Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-about-watson dept.

American federal investigators are having a hard time hiring computer-savvy staff, according to a memo from the Inspector General for the US Department of Justice.

"Even as it works to expand the ranks of its cybersecurity team, the department continues to face challenges recruiting and retaining highly qualified candidates to do this work," the memo [PDF] states.

Last year the FBI got the authorization and budget to hire 134 computer scientists for online investigations. We're told the agency could only find 82 people interested in working for Uncle Sam. As a result, five of the FBI's regional 56 Cyber Task Force teams don't have a computer specialist on hand.

Why are they having so much trouble?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by spxero on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:13PM

    by spxero (3061) on Thursday November 19 2015, @08:13PM (#265477)

    Give anyone hired immunity known or unknown for copyright-infringement activities related to digital media and you'll be overfilled with applicants.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:22PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:22PM (#265503) Homepage Journal

    Nope, that's not the reason. The reason is us tech types, as a general rule, do not like being spied on. We don't like it for the necessary background check and we don't especially want to help do it to others.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bonehead on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:34PM

      by bonehead (5931) on Thursday November 19 2015, @09:34PM (#265509)

      Exactly.

      I'm qualified. But I'd rather work against them for free than work for them for any salary they might offer.

      I love my country, but my trust in this government is a thing of the past.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @11:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2015, @11:28PM (#265557)

        yup.

        if you are like me you get ads that pop up about employment opportunities that are not even veiled; most are blocked but some make it through.

        it must be the demonstrated interests shown online.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @03:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2015, @03:23AM (#265633)

        Yeah. For me it boils down to: which IT security person wants to raise their hand and say "I work for the US Gov"?

        My general impression now is in the IT security community when you say "I work for the US Gov" people will assume you're a bad/corrupt person or at least misguidedly working for the "Evil Empire", more than if you said you were working for Microsoft/Apple.

        It's probably still not as bad as saying "I work for Monsanto" or "I work for ISIS", but hey the US Gov helped create and support the ISIS so... ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq [theguardian.com] )
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html [washingtonsblog.com] ).

        Basically they'd have to pay a lot more than market price to get people. I'm sure some people would sell out for the right price. Or perhaps be highly paid "double agents" ;).

    • (Score: 2) by spxero on Thursday November 19 2015, @11:05PM

      by spxero (3061) on Thursday November 19 2015, @11:05PM (#265547)

      I agree with your point about being spied on, but investigation does not mean surveillance. An employee at a company I worked for passed away under unexplainable circumstances, and the county investigator had trouble even accessing the data on the devices without knowing the password. We wanted to help the investigators out, but because they couldn't guarantee that we wouldn't be subpoenaed in any trial just for helping them access the information, they were left to their own to try and recover any information. We wanted to be helpful, but being drawn into a long legal battle ourselves if we found something or were named on the case just wasn't worth it. I can't imagine this is the only case where a lack of technical knowledge impeded the investigation, and there will probably be many more for it before that knowledge gap is filled.

    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday November 20 2015, @10:22AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Friday November 20 2015, @10:22AM (#265753) Journal
      If it were some ethical issue then hedge funds and banks would not be able to hire so many of the top computer science graduates / PhDs. The difference between the banks and the government? An extra zero on the end of the salary. Anyone moderately competent in cybersecurity can get a job earning twice as much (far more if they're more than moderately competent) and with much better benefits at one of a few dozen big companies (and a few hundred smaller ones) than they can get in a government job. Offer salaries that are competitive with industry for the same skill set and you'll find it a lot easier to recruit.
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by aclarke on Friday November 20 2015, @03:21PM

        by aclarke (2049) on Friday November 20 2015, @03:21PM (#265838) Homepage

        A hedge fund will hire you as a quant even if you show up at the interview strung out on coke. The FBI won't.