Should the Apache Foundation stop hosting NSA-sponsored code?

First of all, the NSA has not sponsored development of Accumulo for more than a year. The gist of the story is that companies that charge to support other implementations of Big Table-like systems argued that the government support of Accumulo directly interfered with their ability to compete. Their main point was that the government's job was not to compete in an already-thriving industry, and their lobbying was successful: in summer 2012, the NSA was formally ordered to halt production on Accumulo. Some of the employees left to start their own company, last I heard.

Second, as other users have noted, this is not the only implementation, and dropping it will certainly not make it impossible to do what they do. Remember that Accumulo was started when no OSS technology could do what it did. Now is a different time, and arguably it is actually behind.

I agree that it feels good to stick it to "the man", but let's be realistic here. This move is accomplishing nothing.

Accumulo is also a suitable data store for education and medical data, where there's also lots of regulation over who can see what.

The linked article is reactionary and has no substance.

It's pointless in this case because the NSA is not subject to such grassroots political pressure. Their sigintel teams do not give a shit if you use Accumulo or if Apache hosts it. Harassing Apache will have zero effect on Prism and related programs, but will harm Apache, which is a known-good organization.

If you want to change things at the NSA, the political pressure points are in Congress and the White House. Not Apache.

Would Apache dropping support for one particular BigTable implementation meaningfully hinder the NSA?

The general picture seems to be what antics says in the first comment: NSA adapted Big Data technologies to suit their own access control and other requirements, and then decided that the best way forward was collaborative. A group of employees set up sqrrl to provide a commercial distribution. But it's an ecosystem that the NSA gains from, all the same, and the broad membership of Apache seems like it makes for a place where people may have leverage.

antics' "First of all" paragraph is completely consistent with what I wrote. The "Second" paragraph is an "If I don't do it someone else will" argument: it's not acceptable for arms companies and I don't see why it's more acceptable for open source foundations.

cartershonwald's first paragraph is also consistent with what I wrote. I am sure that the NSA takes more concern over privacy than, say, Google or Yahoo. But that's not really relevant here is it? And the fact that the technology is also useful for other things - well, we can say the same for internet filtering technologies and deep packet inspection, but we still criticize Blue Coat and others when the sell that to authoritarian regimes. I believe what I'm saying is consistent with criticising those companies.

_delirium's comment is also "If not Apache, someone else will do it" as above. Not good enough for arms manufacturers, and not good enough for the Apache Foundation.

I don't understand showerst's comment.

Pherdnut - I don't think the main argument with NSA is that they are being secret, it's that they are engaging in massive and illegitimate surveillance.