Posted on 02/07/2006 6:45:47 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
Inquest: "But you also need to take into account the fact that in security agencies like the NSA, there's very often a culture of conformity, of "the-nail-that-sticks-up-is-hammered-down", of "ours-is-not-to-reason-why"."
... which apparently doesn't work in the NSA. Remember WHY we're even talking about this; because a "whistleblower" had a novel to push.
For every hardy brave soul who tries to blow the whistle there are many others who consider it more advantageous to look the other way. The whistleblowers get a lot of coverage, at least when they're successful, and that may lead to the idea that it's a commonplace attitude, but I think that's a very misleading impression.
Inquest: "For every hardy brave soul who tries to blow the whistle there are many others who consider it more advantageous to look the other way. The whistleblowers get a lot of coverage, at least when they're successful, and that may lead to the idea that it's a commonplace attitude, but I think that's a very misleading impression."
In other words, you're agreeing with me that there's no reason to believe that the NSA should be trusted to carry out an illegal act. Therefore, it would be safer to hire a hacker.
I'm saying the exact opposite. The vast majority of them can be all too well "trusted" to look the other way.
Does anyone have the NYT's traitorous story breaking this tactic used against the enemy? I have not read it yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.