I'm certainly not a TAO offensive security type, but maybe I'm somewhat representative of median people in the security space. I was certainly more than willing to work for USG at one point, but the "crypto wars" of the 1990s (as well as the end of the cold war and lack of a mission) convinced me not to go to NSA then (I was going to do ROTC -> NSA). Post-9/11, I fully supported both the USG infosec mission and the use of sigint/etc. to go after specific foreign terrorist groups, and worked as a defense contractor with what that entails (although doing nothing so glamorous as NSA/TAO/etc., but at least not running a helpdesk for ITT either. I envied INSCOM/ISA so much.).
Now, I'd have a really hard time doing anything more contractory than selling totally standardized COTS products to the USG, even something non-threatening like a better teleconferencing system, until/unless there is re-established effective elected oversight (i.e. congress, as a whole, and not just 15 committee members with little interest, expertise, or competence) over these programs. Not really holding my breath on that.
Now, I'd have a really hard time doing anything more contractory than selling totally standardized COTS products to the USG, even something non-threatening like a better teleconferencing system, until/unless there is re-established effective elected oversight (i.e. congress, as a whole, and not just 15 committee members with little interest, expertise, or competence) over these programs. Not really holding my breath on that.