The Federal Bureau of Investigation is struggling to hire computer scientists, according to a Department of Justice audit of the feeb's attempts to implement its Next Generation Cyber Initiative.
A 34-page audit report (PDF) from the DoJ notes that, while making considerable progress, the FBI has "encountered challenges in attracting external participants to its established Cyber Task Forces".
[The audit] bemoaned how hiring and retaining qualified white hats remained a challenge for the FBI, especially when competing private-sector entities pay more and have less invasive recruitment processes. The FBI reportedly did not hire 52 of the 134 computer scientists for which it was authorised, meaning 38 per cent of the workforce it requires (as per budget) is simply not there. This additionally means that five of the FBI's 56 field offices do not have even a single computer scientist assigned to their Cyber Task Force.
Back in 2011, the Office of the Inspector General gave the FBI a thorough scolding over its inability to address America's cyber-intrusion threat, for which it has become the responsible national body. The Next Generation Cyber Initiative was launched in response, essentially as a platform for funding increases in the face of a swelling number of data breaches and cyber-attacks in recent years.
This is not the first mention of the FBI's difficulties in recruiting infosec professionals. Last year, the [FBI]'s director James Comey said the company was re-examining its drugs policy as too many applicants seemed to be enjoying a doobie en route to interview.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Flyingmoose on Monday August 03 2015, @06:52PM
Who would want to work for the dirty fucking pigs?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 03 2015, @07:01PM
Gray hats maybe. Black hats don't want anything to do with law enforcement, and white hats are more discriminating that most cops. WTF do the idiots at the FBI think they have to offer a white hat? When has the FBI ever been a do-good organization? They blow with the political wind, worse than the CIA does.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:13PM
Black hats don't want anything to do with law enforcement
I thought about it for awhile last night and given a choice of going to college to get a $100K paper that says you have a degree in infosec, or working at FBI for a couple years, PROBABLY you come out financially and workplace ahead as a future blackhat by joining the FBI.
As a recently retired agent you'd be pretty valuable in certain countries, or contracted to certain folks to give advice on how the FBI would react.
Its not about the job, but the next job after working for the FBI for a couple years. Just long enough to learn how they work and what they're capable of.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:59PM
Maybe if the FBI had a more balanced opinion on security topics.
First, they mandate all hardware must be crackable on demand, then people start implementing purely software-based solutions that they haven't had the change to 'Truecrypt' yet and suddenly they can't do their jobs anymore.
What kind of shit is that?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:59PM
A White Hat who works for the FBI would almost certainly become a Black Hat eventually, giving the FBI's general disregard of the constitution and people's privacy and liberties.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Jiro on Monday August 03 2015, @07:03PM
Generally the answer to "we can't find anyone to work at this pay grade for this level of working conditions" is "increase the pay and improve the working conditions". Even the FBI is subject to the market. ("Invasive recruitment processes" count as working conditions here. The more hassle people have to go through, the more you need to pay them to compensate them for the hassle.)
(Score: 1) by miljo on Monday August 03 2015, @07:13PM
This.
Who wants to help catch black hats, pedophiles, terrorists, and organized criminals on a civil servant's salary.
Now if these were computational demonologist positions, I'd take a second look. ;-)
One should strive to achieve, not sit in bitter regret.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday August 03 2015, @07:24PM
Rather, who wants to be the sort of scumbag who violates people's constitutional rights? I don't care how much money they offer. The FBI isn't exactly an ethical organization, so ethical individuals will avoid them.
They usually create the 'terrorists' in the first place and then set them up. As for "pedophiles", catching people who look at videos/images isn't really a good thing or effective. Organized criminals could include people who merely sell drugs. Who knows what "black hat" means, since they go after people who do the most mundane things because the rules themselves are insane. It's just appealing to people's irrational fears.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:32PM
("Invasive recruitment processes" count as working conditions here. The more hassle people have to go through, the more you need to pay them to compensate them for the hassle.)
For a couple of days the FBI director was honest about the problem, [wsj.com] until he succumbed to political correctness. [sophos.com]
But I think the problem is more than just appropriate compensation. Sorry free-marketers not everything is for sale. The FBI's culture is fundamentally incompatible with the profession. There are only so many people with the kind of institutionalized authoritarian mindset that defines the FBI who are also talented computer security people. Offering more money won't create new ones in the same way that adding more water to fire won't make more fire. The problem isn't a lack of quality talent, the problem is lack of quality employment.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday August 03 2015, @08:30PM
My rule of thumb is, if I can get fired or even disciplined for anything I do outside of work that has no effect on the work itself, then I'm not working there.
Seeing a friend lose her plum job working for the Sheriff's office just for living in a house with personal-use amounts of marijuana in it (dumb shits heard a knock on the door and just let the cops in without checking to see who was at the door) was a real eye-opener.
(Score: 1) by Soybean on Monday August 03 2015, @09:16PM
My rule of thumb is, if I can get fired or even disciplined for anything I do outside of work that has no effect on the work itself, then I'm not working there.
Since all 50 states are at-will employment states, you must not have a job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:30AM
-1 Stupid.
Most employers in the private sector don't pry into your personal life, and really don't care what you do on your own time. As long as you don't have a serious criminal record, they just want people who can do the job reliably and will fit in with the other employees.
The only employers who really care about your private life are 1) the government, and 2) religious employers, such as churches.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:01AM
Posting anon, for obvious reasons.
I recently applied for a job. I've been jobless for a while, since my last layoff. I was all set to interview with this company onsite. I started to fill out the online app and it says 'we are a drug-free workplace' and that means, piss test before employment.
This is in the bay area. For a pure software job. More and more, I'm seeing this. Not every company, but more than you'd think!
It sucks. This is not the deep south, where I'd expect this kind of crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:11AM
random drug and alcohol tests are becoming commonplace in australia at all places of employment. even onsite contractors are required to undergo them if asked to.
it's not because they give a shit about what you do outside work; they just want to make damn sure you don't bring the shit into work or have it affect your performance or safety, or safety of others around you.
if someone is drunk or drugged, it may not only affect their job performance and attention to safety, but also their ability to decide if they shouldn't go to work because of it.
another example that causes impaired judgement is fatigue. most people who are really tired will probably deny it till it actually causes them to fuck up. others around them can probably tell though.
random drug and alcohol tests will only become more prolific so you may as well get used to it or you'll never find a job.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @05:15AM
it's not because they give a shit about what you do outside work; they just want to make damn sure you don't bring the shit into work or have it affect your performance or safety, or safety of others around you.
Complete nonsense. If someone is doing a bad job, fire *them*. I don't see them forbidding people from drinking alcohol (more dangerous than weed by any serious measure) 100% simply because it's a possibility that someone may come to work drunk and do a bad job. If someone went to work drunk and did a terrible job, maybe the employers would fire them rather than refuse to hire anyone who drinks alcohol. Amazing concept.
That is the most intelligent policy, but it's not like these employers tend to be intelligent.
random drug and alcohol tests will only become more prolific so you may as well get used to it or you'll never find a job.
Have fun paying for all the unemployed people you create with your idiocy with your tax dollars, you corporate stooge. If someone can't find a job because they do drugs (regardless of whether or not they abuse them), then drugs are de facto banned, irrespective of any government policy. Employers hold all the cards, and that has to change.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @09:03AM
apparently you have never actually hired anyone before
Employers hold all the cards, and that has to change.
actually, they hold all the dollars that people want. otherwise unemployed people wouldn't bother even looking for a job. without employers, you don't have a thriving economy
the retarded keynesian theory that spenders drive an economy is false. you will never find any concrete examples in history where keynesianism actually worked, though i'm sure there will be plenty where you think it did, but you're just brainwashed anyway so that's expected). people have always and will continue to buy whatever garbage is marketed the best. however, without savings and production, there is nothing to buy. case in point: plenty of demand for new samsung phones, but suppliers can't keep up. demand has never been a problem, anywhere in the world, because if people have a job and bring home some dosh, they will always either (a) spend it or (b) save it. unfortunately with interest rates so low savings is taking a dive, which means capital for building businesses is harder to come by (unless you're mates with the federal reserve, in which case you just have some printed).
if you want some misguided socialist distopia, the USA is actually getting to be a pretty good case study
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:33AM
Quote a short sentence about recruitment practices. Spend 95% of response in a weird rant about keynesianism. Pet peeve much?
"Yeah I agree, the bear population is indeed a problem. By the way, where's the birth certificate?"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:12PM
apparently you have never actually hired anyone before
Wrong. I know it's hard for you to imagine not being an authoritarian who uses jobs to control what people do outside of work even if it doesn't affect their performance, but not all employers are that idiotic. I see you ignored most of my comment anyway.
without employers, you don't have a thriving economy
Without people willing to accept the jobs, you won't have a thriving economy either.
if you want some misguided socialist distopia, the USA is actually getting to be a pretty good case study
The USA is more about corporate welfare and ineffective, weak regulations on corporations than anything else.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday August 04 2015, @08:57PM
The idea behind alcohol and drug testing is to make sure that the employee isn't impaired while on the job. I.E. they are trying to prevent things like this from happening: http://www.bbc.com/news/10454311/ [bbc.com] TL/DR "Drunk trader banned for buying 7 million barrels of oil." I came across this story the other day and found it to be interesting what just one person can do when fiddling with the stock market.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday August 04 2015, @11:11PM
The idea behind alcohol and drug testing is to make sure that the employee isn't impaired while on the job.
That isn't what's happening. What they're doing is firing anyone who has remote traces of drugs in their system, or not hiring them at all. Interestingly enough, they don't instantly fire people when they learn that they drink alcohol off the job. If they did, chances are, the employer would have to fire themselves. It's just with bogeyman drugs, and it happens whether or not they abuse drugs or come in high. Frankly, drug testing like this shouldn't even be legal, and they should just fire people who do a bad job.
"Drunk trader banned for buying 7 million barrels of oil." I came across this story the other day and found it to be interesting what just one person can do when fiddling with the stock market.
Yeah, that's one example, and it's with alcohol. Not something that happens often, and when it does happen, it's usually not that severe. No idea why they gave a single person so much power, either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @10:12AM
Take it as an indicator; it will not be the only obviously irrational cargo cult corp management decision you will encounter there. I guess if you just want to "just work there", it's fine, but I don't see that kind of firm being competent and I don't anymore want to work for a dysfunctional company.
Heck, I'd be much more concerned about the quantity of idiots and abusive sociopaths in workforce than the number of recreational drug users and this policy generates a net increase of people belonging to either of the former two groups.
(reasoning and its premises: if you get to choose where to work for, being dishonest in interview is idiotic unless you are a sociopath. abstaining solely to produce a clean sample is dishonest. the pool of people who are in such position is not unimportant. the negative effect of this "only liars in" filtering far outweighs any intended correlation-based positive effect)
(Score: 1) by Soybean on Wednesday August 05 2015, @11:20PM
if I can get fired or even disciplined for anything I do outside of work that has no effect on the work itself, then I'm not working there.
-1 Stupid.
Most employers in the private sector don't pry into your personal life, and really don't care what you do on your own time.
Bullshit. You do anything off the clock that brings even a hint of negative attention to your employer and most will fire your ass. The only reason you think otherwise is because you've never found yourself in that situation. And to the original point, as long as they don't actively say exactly why you are being fired there is absolutely nothing you can do about it because of at-will employment. There is no legal protection against a manager getting a bug up his ass about you.
Even Donald Trump fired a guy for 8 year old racist posts to facebook. [politico.com]
But he's far from alone. This woman got fired for an anti-racist tweet that was too subtle. [uproxx.com]
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:48AM
Have you not noticed that, according to many employers, the free market works in every field except that of hiring skilled technology people?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday August 04 2015, @12:07PM
the free market works in every field except that of hiring
Could just stop there. We as tech people will notice when some scumbag at IBM makes claims about there being nobody with a CCIE and PHD willing to work for $7.25/hr so we'll just have to import indentured servitude H1Bs, but I assure you every scumbag in every industry makes the same claims for their industry.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by chrysosphinx on Monday August 03 2015, @07:09PM
You cannot enforce discipline on a hat who understands freedom in thinking. And if you break him to obedience, which works perfectly on soldiers, he'll become unusable as a hat. Because free thinking outside the rules is the main quality of hats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @07:59PM
And, Arthur is not a real person. I mean, "Knackerbracket"? Not a real name. Hmm, what's he doing here, submitting articles? Maybe whoever he is, he already found a job?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @09:52PM
This "hat" crap is a load of juvenile crap. Do we refer to corrupt police as "black hat"? How about politicians, for that matter? What about bankers, bureaucrats, and public servants?
The topic is not so complex that we have difficulty distinguishing between people who do it for love, and people who do it for money.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:41PM
The distinction is not one of love and money.
And yeah, we do have different names for good/bad versions of other professions. You used two of them. A bureaucrat is bad. A public servant is good. A banker is bad. A financial manager is good. Dirty cops, snitches, shills, astroturfers, blackhats: all bad names. Police officer, whistle blower, advertiser (okay call it grey), vial marketer, whitehats: good names.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mendax on Monday August 03 2015, @11:18PM
No, but they wear black hats and uniforms where I come from. If they were a little more stylish they they could easily look like the new SS.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday August 03 2015, @07:47PM
Does the FBI hire people? I would have guessed the FBI only hires contractors and consultants, not directly. That's the way the government usually works. If nothing else, this is a PR fail because I didn't know the FBI did direct hires.
Suppose someone was willing to take a pay cut and work for the FBI for ideological reasons. We're not all left-wing anarchists, are we? But would that person have to move to Washington DC, one of the highest cost of living areas in the country? And live on less pay? When they say the private sector pays more, do they mean in the same area, or overall? We need to compare apples and apples. The differential would be greater if these other private-sector jobs weren't in Washington, DC. If the FBI just matched private-sector pay, it would probably be a bad deal if the person had to live in the DC area.
What are these jobs, anyway? Is there a list someplace? Do they want weird niche skills in cryptography or something? Could any average, random computer scientist walk in and get one of these jobs? Or do they want experience with purple-squirrel niche skills almost no one has?
If you've never seen a government direct-hire job listing, try to find one some time. They're like in another language or something. Your average, random computer scientist, upon reading the job listing, probably wouldn't even know it was for a computer scientist. I saw a technology-sector job somewhere (maybe the VA?) and it was mind-numbingly opaque. I didn't know what they wanted.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 2) by tempest on Monday August 03 2015, @09:03PM
From the paper it sounds like they want technically competent people for intrusion detection and forensics. I imagine anything more advanced would be sent from field offices to the big HQ somewhere else. It sounds like unfulfilling high pressure work, akin to system debugging except you're not improving anything.
Low pay, crap job, annoying employer.. then giving vague recruitment criteria. I can't see how this isn't a resounding success :)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Spook brat on Monday August 03 2015, @10:01PM
Yes, they do direct hire. They had a booth at my University's job fair the year I graduated, and were looking to recruit field agents.
Yes, there's a job list: https://www.fbijobs.gov/ [fbijobs.gov]
There are field agent positions in all major cities across the U.S., and some overseas postings at embassies and Military bases.
By coincidence, the "hot job" at the top of the list today is for "Information Technology Specialists", [fbijobs.gov] and may be what we're talking about here. You're right, they're vague almost to the point of incomprehensibility; however, in this case it seems that they're just being cagey rather than bureaucratic.
I listened to the recruiters' pitch out of morbid curiosity. I'm prejudiced, since the FBI shares jurisdiction with the DIA and CID on U.S. Military installations, and they have a reputation for stealing high-profile cases and botching them (business suits and sunglasses indoors tent to stand out at the PX when you're tailing a suspect; everyone else there is wearing camouflage). Apparently, they were afraid for their personal security on campus; their name tags had only a first name, and not the agents' actual first names. Why they felt that a cover identity was needed to go recruiting is beyond me.
I didn't apply.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:35AM
Yeech, their website looks like the title screen of Police Quest III.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 03 2015, @11:02PM
And let's say that you were publicly minded and talented in systems. You would still have to put up with the mind-numbing crap that falls upon any bureaucrat and have to report to the sociopath scumbags who comprise the middle- to upper echelons of government. Who would do that for any amount of pay?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @11:30PM
The same problem everyone 'else' has with 'getting qualified people'. They want 'people to hit the ground running'. Then do not want to train or mentor anyone. Then are surprised when the few they do hire leave. You built someone whos job it is is to be independent and your shocked when they take off.
You pay crap and expect five star treatment.
It is sort of funny. The less people pay the more they expect.
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Monday August 03 2015, @08:11PM
I have never applied to the FBI. I can admit that I did apply for a position with a similar agency at one point. That process turned out to be such a hassle that I withdrew my application before the process was finished. If you apply for these kind of jobs know that time is a factor, much more so if you don't already have high enough security clearance.
It was eight months of mostly waiting, many phone calls, doing on-line tests (personality traits, verbal skills, spatial awareness etc - I missed the first email about doing these since their email was so poorly formatted it had gotten stuck in the spam filter, they had to call and remind me and ask if I was still interested), supervised tests (same as the on-line once but under supervision and adding a few scenario cases), interviews, talking to recruitment psychologists multiple times, some interviews that felt more like interrogation sessions, talking to other people in the organization (possible future managers and co-workers). The co-workers and managers both seemed like nice but quiet people.
What really put me off from the process was the HR people, I don't think I have ever met more rude and obnoxious people ever before. Their shitty and insulting attitude was the main reason I withdrew my application and I told them so in a letter I sent the day after the last interview I attended. They where very apologetic and almost grovling after that, they even invited me to come back and do more tests and interviews after I had withdrawn my application but it was a bit to late for that for my taste as I had moved on.
The thing that drags this out is the security clearance issues. That takes a lot of time. The one for private sector work is minimal and non-intrusive in comparison. The thing I can conclude about applying for these kind of positions is that it takes a lot of time and patience, when I chose to end the process almost eight months had passed since I sent my application. My best guess is the process would have taken about a year before any actual offer. The fact they are also paying less then the private sector and they are not offering much in the way of perks makes the whole thing less appealing and I can understand why they are having issues with finding the right people.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday August 03 2015, @08:25PM
I on the other hand have reason to believe I couldn't pass a security clearance with the FBI even if I wanted to work there. Not because of any criminal activity (there isn't anything more severe than a speeding ticket), but because anyone who looked at all closely at my associations would find out very quickly that I travel in circles of people that include folks targeted by COINTELPRO back in the day, and in some cases are probably still being watched by three-letter agencies.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:30PM
I spent some time with the FBI doing just this after completing my third doctorate (the one from Yale). They're pretty uptight at the management level, but the average guy in the office isn't as bad as you'd think. I was only 17 at the time, so I quickly parted ways with them since I was a little too young to properly embrace the culture. I decided to spend a few months backpacking across Russia, and then I finally spent a couple years with Tibetan monks before I went on to work with NASA on a couple of their space projects. I'd be more specific about them, but they're above Top Secret, so I have to be vague.
-MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:47PM
Heh I'm assuming this was a joke, but if not, I have to wonder who exactly the FBI thinks they serve sometimes.
I always wanted to work with them from a young age, thinking they were the best of the best, but the more I learned about their willfully ignorant hiring practices the more I decided I wanted to be the kind of person that has a brain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:57PM
Good god man, my sides LOL
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:59PM
Yeah it probably is funny if it weren't so close to the truth, and so insulting to american citizens. :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @02:07AM
very clever. very clever indeed, young man, but its turtles all the way down!
-MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:47PM
The fact they are also paying less then the private sector and they are not offering much in the way of perks makes the whole thing less appealing
What do you mean? You get a gun and get to shoot people. You get to violate people's rights! You get to shit on your fellow human being and be called An American Hero.
What the fuck are you talking about?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:59PM
Plus if anyone kills you, even accidentally, they get the death penalty.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 03 2015, @11:16PM
Once upon a time I was a very patriotic person and wanted very much to help my country. But I had experiences similar to yours with government agencies. I have gone to the end of the process with the CIA and the Foreign Service. In both cases, I did as you did, and withdrew my application.
In the case of the CIA, they were so morally bankrupt and so torpid that I knew it would be a colossally bad idea to put my life in the hands of people like that. Good thing, too. 6 months after I laughed in the face of my interviewer after the nth "dunh dunh dunh! scenario" I saw her picture in the New York Times, picked up by the Russians for spying. She was supposed to be the station chief for Europe and would have been my boss.
The Foreign Service was just as pathetic in a different way. They are the last bastion of the White Man's burden. If you walked into the whitest white country club in the middle of Scarsdale, NY and picked out Brad and Buffy, they would be the ones who represent the United States to the rest of the world. They are so coddled, so entitled, and so entirely unable to relate to real Americans that it hurts your soul.
But the thing to remember is, for all the hassle and demeaning treatment you go through to work for the Federal Government, being earnest and fully well-intentioned to do a good job and help the American people, you still have to report to a bunch of sociopaths called politicians and their appointees who will cut your throat in a heartbeat to make themselves look better or avoid making themselves look bad. The only people who would go through that and remain in government service are shells of men.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:02AM
So to get in you have to have seven degrees of separation between you and anyone suspicious?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday August 03 2015, @09:56PM
I did a lot of BBS stuff although never busted in the 80s and subscribed to 2600 etc and getting a "secret" clearance for the Army to basically be a glorified sysadmin was no problemo, went to the pot smoking capital of the midwest for uni, although I didn't personally smoke, etc. Hard to say if thats relevant 20 years later or if I just snuck thru. They have a huge shoulder chip about leverage, so they're a lot more freaked out about owing $100K of student loans and someone could "help out" or back then they were terrified someone gay would get blackmailed (now they just get reality TV shows). They didn't seem very interested when I got my clearance WRT any dirtbag acquaintances from high school or who I was dating or hanging out with. They did ask my landlord weird nonsense questions which he had basically nothing intelligible to report. Pretty much if theres nothing written down they had little complaint. The other guys in my MOS at AIT also reported no significant problems.
I'd be idly curious about any one else's clearance process, post 1990 lets say. Assuming it hasn't been made illegal since then, or retroactively illegal (hmm...)
I'll go off on a tangent from everyone else and propose that nobody wants to be the scrawny wedgie collector like the radio geek from C.H.I.P.S. Now that was truly a quality 70s show. Anyway I suspect cyber officers are second class citizens compared to say the SWAT team or the run of the mill gun slinging agent, or even the REMF paper shuffling office bozos.
Another aspect of the job that probably sucks quite severely is dealing with like, child exploitation type stuff. Both being pretty gross and somehow not just shooting the guy when "we" catch him. "we" in quotes because see above I suspect none of my coworkers with guns would consider me a real coworker. And the side issue of doing all the Russian Secret Police Nazi style stuff that we grew up propagandized that only the bad guys do, but it turns out that ironically its mostly Americans being the bad guys. So whats worse, dealing with awful bad guys or being the awful bad guys, all while being a second class (if that) employee?
I guess if I needed to pay the mortgage I'd apply rather than watch my kids starve, but the hiring process being over a year, hope the kids aren't too hungy... who DOES apply to these kind of jobs, just based on sheer time requirement?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 03 2015, @11:23PM
Well, that's it. Who wants to jump through hoops for a year to get a crappy job with the government where the top dogs are not the guys that do what you do, or even the guys who have badges and guns, but the press department and the political appointee whose ass they kiss all day long? What self-respecting professional with real skills is going to stick around long for that nonsense?
I retain a vestigial sense that maybe DARPA would be worth working for, but it being a government gig, I suspect it's no different.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 04 2015, @01:33AM
I got a SECRET in '99, and back then it was an automated almost-instantaneous thing that pretty much anybody could have passed.
Word on the street is that SECRETS are a little more difficult nowadays, though I remember the TOP SECRET guys would languish in tech-school purgatory sweeping drill pads and polishing doorknobs for 6-9 months waiting for their clearances.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by pinchy on Monday August 03 2015, @10:54PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 04 2015, @06:38AM
...or just a smart ass prick who daydreams up an answer to anything so he can feed his own narcissistic ego.
His therapist or shrink, Robin Williams, called him on it when talking about life experiences. How he would
quote various dead people and their experiences but have none significant of his own. He hung around
people dumber than him and threw around quotes to make dumb people feel dumber. The only experience
he could seem to master was manual labor sort of jobs with his dumber buddies.
I wouldn't want such a person working for me, either, even if it was a lowly blue collar job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 03 2015, @10:57PM
Because the FBI are the bad guys.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Touché) by dcollins on Tuesday August 04 2015, @03:44AM
Hire a bunch of H1-B visas.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Tuesday August 04 2015, @04:01AM
I hear Iran has a CS program that's ripe for poaching.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!