🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <305@tifsie.UUCP>, kent@tifsie.UUCP (Russell Kent) writes:
> To those persons who add "Intelligence Agency food" to their postings:
> your practice is foolish, even downright reckless; to wit:
>.... 
>     3. You are bringing yourself to the attention of the Intelligence
>        Agency.  Believe me, THIS IS NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.  Those
>        people are _dead serious_, and more often than not, DO NOT
>        PLAY UNDER THE SAME RULES THAT YOU AND I DO.  They have powers
>        and abilities (albeit infrequently used) that you don't even
>        want to have nightmares about being used against you. (Ever
>        thought about what a cramp in your lifestyle it would be if you
>        just disappeared without a trace? :-)
> 
> By far, #3 is the one you probably should worry about most.
> 
 
Let's consider that in detail.  Someone (or more likely, more than one)
person in Langley is sitting there and being REQUIRED to read all of the
stuff that goes by in various newsgroups, perhaps even having to
read by hand net.sources, etc.
	
Now, this person is most likely bored silly by that drivel.  Quite likely,
they just *love* it when some really interesting thing comes by, such
as Craig Werner's medical puzzles, or RISKS digest.  Or even flames
in sci.astrology.
	
Clearly, it's in our best interest as US citizens that he NOT be bored, that
he be motivated and alert.  (Sorry if you're female, NSA rep- but see 
net.lang for a further discussion (and flaming) about pronouns and English).
	
Seriously, if I were in their position, I'd read everything that went in
or out on every net I could tap.  And the poor underlings who have to
read it ought to have something worth reading.
	
Besides, maybe we can raise the conciousness of these people.  I don't mind
if they read usenet, etc.  as long as they've thought about it and have come
to the rational conclusion that it's the right thing to do.  At least they're
sincere.  I just don't want someone who doesn't care whether the job
is done right or not doing the job; they'll screw up eventually
and then there *will* be a problem.  Exposure to USEnet might make them
think- that's fine with me.  

 
 
As an instructor of engineering at the college level, sometimes a student 
will come to me and ask for guidance concerning whether or not they 
should take a job at a defense-related company.  The only guidance I can give
them is that "You have to ask yourself that.  War is horrible, but
surrender can be worse.  Ask any Manchurian, any Hungarian, any
European Jew." .  I play devil's advocate for both sides for 
a few minutes, then send them away to think.
	
After a couple of days, they usually come back with an answer.  The answer
varies- but the students seem happy to have an answer.
 
 
 
I want those NSA people (PEOPLE!  not spooks, creeps, etc.)  to think and
decide that they are doing the right thing.  If they agree that they are,
fine, they can read USENET.  And if they think they're doing something
wrong, then they can stop.  
	
	

"avoid calling attention..."  ??  How many engineering/CS/physics grads
come out of US universities every year?  A hundred thousand, maybe.  Well,
there's several government agencies whose business is to track what 
graduates go where (Dept. of Labor, for instance) and that data is nowhere
near as securely held as the stuff held by the NSA.  If you're out
there, they have heard of you. 



Lastly, I know some people who work down in Langley and this is a good 
way to keep in vague touch ( Hi John!   :-)  )
	
	-Bill Yerazunis
	
	"Lineater food?  Why bother?"