US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors 308
HughPickens.com writes Clifford Davis reports that only 30% of young people between the ages of 17 and 24 are qualified to become soldiers. This is primarily due to three issues: obesity or health problems; lack of a high school education; and criminal histories. While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily. It's projected to hit 25% by 2025. The current Army policy is that every recruit, whether enlisting for infantry or graphic design, has to meet the same physical requirements to join — but that requirement may be changing. "Today, we need cyber warriors, so we're starting to recruit for Army Cyber," says Major General Allen Batschelet. "One of the things we're considering is that your [mission] as a cyber warrior is different. Maybe you're not the Ranger who can do 100 pushups, 100 sit-ups and run the 2-mile inside of 10 minutes, but you can crack a data system of an enemy." "We're looking for America's best and brightest just like any Fortune 500 company out there," says Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg. "We're looking for those men and women who excel in science, technology, engineering and math." Batschelet admits that a drastic change in physical requirements for recruits may be hard for some to swallow. "That's going to be an institutional, cultural change for us to be able to get our heads around that is kind of a different definition of quality," says Batschelet. "I would say it's a modernizing, or defining in a more precise way, what is considered quality for soldiers."
Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
I left the DoD as a software developer largely because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses. The paperwork, mandatory training, and total risk aversion meant I developed code at maybe 25% of the speed that I did before, and after, in the private sector. And the stock options in the DoD were nothing to write home about.
I really don't see how the DoD can win any cyber fight. It would take losing a ground war on U.S. soil for them to give up their worship of bureaucracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Its about more recruits being available for combat (Score:4, Interesting)
... "Buy it for 250% the cost of doing it in house from the contractor with the most congressmen" compromise ...
While that is a factor it is exaggerated. The bigger factor, and the military's motivation, in turning to contractors is that fewer recruits have to be used for support and logistics, so more are available for combat specialties. We are seeing the exact same thing here. Highly technical roles filled by those physically unfit for combat, freeing up those recruits who are physically fit for combat specialties. In some ways it is a little bit parallel to the various WW2 Women's Auxiliaries for the various services. The idea at that time was to free a man from a desk job so he could go to the field.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that but if they change the physical requirements it's going to have a lot of repercussions.
First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?
Secondly, promotions. Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?
Also, you have to pass Physical Training tests every year to stay in. Will the guy who cooks the food the "cyber warrior" eats be held to a higher physical standard than the "cyber warrior" is?
I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.
Arguably, the bigger problem is that the concept of 'cyber warrior' is an iffy fit for the army at best; and just plain incoherent nonsense at worst.
Obviously, now that electronic systems are valuable enough to be worth attacking, defending, and spying on, it's perfectly plausible that somebody is going to end up doing that job; but that's quite different than inferring the existence of 'cyber warriors', much less ones sufficiently closely analogous to conventional warriors that the army would be a logical outfit to have some(not that the Air Force, which seems to be the branch making the most noise about it, is an obviously better fit). Whatever Tron might have told you, 'cyber war' isn't going to be physical combat except more neon...
If the army is serious about a mandate broad enough that 'cyber warrior' actually fits, they are going to have to suck it up and, yes, accept that their current arrangements for training, evaluation, promotion, etc. include elements that are either supported by outdated assumptions or mere nostalgia.
If they aren't, they should get over whatever territorial pissing contest and/or painful misunderstanding of 'cyber war' has them trying to search for a supply of cutting edge IT and security people who are willing to put up with a system bent on evaluating their ability to pick up a rifle when necessary and either contract it or develop a non-dysfunctional relationship with an agency actually suited to the task(ostensibly the NSA, if somebody could pry them away from our email for a few minutes).
They are just going to have to choose: if they want to have one-size-fits-all processes(whether justified by the theory that all their people might actually need combat skills, or by cultural and institutional cohesion considerations), then they just aren't going to get to do everything, at least not well. If they want to do a wide variety of fairly disparate things, they just don't get to keep all their existing practices, at least not well(the only thing that would depress enthusiasts of boot camp and physical training more than just exempting some people from it entirely would be watering the requirements down enough that any pudgy keyboard jockey would be minimally inconvenienced by meeting them...)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.
Or, and bear with me on this: perhaps the desire to win a cyber-war is the paramount priority over and above ideal morale conditions.
Of course it's also possible they have a plan to accomplish both.
Re: (Score:2)
First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?
Possibly. But we should absolutely get an animated series about it.
Similar to WW2 Women's Auxiliaries ... (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, if we need a cyber whatever it could be an entirely different branch of service. These specialists could be placed with the military as needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that but if they change the physical requirements it's going to have a lot of repercussions.
First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?
Secondly, promotions. Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?
Also, you have to pass Physical Training tests every year to stay in. Will the guy who cooks the food the "cyber warrior" eats be held to a higher physical standard than the "cyber warrior" is?
I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.
Should the cook be held to "physical standards" which aren't relevant to the actual job either? Outside movies like Under Siege, shooting at people really isn't part of the chef's job either. (As an Air Force cadet, I was pretty good at Escape & Evasion - and if I'd gone on to be an actual fighter pilot, that could well have been a vital skill if shot down over enemy territory. As a drone pilot, eight time zones from the action where the biggest threat is road rage on the daily commute? Not a chance.)
Su
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Interesting)
I always thought it was funny that my being fat, while still able to beat the other PT standards, was a big enough deal to possibly get an Admin discharge. Meanwhile so long as you could shoot something like 28% with the M16A2 everything was honky dorry. I qualified expert every damn time I went to the range and when someone actually challeneged me I shot 98% in a timed test, with one misfire and two stoppages. In an organization where shooting at other people is a real possibility, the only reward for being a good marksman is a ribbon for bragging rights.
Re: (Score:3)
All good points, but the fact is that we already treat people differently based on their gender. I.E. you must run this fast, for this long, to be an effective soldier, unless you are female, then you can be slower and quit sooner. The answer is that we don't put women into the positions that are too physically demanding for them. This is the same concept, if you happen to have an MOS that doesn't require you to be physically active, then as along as you can complete your mission you should be fine.
And wh
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I assume "Zero Tolerance" type environment. Anything bad on books puts serious issues on career advancement.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not simply hire them as civilian employees?
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
What do you mean by "risk aversion"? I'm genuinely curious.
I can't speak for the grandparent but generally in de facto non-profit monopolies - there's nobody else competing to be the US army for example - there's very little risk in not pushing boundaries. Projects might run over time and over budget but at the end of the day the politicians have to fund the army next year too and you don't get the fat bonuses like when your software makes money for the company. Obvious flops on the other hand might require scapegoats and if you make your superiors look bad, well they're likely to be a step or two up in seniority for the rest of your career in the same "company". That will permeate the entire environment making any kind of change hard, nobody wants to be the one signing off on anything without a drawn out change process.
Here in Norway the craziest example at the moment is the police. In 2005 our politicians made fairly big changes to the penal code, which would go into effect when the police systems were able to handle it. Well, now it's 2014 and it's still not in effect. But what can you do, not fund the police? No matter how much the schedules slip and it goes over budget we have to keep throwing money at them. If they were a commercial company they'd be out of business long ago. Sometimes I wonder if it would be cheaper if we awarded two companies the contract to write the same module with a bonus to the winner, just to get the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Capable people don't want to be involved. (Score:5, Funny)
Son, we use American units here, none of this 'metric' bullshit.
Now, your question again?
Re: (Score:3)
And it's not as if this isn't for good reason either - the Army learned some hard lessons in the Korean war with out of shape soldiers; and if anything, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further blurred the lines are between combat and non-combat MOS's.
I can buy that if you're talking about somebody who is in a supply train which is vulnerable to attack.
On the other hand, the biggest hazard facing a cyber warrior is likely to be the morning commute.
Re: (Score:3)
the only differences are your gender and your age.
Which is clearly discriminatory.
Why should I, as a fat unfit man, have to attain a higher standard of fitness than a fat unfit woman. Either we can both run the same distance and lift the same weights or we can't fulfil the same duties.
Similarly age, why should I as an old person be allowed to damage the effectiveness of the regiment and slow down the youngsters?
Hmmm. (Score:2)
FUBAR Deluxe (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine a "cyberwarrior" (whatever the FUCK that is), who is having trouble with military discipline. The chain of command then starts fucking with him. Sooner or later, he does something really stupid. Then the bastards send him to a line unit. HOW THE FUCK is that motherfucker going to cope there?
This is some seriously fucked up shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the bastards send him to a line unit. HOW THE FUCK is that motherfucker going to cope there?
They're not going to send him to a line unit unless they need cannon fodder, and then he'll get what he deserves. They'll just give him a DD and send him back to bumfuck, boringville.
Sooo..... (Score:2, Funny)
Does this mean the Army will procure quantities of military issue Diet Coke, Hot Pockets and Twinkies in camouflage packaging?
Re: (Score:2)
Been to a PBX recently? What do you think they stock - carrots and lettuce?
Avatars (Score:2)
Really, they should just be recruiting an army of nerds to sit in a room driving avatars, whether they be drones, remote tanks, or humanoid robots.
Bad idea? (Score:2)
Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score:5, Interesting)
When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit. Those that couldn't were put into a "remedial physical training" unit, where of course they were roundly laughed at by those in real basic. Passing the actual PT test at the end of basic is different, but at 18 were only had to do around 45 pushups and 60 situps in two minutes, and run two miles in less than 17 minutes or thereabouts--don't recall precisely. And as you get older, the requirements lessen. Upon enlistment all we had to do was lift 40 pounds above your head on a weight machine. I was 5'3" and 115 pounds back then (still 5'3", beer has added a bit of weight over time :-)
Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score:4, Insightful)
When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit.
I'd have failed that. Sure, I probably could have spent a lot of time working out and gotten to that point, but what's the point?
Anytime you introduce a selective pressure for one attribute, you're unwittingly selecting AGAINST other attributes. Do you want the best "cyber warrior" you can find, or the best "cyber warrior" who also happens to be able to do 13 pushups too? If the bad guys aren't so picky, she might find herself outclassed...
Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score:5, Insightful)
I got out in 1990 after serving for 7 years.
So that the other people in your unit know that they can depend upon you to perform the physical requirements of being in a war zone.
And I agree with that. 100%. Dr. Hawking wouldn't be physically able to serve (even if he wanted to). But you would want him working on your side.
I prefer to substitute "Facebook" for "cyber" in these articles. It puts them in perspective.
But that isn't the question. The question is whether these "Facebook warriors" will ever be deployed to a war zone.
If yes, then they need to meet the physical requirements the same as every other soldier.
If no, then hire them as civilians. Skip Basic and AIT and everything else. Classify them along with all the other GS-whatevers.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't get me wrong - having physical requirements for anybody who is deployed anywhere near a combat zone or who is responsible for providing physical security is a no-brainer. If the mission requires having a "cyber warrior" join a team that will infiltrate some facility then they certainly should be able to meet the physical qualifications, use a gun, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
besides being able to wrangle a loaded rack server into place at combat speed could come in handy someday.
Or run a 100 foot network cable
Or throw a ssd to some grunt to plug it into a rack
but then again any DI that can't get a geek into shape in decent time needs to hang up his smokey bear hat
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm agreeing with you.
Yup! But that "Facebook warrior" would probably have a different MOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_occupation_code [wikipedia.org]
But the "Facebook warrior" who will never be deployed and will never see actual combat would be a GS-something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule_(US_ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"a lot of time" in this case equal about six weeks of try to do 13 push ups a day. You're literally disqualifying yourself because you don't want to spend two hours TOTAL exercising.
Somehow I doubt it takes only two hours total. But, whatever. Honestly, I could really care less whether I can do a pushup. :) My current employer doesn't really have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with accepting their paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basic physical fitness helps with a lot of things, mental acuity included.
Well, if what you care about is mental acuity, then why not just measure that? Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence, but I've yet to be asked to bring an instrument to a job interview.
Re: (Score:2)
Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence
Correlated with things that have arbitrarily been deemed to be intelligence, you mean. There's a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Playing a musical instrument is often correlated with intelligence
Correlated with things that have arbitrarily been deemed to be intelligence, you mean. There's a difference.
Sure, and correlation also is of limited importance as well. But, I imagine that asking a candidate to play a song is about as useful a predictor of job performance as asking them to do pushups.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sign that you can't do 13 push-ups. Maybe you like doing other things instead of working out.
An 18 year old doing 13 push ups in 3 minutes is not "working out". 13 push ups in 2 minutes is "not being morbidly obese and a heart attack waiting to happen."
Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score:4, Interesting)
I have very weak arms relative to body weight. Always have done. 13 push-ups has never been easy for me, even when I could do 100 sit ups in a minute and run 2 miles in under 12.
I can however benchpress my own weight. Different muscle groups..
Re: (Score:2)
Not correcting that if you can is a sign that you don't care about yourself or living.
If they didn't care about living, they likely would have died already. How about you not decide how others feel based on your own arbitrary standards?
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, doing a few push-ups is not working out. It's a basic functionality your body should have. Like standing or walking for extended periods.
Not everybody can stand or walk for extended periods either.
You're of course welcome to choose what sorts of people you hang around with. I certainly don't find it difficult to gain employment, or socialize with colleagues.
Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are in your early 20's and otherwise pass the basic health requirements, but can't do a dozen push ups in 2 minutes or stand for an hour, you probably should *not* be in the Army.
If you don't have any other health issues besides being so out of shape you can't accomplish those, then yes, I think spending the month or so it would take to get in a bit better shape to pass it would be a good sign of someone who might actually take pride and responsibility in their work.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how old you are, but 13 pushups is not a lot. I'm 59 and have no problem doing twice that many.
I'd probably have a hard time doing one, and I'm not obese (for whatever BMI is worth). I have no problem doing stuff with software, math, and the physical sciences that 99.99% of the population who can do a pushup probably couldn't do with a year of coaching. I'm hardly the brightest coder around, either.
You have to choose your priorities if you want the "best" for a particular job. Do you want the best, or the best of what's left?
Re: (Score:3)
If you have no other health issues besides being that out of shape, you'd be surprised how easily you can get in at least basic enough shape to meet those requirements. I'm surprised how low the current Army requirements are, really, I could easily do them all and I haven't gone near a gym in 15 years.
Back when I was working out, my initial pull up (MUCH harder than push ups, of course) count was a big zero. After a month I could do 5, and after 2 months 10-15. The *Army Ranger* requirement is 6 (regular
Re: (Score:2)
When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit.
I'd have failed that.
Really? I'm 45, overweight, horribly out of shape, and even I can do 13 pushups. What the hell was wrong with you?
Perhaps you should ask somebody who knows something about physiology. I was not diagnosed with any medical abnormalities that I'm aware of. I can't say when the last time I tried to do a pushup was, but I doubt I could do 13 of them today.
Re: (Score:2)
Something wrong with those numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
There's something wrong with their numbers.
There's no way that only 30% of Americans are high school graduates who are not obese and don't have criminal records. It's just not possible.
The U.S. high school graduation rate is 80%. About 30% of the population have been arrested. Many of those will be found innocent, charges never pressed, or convicted of very minor charges, such that 8.5% of the population ends up with felony convictions. Does obesity account for all the rest?
The stats they are using are ages 17-24. Is it possible they are skewed by the fact that many 17 and 18-year-olds simply haven't finished high school yet (even if they are on track to do so)?
Re:Something wrong with those numbers (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.S. high school graduation rate is 80%. About 30% of the population have been arrested.
Well, if that alone isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. Think about the implications of that in a society where you have a good chance of being unemployable even if you have a college degree...
Re: (Score:2)
72% are not obesity related. Obviously your numbers are suspect.
"While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily, according to Batschelet."
If your back of a nonexistent napkin attempt is that far off, do you really conclude that the article is the wrong one?
Ob: Animal House (Score:3)
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Not in civvy street, anyway.
Does this imply ... (Score:2)
... that DoD has determined that geeks are typically fat and stuff?
We would forgive you, Snowden ... (Score:2)
... if you'd just bulk up a little.
Bringing the term, "friendly fire," ... (Score:2)
... to a military computer near you.
Does the USN or USAF do this (Score:2)
AFAIK they recruit excellent engineers that meet their fitness requirements so what is so different about the USA?
Really, anyone who isn't disciplined enough to stay somewhat fit, or to get fit enough for basic, really isn't military material IMHO. Physical discipline and mental discipline go hand-in-hand. Are cyber-warriors allowed to stuff their faces at the DEFAC? Will they be excused from all field exercises? Will never be deployed in country, attached to MI units?
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK they recruit excellent engineers that meet their fitness requirements so what is so different about the USA?
Well, do you want the best, or do you merely want "excellent?" There can only be 10 top-10 anythings in the world, and maybe they aren't good at pushups?
I couldn't tell you what if any differences exist in the current physical standards between the branches of the US military.
Re: (Score:2)
The enlisted aren't really "engineers" from an academic perspective, they are very specifically trained techs. The actual engineers (with a BS) would mostly be officers who went through ROTC or some such and so had to go through plenty of military and physical training in college already.
I agree that if you can't manage 30-ish push ups in 2 minutes you may want to consider another job - many (even technically minded) young people can already do that, and almost anyone in otherwise good health can get ther
Another Service? (Score:3)
Geeks.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they are looking for pasty scrawny geeks to fly their drones?
Hardly. I believe that they require drone pilots to be qualified as ordinary aircraft pilots, and they make them wear flight suits while they're piloting drones.
Idiotic, but it is a culture thing. There is certainly an overlap of skills in piloting a drone and a manned aircraft, but there are lots of things exclusive to either. Maybe your next ace drone pilot is afraid of heights and you wash him out in training. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Great news for Kim DotCom (Score:3)
he can apply for amnesty, change his name to General Lardass and asked to be put in charge of Cyber Command.
Wrong solution (Score:3)
Why not simply order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese? Most of them would thank you for it.
(Yes, I know obesity is not that simple, but surely it could be one part of the solution.)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people who do not qualify cannot be ordered. You have to lower the criteria, and accept the previously unacceptable, before you can order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese.
Criminal history was mentioned as part of this. You can't basic train someone's arrest for hacking or weed out of the record. So there goes your plan. Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
You could create some kind of conditional enlistment, it would be nearly the same thing.
This. (Score:2)
If they wanted to lose weight, they could have done so long ago.
You can filter out those that are unwilling, but then you risk potentially filtering out the best "cyber warriors".
This.
OCD people can generally accomplish anything they become obsessive about. They typically do not obsess about physical fitness, because it does not engage your brain.
You're thinking about this wrong. (Score:2)
It's almost that simple. If the caloric intake is limited and the P.T. requirements met, I guarantee *anyone* would slim up in time. In the army they can control what you eat just as much as how much P.T. you do, so the usual laundry list of excuses for obesity don't matter.
You're thinking about this wrong.
Cardio myopathy? Heart murmur? Arterial-venous malformation? Scoliosis? Spina bifida? Multiple Sclerosis? Myasthenia Gravis? Hypertension? Etc.?
There are many medical reasons for turning inward to concentrate on ones intellect which I will freaking guarantee that you will dedicate yourself to the task, and without the help of Jesus personally laying hands on you, will preclude you from becoming physically fit.
Army should be part of the solution (Score:2)
Declare lack of academic and physical fitness of young people a national security problem on par with terrorism. Allocate trillions of budget accordingly to sponsor high quality educational and athletic programs to anyone willing to participate, including free healthy meals. A cost of enrolling all children in a state would be like half of a modern stealth plane.
Next, reach out to women, LGBT and other unrepresented demographics to consider enlisting. Experience instant boost in highly qualified recruits du
Way to address the 18% and not the 82%! (Score:2)
Way to address the 18% and not the 82%!
Given that you're not OK with the 70% remaining people that are currently unqualified, that'll get you another 12.6% overall, instead of 57.4% overall. Way to go for the 22% solution to the 100% of the problem there! Let's see... that'll give you a "C+" grade, on the standard scale... way to overachieve!
Perhaps you need to hire some otherwise unqualified STEM people to do your math for you, before you start making policy decisions based on your back of the envelope c
I applied, but... (Score:2)
... They didn't want people with disabilities back when I was younger and applying for IT jobs with them. :(
Re: (Score:2)
also up or out rules and other BS makes it better to have this not part of the old system. Maybe tech / IT should be on it's own for all of the us gov IT needs.
Speaking as a Soldier... (Score:2)
sounds like (Score:2)
it's time for a new branch of the military.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:4, Informative)
I think "criminal histories" in this case is probably just a code-phrase for "smoked weed".
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Informative)
I think "criminal histories" in this case is probably just a code-phrase for "smoked weed".
Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg makes it sound like the military is relaxing its recruiting standards over criminal records because it needs "hackers".
But the truth of the matter is, the military has already relaxed its recruiting standards over criminal records. It did it for Vietnam and Korea when nobody else wanted to go. And it did it again ever since the war in Iraq got started, even formerly convicted felons [about.com] have been able to get in (not just former weed smokers).
I'd say don't believe the hype regarding their need for hackers. The military is notoriously bad at matching recruits with jobs according to their existing technical abilities. If you want to do cyber warfare, get yourself a bachelor of art in something, anything, so that you get yourself recruited as an officer at the very least, to increase your chances -- not guarantee them mind you. If you enter the military without a degree because you like programming, or worse because you like playing video games, expect to be used as IED fodder in the Middle East, for the jobs that no one else wants to do.
Re:What a great idea! (Score:5, Interesting)
How long ago was that?
Replying with "no" is an option.
My understanding when I enlisted (over 20 years ago) and through now has been, that an admission of usage was itself not an issue, if there was no longer any current usage and drug test results were negative. One of the primary issues (maybe the only?) of concern was the ability of someone to blackmail the service member for (classified) information by threatening to make drug usage known to the chain of command. If the service member admits to usage prior to enlistment / contracting, there is no ability to blackmail.
It is possibly that has changed over the years. I can also see that if there is no arrest record or nobody to dime you out, answering "no" is the simplest answer.
Re: (Score:2)
So how well are the squeaky-clean hiring standards for the NSA, CIA, FBI, and IRS working for us?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the Army will use the same contractor for the vetting process as they did with Snowden and perhaps the Army will allow Lady Gaga DVDs as it did with Manning and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Any large organization is always going to have a certain percentage of people who fail to meet and live up to that organization's standards.
Re: (Score:2)
What a great idea! (Score:2, Interesting)
J-walking, smoking weed, and downloading unlicensed copies of music online are illegal activities. If you want the best and brightest, it's not a good idea to disqualify 96% for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get caught, no consequences.
What are they supposed to do, disqualify everyone merely because they might have committed some crime (even though most people don't commit any serious crimes)? Not going with that little strategy doesn't seem like it would do a very good job of guaranteeing sociopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice anecdotal evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, just about anything can be addictive. It largely depends on the person.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"since a lot of products of the public (and private) education system are just rote memorization drones"
I take it you're not all that familiar with military training then, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's put people with repeated criminal offenses in positions of great power! It's not like they'd ever abuse it, would they?
Well, vote them out next time...
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh... sorry, thought you were talking about the OTHER criminals...
That's why they have the draft (Score:3)
That's why they have the draft.
If you won't work for low pay, they'll force you to work for low pay. And get shot and killed. Most Fortune 500 companies don't require that last little bit...
Re:That's why they have the draft (Score:4, Funny)
Shhh! Don't give them ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they have the draft.
Congratulations on your successful thawing. When did they freeze you?
Re: (Score:3)
I take it you're not aware that the draft is still in the laws, although not currently used, and only a signature away. Don't get complacent jack(ass).
Re:Why do they need to be in the Military? (Score:4, Informative)
Why can't they just be hired to do specific work like millions of other federal employees? This seems a bit stupid.
I can think of a couple of reasons, there may be more. A new army recruit is probably going to be payed less than a civilian government employee. Also, in the military, you can work 18+ hrs a day and there is no such thing as overtime. Civilians are also not subject to the uniform code of military justice, which means punishing bad guys--or, heh, good guys doing bad--is always made easier than dealing with messy civilian justice.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they just be hired to do specific work like millions of other federal employees? This seems a bit stupid.
in many ways it already is, i.e. contractor workforce. Much of Army jobs (mess hall, janitorial, guards, etc.) is contracted out. So much for standing guard duty at some gate that rarely has visitors, put on KP for next 30 days, cleaning floors with a tooth brush. that's why military budget is so huge and yet a very small percentage of all people have any involvement with military services (ask anyone what's the difference between a SSGT and a LTC? Googling is cheating).
Re: (Score:3)
As a taxpayer, is that really how you want tax dollars spent?
Do you really want them to hire someone who does not meet the physical requirements to then pay them to get into the required level of physical fitness over enlisting / contracting (an enlistment is a contract) someone who does meet all the requirements?
Re: (Score:2)
Nurse! Gramps isn't taking his meds again!
Re: (Score:2)
I think for this kind of role you want people who understand technology down to the metal. Transistors up.
Totally unnecessary. The best hackers are usually extreme specialists, not generalists, and often not college educated, so I bet very few of them could explain the difference between PNP and NPN. Intelligence, self-motivation, and reverse engineering are a lot more useful to hacking than electrical engineering.
Raising the standard isn't going to get the Army the best and brightest "cyber warriors" - they are going to have to raise the pay grade...
Otherwise, it's the tech equivalent of hiring Army Rangers who are too fat to do a single pushup.
That also raises the question - where the hell did that "10
Re: (Score:2)
Then they might have to pay them a competitive civilian salary.
Re: (Score:2)
With US mil staff they can be kept on base, called up, sent on any mission, given meds, kept in remote, hot or cold locations on low pay. Their base and social lives can be understood, controlled, legally shaped and corrected. Their internet use logged, the calls listened in on. No escape form any task over years after the skill set has been learned.
With civilians they have real rights, real lawyers, can sort of still say no to meds and remote loc
Re: (Score:2)
Have courses at West Point, the Air Force Academy, or whatever on compsci, programming, and make a course specifically on black hat hacking.
The military academies already have computer science (and most other engineering) degree programs. And I'd bet you anything they have courses in computer security of various forms.
Encourage CompSci majors to join ROTC, give out perks and automatically higher rank to CompSci majors
No need to - they go through ROTC and they will already join as a 2nd Lt. If they prove themselves, they will be promoted, that's how the whole thing works...
Re: (Score:3)
It's definitely true and public knowledge...
But you make a key point as far as salaries - I have never been in the military but I have been in the tech industry for 20 years and techies generally don't care about "rank" and hate hierarchy and bureaucracy, two particular specialties of the military. It's amazing how the US government is fine with paying $300 million for a fighter jet or $1.5M for a single cruise missile but they think paying $60k a year to a Captain with 5 years of experience is adequate to
Re: (Score:3)
It really depends on how much the US gov wants to pay, the conditions offered in hot and cold parts of the world and the quality of long term higher education support offered to each person.
If not many other nations will be ready to listen, support and offer funding t