Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Army looks to tap civilian talent for cyber force (fcw.com)
14 points by pgl 6 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 6 comments





Five officers per year is a total embarassment. NSA has (estimated) 40k staff, and unknown additional contractors and outsourced solution providers.

NSA officers already deploy with US forces, so the only reason is to have people in your chain of command. But then they won't have access to the resources of NSA.

It also seems to be a bad career track, because, being restricted duties, they could not command anything significant. The corollary is that there will never be people educated in offensive infosec making informed decisions.


That $70 billion a year increase in budget, while they keep whining they "don't have money for free college" must've helped quite a bit. The military industrial complex keeps growing.

Does the US Army work with the NSA? Because I wouldn't be surprised if the reason they can't find staff is because a lot of techies are against the government spying on all it's citizens. They might not want to be involved in helping the government surveillance plans.

I guess there's also the financial aspect that the private section will pay more than the government. But I think the job (if you removed the betraying your country by spying on them stuff) would be rewarding enough to attract some people.


> applicants must be under 41 compared to 32 for OCS, and can skip the traditional basic and combat training requirements, but they must be able to pass a physical and meet basic fitness standards.

> applicants are sent to Ft. Sill for four weeks of direct commissioned officer training and 12 weeks of condensed cyber basic officer leader course

> security clearance backlog of more than 700,000 applications, making it possible for cyber officer candidates to report for duty in as little as four to five months from initial application

This makes applying to Google and Amazon seem like a breeze. And at least private companies try to hide their ageism.

And am I missing something? If you're sending techies to the battlefield, you're doing it wrong.


My guess is two-fold: one issue is that there is a culture and this was the best compromise that the institution could do.

The second is that there might be cases where you want to send techies to bases in, say, Afghanistan, to take a closer look at computers you might not want to expose over any kind of external connection, or where you need to talk with local assets.


I can't tell if they have waved the requirement to have better vision than 20/100 or whatever it is in your weak eye.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: