NASA Requires JPL Scientists To Give Up Right To Privacy 446
Markmarkmark writes "Wired is reporting that all NASA JPL scientists must 'voluntarily' (or be fired) sign a document giving the government the right to investigate their personal lives and history 'without limit'. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists this includes snooping into sexual orientation, mental & physical health as well as credit history and 'personality conflict'. 28 senior NASA scientists and engineers, including Mars Rover team members, refused to sign by the deadline and are now subject to being fired despite a decade or more of exemplary service. None of them even work on anything classified or defense related. They are suing the government and documenting their fight for their jobs and right to personal privacy."
Very Inappropriate (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like standard security clearance stuff... (Score:2, Informative)
Why would JPL scientists need this level of clearance? Maybe their work involves access to military technology?
Re:Sounds like standard security clearance stuff.. (Score:4, Informative)
I've been to JPL a couple times when I worked on some Mars Odyssey related stuff, and security is kind of tight for the whole facility. One of the software engineers in our lab is a Pakistani citizen and he wasn't even allowed to come to a party we had there once.
To my knowledge, there's little classified work that goes on there, but I'm sure there's sensitive stuff... it's literally rocket science. These background checks sound a little too intrusive for a bunch of science geeks, though.
Re:Why not fire them all? (Score:3, Informative)
I live in New York City. We here have a state-sponsored monopoly known as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which manages the subway. A booth clerk who sells metro-cards, and directs customers (rudely) will make $54'000/year after 5 years... not including a hefty retirement package, and a medical benefits package for the entire family.
<br><br>
If salaries are only about market economics, then may I ask you a question:
<br><br>
- Is there a shortage of talented and qualified booth clerks in New York City?
<br><br>
Because I don't think there is. I think that the MTA union has power because they control the city's transportation, and when they strike, even a threat is enough to get the city to back down and give them more money. They have, in essence, been committing legalized extortion, for a while now.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:3, Informative)
The problem isn't a nonsensical sentence.
The problem is that you're using a faulty definition of "privacy". [arstechnica.com]
The correct definition of privacy is "You divulge all the details of your life to the government, and the government protects it for you. From everyone. Except itself, of course. But you have nothing to fear from your government. After all, we're here to help you."
Re:Oh no... obviously not important... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not like Tang would disappear, or their car's GPS system would suddenly turn off. It's just that things wouldn't advance. Progress would grind to a halt, but it's not like the immediate "oh shit" effect you get, when the garbagemen don't show up on Monday morning.
Probably the first thing most people would know is when they get told to start learning Mandarin, because their company just got bought.
Blackmail (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that the Bush-Ashcroft era had a tradition of firing homosexuals, this in turned encouraged people to hide their homosexuality, which creates potential blackmail material. Thus this practice of the government persecuting gays in government jobs and the military is a giant potential threat to national security.
JPL!=government & 9th circuit already blocked (Score:4, Informative)
1. JPL is not the government
2. the scientists this would have applied to are the subset of JPL employees who do not work with classified material
3. many of this subset of JPL employees specifically elected years ago not to work with classified material because they didn't want to go through the clearance processes
4. all the way back in October the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocked (URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601372.html/) this directive thereby obsolescing the portion of submitter's summary claim that these scientists were in danger of being fired at any moment for not having signed the permission slips by the due date.
Re:NASA (Score:3, Informative)
"The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e)."
Because it sure sounds to me like they are separate entities, and that NASA is, by the definition of its charter, a civilian agency. That's not to say I necessarily disagree with the background checks, but your facts are wrong.
Re:Why not fire them all? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:good for them (Score:4, Informative)
Now, whether HSPD12 itself is f'ing stupid is a whole other ball of wax.
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, now it's open season on the Constitution, is it? Not when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Not when Wilson nationalized industries, jailed protestors, and created an income tax. Not when Roosevelt put citizens in concentration camps, set up price controls, and nationalized some more industries. Not when the Senate held hearings of suspected Communists in show business. No, now that 1300 people let police conduct 10-second bag checks, now the Constitution is going down in flames.
Get some perspective.
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ntc.doe.gov/cita/CI_Awareness_Guide/S5improp/Ci.htm#Counterintelligence [doe.gov]
By the Numbers:
http://www.ntc.doe.gov/cita/CI_Awareness_Guide/Treason/Numbers.htm#Espionage%20by%20the%20Numbers [doe.gov]
Get this:
"Here are a few additional highlights from this database that give us additional understanding about motivations and situational factors leading to espionage:
* Over 42% of the offenders are known to have been involved in drug or alcohol abuse. The actual figure may be higher, as there are many cases in which the unclassified record is insufficient to make a judgment on this subject. Those who were caught before classified information was even passed were more likely to be substance abusers than those who succeeded in committing espionage.
* Of the 148 offenders, 6 were homosexual, 106 heterosexual, and the sexual orientation of the remaining 36 is not known from the unclassified record. Homosexuality is not known to have been a significant factor in any of the cases.
* Volunteer spies were more likely to fail in their effort to pass information to foreign interests. Almost 40% of the volunteers were caught in the act, whereas only 7% of the recruited spies were intercepted before they could damage national security."
Repeat for emphasis:
* Of the 148 offenders, 6 were homosexual...
I saw a flyer, around 1991, stating that of ALL the known cases of espionage, treason, and similar, some 98%-99% of the persons caught/convicted/shut down were:
-white
-make
-heterosexual
-Christian
This seems to turn on its head the "susceptibility of homosexual" prospects/targets.... But, don't have to believe me, just look at the section "By the Numbers" and look at drug abuser risk, etc.
It seems to me the DIA/NSA/DIS/NIS/et al can do all the searching they want WITHOUT dicking around in the private lives of scientists or military personnel. Just keep burning those who screw up, and let the others "be on the best behavior".
But, somehow I think the government is just pursuing this as another component of wrecking the public tenuous thread to rights and expectations of privacy and anonymity.
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:3, Informative)
I think the idea was not so much that "homosexual == ZOMG! SPY!" but rather that most homosexuals didn't want their preference known by their family, friends, et. al., for fear of rejection / discrimination. Thus, someone who found out about their preference could use that information to blackmail them into revealing classified information.
That may have been true in the 50's, but hardly seems true today.
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Informative)
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" . The Southern States breaking away from the Union and firing on a Federal Fort sounds like "rebellion" to me.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"
You won't get any argument out of me that the original intent behind the Constitution has been/is being subverted. My favorite example is the interstate commerce clause becoming a blank check for Congress to do whatever they want (like controlling what I can put into my own body as a consenting adult). But using the income tax and Lincoln as your examples doesn't seem very justifiable.
Most of the examples I can think of (the Controlled Substances Act and the use of highway funding to blackmail state legislatures being the two that come to mind) are recent inventions.
Re:good for them (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but it sounds like there weren't any smart lawyers behind this idea anyway.
Quotes from the formin question SF85 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF85.pdf [opm.gov]
INSTRUCTIONS
--------
Purpose of this Form
The U.S. Government conducts background investigations to establish
that applicants or incumbents either employed by the Government or
working for the Government under contract, are suitable for the job.
Information from this form is used primarily as the basis for this
investigation. Complete this form only after a conditional offer of
employment has been made.
Giving us the information we ask for is voluntary. However, we may
not be able to complete your investigation, or complete it in a timely
manner, if you dont give us each item of information we request. This
may affect your placement or employment prospects.
Authority to Request this Information
The U.S. Government is authorized to ask for this information under
Executive Order 10577, sections 3301 and 3302 of title 5, U.S. Code;
and parts 5, 731, and 736 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
Your Social Security Number is needed to keep records accurate,
because other people may have the same name and birth date. Executive
Order 9397 also asks Federal agencies to use this number to help
identify individuals in agency records.
The Investigative Process
Background investigations are conducted using your responses on this
form and on your Declaration for Federal Employment (OF 306) to
develop information to show whether you are reliable, trustworthy, and
of good conduct and character. Your current employer must be
contacted as part of the investigation, even if you have previously
indicated on applications or other forms that you do not want this.
Instructions for Completing this Form
1. Follow the instructions given to you by the person who gave you the
form and any other clarifying instructions furnished by that person to
assist you in completion of the form. Find out how many copies of the
form you are to turn in. You must sign and date, in black ink, the
original and each copy you submit.
2. Type or legibly print your answers in black ink (if your form is not
legible, it will not be accepted). You may also be asked to submit your
form in an approved electronic format.
3. All questions on this form must be answered. If no response is
necessary or applicable, indicate this on the form (for example, enter
"None" or "N/A"). If you find that you cannot report an exact date,
approximate or estimate the date to the best of your ability and indicate
this by marking "APPROX." or "EST."
4. Any changes that you make to this form after you sign it must be
initialed and dated by you. Under certain limited circumstances,
agencies may modify the form consistent with your intent.
5. You must use the State codes (abbreviations) listed on the back of
this page when you fill out this form. Do not abbreviate the names of
cities or foreign countries.
6. The 5-digit postal ZIP codes are needed to speed the processing of
your investigation. The office that provided the form will assist you in
completing the ZIP codes.
7. All telephone numbers must include area codes.
8. All dates provided on this form must be in Month/Day/Year or
Month/Year format. Use numbers (1-12) to indicate months. For
example, June 10, 1978, should be shown as 6/10/78.
9. Whenever "City (Country)" is shown in an address block, also
provide in that block the name of the country when the address is
outside the United States.
10. If you need additional space to list your residences or
employments/self-employments/unemployment or education, you
should use a continuation sheet, SF 86A. If additional space is needed
to answer other items, use a blank piece of paper. Each blank piece of
paper you use must contain your name and Social Secu
Re:Easy fix (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly. We (the USA) are not at war with anyone right now, and haven't been since WWII. We were never at war with Korea (either one); we only took part in a UN-mandated police action there.
North Korea and South Korea are still at war with each other, yes, but the USA has never declared war on either country.
Re:NASA (Score:3, Informative)
JPL is not NASA. Got that. If you work for JPL you are not a NASA emplyee.
The following is a quote from the JPL web site.
JPL is a NASA center staffed and managed for the government by a leading private university, Caltech -- and thus we are known as a federally funded research and development center. I believe that this marriage of the government and university worlds lends us a wonderful intellectual infusion to drive our exploration efforts. Caltech anchors us in the world of excellence and academic curiosity, while NASA gives us the opportunity to reach for the stars.
Re:LPL is not NASA. (Score:1, Informative)
They may work for Caltech, but NASA still owns the JPL facilities and controls access to them (Caltech "operates" JPL). The government cannot require Caltech to stop paying a JPL employee, but they can pull their badge. If Caltech chooses to employ them on non-NASA work, that's their perogative.
The same applies for NASA contractors at other centers.
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Informative)
Granted, but what's your point? The Constitution provides for an amendment process and makes it pretty damn hard (75% of the States need to approve) to do so. If an amendment survives this process and is approved by the required number of states then whatever changes it makes have the same weight as the original text of the document. For better or worse this was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
The biggest negative effect I see to the income tax is that it has given the Federal Government "the power of the purse" over the States. I don't have any qualms with the concept of an income tax. I do take issue when Congress decides to blackmail (err, "convince") the states to do what it wants (raising the drinking age to 21) by threatening to withhold funding.
I don't see an easy solution to this either. The Libertarian in me is tempted to say that the Federal Government has no business funding ANYTHING for the states (be it education, highways, etc). If this were the case then the Federal Government would lose the ability to blackmail the states and the (Federal) income tax would go down. Personally I'd rather pay higher State taxes then Federal because my Assemblywoman is a hell of a lot more responsive to me then my Congressman or Senator. That said, I don't think a blanket ban is justifiable, because I can see legitimate scenarios where a small number of states may require the assistance of the union as a whole. Disaster relief is an obvious example. Funding for projects that benefit the nation as a whole might be another.
Anyway, if you want to pick on a specific amendment as being responsible for the rise of Washington at the expense of the States I'd probably point the finger less at the 16th and more at the 17th. One would assume that if Senators were responsible to the State Legislature back home that they'd be less inclined to do things that take power away from the States. Of course, there were problems with the Legislatures picking Senators too -- so I don't pretend that repealing the 17th wouldn't have it's downsides either. Perhaps allowing the people to elect Senators but giving the State Legislature some sort of "recall" authority over them?
Gerrymandering also comes to mind as one of the bigger problems that we face, but I'm not sure what sort of solution could be purposed that would be remotely Constitutional (short of an amendment). One of the ideas that I'm interested in is an expansion of the size of the House of Representatives. Presumably they'd be more responsive to the people if they represented less of them. Of course this wouldn't really solve the aforementioned problem, but one could argue that it might be easier to challenge a sitting Congressman for his seat if the district was smaller.
Anyway, I'm probably rambling here. But it's interesting to have a discussion like this with somebody that has actually read the Constitution :)
Re:Easy fix (Score:3, Informative)
Just because the FF provided an Amendment process doesn't mean that any Amendment automatically carries the same weight as the original Constitution and the FF's original intent. I seriously doubt the FF would have agreed to an Amendment banning alcohol in the 1780s when they were writing the Constitution.
That the 16th Amendment was ratified just shows that the Constitution is still vulnerable to being screwed up by overactive government, even though the original intent was to limit government as much as possible.
The biggest negative effect I see to the income tax is that it has given the Federal Government "the power of the purse" over the States. I don't have any qualms with the concept of an income tax. I do take issue when Congress decides to blackmail (err, "convince") the states to do what it wants (raising the drinking age to 21) by threatening to withhold funding.
This is exactly the problem with the Federal income tax; it allows the Federal government to grow ever-larger, far beyond what was envisioned by the FF. They envisioned a fairly weak Federal government which was limited to foreign relations, national defense, and interstate commerce. The Federal government doesn't need a lot of money to do these things, and it certainly has no business deciding things like drinking ages. By allowing the Federal government to collect all that money, it's been allowed to massively expand its power. You can't have one without the other.
I don't see an easy solution to this either. The Libertarian in me is tempted to say that the Federal Government has no business funding ANYTHING for the states (be it education, highways, etc). If this were the case then the Federal Government would lose the ability to blackmail the states and the (Federal) income tax would go down. Personally I'd rather pay higher State taxes then Federal because my Assemblywoman is a hell of a lot more responsive to me then my Congressman or Senator.
Exactly right. The Federal government has no business funding any of those things; they should all be funded by the States. This doesn't mean the States can't cooperate together on projects, like an interstate highway system, but the money needs to come from the States.
That said, I don't think a blanket ban is justifiable, because I can see legitimate scenarios where a small number of states may require the assistance of the union as a whole. Disaster relief is an obvious example. Funding for projects that benefit the nation as a whole might be another.
We just saw in 2005 how effective the Federal government is at disaster relief, with the current model where most tax money goes directly to the Federal level.
Funding for national projects (like NASA) can be done cooperatively as well, just like highways as I illustrated before. The Federal government doesn't need to collect taxes to do these things, it just needs to coordinate the States' efforts and funding. States that aren't interested can opt out, however.
Not Just JPL (Score:2, Informative)
NAZA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:3, Informative)
It's been happening for a long time.
I turned down a job at JPL in the early '90's. My wife was pregnant at the time and I decided that I would rather give up my dream job (working in the Advanced Propulsion Group) than have my kid raised as an American (I am Canadian.) Even then I was concerned with where the U.S. was heading, and the current reality is worse than I could have imagined.
It turned out that rejected JPL was the best decision I have made in my entire life. I moved back to Canada, knocked around academia for a while, and now run my own consultancy doing a mix of software development and data analysis in areas ranging from automated water testing to genomics. Incorporation in Canada is cheap and easy (I literally did it in my pyjamas) and the climate is generally business-friendly. Our health care system means I'm not plagued with the insurance issues that my American friends who are running similar businesses down there are facing.
I have had a few American clients, but will no longer enter the country if I can possibly avoid it as I no longer have any rights there. I don't travel to places like China or Sudan for the same reason.
A generation from now the U.S. is going to be seriously starved for talent, because it has nothing to offer the clever people of the world but invasion of privacy and huge Orwellian overheads that are based on (as other posters have pointed out) nothing more than FAITH.
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:3, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
Re:If you don't like it, leave your govt. job. (Score:3, Informative)
1. They're not actually federal employees. They're employees of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), working at a federally-funded research and development center.
2. 3% of JPL employees do have security clearance. They do work on secretive stuff. The other 97% do not. They don't even work in the same "building" - the secret buildings have all sorts of extra security measures. Would you think it's reasonable if a large university like UCLA or Harvard required ALL employees to go through the proceduce to get security clearance, just because one lab in one building has some secrets? Cause that's basically what's being asked of JPL employees, most of whom work on entirely public research.
3. The worst part is that the employees are being required to go through the SAME background check that's required for security clearance, but then they're not even being given clearance! All they get is an ordinary badge that gets them in the front gate. All that, and you don't even get anything in return...except to keep the job you've been doing loyally for 20 years.