> The presumption of innocence should direct opinion, not implication, but the links should be noted.
The standard in civil service is historically and conventionally "beyond even the appearance of impropriety," not "presumption of innocence." I think the person in question falls well below that standard.
There's been a long-standing exception for hackers going back to the '90s, although this has changed in recent years because the cyber security field has become saturated. While at the DOJ under Janet Reno, my uncle bypassed all of that just to have random hackers from Black Hat pen-test USCIS. They even got arrested and let out of jail following a successful attempt to print a greencard for "Mr. Kan G. Roo" - Some exceptions to that rule have been employed in positions of authority for decades, and for good reason too.
The fact that hackers have been productive civil servants doesn't really change the standard. To make it explicit: there is no obvious mitigating qualification in this case.
Yeah, that makes sense based on my experience, tho the problem is appearance - they often fabricate it without substance - leads to a huge level abuse, and erodes trust in the authorities you thought you could. A system that rewards liars and punishes honesty is not good.
I think it also contributes to a culture of corruption - ie, given how resistant some of these civil service positions are to being fired in practice, I wonder how much they carry their vaunted morals through.
Once you're in: do whatever you please! This also supports the appearance - "we are beyond reproach so we couldn't be doing anything bad." Plus, the secrecy shield to block accountability. Likely all enables the level of corruption and perversion that's so obvious.
The standard in civil service is historically and conventionally "beyond even the appearance of impropriety," not "presumption of innocence." I think the person in question falls well below that standard.