even more skeptical of anyone they do recruit.

TallGuyShort• 13 years ago

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

dromidas• 13 years ago

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

coryl• 13 years ago

I would assume NSA roles have much higher requirements in education and training.

DanBC3• 13 years ago

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

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

angersock6• 13 years ago

Truly it is a wonderful thing that the most anti-social and introverted people get to deploy technology affecting the common man.

eli3• 13 years ago

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

chatmasta• 13 years ago

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

ihsw• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

Camillo• 13 years ago

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

codeulike• 13 years ago

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

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

calebhc2• 13 years ago

That was fantastic! Thanks for sharing this. Hope to see more stuff like this arising.

Gorpus• 13 years ago

Wow I bet this girl is real proud of herself. But why is she trying to have this debate with recruiters? How immature.

I hope NSA switches up their recruitment a little bit, make it easier for technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys to get a job there. I'd love to work for them.

Surveillance isn't going away, and I bet the technology side of it is fascinating, full of interesting problems.

Osmium• 13 years ago

I'm sure you realise you're been obtuse, but here it goes:

I really do hope this girl is proud of herself! She should be. For all we know, she might be an excellent candidate for an NSA job and have a real interest in working for them, provided that in doing so she doesn't have to sacrifice her integrity as an American. Given what we currently know from the press, her questions seem to be entirely reasonable. And if they aren't, that's not her fault, because she can only ask questions based on what she believes to be true. In short, don't shoot the messenger.

md2244• 13 years ago

I hate when comments people disagree with get downvoted, because now nobody's going to see this and we're missing a great opportunity to debate with someone who shares a drastically different viewpoint than the rest of us.

"technically qualified people who aren't exactly choir boys"

I'm curious, are you referring dismissively to people with a steadfast commitment to their own ethical compass? And if so, why?

Edit: I think Gorpus is dead now. I misinterpreted his comment about choir boys though, he was just saying they only hire people with completely spotless records, drug testing, etc.

adammil2• 13 years ago

Anyone who represents the NSA in public is absolutely the appropriate person to confront about their organization's illegal activities. They are civil servants after all.

nugget• 13 years ago

As Federal employees, the men and women who work at the NSA swear an oath which dates back to 1884:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Rather than instantly pass the buck about the scope, context and impact of their domestic surveillance work, perhaps the recruiters on this clip should re-read this oath and think about what it really means; what their responsibilities are to the citizens of the United States; and what kind of country they want their children and their children's children to live in.

ajuc• 13 years ago

Even atheists must do the part with God?

mjn5• 13 years ago

As far as I know, it may usually (always?) be omitted. Oddly enough, it didn't require a Supreme Court decision, because the precedent was set with the first such oath: the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first to specify a legal oath ending with "so help me God", and it at the same time explicitly included an opt-out clause, after which that has been accepted practice.

See Sec. 7 here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00...

The fact that this accommodates atheists, however, is a bit of a coincidence: such opt-out clauses were initially included because Quakers objected to swearing oaths to God.

colanderman2• 13 years ago

I'd be surprised if the three-letter agencies don't screen out atheists. They screen in Mormons [1].

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/11-surprising-things-you-didn...

charonn03• 13 years ago

No. The Constitution prohibits religious tests as a condition of office, and allows either an oath ("so help me god") or an affirmation[1] to be used.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation_in_law

phaus6• 13 years ago

When I joined the military, I was given the option to take the pledge without a reference to God. I suspect the same option is given to people in any government organization.

Mordor• 13 years ago

Perhaps they should all be fired.

ekianjo• 13 years ago

Perhaps they don't know what the Constitution means.

sbank• 13 years ago

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

zachrose• 13 years ago

Is this at University of Wisconsin-Madison? The image in the SoundCloud sidebar suggests this happened at Ingraham Hall.

RDeckard• 13 years ago

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

droopyEyelids• 13 years ago

I have a trick I feel would make a confrontation like this better.

Always speak under the assumption that the other person is 'good'. That means not calling them a liar. Instead, ask the questions that you feel would expose the inconsistency. That way they show everyone the point you're trying to make. Also it prevents personal animosity from obscuring the real content you might discover.

Furthermore, it allows a 3rd party who hears the discourse more freedom to make up their mind, whereas they might naturally go against your point of view because it's being pushed down their throat.

dhimes• 13 years ago

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

lisper• 13 years ago

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

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

griffordson2• 13 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

B0Z• 13 years ago

In a sanitized or controlled scenario, this makes sense. Passion and emotion, however, are impossible to strip from opinions in the context of the Snowden revelations that started all of this. Having the scab ripped off the NSA has altered the perspective of entire generations. Frankly I think the students handled themselves remarkably well.

phaus6• 13 years ago

They handled themselves pretty well for the first half of that conversation, with some intelligently phrased questions. Unfortunately, during the second half of the clip, the conversation degenerated into petty childishness.

turbojerry• 13 years ago

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

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

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

gmisra• 13 years ago

It's rarely actually impressive to observe somebody attack lesser proponents of the ideas they disagree with. Sure, none of the actual decision makers will come within ten miles of an open forum, but this comes off mostly as just bullying.

jlgreco10• 13 years ago

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

HSO2• 13 years ago

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

Sven72• 13 years ago

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

jlgreco10• 13 years ago

"little student loans."

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

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

malandrew2• 13 years ago

Posted in the other thread about this[0]:

    "This was a fun read and it seams like many people could 
    just DDoS the recruiting efforts of the NSA and CIA by 
    showing up to recruiting sessions and playing devil's 
    advocates. If you are well informed and good at internet 
    arguing, you are well equipped to attend these recruiting 
    sessions.

    At the very least it would plant the seeds of cognitive 
    dissonance in the minds of everyone recruiting for the NSA 
    and CIA. e.g. "Why do so many of the citizens we are 
    trying to protect not agree with our decision to do a job 
    where we trade liberty for security?"

To be clear, my suggestion here is not meant to prevent either the CIA or NSA from doing their jobs, but to help them remember that their job is clearly spelled out in the US Uniformed Services Oath of office, which AFAIK the CIA and NSA also swear to.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5983709

rbanffy2• 13 years ago

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

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

gasull• 13 years ago

This is so great. This is the only thing that has made me feel some hope since all of this started.

Thank you!

dlss• 13 years ago

Can we organize a list of time + locations for NSA recruiting sessions, maybe with GPS based email alerts?

1. I think that if this kind of questioning become the norm, we'd have a significant impact on their ability to recruit.

2. Maybe some startup founders in the area could go poach the talent :p

downandout• 13 years ago

While I happen to agree with her views, I think it was unfair to other students for her to unleash her rant during a recruiting session. She went there to intentionally cause conflict, evidenced by the fact that she recorded it. Everyone in attendance was well aware of the NSA scandal - they didn't need her to fill them in. While she may have the financial resources to take the moral high ground on such matters, most college kids need jobs when they graduate. She took away valuable time that those kids may have wanted to interact with a potential employer.

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

Sounds to me like this girl is doing her best to dig for a confrontation. She alternates between questions and barely-veiled insults targeted at the recruiters.

dmead• 13 years ago

i'm having flashbacks to a recruiting session i attended at my school in like 2005/6. shiver.

leke• 13 years ago

I was watching a documentary last night on youtube about the lulzsec hackers that got caught. A British woman with some government credentials made the point that the hacking of companies and organisations had real knock on effects that affected the jobs and careers of people in those targeted areas. This is why it was wrong, and this is why hackers must be punished fro their crimes.

Now, if the NSA are spying for US global corporations, the intelligence gathered is to benefit the US corporations and negatively effect the corporations being spied on. This means people affiliated with those corporations/organisations targeted by the spying will be negatively affected by the hacking/spying.

Of course, nobody will prosecute NSA affiliated hackers (or those in charge) that destroy or affect the livelihoods of people they have targeted.

DevX101• 13 years ago

I don't think they called her back.

Students Question the NSA at Recruiting Session [audio]

Related Stories