The phrasing of this makes it sound like he wants to paint it as though he's doing community service or something. But...Defense Digital Service? At the Pentagon? That's not exactly curing cancer or solving poverty.
At the risk of wading into a fraught discussion, here's an example from yesterday: http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/802828/cart... . Bug bounty programs have proven very effective in private industry (e.g. when Chrome pays security researchers who find vulnerabilities). The Defense Digital Service just completed one of the first bug bounty programs for the federal government. This is my personal opinion, but if bug bounty programs become more common in the government, that would mean that lots more people would be protected from hacks or identity theft.
To give another example that's under the umbrella of the US Digital Service, https://www.vets.gov/playbook/ is an attempt to bring resources for veterans into a single website. Right now, veterans may have to navigate 1000+ websites, 956 different 1-800 numbers, and just deal with more hassle than they should.
I interviewed at the US Digital Service but ended up at the Defense Digital Service because that's where I thought I could help the most. There's some good info about the sort of projects that people at the USDS/DDS work on at https://www.usds.gov/work if anyone is interested. 18F at https://18f.gsa.gov/ is also doing great work, with the extra benefit that people can work for the 18F remotely. 18F has also been a proponent for more open source in the government: https://fcw.com/articles/2016/03/25/noble-open-code.aspx
There's already plenty of smart decent people in the military and even more at defense companies. It's a structural, not a people, problem. What the US military does (both offline and online) mostly has widespread support among politicians and the US population. These policies are not a mistake to be corrected or something that will go away, it's a difference in opinion. If you don't support them you probably shouldn't be involved. There are many other ways to help your country with e.g. digital security. The "anti-military types" is just a cheap shot. Pretty much everyone I know who has been or are involved in a military (or government) has reservations about it (including myself).
Congrats Matt. I hope you kick some serious ass. I have my reservations about automating administrative and criminal law, but I think you have found a spot where what you are doing is needed and can help a lot of people. I'm within a couple of hours' drive from DC. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know.
You shouldn't have reservations about automating criminal law. One of the great injustices of our time is the overloaded criminal court system, which can hold defendants for years before they see a courtroom due to the time it takes to handle simple pre-trial motions.
Clarification: we have too many people in jail. Automated systems that allow even more people to be jailed with little human intervention are what I am talking about. Not people getting their day in court.
No. A slower justice system increases the number of people in jail, which is where defendants are held before trial.
Sentences also need to be ratcheted back sharply across the board. But it's fallacious to suggest that improving the efficiency of the justice system will harm efforts to reduce mass incarceration.
We can argue another day. The purpose of my post was to offer congratulations and offer help, not debate the effect of automation on the criminal justice system. (Gotta love HN)
I am a frequent volunteer on poverty and homelessness issues. But, that wasn't really my point.
My comment was more about my opinion of the US military industrial complex; I believe that, in general, working for the war machine in any capacity is actively harmful to the world.
Matt clarified what he'll be doing there (I think; at least, he mentioned things that are being done there that sound nice...presumably he was implying he would be working on those nice things, rather than on more effective ways to kill brown people), and I have conceded that I was assuming the worst and could have been wrong about that assumption.
"working for the war machine in any capacity is actively harmful to the world" <- that's the kind of absolutist statement that is never right and always poisoning a debate. It also does a disservice to thousands of people in the military who really well intended and risk their lives to save others.
There are exceptions, sure. But, on the whole, war brings death, destruction of infrastructure, disruption of families and communities, and overall negative results for both the human condition and the environment. There are probably valid reasons to wage war; but the US is a nation of hawks and war profiteers at the highest levels, and has been for decades (refer to Eisenhower's military industrial complex speech, and nothing has changed since then except the numbers, both monetary and in human lives, are bigger and the wars more frequent).
To be fair, that's not working for the war machine, it's working with the war machine.
But that is a good point - we have the militaries of the US and Britain to thank not only for the internet but the computers accessing it.
And the military industrial complex has Silicon Valley to thank for its ability to conduct mass targeted surveillance through social media and browser exploits, and to kill people with metadata.
Another interesting dilemma would be, would it have been OK to work on the GPS system, back when it was implemented under the auspices of the Reagan Administration?
It must have sounded like the creepiest thing imaginable to young people who were already concerned about the US's saber-rattling posture, but like the Internet that grew out out of the work done at ARPA, it's now an indispensable public utility.
Well, nobody is curing cancer or solving poverty, so by your logic nobody could criticize. Many people are actually doing something to help either cause (from researchers down to the $10 donor), and I think all of them have the right to criticize one's choice.
That's precisely what I said: a lot of people are helping both causes, so they are trying to cure cancer or solve poverty. Possibly including the author of the comment above.
No way would SwellJoe be wasting his time curing cancer and solving poverty, that's petty stuff! No, SwellJoe is doing bigger things, like smart water bottles!
Personal attacks are not welcome here, regardless of how strongly you disagree with someone. When you see a bad subthread, please don't make it even worse. Instead, post something to turn it in a more substantive, less inflamed direction, or simply don't post at all.
USDS is heavily involved in the VA. Part of that work depends on clear communication from the Pentagon. I don't know the specific circumstances here, but I can imagine that there are many veterans whose ability to receive healthcare depends on better infrastructure at the Pentagon.
I assume you're implying the Internet would not exist without military involvement? I think that has already been debunked during the "Al Gore invented the Internet" conversation.
The military receives no benefit from my use of the Internet (aside from the tax revenue it generates, but I don't have any good way to avoid providing tax revenue to the government).
Many in the government space can go higher than that through special exceptions, projects and various other reasons. So I'm not convinced you can simply conclude that he's making $160k.
