

The FBI Needs Hackers, Not Backdoors - 8bitpony
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/01/wiretap-backdoors/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Top+Stories%29

======
neumann_alfred
The second someone works for the FBI, with that being their main motive and
only plan, they may be a lot of things, but hardly a hacker. I guess everybody
has their own definition, but to me this is like saying "water needs dry
surfaces".

~~~
cbs
Everyone sells out sometime. Is someone that believes in justice even in spite
of an inelegant set of legal boundaries a particularly exceptional case?

------
andyzweb
"Never trust a traitor, not even one you create" -- Baron Von Harkonnen

------
expodod
This strategy has been working very well at DARPA.

[http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Personnel/Mr_Peiter_Zatko....](http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Personnel/Mr_Peiter_Zatko.aspx)
[http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Personnel/Mr_Daniel_Roelke...](http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Personnel/Mr_Daniel_Roelker.aspx)

------
peripetylabs
The FBI and other organizations like it emphasize strong (blind) loyalty in
their hiring criteria. That is the opposite of what makes someone a hacker.
Even if a hacker did end up working for the FBI, he or she would be an asset,
not an employee -- they would be handled no differently from gang snitches.

------
stcredzero
Considering that penetration testers are usually _certain_ they'll find a new
0-day when they work on a new system, why bother with back doors?

------
pi18n
Why wouldn't they just have both?

------
LatvjuAvs
For your own safety ;)

~~~
rdl
I think this is part of a sadness buffer underflow attack by the FBI.

