F5 Networks | Full-time | REMOTE (US ONLY) / ONSITE (Seattle)

We're a small team with a lot of autonomy who work on solutions for instrumentation and lifecycle management of virtual environments. Combining declarative infrastructure automation, task-driven UIs, and realtime metrics, we provide solutions to automate boilerplate tasks and surface pertinent data to our users so that their time and effort is preserved.

---------------------------------------------

Full-Stack Developer (REMOTE US or ONSITE Seattle):

We're looking for a full-stack developer to design, test, and implement end-to-end features encompassing frontend web apps and backend APIs.

Stack includes Javascript / ES6+, react/redux, node; considering typescript, golang, rust

https://ffive.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/f5jobs/job/F5-Towe...

---------------------------------------------

DevOps Engineer (ONSITE Seattle):

We're looking for a devops engineer to manage CI/CD pipelines, build and maintain scalable systems architectures for logging / metrics ingestion, deploy systems automation, and more.

Stack includes AWS/GCP, QEMU/KVM, postgres, redis, elasticsearch, dynamodb

https://ffive.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/f5jobs/job/F5-Towe...

Is there any sense of the law which would allow US authorities to seize or otherwise prohibit these additional documents from being published?

The US Government sought an injunction preventing the New York Times from publishing parts of the Pentagon Papers. The case quickly got to the Supreme Court, which threw out the injunction 6-3. It was one of those rare decisions in which nine justices generated ten different opinions. One was a basic, unsigned opinion of the court throwing out the injunction with barely any reasoning because the majority could only agree on the result, not the process to get there.

Suffice it to say, this is a very complicated question. I'm inclined to believe that any attempts to prevent journalists from publishing additional documents like the ones now in question will be quashed. But it's not a sure thing.

I'm sure Peter King would say yes. He, or some others, would probably try to spin it to fall under the Espionage Act[1] or something.

Whether or not that would stand up to Supreme Court scrutiny is, I think, an open question.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

Peter King makes my teeth hurt. I'm really shocked that guy says what he does without any irony for his obvious authoritarian overtones.

Also the fact that he is a supporter of the IRA, both in his statements for the past 40 or so years, and also materially (back during the Troubles). How the hell does a guy like that end up as Committee Chairman for Homeland Security?