Darpa: U.S. Geek Shortage Is National Security Risk

[mtnbkr]

They don't care, because they no longer think of themselves as "American" corporations.

Ding ding ding.  We have a winnah.

As libertarian as I am, I sometimes wonder if we're sacrificing our nation at the altar of Capitalism. 

Chris

[MicroBalrog]

What do you think the nation is for?

[Bigjake]

What do you think the nation is for?

Not that.

[MicroBalrog]

Not that.

Nations/governments exist to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[roo_ster]

Ding ding ding.  We have a winnah.

As libertarian as I am, I sometimes wonder if we're sacrificing our nation at the altar of Capitalism.  

Chris

Don't make the same mistake lefties do in thinking corporation ~ capitalism.

Corporations learn quickly that if they can spend hundreds of thousands / millions of dollars with the right folks in DC, they can increase their bottom line tens/hundreds of dollars.  This can be in direct subsidy, immigration exceptions, barriers to entry for competition, etc.

[mtnbkr]

Yeah, wrong word, I was being distracted at the time and that was the word that popped into my statist head.

Chris

[Bigjake]

Nations/governments exist to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I might be in the wrong on this, but if you loose the principals the enabled you to become successful, isn't it kind of self defeating?  Sort of selling your soul?

[MicroBalrog]

I might be in the wrong on this, but if you loose the principals the enabled you to become successful, isn't it kind of self defeating?  Sort of selling your soul?

I can't see where we disagree.

[Bigjake]

I can't see where we disagree.

Cool,  I'll take it.   

[Perd Hapley]

1.  Does anyone else find it ironic that an off-shore geek (2swap) was called in for this conversation about the dangers of off-shore geeks?   

2.  The problem isn't capitalism or corporations, it's greed.  That, or just disregard for national security.  I'm fairly sure it's possible for corporations to do business without endangering national security.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

1.  Does anyone else find it ironic that an off-shore geek (2swap) was called in for this conversation about the dangers of off-shore geeks?  

2.  The problem isn't capitalism or corporations, it's greed.  That, or just disregard for national security.  I'm fairly sure it's possible for corporations to do business without endangering national security.

How are greed and/or corporations endangering national security?

It is axiomatic that nature abhors a vacuum. If there are JOBS in the U.S. for geeks -- jobs that pay a living wage and for which said geeks DON'T have to compete against people with phony "American" names from Pakistan -- the shortage will be filled rather quickly. But if an American geek needs to earn $5,000 a month to live, and AT&T can hire "Samantha" in Pakistan for $5,000 a year ... well, that's the problem. The multi-national corporations are putting short term economics ahead of national security. They don't care, because they no longer think of themselves as "American" corporations.

False premise.  

There are geek jobs to be had, jobs that pay honestly and fairly.  Those jobs are being filled by new tech workers, as fast as they can be trained.  There's enough demand for both "Samantha" in Pakistan and an American geek to earn gainful employment with pay commensurate with their skill.  It's not an either/or proposition, it's a both/and situation.  Technology is still one of the hottest career paths out there right now, even in the midst of the biggest recession in decades.

[Hawkmoon]

As libertarian as I am, I sometimes wonder if we're sacrificing our nation at the altar of Capitalism. 

I don't.


Wonder, that is. And I think your statement should have been cast in the past tense ...

[Hawkmoon]

Technology is still one of the hottest career paths out there right now, even in the midst of the biggest recession in decades.

A few posts above, it seemed you were agreeing with DARPA that there's a shortage of American geeks, which explains why we should feel warm and fuzzy about hiring foreign pseudo-geeks. Now you're saying there isn't a shortage.

DARPA does not appear to agree with your analysis.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

A few posts above, it seemed you were agreeing with DARPA that there's a shortage of American geeks, which explains why we should feel warm and fuzzy about hiring foreign pseudo-geeks. Now you're saying there isn't a shortage.

DARPA does not appear to agree with your analysis.

Huh?  I never said there was no shortage.  There is a shortage of geeks, both American and otherwise.  That's why tech is one of the hottest, most "in demandest" career paths out there right now.

This stuff isn't all that confusing, folks...

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Never mind.  'Twas deleted.

[RevDisk]

There is a shortage of geeks, both American and otherwise.  That's why tech is one of the hottest, most "in demandest" career paths out there right now.

There isn't a mass shortage per se.  There are small shortages in certain skillsets, certainly.  The bulk of the shortage from the corporate view is folks not having the specs they want for the price they want. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There isn't a mass shortage per se.  There are small shortages in certain skillsets, certainly.  The bulk of the shortage from the corporate view is folks not having the specs they want for the price they want.  

What I've observed is a general overall shortage.  

There are certainly some folks in IT who feel that there's a lack of jobs that pay what they want, but that comes from the view that they're worth more than they really are.  Many got used to the late '90s job market where they could hop from employer to employer at will, naming any price they wanted.  They think that was normal, and they take for granted that things should always be that way.  

There's still a shortage, but it's not as severe as it once was, a fact that many folks haven't adjusted to yet.

[mtnbkr]

I'm not convinced there is much of a shortage.  During the last year at my previous job, we hired two firewall engineers.  We had no shortage of candidates, and those were the ones that made it through the first filtering process.  I personally looked at 6 resumes.  Some of those folks had been unemployed or underemployed.

When I went job hunting late last year, I inferred from recruiter and hiring manager comments they were getting multiple applicants for a given opening.

All the while, salaries are creeping downward while position requirements are going up (this doesn't indicate a lack of geeks).  DOD is particularly guilty of this.  They want everybody who works in a infosec context to have a CISSP.  Many positions require a college degree in CompSci, CIS, or Engineering.  This is in an industry where formal education was not critical if you had the skillsets (partially because schools couldn't keep up with the required skillsets).  Like I mentioned earlier, I know several fantastic engineers who have a GED or HS Diploma.  Some only have the experience they gained doing IT as a soldier in the military.  I was disqualified from a govt contractor position because I didn't have that degree (have a BBA and MBA and 13 years of relevant experience though).  

Companies and govt need to get their heads out of their rear end.  Salaries for IT folks NEED to be higher.  Why?  IT Jobs are generally not long term propositions.  It is common for a position to be a 3-6 month contracting gig (where you pay for benefits and such).  Also, technology is constantly changing.  Many engineers have test labs at home so they can stay on top of the latest tech and methods (I built a virtual lab with Dynamips).  Continuing education in the form of certifications is expensive (relevant books are $40-$100 each, the tests cost $100+ with many certs requiring multiple tests).  A lot of folks would take less pay if they got some job security and weren't pressured to spend significant amounts of money on "education".  They can't because they know "this" job might not last long or they'll be shelling out significant funds on training and education.  It adds insult to injury when not only are the salaries low, but the requirements are so damn high (really?  A CCIE and CISSP for a NOC position and you're only going to pay $90k? - yes, I saw such a job listing).  

I suspect what DARPA is really saying is there is a shortage of overqualified applicants.  

Edit to add:  I'm in Northern Virginia, which has a robust IT market (fueled by .gov).  I suspect the surplus is worse in other areas.

Chris

[Gewehr98]

Got wind from a buddy in NRO last night that the FBI is hiring at their location in West Virginia, and they offered him $140K as a GS-14/GS-15 to be an administrator.

Lots of applicants, but he's got his Master's and all the certs, so he is jumping ship from the NRO to the FBI.  His NRO job was secure, but the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, so... He asked if I wanted to get back into FedGov work. 

I politely declined.   

I agree, however, with Chris' assertion that they really go nuts with the education requirements for some of those GS job positions. 

[roo_ster]

I've seen enough paper tigers to not give a rat's hind end about certs or degrees for IT folk.

[mtnbkr]

I've seen enough paper tigers to not give a rat's hind end about certs or degrees for IT folk.

True, but unfortunately, the resume scanning systems (got to get past these first), most recruiters, and all too many hiring managers do care.  DOD will NOT keep a person on board in an IT security capacity if they can't get their CISSP in 6 months.  Honestly, the CISSP is so broad, yet so shallow, it's all but useless as a gauge of knowledge, but it is the hot cert right now. 

Don't get me wrong, I've been studying for the CISSP because I find the material fascinating (all of it, even the physical security and environmental stuff), but do you really think someone who is managing firewalls or IDS/IPS systems needs to know about physical (ie building) security to do their job effectively?  Let me give you a clue, no, you don't (I just left a firewall gig and currently work with IDS/IPS technology now).

Chris

[RevDisk]

Don't get me wrong, I've been studying for the CISSP because I find the material fascinating (all of it, even the physical security and environmental stuff), but do you really think someone who is managing firewalls or IDS/IPS systems needs to know about physical (ie building) security to do their job effectively? 

Yes.


Reminds me, I need to get my CISSP.   Don't you need a referral from a current CISSP now?

[mtnbkr]

Yes.

Where I've worked, the FW folks and physical security/environmental folks were separate groups.  We (as a member of the FW group) weren't given access to the physical or environmental controls at all.  Same goes for my current job, I (and my counterparts) have no access to the physical security or environmental systems.  I suppose someone who is setting broad reaching security policy for an organization would benefit from the broad knowledge gained from earning the CISSP, but the reality for most organizations I've worked for or with is there is too much specialization for that to be of much use.

Reminds me, I need to get my CISSP.   Don't you need a referral from a current CISSP now?

Yes.  Though I understand there are methods of getting that referral from a pool of CISSPs in your area.  You don't have to know one personally.  I haven't looked into it because I know a few.  Getting the referral isn't an issue.

Chris

[RevDisk]

Where I've worked, the FW folks and physical security/environmental folks were separate groups.  We (as a member of the FW group) weren't given access to the physical or environmental controls at all.  Same goes for my current job, I (and my counterparts) have no access to the physical security or environmental systems.  I suppose someone who is setting broad reaching security policy for an organization would benefit from the broad knowledge gained from earning the CISSP, but the reality for most organizations I've worked for or with is there is too much specialization for that to be of much use.

Never trust an IT security geek that can't pick a lock, plan a defensive posture or be clinically diagnosed with extreme delusional paranoia.

Yes.  Though I understand there are methods of getting that referral from a pool of CISSPs in your area.  You don't have to know one personally.  I haven't looked into it because I know a few.  Getting the referral isn't an issue.

Chris

Yea, I need to dig out my CISSP books, study them a bit, and go take the test.  I've met legions of CISSP'ers that knew little to nothing about security, so it obviously can't be that hard.

[MechAg94]

Outsourcing and minimizing company employees is nothing new and happens in all areas.  Look at chemical plant maintenance groups.  Used to be all the big plants had their own large maintenance staffs and did almost everything in house.  Now, just about all of them gutted their internal maintenance staffs and go out to contractors for everything.  They keep minimal numbers of actual maintenance employees to do critical preventive maintenance and troubleshooting.  My company is one deep everywhere.  If someone is out for car accident, we either borrow from a nearby site or hire a contractor. 

It is simply the fact that our taxes, unemployment compensation and all sorts of others things make it expensive to hire employees full time.  It is cheaper to outsource and keep one or two experts for quality control.  On the other side of that, it is difficult to quantify all the costs of NOT having qualified and experienced people in place as employees.