If we want to hold our own (let alone win) in the fight against foreign states or other people who wage cyberwarfare on us, or secure ourselves against the astounding number of petty criminals who scam people, steal identities, etc., then we do need skilled hackers, among other things. I'm glad the current administration understands the importance of cybersecurity.

But there's more than one kind of hacker. There are black hats, who break into systems without the permission of the people who own them. The classic black hat hacker doesn't mess around for money, like a common criminal, but he can still do a lot of damage, and does not respect law, order, personal property, or the trouble others will have to go to to clean up after him.

White hat hackers do not break into systems without permission. They will only "attack" systems as part of vulnerability testing for which they have been hired by the owner of the system. Also, they don't do things like test attacks without permission. There are people who do that, and while they may not be black hats, they certainly aren't white hats.

I hope the government is only giving security clearances to white hat hackers who've demonstrated that they have an understanding of ethics as well as of computer networks (granted, from what I understand about security clearances, it is very difficult to get one if you've been convicted of a crime). A black hat hacker can be very skilled, but he is a potential liability if he thinks he can use his abilities solely for his own gain or amusement and damn the consequences.

This is not the 80's or early 90's, when the movie plot of 'criminal computer genius is hired by the feds' had some basis in reality. Today there are surely plenty of computer professionals without criminal records who can be hired for this work. The government is very stingy (ridiculous?) with its granting of security clearances: on paper (if not in practice) even downloading mp3s counts against the applicant's record. I wouldn't worry about defense companies and government agencies being swollen with ranks of computer criminals.

What I would comment on is a line of thinking that's different but parallel to yours, the assertion that independent, selfishly motivated people are bad for defense work. I think you would find many creative scientists and engineers in the defense industry or government service who could be so characterized, who work because the work is interesting and exciting and because they are given the resources to do things they could only dream about doing on their own. (And they get paid to do what they do!) They aren't motivated by patriotism, necessarily, and may not respect authority either -- their professions, through training and self-selection, encourage independent thinking, after all. Perhaps they're all liabilities, but that's a risk that one must live with to get anything done.