Why? There's absolutely zero reason to allow people taking part in the NSA's antics into groups deciding public policy.
We need to make working for the NSA a big red 'untrustworthy ' flag, regardless of alleged level of involvement.
The moral issue is about someone's affiliation with NSA makes him or her a spy, unworthy in the crypto community.
If people have different opinion when they were young (or in the case of a student who just want a god damn internship), it sounds like we will punish them and discriminate them in the future, given their past involvement with NSA.
If they want to be trusted, they need to stand apart from the people who are lying and deceiving us about their tactics and their data gathering.
Will you risk your company's integrity and reputation over hiring someone who had worked for NSA? An undergraduate? A father who had three kids to feed and just took the job to make a living?
Not trusting often turns out to be punishing. And in many cases we simply just discriminate them.
This is a serious issue, a real moral issue.
I cannot save others from the impact of the choices they make. and I would not want to.
You appear to be arguing that we should not judge people based on their actions - I am unsure where that leaves us?
So a driver who drunk drive and lost their legs should have a tag "I was a killer killing fifteen people five years ago and don't build an accessible platform for me"? No of course we don't do that.
Should we try to help those people with disabilities? Yes. Should we go out of our way to help those who decided that they could drive under the influence, and kill 15 people because of their negligence? I think you will find that most people wouldn't even waste the spittle on that person's face.
I should add all of these to my CV just to avoid ppl who would irrationally discriminate (although I'd then be lying on my CV).
If a year or two of NSA interns have to learn the hard way that they'll never find employment anywhere else afterwords, too bad. You can bet your ass that, by the third year, nobody will be accepting those positions without fully intending on being there forever, and committing to the degradation of privacy.
I don't think I can trust someone worked at NSA for many years either. I will give you that. But how should companies deal with these applicants?
> If a year or two of NSA interns have to learn the hard way that they'll never find employment anywhere else afterwords, too bad.
And that's exactly why my question is important to raise: how do we choose not to "discriminate" them.
EDIT
Downvoting on a moral issue? Really?
If we started ostracizing only long-term hires, the NSA would just have more motivation to 'turn' their short-term hires.
I feel that without a sort of "zero tolerance" policy towards NSA employment, there will always be a way for them to get around imposed restrictions.
FYI, you shouldn't have been downvoted, your argument has merit even if I disagree with it. Upvoted.
NSA/GCHQ employees need to learn working for these agencies is a one-way street. No one on the outside will ever trust them or employ them again.
And I am interested in #1 how companies, particularly, big companies handle these issues, and do you as co-worker evaluate your new co-worker.
... but the "war" of privacy is yet to be won. So chasing individuals for collaboration may be too early.
For the moment, until or unless there's a sea change of public accountability and trust with respect to the NSA (which would likely take years if not generations), it's safest and most sensible to treat these employees as potentially suspect in any area where their employer has been shown to be an adversary.