NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check 354
Electron Barrage writes "Longtime JPL scientists, many of whom do not work on classified materials, including rover drivers and Apollo veterans, sued NASA, Caltech, and the Department of Commerce today to fight highly invasive background checks, which include financial information, any and all retail business transactions, and even sexual orientation."
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
(I pray that I never hear anything like this. .
Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue of access (Score:3, Insightful)
More of the same (Score:0, Insightful)
The conservative movement is, was, and always will be about destroying the US government, by any means necessary. The fact that their junta has seized control of the White House makes it all the easier to persue their anti-US agenda.
When you realize the extent that they hate America, everything they have done since Nixon (and especially since 2000) makes perfect sense.
I'm sick of it as well (Score:1, Insightful)
it's a great idea! (Score:1, Insightful)
Levers + bullshit = more of the same stupidity. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a BS excuse. Anyone wanting to blackmail someone can always either dig up a truth, or manufacture a lie, that is good enough to "get the job done."
Want to make someone look like they're on the take? Deposit 20k in their bank account in cash. Then, a week later, before they get their bank statement, meet and greet them, and tell them what you've done, and how "gee, its going to look like drug money - do this shit for us, and we'll "fix it"". Better yet, make a lump-sum payment on their mortgage for them, when they're swimming in debt over their heads.
Want to make someone look like they're cheating on their spouse? Photoshop to the rescue. Especially if you have some unshopped pictures of the victim and the "sex object" elsewhere - for example, approach them in a restaurant, sit at their table for a minute asking for directions, and getting them to make a sketch.
Want to make someone look like a pedophile? Dump pics on their computer at work. (boot off usb, copy pics to drive, mission accomplished. Worst-case scenario, you'll have to connect the drive's cable to another machine as a slave for a few minutes).
There are ALWAYS ways to blackmail someone. If NASA believes that these sorts of background checks really work, they've been breathing too much vacuum.
Re:thats the stupidest thing ive heard... (Score:3, Insightful)
The real issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Levers (Score:1, Insightful)
If our society (and its individuals) can get past feeling shame at normal human activity, then all leverage goes out the window.
For example, if Senator Craig had owned up to being gay and simply led a gay life, he'd stay in the Senate. But it is precisely because he tried to hide it that he is in trouble.
That's why I absolutely *love* our let-it-all-hang-out, tell-all culture. The more outing that takes place, the more normal all that hidden behavior becomes, the less hung up and twisted we'll all be in so many ways, including being subject to shame and its destructiveness in so many forms (suicides; political leverage; etcetera).
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:4, Insightful)
So for people with access to sensitive information you do in depth and quite invasive checks, the more sensitive the information you have access to the more invasive the information required for clearance (well more comprehensive anyway)
For people with no access to sensitive information, carry out a minimal background check and ensure that there are no glaring issues and then ensure that they have support and feel that they can tell their employer about their gambling addiction/cross-dressing using some sort of sensitive mechanism (wont stop all blackmail but its a decent start and if they are blackmailed they cant give anything away anyway.)
Most important - make sure that those without clearances DO NOT have casual or informal access to information that they are not cleared to see.
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporates do that too (Score:5, Insightful)
In early 2001 (pre-9/11), the investors pulled out of our company and we went belly up. Two weeks later, I got an offer from a new startup, developing high-end IDS. I would be the second software engineer there. The offer was really good, with a good amount of stock options, and 3 weeks vacation. Except one thing: the background check.
The wording of that agreement was amazingly terrible. It is more than invasive. I kept that page until two years ago, finally threw it away with other junks. Basically, it stated that the company could do any background check, any time, on any thing, including but not just my previous and future phone logs (including personal phone), email log (including personal email), bank accounts, trading accounts, 401K, IRA, credit card expenses, credit check, newsgroup, web postings,
I didn't sign, and went to the president, had a nice and polite discussion with him. I told him that I understood their concern about security, but this agreement obviously went overboard. I don't mind "normal" background check, but not those mentioned there. He also agreed that it went a little too far. So he asked me to re-word it so that I could accept. I rewrote the agreement, using standard background check format and wordings from other companies which I could accept. The president thought it was fine with him.
But the corporate attorney, with the support of the investors, didn't want to hear about it. He said that engineers and technical people had too easy an access to implement backdoors in the system. It is this way, or the highway.
I chose the highway. The company recruiter (external hired recruiter, actually) kept calling me for two months, but I already started working at other place for almost two months by then.
you missed one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Levers + bullshit = more of the same stupidity. (Score:3, Insightful)
Better yet, make a lump-sum payment on their mortgage for them, when they're swimming in debt over their heads.
Little bit of ignorance here: This is specifically one of the things I look for. I knew somebody once who got to spend a year cleaning the dorms because he lost his clearance over debt(expensive truck on an E3 pay doesn't work).
Want to make someone look like a pedophile? Dump pics on their computer at work. (boot off usb, copy pics to drive, mission accomplished. Worst-case scenario, you'll have to connect the drive's cable to another machine as a slave for a few minutes).
You'll have to get to that machine, and if they can do that, blackmailing the guy is unnecessary. Forget the usb boot - all you need is a key logger. You now have the passwords, and can own the machine.
USB boot is going to be disabled for critical systems anyways.
There are ALWAYS ways to blackmail someone.
It might mostly psychological, but blackmailing somebody who's innocent is far riskier than somebody who's guilty. The innocent is much more likely to blare out the situation to the world.
One of the worst cases of espionage involved a sailor who, because of his gambling debts, actually walked into the USSR embassy and offered to sell secrets. He handed out cryptographic material like candy, stuff that would have been worth millions, for mere thousands of dollars.
While security investigations are not a sure thing, they're far better than nothing. A person in serious debt is more likely to sell out secrets than one who isn't. A person with a hidden secret(like being gay), may do something stupid to try to keep it under wraps.
Re:Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
"employment history, past residences and any illegal drug use."
Re:you missed one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you actually know what equal opportunity laws mean? They mean that you may not necessarily get the job just because you're most qualified. Secondly "most qualified" is a very ambiguous term. For example you might be the best rocket scientist in the world, but if you are a complete asshat and impossible to work with, you aren't the most qualified.
Re:Pointless (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:3, Insightful)
You never know what the future holds. It could be that everyone working there will need a security clearance someday. This could be because of the nature of the work and some fucked up law protecting us from terrorist.
Then do it someday. Spending money and invading my privacy because of something that may happen someday is idiotic.
And yes, Even janitors would need a security clearance when sensitive information could be laying in the trash or dropped on the floor by some drone of a worker.
Which would be some other place. Please keep on topic.
You know, NASA hasn't been renowned for their competency lately.
God forbid every mistake made by your multi thousand person company made the news. Do you think there might be some political motivation in spreading this stuff around? ya think? They only plopped a robot on Mars and ran it around for a year past it's expiration date, and really, do you have any evidence of astronauts flying drunk? All I hear are rumors.
But maybe giving every employee a security clearance so guards don't have to tear up posters of 40 or 50 year old rockets might be a good idea.
what the hell for? This is JPL, which isn't NASA and isn't classified.
Re:you missed one... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:you missed one... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. Just wanted to be sure.
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
You may call it a logical fallacy all you like, but then you're ignoring history. Give a little power, and more WILL be taken.
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Traditionally, the slippery slope arguement is used to describe restrictions to liberty as having a snowballing effect. One restriction will lead to others. On its own, this is not necessarily true. Yet simply dismissing the argument as a slippery slope fallacy without understanding the motivations of all players is foolish.
Basically, an arguement suggesting that a slippery slope exists isn't false simply because of the assertation. Of course, evidence must be presented to suggest that a slippery slope does exist.
Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. Precedent can be of two types. Binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis that a court must consider when deciding a case. Advisory precedent are cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases. In general, binding precedent involves decisions made by a higher court in a common law jurisdiction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
One could use precedent from previous examples where 'A' led to 'B' in one situation, where in all other situations 'B' never spontaneously occured. This would suggest that 'A' makes 'B' possible, maybe not inevitable, but possible and potentially probable.
Re:you missed one... (Score:0, Insightful)
I had a manager at one former job demand I bring in all my financial statements especially my stock accounts. I refused based on the ground that it was none of his business. I told him that he should only be concerned that I do my job and nothing else.
One rhetorical question, are we going back to a type of society where your outside activities especially legal are subject to employer scrutiny ? We don't like people who are into extreme sports working here. You (pointing to someone), you have a motorcycle... That reflects poorly on us, get rid of it or we get rid of you ! Before we hire you, we would like to come over to your house on Thursday evening and meet your family..... The line is being redrawn in the sand to where employees lose their rights or have their personal affairs intruded upon.
it is a privilege to employ someone, not a right (Score:3, Insightful)
Hello Mr Griffin. It is a privilege to employ these exceptional engineers, not a right. If you make their lives difficult, they will leave.
Employees are not sheep to be slaughtered. They are stakeholders of your organisation and you have to take their views into account when you draw new policies.
How costly a priviledge? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently was on a plane coming from a trade show and I got into a long conversation with the guy next to me, who worked for this company at about the same level as I was applying for, and also in engineering. I told him I had turned down a job offer and that the IP clauses in the employment were one of my main concerns. His response was "But isn't that the industry standard?"
This is a phrase I hear from most people when I tell them this story. Yes, it may be the industry standard. But it's an industry standard because no one complains about it, or protests it, or turns down jobs because of it. The thing is, it mostly affects the most talented, energetic, and entrepreneurial engineers - who might actually create something of value outside of normal business hours.
I applaud these people for pushing back. Sure, working in the federal system is a "privilege". But the employers have an obligation to run the federal system in a way that produces the best results for the country. If you treat your employees like mechanical cogs, to be inspected and tuned and replaced, your not going to get those kinds of results.
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
Its much, much rarer for goverment to relinquish power on their own. There are many more examples where this doesn't happen. Local governments more and more are "cracking down" on speed enforcement and lowering limits, even when studies show this will increase the number of accidents.
Or like when Linux started using Bitkeeper, and now almost all open-source products use it!
There's no government power involved here. Try to stay on topic.
Or like how in the Netherlands they tolerate marijuana, and now the entire country is addicted to crack cocaine...
Again, stay on topic. We're talking about increasing government power, where the argument DOES apply many times. If you want an example, take the War on Drugs. We're now at the point where if you sniff glue, you're breaking federal antidrug laws.
To sum it it, the slippery slope applies to government power grabs. The very real historical trend is that government will TAKE more and more power, not give it back.
Re:you missed one... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are doing government work, onsite at government facilities, specifically for government purposes, in place of a 'government employee', whether you are contracted or not, and on the face of it you should be held to the same requirements of a 'full' government employee in terms of employment, background checks, access to classified information, and your employment rights in general. Your salary is paid ultimately by taxpayer money, not to mention the profits earned by your private employer.
Something is wrong with the whole privatization of so much of the governments services, and I guarantee your company is doing the work because its PROFITABLE, essentially profiting using taxes paid by other peoples gross income earnings meant for the government to provide a specific service. Anyone else see what I'm getting at or is there too much cognitive dissonance involved since this is 'just how things work' now?
I can understand if your case is a VERY narrow service that would require millions upon millions of additional dollars to hire/train/manage a government (employee-only) program without private corporate welfare involved, but my argument is meant in a general sense.
Cheers.
Re:The issue of access (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much easier for me to overhear/steal/tcpdump something on the floor where I work all day than to compromise a secure building with badge+biometrics access somewhere in my neighborhood. In the later case, I only expect security scrutiny if I am found trying to climb a wall of said building with gecko-style hand attachments.
Re:Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
--
See? That deserves a +x Insightful even though I "made it up"