Cyber Operator trade Mega Thread

[meni0n]

Unfortunately both of you are wrong in how CSE and CAF operate. CAF fullfils national priorities that touch upon only the military side while CSE does the rest. They both do SIGINT. There is some overlap on certain priorities but that's about it. If you read their mandate on their website, it specifically says provide foreign intelligence.

Sent from my LG-H873 using Tapatalk

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm sure I'll take flak for this but it should be Spec 2.

Our Flight Engineers are Spec 2. Come spend a day with them, or hell make it a few weeks on a deployment, and then you'll have an idea of what Spec2 is all about. 

Both industry and all levels of government pay their new civilians well beyond the Spec 2 range. The CSE pays 74k for a brand new Cybersecurity Analyst plus overtime. That roughly equates to the salary of a Spec 1 IPC 4 MCpl and reaches 87k without a promotion. The entrance requirements are no greater than those of a Cyber Operator. They're both looking for skilled members, regardless of post-secondary. Other sub-specialties of Cyber Operator pay well beyond Spec 2 and certainly Spec 1.

Civilian pilots, and Doctors and nurses and dentists etc also can make more money on the outside than they can in the CAF.  I can look for a 6 figure Payload Op job, etc compared to my 5 digit one now.

I've highlighted the key word in your argument.

 

[Avail]

Civilian pilots, and Doctors and nurses and dentists etc also can make more money on the outside than they can in the CAF.

Fair point. Just my opinion. Maybe they should be paid more as well. I'm not claiming that the situation is unique.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

We could say this for any trade that has a civilian counterpart;  AVN, ATIS, Dental Assistant...

Maybe the type of people we want aren't solely motivated by $.  I am paid well, and I also get to do things in uniform no civie will ever do.  There's also a 'balance' for some folks with the decent pay/unique experiences aspect...I'm hopeful that Cyber will be the same and not everyone is doing what they do in the CAF 'because it is the best paying job they could get their hands on' while they are in uniform.

 

[Avail]

Maybe the type of people we want aren't solely motivated by $.

I don't see how desiring better compensation for an occupation, or occupations,  is the same as being solely motivated by $. Agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[Brash]

Maybe the type of people we want aren't solely motivated by $.  I am paid well, and I also get to do things in uniform no civie will ever do.  There's also a 'balance' for some folks with the decent pay/unique experiences aspect...I'm hopeful that Cyber will be the same and not everyone is doing what they do in the CAF 'because it is the best paying job they could get their hands on' while they are in uniform.

Why do we pay extra for pilots (and Doctors, and Lawyers) then?
It is my understanding, that we do it to pay off the balance that the CAF coolness factor(tm) factor leaves as a delta towards hiring the right people.

Will you hire people to fill billets in the CyberOp trade, no matter how much you pay? Likely.
Will they maximize the value as a function of talent/skills/expenditure? Likely not.

Talk to any number of exploited Corporations on their hindsight of being hopeful, with their cyber programs.
For what is at stake, IMO, pay extra, get the right people for our future.

 

[PuckChaser]

I still fail to see why we need uniformed cyber operators doing the same or less of what CSEC is doing. Are we going to forward deploy them? Unless it's forensics or penetration testing of a deployed network, likely not, and we can do that with civilians as public servants. We're too small of a military to continue to have all these micro trades with dubious connections to actual deployed operations.

It also solves all the whining about pay for a trade that barely exists.

 

[Inspir]

That could be said for a lot of trades in the CAF. When an occupation could be filled with public civil servants instead of military personnel. I venture to say at least a third quarter.

 

[Avail]

Unless it's forensics or penetration testing of a deployed network

Both of which are Cyber Op tasks...

 

[PuckChaser]

Both of which are Cyber Op tasks...

That could be done by civilians. If a cyber op is ever holding a gun, the Russians have invaded Letrim and everyone else in the CAF is dead.

 

[dapaterson]

That could be done by civilians. If a cyber op is ever holding a gun, the Russians have invaded Letrim and everyone else in the CAF is dead.

Russians don't invade our secret locations.  That's what they have CAF Naval Intelligence officers for.

 

[SupersonicMax]

That could be done by civilians. If a cyber op is ever holding a gun, the Russians have invaded Letrim and everyone else in the CAF is dead.

Offensive ops should always be conducted by uniformed personnel.  Even if it is cyber, it can cause physical harm.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Offensive ops should always be conducted by uniformed personnel.  Even if it is cyber, it can cause physical harm.

The VCDS touched on this briefly during the Cyber Symposium.

In a Peer to Peer environment:

Offensive Cyber Ops = Act of War.

According the LOAC, Hague Conventions, Geneva etc., Acts of war need to be conducted by uniformed militaries otherwise it is considered espionage/terrorism/criminality.

Even if Civ. Smith is the one writing the script to destroy a Russian network, Cpl Bloggins will have to be the one to pull the trigger to make things legal.

I assume the JAG cell will have to wargame this extensively.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Why do we pay extra for pilots (and Doctors, and Lawyers) then?
It is my understanding, that we do it to pay off the balance that the CAF coolness factor(tm) factor leaves as a delta towards hiring the right people.

Will you hire people to fill billets in the CyberOp trade, no matter how much you pay? Likely.
Will they maximize the value as a function of talent/skills/expenditure? Likely not.

I'm saying that if the people we are hiring, for any trade, are doing it solely based on MONEY..then they are not the right people, regardless of their skill level.

Talk to any number of exploited Corporations on their hindsight of being hopeful, with their cyber programs.
For what is at stake, IMO, pay extra, get the right people for our future.

SAR Techs do anywhere/everywhere to save lives while risking their own to do so.  That is Spec2 level pay.  They also don't do it 'just for Spec2'.  We want the folks who are motivated in a similar way for Cyber, or any trade.  :2c:

I am a Spec 1 type.  I have to know lots about my sensors, AC general, different op orders, tactics, and a fairly long list of 'other stuff'; having come from both a Combat Arms and tech trade (226) background before my current trade, my current one is by far more demanding in several ways, compared to 226 which is also Spec 1.  I could also jump ship to civie land and pursue the fairly simple job of being a camera operator (payload op) for a civie company operating UAVs and for more money than I do now;  operating a EO/IR turrent is just a part of my current duties.  Cyber will be no different and the same arguments you guys are making for Cyber to be Spec2 can be made for all the Standard pay trades and why they should be Spec 1, and for why all the Spec 1 trades should be Spec 2, and why we should create Spec3 for current Spec2 trades.

If Army Sigs types want more pay as Cyber types, go Sig O and manage the team at the top.  Same as I can do if I want to make more money for taking up space in the tac tube...I can roll the dice and become an Air Combat Systems Officer and run the show.

 

[Brash]

I'm saying that if the people we are hiring, for any trade, are doing it solely based on MONEY..then they are not the right people, regardless of their skill level.

And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.

If Army Sigs types want more pay as Cyber types, go Sig O and manage the team at the top.  Same as I can do if I want to make more money for taking up space in the tac tube...I can roll the dice and become an Air Combat Systems Officer and run the show.

The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:

• The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
• The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")

The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.

I'm saying that CAF shouldn't waste the resources by having lax selection processes, and training up a huge cohort to find the half dozen performers. (and now having trade clogged with mostly ineffective placeholders)

How do you weed the non-performers out from the juicy pay?  (This is a mostly solved problem in the private sector)
Have a rigorous multi-step selection process.
Have actual interviews to determine interests and ability, not just a PSO seeing if the member can recite facts from a trade backgrounder.

 

[Nuggs]

And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.
The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:

• The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
• The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")

The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.

I'm saying that CAF shouldn't waste the resources by having lax selection processes, and training up a huge cohort to find the half dozen performers. (and now having trade clogged with mostly ineffective placeholders)

How do you weed the non-performers out from the juicy pay?  (This is a mostly solved problem in the private sector)
Have a rigorous multi-step selection process.
Have actual interviews to determine interests and ability, not just a PSO seeing if the member can recite facts from a trade backgrounder.

Well said

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[PuckChaser]

And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.
The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:

• The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
• The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")

The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.

We've already demonstrated that Spec 1 is acceptable based on a completely related CSEC job posting. No one is arguing that they shouldn't make Spec 1, its more than acceptable based on equivalent public sector jobs. They will be completely paid what they're worth. The job security is a massive factor that you're not going to get in the private sector, so the private sector will pay significantly more.

As for your list, you could apply that rationale to any top-third professional in the CAF regardless of trade. I guarantee there are AESOPs studying the wierd voodoo that they do, Comms Rsch guys getting read up on the latest military communications trends and even infantry/armor types who spend time reading Russian doctrine to get an edge should they ever have to face them in battle. Loving your job and wanting to know everything possible to do it better is not something Cyber or even Sigs have a monopoly on, and should never be used to justify "paying them what they're worth".

I've heard tons of stories of folks in Spec 1 trades who think the grass is greener in the private sector and they're not being paid enough, only to end up re-enrolling a year or 2 down the road after they figured out that A. CAF training/experience isn't comparable to private sector, or B. Downsizing and corporate realities had them laid off as they were now the low guy on the totem pole in seniority.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And I'm saying, if the people you are hiring for any trade, are the only ones willing to do it for less than competitive wages (and factoring in the CAF Factor), you're likely not hiring the right people.
I want to base our measure of their worth by what they can provide in terms of ability, not altruism.

SO...here's my question.  WHY is this different for Cyber Ops than...any other trade in the CAF?  Why?  Don't we need those same kind of people as Sonar Ops on subs...Superintendent Clerks at HQ...HMCS Captains, XOs and Coxn or a Infantry Battalion Commander? 

What makes Cyber "so much more special" than ANY other trade in the CAF?  IS the cyber battlespace that much more complex than a live kinetic one (or do YOU think it is...and if so, what is your experience in the kinetic "people die" battlespace to compare it to)?

The people that are good at "the cybers" are NOT:

• The ones who do this as a day job, 8-4 and then shut off and go home.
• The ones who want the job *solely* for the money. ("OMG, they get spec 3, I want to VOT")

The people that excel at this job are the ones that live, eat, breathe this stuff, go home and do it on weekends, live the lifestyle.
You cannot train or drill that desire into an individual during their OJT or QL training, they are born with it.
Through fate you *may* wind up with high performers, but don't confuse accidental excellence with having the right process.

I'm saying that CAF shouldn't waste the resources by having lax selection processes, and training up a huge cohort to find the half dozen performers. (and now having trade clogged with mostly ineffective placeholders)

How do you weed the non-performers out from the juicy pay?  (This is a mostly solved problem in the private sector)
Have a rigorous multi-step selection process.
Have actual interviews to determine interests and ability, not just a PSO seeing if the member can recite facts from a trade backgrounder.

What you're basically saying is, this is a special trade, the most special of all in the CAF and the people in it will be the ultimate tip of the sword and because of that, they should be treated differently than all other trades.  The CAF has selection processes and a trade called PSO who have the sole job of doing...wow...personnel selection!  How the trade will recruit, select, train and employ...you guys will get the same system most of the CAF does. 

Is the system perfect?  Recruiting...training...employment?  Nope..its not...for ANY trade, Cyber included but guess what?  Cyber isn't as 'special' as you folks are trying to make it.  People are "born" good Cyber Ops?  :  Get fuckin serious.

That thing you're calling 'born with it/live it'...think that Cyber is the only trade in the CAF like that?  How about Patrol Pathfinders...clearance divers...all the SOF door kickers.  They are recruited, selected, and employed thru all the processes you are saying 'are shit' in the CAF.

And all the REAL high speed/low drag trades....and I am talking about ones I've mentioned;  Pathfinders, all the SOF stuff, Clearance Divers...they seem to be able to operate quite well despite all of your professed 'failing in the system' to recruit/select/train/employ.

I think where your worry really lies in not with "the CAF overall".  It is your own branch;  how fucked is ACISS?  Is that the "CAFs" fault, or the C & E branches fault?  PSO, TDOs, etc they are SME advisors to commanders - they didn't fuck up the Army Sigs world.  The Army SIgs world did it well enough on their own.

Ref "we need to recruit the best people we can!" line...yup, Cyber and EVERY OTHER TRADE does.  We have lots of strong Operators in my trade and we have others that straddle the 'minimum standard line'.  Just like...every other trade.  If the balloon goes up, there are Jnr and SNr NCOs in my trade who have the responsibility to "find the SSN/SSGN/SSBN" before it can complete its mission.  THAT is a pretty hefty responsibility, no?  Somewhat severe consequences if they fail...something like an OSCAR II or Yasen or Borei can do a mega shitton of damage.  Those ladies and gents are also Spec 1.  They were also...recruited, selected, trained and employed by the same system Cyber will be given life from.  And, I can assure you, they are capable of finding and killing that SSN/SSGN/SSBN.  I have faith the CAF will figure out the R/S/T/E stuff for Cyber, and if it doesn't, let the blame fall on the C & E Branch leadership.

Ref your comments about "not recite some backgrounder info to a PSO";  SAR Techs have a selection process.  Pilots, ACSOs, AES Ops..all go thru a version of testing at the Aircrew Selection Center.  SOF folks do selection, clearance divers do selection.  They have tangible, quantified and measureable selection processes to 'weed out the non performers out for the juicy pay'.  Those processes have been vetted by folks like PSOs, TDOs, and the command levels within the applic trades.  The C & E Branch should be looking at the processes already being used for the trades mentioned above, and like all those other trades have, get a selection process that is blessed by the applic required authorities to 'weed out the non hackers'.  The RCAF, RCN, Cdn Army and SOF have all figured this out and, although not perfectly, it works.

Last point..if you're saying there is no system in place to weed out the knuckle-draggers now, why would I as a taxpayer even support Spec 1 pay??????

 

[Brash]

We've already demonstrated that Spec 1 is acceptable based on a completely related CSEC job posting. No one is arguing that they shouldn't make Spec 1, its more than acceptable based on equivalent public sector jobs. They will be completely paid what they're worth. The job security is a massive factor that you're not going to get in the private sector, so the private sector will pay significantly more.

As for your list, you could apply that rationale to any top-third professional in the CAF regardless of trade. I guarantee there are AESOPs studying the wierd voodoo that they do, Comms Rsch guys getting read up on the latest military communications trends and even infantry/armor types who spend time reading Russian doctrine to get an edge should they ever have to face them in battle. Loving your job and wanting to know everything possible to do it better is not something Cyber or even Sigs have a monopoly on, and should never be used to justify "paying them what they're worth".

I disagree with your point of not scrutinizing talent more carefully (and passing along the savings on "non performers") to those that make the cut in terms of increased pay. This goes for the CyberOp trade and any others.

As a contrived example to put a finer point, I believe that five very high-performing individuals are worth more than ten low-performing individuals.
If you have had the opportunity to be a part of both a cohesive high-performing section, and one filled with the second-string, you may relate to this.

Would you agree? 
If so, and the selection process can guarantee their quality, how is it NOT worth it to pay them more to retain them?

I've heard tons of stories of folks in Spec 1 trades who think the grass is greener in the private sector and they're not being paid enough, only to end up re-enrolling a year or 2 down the road after they figured out that A. CAF training/experience isn't comparable to private sector, or B. Downsizing and corporate realities had them laid off as they were now the low guy on the totem pole in seniority.

I believe you have ascertainment bias. What you don't hear are the stories of the people that never join.

Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What you don't hear are the stories of the people that never join.

1.  And we're back to the point of "if the money isn't enough for them to join", then they aren't the right people.  After 4 years experience, how much more will they "see themselves worth" and will the pay jump from Cpl to MCpl be enough to satisfy them?

2.  Maybe they aren't interested in being in the military in the first place, like lots of pilots who want to be Air Canada bus drivers.  If the deciding factor was pay...and they went elsewhere...refer to #1 above.