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."
For comment suggestions ... (Score:4, Insightful)
CC.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
If that doesn't shed light on the fact that this is complete and utter nonsense, I don't know what will. As the article pointed out, that's Newspeak if I ever heard it.
Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, you wouldn't believe the background checks I went through for the FBI. In the end, while maybe not ideal for the potential employee, I find nothing significantly reprehensible about the process.
Not very objective, are we? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA, the bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not fire them all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Railroad workers, airline workers, even taxicab drivers - when any of these professions strike, it is felt immediately by the general population, so there is a push to resolve the issues amicably, so that they could return to work.
If all scientists in the US... not just the NASA rocket scientists... stop working RIGHT NOW... the vast majority of the population won't know, and the majority of those who know, won't care.
Why? Because nothing that these people do affects us EVERY DAY. Thus, they're not important. Which is why a post-doc at a top-tier academic institution, will be making <$32'000/year.
Re:Not very objective, are we? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! Creative types like scientists and engineers probably tend to have less than conventional personal lives. I really don't think anyone needs to go poking into that and so killing off the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not very objective, are we? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
You applied for the FBI and had your past checked in matters and ways very likely specifically laid out to you once before you get hired.
They already work for the government in non-sensitive areas and have to sign away their right on any privacy because of arbitrary unspecified background checks at will.
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmmm.
Let's see - Federal Bureau of Investigation. Investigates, what? Oh, CRIME, TERRORISM, stuff like that.
And who? NASA? What are they doing? Just exploring the universe.
Sorry - NASA and the FBI are completely different. What we are seeing is just another aspect of the creeping fascism in American life, and yet another example of why I left the Empire.
And your offhand "Oh, this is no big deal" IDIOCY is just the exact kind of blithe ignorance that enables these fascist creeps in their unending grasp for power.
And it is just that kind of blithe ignorance that forms Yet Another reason why I left the Empire.
RS
McCarthyism - again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Gimme a break.
Re:As an expert in abusive management... (Score:1, Insightful)
When it costs you more to fight suits over constructive dismissal than it would have to offer early retirement, your management style might not be well-appreciated by your own managers. When it's just peons in the trenches, you just fire them.
If I wanted to scale NASA's budget back, and not catch tons of flak, I would do this.
Except they did catch flak. Tons of it.
Re:If you don't like it, leave your govt. job. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why not fire them all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately more than 90% of the roughly 5000 employees at JPL have already signed. Only a few hundred are actively protesting, and 28 are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
We really have become a nation of sheep, haven't we? This is why our rights are going down the toilet, because most people simply do not care. It would be a vastly different story if that 90-10 ratio were reversed.
This reminds me of an incident (I'm going entirely on memory here) in the months after 9/11 in which some jurisdiction or other was conducting random bag/backpack searches of bus passengers. One guy filed a suit after refusing the search and being hauled in. In the article, it said that out of something like 1300 of these searches that had been conducted, fewer than half a dozen people objected or refused. When the populace has become that complacent and trusting, it's open season on the Constitution.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh get over yourself.
No one will snap. The populace is fat and content and nothing indicates this is likely to shift anytime soon. Their masters have an iron grip on entertainment and "information". Every so often, some misguided bleeding-hearts are allowed to kick up a fuss for the 9 o'clock news about some irrelevant niche issue that no one really cares enough about to remember past the next commercial.
The revolution will not be televised because there won't be one.
They need a Union (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why not fire them all? (Score:5, Insightful)
*Shrug* Who is John Galt?
Re:As an expert in abusive management... (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who quit in situations like this are your best employees. The ones who aren't afraid to lose their jobs because they're good enough to work just about anywhere. The ones you're left with are the people who are afraid they have no other options and will take it up the ass just to keep a job. It's not a smart way to run a company, unless you want to run it into the ground.
Re:good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
A quick rule of thumb: in any case where the government does anything that appears to be directed by the W administration, you may divine an approximation of their real objectives if you remember that their intentions are always the opposite of what they say. Then allow for incompetency, ass covering and capricious political maneuvering as they work towards their objectives. Although the actual outcome will surprise you in its undesirability, it will at least surprise you less if you consider this simple razor...
Re:Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for the ESA! (Score:5, Insightful)
and are now subject to being fired despite a decade or more of exemplary service.
Awesome idea! Do away with your best hires because of some silly policy, and wait for foreign space agencies to hire them for their uncommon expertise, experience and insight! If there's something that we've learn during the past years, it's that loyalty and malleability are far more important than competence anyways!
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I would. Having worked in a similar environment (to the JPL folks) for the federal government, I am quiet familiar with the background checks that you went through. The issue is that since 9/11, our government has gone "secret happy". NASA is a civilian agency and most NASA missions are unclassified and in the public domain, like this one (CloudSat). [colostate.edu] There is quite simply no good reason that the scientists and engineers working on that mission (and others like it) need to be cleared. More importantly, science not directly related to defense belongs in the public domain. To remove it stifles innovation, creativity, and education.
Where would you draw the line? Would you start requiring background checks to go to college? Perhaps a basic background check for Physics 101 and a full secret clearance for Nuclear Physics? Following that train of thought, in the name of defense, would we start doing background checks (and clearing) workers in the financial industry? After all, an attack on that sector could cripple the country as well. As a quick aside, the baby background checks we all already go through to get jobs (criminal history, credit, etc.) are childsplay compared to what is required for a clearance. As such, there is no comparison. Back to my point, though. Following in the same vein, would we then require extensive background checks for all public sector IT workers/software engineers, in the name of security?
The reason the government can get away with the invasion of privacy is because smaller groups are targeted. That is, its fairly easy for someone to say "Yes, but since they work for the feds, they have no privacy...". However, it is not that simple. The government should be critically looking at the projects and missions of the organizations that they are requiring to go through these investigations. If it is REALLY needed, as it would be for the creation of defensive capabilities and intelligence gathering, by all means - require an investigation and clearance. If it is NOT really needed, as is likely the case with the JPL engineers in question, all the government is doing is expanding its powers and wasting your tax dollars (as getting cleared is an expensive proposition).
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
But he's President, so he gets to mandate these requirements to people who just want to keep their personal lives private.
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
The situation in the article, however, is different. These people already have their jobs (very senior ones too), and now they're expected to reveal personal information in order to keep them? Absolutely ridiculous.
Re:Too many daipers in the closet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy fix (Score:3, Insightful)
Not when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.
During a war, mind you. We haven't been at war for 60 years.
Re:If you don't like it, leave your govt. job. (Score:3, Insightful)
First - if they want to look for terrorists they could as well do standard background checks and have a psychometric test applied at you. But these are no simple background checks. They want to have access to EVERYTHING about you, about your past girlfriends, your emotional problems, what's in your closet, what religion you have, etc. etc.
In other words, they want to do a mental cavity search on you and fire you if you don't seem adequate for them. Still don't get it? I'm talking about DISCRIMINATION.
And they're ALREADY discriminating the people who aren't brave enough to fight for their rights. They just want slaves who obey their ruler, not people with ideals to fight for.
And you wonder how Americans can really be concerned about this? Pfft.
You mean Government (or Current Administration) Security then, because the people (NASA workers or not) *ARE* the Nation. You can't secure the nation and at the same time destroy the lives of the very people you want to secure. If you can't balance Privacy with National Security, then you're effectively admitting that there are americans of second category with LESS rights than the rest (and here I thought that ALL MEN were CREATED EQUAL!)
P.S. As a measure of security - just in case you're someone paid by Bush, I'll add you to my foe list unless you allow me to do a complete and transparent background check of you, including e-mail, street address, past aliases and everything. Safe enough for ya?
It is dangerous to expect civilian govt agencies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like standard security clearance stuff.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh?
Neither of these make much sense. You're not going to get blackmailed for having bad credit, and people aren't blackmailable for things they don't keep secret. So the question about sexual orientation is never going to give an answer you can use to determine if someone's open to blackmail. If someone's openly gay, they'll say "gay". If they're secretly gay, and thus open to blackmail, they'll answer "straight". 90% of the population will also answer "straight".
Sounds like the justifications are there to support inexcusable practices, not because they have any validity.
Standard Crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
It's obviously new and forced. They want current employees to sign. That's changing the game on a captive work group and is second cousin to contract violations.
Then again, this is an abusive administration that lost it's mind long ago. Is ripping down posters from the gift shop at gunpoint [slashdot.org] crazy enough for you? How about tyring to deny the big bang and global warming [stallman.org]? Yes, that's crazy political censorship of scientists. The investigative powers demanded here go hand in hand with that. When scientists say things that go against the immediate financial interests of the administration or it's corporate allies, public smear will be part of the punishment. There is no place for this kind of screening outside of classified work and even there a credit history and interview of a few friends is about as good as you can do.
Re:As an expert in abusive management... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like standard security clearance stuff.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like standard security clearance stuff.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Standard Crazy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to every sensitive government job ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you didnt. Firstly, you hadn't already been working there for 15 years. Secondly, most people who want to be cops *love* authority. They love to see it being exercised. They love to see the "bad guy" get "taken down". And "bad guy" includes people who smoke a joint or 2 now then and have never lifted a finger to hurt anyone in their life.
Did you notice you were applying for a job with the police?? That's what they do. take down bad guys, beat up protestors and direct traffic. wear body armour and sunglasses and carry big guns. hell.. and tase people for not obeying them fast enough.
Doesn't the FBI specifically want to hire people who see nothing wrong with slavish obedience to regulations with a disconnected conception of what the word 'freedom' means. (specifically it means the freedom to act without interference from other human beings). Don't Cops spend all day following orders, and complying with regulations. Is freedom of thought something they want to encourage. Some cops work in prisons.. can you believe that? who would EVER want to work in a prison???
You take it for granted that the government is doesn't need to respect civil liberties. You probably think the government Giveth and the government can taketh away. You think that is normal and necessary for any society to exist. I'll assume your motives are good. But such a police state was not the idea behind the founding of America. Try reading the declaration of independence.
But long story short... you weren't working for 15 years when your boss suddenly came in and saying "I no longer trust you because George Bush said so. Either you voluntarily waive your civil liberties, or else you lose your job, your home, your kids education, and start your entire life over again. Don't sweat it. It's voluntary".
human beings build relationships of trust. if the people you have been working with suddenly stop trusting you it feels like you are being punished. And if you did nothing wrong, it feels very humiliating and oppressive. maybe you see nothing wrong with humiliating and oppressing people. But then again.. what agency did you say you work for?
Re:If you don't like it, leave your govt. job. (Score:3, Insightful)
And that's where you (and the government) are way wrong. Our rights are far more important than security because security only exists to protect our rights.
Walk away ... burn 'em (Score:2, Insightful)
Walk away. If you don't want to sign, don't. These large companies/organisations only win because people whinge and bitch, and then rollover like good little puppy dogs. Don't let them win. If you've become an important part of the company/organisation, they won't let you go. Either that, or find an employer that doesn't do this. Send a message loud and clear.
Re:Easy fix (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Very Inappropriate (Score:4, Insightful)
It brings to mind the sad case of Alan Turing. He was one of the greatest minds in early computing and because he was gay he was hounded by the British government in to committing suicide depriving the world of decades more of his brilliant work. The work Turing did was crucial in cracking German codes and certainly shortened the war, and he well could have made the difference in winning it.
This isn't really new for JPL either. The rocket boys at CalTech started out doing peaceful research before World War II. They did pitch in to the war effort to defeat Fascism, but in 1946 many of them wanted to demilitarize and return to peaceful research. Unfortunately JPL turned in to a cold war military lab. One of their founding fathers Frank Malina resigned when his left leaning politics in 30's became known to the FBI. One of their best mathmeticians, Hsue-Shen Tsien [wikipedia.org], was fired and placed under house arrest because he was a suspected communist. When he was finally freed he did in fact return to China and became an integral part of their space program. Its an interesting question, was he really a communist spy when at JPL, or did the U.S. witch hunt drive him in to the arms of Communist China, when otherwise he would have been a priceless contributor to the American space program.
Some interesting tidbits on JPL's eary years are here [slashdot.org].
I hate to break it to you but a LOT of the world's most brilliant thinkers are non conformists in one way or another, sexual orientation, drug use, pacifism, political leanings etc. If you are going to build your society only on "normal" people you are going to lose many of your greatest thinkers and forego many great breakthroughs.
The only reason gays are a security risk in this day and age is because the defense industrial complex have forced them in to a closet by making homosexuality a basis for termination of their security clearance. Homosexuality isn't illegal in this country any more. If it was completely removed as an factor in granting security clearances it wouldn't be an effective means for blackmailing anyone any more. It used to be a legitimate concern for blackmail because it was illegal. It isn't anymore.