Hacker News Reader

Comment by phaus | Hacker News Reader

>If we're trying to use uniformed military troops to hack servers remotely, we deserve to lose any 'cyber war.'

Not all Soldiers are incompetent. Some of the most brilliant people I've met are people that I met while I was in the Army. China has created numerous units that focus on offensive hacking, and they are wildly successful.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying that we should have troops performing cyber attacks, I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily an endeavor that's doomed to failure. You seem to be making the assumption that people in the military can't be as good at something as a civilian. That's simply not true. There is a lot of talent in the Army, its just that the organization and its rules are making it hard to be effective.

View on HN

I know some people who were in the military who are very smart and technical, so I don't doubt there are some good people in there.

On the other hand, while this is admittedly very anecdotal, one really obvious common thread that I see in the vast majority of great hackers I've met has been a distrust (if not borderline disdain) for authority and seemingly needless process; which I have to imagine (having never served myself) doesn't fly really well in the military.

>On the other hand, while this is admittedly very anecdotal, one really obvious common thread that I see in the vast majority of great hackers I've met has been a distrust (if not borderline disdain) for authority and seemingly needless process

You are right, and I am one of those people, but there are some brilliant people out there who for some strange reason I cannot comprehend, love every fucking thing about the military. There are also those of us who do feel the way you described, that stay because we foolishly think we might some day be able to make the military a better place.

Where I work now, there are lots of former military members. All of us are happy that we don't have to deal with the bureaucracy, but most of us don't regret the time we did spend in the service.

I mean no disrespect to the soldiery, but why use soldiers for this, and not the DIA/NSA/CIA/various other TLAs? I guess that's what I'm confused about. Grunts wearing camouflage sitting in front of a laptop trying to outbrain someone seems humorously perverse. It's like some high-level bureaucrat has it in his mind that 'cyberattack' necessarily means that the military has to do it, because we obviously use the military for attacking things.

You probably don't realize how much crossover there is between the military and intel. For example, the CSS in NSA/CSS - http://www.nsa.gov/about/central_security_service/

>I mean no disrespect to the soldiery, but why use soldiers for this, and not the DIA/NSA/CIA/various other TLAs?

I specifically said that I wasn't advocating this as a military mission. I was just stating that if it was a military mission, the Soldiers themselves wouldn't be the reason that it fails.

>Grunts wearing camouflage sitting in front of a laptop trying to outbrain someone seems humorously perverse.

A grunt is an infantryman. Not all Soldiers are grunts. The Soldiers that work as security analysts do it as a full time job. They still have to take a couple PT tests each year and qualify once or twice a year with an M16, but they spend most of their time doing their job.

I'm not sure how wearing camofluage affects a person's ability to use a computer? They are people like everyone else.

I guarantee you will not attract the best talent if your vision includes them wearing camouflage.

There are lots of downsides to the military as an employer. The dresscode is pretty far down that list.

The biggest downside, I think? As a civilian, it is my right to walk off a job at any time. Sure, there are expectations that I'll give you some notice (and I will) but worst comes to worst? I can always walk, and the worst my employer can do is call me bad names.

In the military, those contracts? they mean something. Yeah, you can ask to be transferred around; hell, I know someone who was able to actually quit the navy half way through basic, but it was a big fucking deal.

I mean, there are advantages to the military, too. I'm not saying it's a bad choice for everyone. I'm just saying that wearing dorky pants doesn't even make the list.

The military, like most government jobs, makes a lot of sense for someone who values stability. There are plenty of skilled people that value stability over the ability to leave; I'm just not one of them.

Nah won't want to be seen dead in standard kit they end to go for northface, Barbour, camper or merrell for boots just the SAD and SAS do.

Not every talented person thinks the exact same way that you do. Its a fact that the way the military operates automatically excludes a large part of the talent pool that simply doesn't want to deal with all the bullshit, but everyone has their own set of priorities.

The same reason the Army has mechanics to fix their tanks, not some "US Tank Repair Agency".

Also, if you were an officer, how willing would you be to trust a hacker from another agency, if you didn't have someone you trusted to vet their advice?

There'd also be concerns about red tape. If a low ranking officer isn't sure about something, can they put in a tech support ticket to a three letter agency?

US Cyber Command, the main elite military cyberwarfare unit, is under the joint leadership of the NSA director. What they're doing now is moving the techniques "down-market" so that ordinary units have cyber capabilities as well. Think JSOC vs. regular infantry. You need both to be effective.

Amusing side note, the MD5 hash of CYBERCOM's mission statement, "9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a", is to my knowledge the only hash emblazoned on an agency seal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com