News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress. Parent comment

Re:NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress by srl on Sunday January 05, 2014 @01:57AM (#7014916)
> I won't work with USG IT

This may be none of anyone's business, but I'm curious enough to try asking anyway: is this a moral objection of some sort, or something more mundane (i.e. inconvenient regulatory burden)?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress by tptacek on Monday January 06, 2014 @11:28PM (#7015522)
Moral.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress by timsally on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @12:15AM (#7015745)
What specifically is your moral objection?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress by tptacek on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @11:45AM (#7018212)
I wrote a longer response a couple days ago but the outage ate it. :)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:NSA statement does not deny 'spying' on members of Congress by srl on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @05:24PM (#7020445)
IIRC (because I think "Moral" is likely to be misinterpreted by people reading into it what they want) your response came down to "the moral landscape when working with DOD and DHS in particular, is forbiddingly difficult to navigate, so I've chosen to avoid them both - EPA et al I'd be happy to work with".
[ Parent | on HN ]