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."
Pointless (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
(I pray that I never hear anything like this. .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
See? That deserves a +x Insightful even though I "made it up"
you missed one... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:you missed one... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Myself, I've turned down or not applied for jobs that required more privacy invasion than I felt was justified for a given job, and I let them know why.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:you missed one... (Score:5, Interesting)
It isn't.
JPL is a division of Caltech. JPL employees have a contract with Caltech and receive a paycheck that says Caltech. Much of the funding comes from NASA (but by no means all of it and the proportion has been shrinking), but the employees at JPL are not civil servants and they are not NASA employees.
Add to this that the people at JPL never signed a contract that said that there will be background checks (but now there are, suddenly, and they're a requirement for continued employment) and you might see where the uproar is coming from...
Re:you missed one... (Score:5, Informative)
Contractors are being screened first, actually. Civil Servants have already had a background check, so to resolve the glut of overdue checks, the government is hiring one of Bush's friend's companies to do all the screening. And once they do their screening - unlike any background check in the private sector - the information is available to any government agency complying with HSPD-12.
Which, I believe, despite Griffin's protestations, is only NASA at this point.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. I work at Ames.
Re:you missed one... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. Just wanted to be sure.
Re: (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 ear
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't a government job. JPL'ers are employed by Caltech, which is a private university.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
"employment history, past residences and any illegal drug use."
Re: (Score:2)
It could also be to weed out the possibility that some interesting tech might walk away. And yes, the mars rover drivers have some interesting stuff at their disposal. But it doesn't have to be at their disposal in order for them to get at it. In fact, If I was goin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because in the last year we've seen a homicidal astronaut drive across the country wearing a diaper, a sabotaging contractor, and allegations of alcoholic astronauts. All they need is an astronaut getting busted having gay bathroom sex.
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Funny)
Oh man, stay the *%# out of the ISS men's room. Everyone knows it's a meat market in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me while I put on "To Steer on Mir" by the Capitol Steps.
Are new recruits ready for intoxication session!?
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Funny)
Can't have that! Everyone knows that's for U.S. Senators [washingtonpost.com] only!
Can't have the riff-raff acting like the quality folks, no sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the rover drivers might use the rover to suicide-bomb.... something. That crater over there, maybe?
Those rovers on Mars are travelling at tens of KILLometers per second relative to the earth. Can you imagine how much damage one of those would cause if it were to hit a ranch in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have had the unsolved anthrax poisonings. Is it so impossible to imagine an engineer sabotaging a $600 million dollar space project over a grievance that no one else will ever really understand?
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't work on matters of national security, where is the concern with improper influence or motives? If someone's job puts them in a position where they might pose a threat to the safety of the country, they ought to be vetted and cleared appropriately. If not, filling out a questionnaire ought to be sufficient - though some of those questions are pretty fucking nosey, IMO, given that this is simply for getting an access card to allow you into places you've been going in the past anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes they have access to explosives at their jobs -- but so do the people who manufacture said chemicals and transport them, and last I checked, those employees didn't have to go through government background checks. There's a big difference be
Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Also, you have less of a chance of pissing an employee off when promoting from within and finding out that the only thing stopping them from getting another $10,000 a year and project le
Re: (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
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:4, Funny)
1. Most extremists are Muslims
2. Islam forbids homosexuality
3. Homosexuals are not likely to be Muslim extremists
Therefore, it should be safe to hire gays...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. most conservative anti-homosexuals congressmen are Republican
2. Republican platform is anti-homosexual
3. Homosexuals are not likely to be Republican congressmen
but now we know old Republican congressmen cruise for cock in the public bathrooms and suck underage congressional pageboy schlong.
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
1. Most Republican Senators are Christian
-
For additional information... (Score:5, Informative)
Levers (Score:5, Informative)
I held a TS with SBI once upon a time. The main reason for background checks, as I understand it, is to ferret out any levers that could be used against you by hostile agent. Too much debt? We'll get you out of trouble if you give us info. Cheating on your wife? With a man?! It would be a shame if we had to call her. Think of your kids.
It's not that they're morally judging you, its that they're making sure that you're not unduly susceptible to influence.
It's not fair, but it's not about fairness.
-Peter
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: (Score:2)
Want to make someone look like they're on the take? Deposit 20k in their bank account in cash.
This particular attack is not going to work. Any cash transaction 10k and over must be reported to the IRS so there is going to be a paper trail (if they're allowed to do it at all, bank laws here really suck now - financial privacy is only for the elite).
Probably more effective would be to make a series of deposits just under 10k (to avoid the reporting requirement) and make it look like tax evasion.
Protecting against blackmail made sense when it was the Soviet government and the KGB you were dealing wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I wouldn't exactly sit around waiting for them to make the first move. Everyone goes apeshit about airline security after they hijack jets, but then they bomb a train while you're looking away. Only defending against a tactic after the enemy uses it is a good way to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Only defending against a tactic after the enemy uses it is a good way to lose.
Preemptive tactics that leaves more enemies standing than existed before the action is lunacy. Blowback is a bitch. That should be common sense, but sadly isn't. Using WMDs (all the evidence we've accumulated so far indicates that DU-based weapons are WMDs of the worst kind - they kill everyone slowly) is the worst thing the US could have done in a payback war against an innocent country. All of the facts that the US government has provided indicate that 911 was perpetrated by Saudis. Osama Bin Laden
Re: (Score:2)
Stereotyping will get you killed, possibly with a box-cutter.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone walked up to me claiming they deposited money into an account of mine in order to force me to do something or else it will look like I was a drug dealer, I would just goto the bank and say I checked my ballance and there is too much money
Re: (Score:2)
Also, kiddy porn is probably the easiest thing to refute if planted. It'd be simpler to plant a crying "rape victim" and a bottle full of rohypnol. As long as police are searching your house thanks to the probable cause of the police re
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they're being investigated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Better yet, make a lump-sum payment on their mortgage for them, when they're swimming in debt over their heads.
Lit
Re: (Score:2)
"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). "
So it works ... :-)
Yes, people in debt over their ears will sell you out - and so will people who aren't in debt.
"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
Re: (Score:2)
If NASA believes that these sorts of background checks really work, they've been breathing too much vacuum.
If you believe that this is about NASA or a NASA policy, you might want to consider RTFA. This is about Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 involving everybody who works at any federal facility. NASA has no authorship in this, no control over it, no initiative in it.
Mike Griffin is just a spineless pig when he publicly defends the whole nonsense. He's trying to look as if he's somehow supporting hspd12 because if he seemed to oppose it, it would show how powerless he really is. When the preside
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"Also more on the same point why does someone have to have a reason? So I have a few thousand in my savings and no real debt. Does that mean I wouldnt like a few thousand more?"
Exactly. We pay politicians a lot more than the average, but they still end up sucking at the corporate teat and forgetting who actually voted for them. Or look at all the CEOs who take more than they're entitled to (Martha Stewart, Conrad Black, Ken Lay ...)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, just because these people don't have access to classified information doesn't mean they don't have access to sensitive information [wikipedia.org] which could be leveraged to gain access to classified information. I think a background check is a perfectly reasonable measure
Re:Levers + bullshit = more of the same stupidity. (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, its time for the US population to stop thinking like Miss Carolina and just grow the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit if you're gay, lesbian, bi, or straight, or you cheated on your spouse, or you have debt, or you used illegal drugs, or you have a Britney Speares collection. Nobody. And the sooner the government makes this their official position, and sends a clear signal to the rest of society, the sooner blackmail for this sort of crap will no longer be possible.
Of course, the odds of that happening with Idiot Bush in charge are nill.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for sharing. I own you now, weasel boy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is it that politicians don't have to undergo the same background check before being eligible for office then? They have far more power in terms of changing laws, setting budgets etc. than the average NASA employee. Of course they also make the rules about who needs to have background checks...
Background checks make sense for people dealing with classified material but not for non
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Put that on the ballot and I'll vote for it!
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People in debt don't give out information that they shouldn't. Only unscrupulous people do that. Students are not inherently unscrupulous.
... what if I don't tell my bo
Also, knowing "whether they've ever had sex and, if so, what type." has nothing to do with being dishonorable or embarrassed. Does this mean they are less likely to hire virgins because of the embarrassment of virginity? And apparently they ask people I know about my sex habits?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing if you're going for a job that actually needs access to Secret or Top Secret classified data. These people don't- so why even GO there in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic, because that is what I thought of your post. I've signed non-disclosure agreements before, and have yet to figure out what is really worth disclosing. Yes there will always be SOMETHING, some argument one can use to get away with the most atrocious abuses.
It's the same type of logic that says torture is OK if Americans do it, but Americans don't torture because we changed the definition of torture to include torture. Therefore America is now safe.
For some reason I still do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
JPL employees are not NASA employees. They are employees of Caltech. Their contract says Caltech. Their paycheck says Caltech. Their 401k is TIAA-CREF, not some nice fat federal pension plan. If they invent something, Caltech has the right to the patent. They have none of the nice benefits of federal employment.
Why should they submit to the scrutiny of HSPD12?
The issue of access (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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.
The real issue (Score:5, 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.
That is nothing (Score:2)
Even for lesser clearances, they can (and will) interview neighbors, family and childhood friends.
This goes far beyond the public records and credit reports that private sector employers are demanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. It remains an option though.
Re:That is nothing (Score:5, Funny)
You'll be pleased to learn that the question regarding homosexuality has been softened up.
Old question: Are you now or have you ever been a homosexual?
New question: Are coffee, salmon, and moccha foods or colors?
probably for profiling (Score:2)
First they came (Score:3, Funny)
Then they came for the government employees.
Then they came for employees of government contractors and vendors.
And now that the only jobs I can have or transactions I can conduct are with the 1% of the population and market that refuses business with the government, I'm too broke to pay my property tax on my supposedly private property. So now they're coming for me.
Open Employment Offer for JPL employees (Score:3, Funny)
I know you like the collegial atmosphere out at JPL. I know you like being able to have your work peer-reviewed. In short, I know that you like the lives that some of you have lead for the last several decades. Unfortunately, you and I both know that things are changing, largely at the request of your own government.
I know you don't like the new security checks. No matter how squeaky-clean your lives are, or how much you love your country, there are always some skeletons in the closet that can come back to haunt you. Also, the rules are always changing - what was unacceptable twenty years ago but acceptable ten years ago is now unacceptable again. Nobody should have to live like that.
My organisation already knows all your secrets. They weren't that hard to find - as you've probably already realised, money talks. And you know what? We don't care. That's right, we don't give a shit that you cross-dress, have sex with livestock, eat your own boogers or have a gambling problem. (Actually, on that last point, we do - and treat it as a medical problem with treatment covered entirely under our health plan, and our financial planners can help you get your life back together too. Same deal with drugs.)
From our secret base of operations somewhere south-east of Florida we plan World Domination. Our Weather Machine and Death Ray divisions are approaching the deployment phase, but there's still a pressing need for talent in the Heavy Launch, Orbital Habitat and Orbital Weapons Platform divisions.
Our employees receive world-class free health care, six weeks paid vacation each year and a pension plan that makes the GDP of many small countries look pitiful - and there's lots of room for advancement, so your pension payout could actually *be* Lichtenstein or Peru. We also pay all re-location expenses, and have great schools a short submarine ride away. We have a wide range of recreational and sporting facilities. We are family-friendly, with common-sense and generous carers leave provisions. On the subject of family-friendly, we have a petting zoo. We also have a less family-oriented heavy-petting zoo, but we don't usually like to talk about it.
If you think it's time for a change and that you can make a difference, reply here - don't worry, although your government will find you we've paid their operatives enough to make sure we get to you first. No pressure - we won't tell your dirty little secrets, but then, we don't have to. The choice is entirely yours.
Sincerely,
Xavier F. Megalomaniac
Supervillain
P.S.
We have administrative, support and security
roles available too - and leather and spandex
are only required on formal occasions.
Looks like they're finally implementing PIV (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, everyone getting a PIV card has to pass a background check. However, it seems that asking those scientists and engineers about all that data mentioned in TFA is a bit excessive. The standard has an informational appendix (appendix C) that specifies what sort of checks should be done. It even specifies two levels of checks for different security levels. Looks like someone got a little bit too anal when deciding what checks to do. The checks mentioned in FIPS-201 seem reasonable, though. Can anyone that knows about background checks explain what they are exactly?
The cards themselves seem pretty good. It is pretty clear that the designers of FIPS-201 cards do not trust the wireless interface, making all biometric/sensitive information available only on the wired interface, unlike those e-passports every government is promoting. Pretty interesting reading material.
Did my SF85P last year about this time. (Score:3, Informative)
On another note, I don't recall my 85P [opm.gov] form asking me if I was a homo or not, and I also don't recall retail transaction request. They did ask how much of what kind of debt I was in, I'm guessing to see if I was desperate for money or not. Yes they did ask about illegal drug use, but there was a time limit on it. I don't recall, but it wasn't to many years, four or so. All in all, I don't think much of the form was unreasonable, sure it was a pain in the ass to fill out, but it wasn't unreasonable.
If you want to see the form for yourself, here it is [opm.gov].
As for being at the JPL instead of the Cape or Johnson? Suck it up. This is for every federal position. Expect your postal carrier to be grouching about the form to.
Control freaks to not lack paranoia (Score:2)
As I see it - various jobs attract people of certain character.
Science for instance will attract people who are naturally curious.
Computer programming should be expected to attract people who like games and puzzles and are good at dealing with detail.
Administration should be expected to attract people who like to tell other people what to do. One would expect to see a lot of control freaks in managment and administration.
If so, then how would
Not worth getting your panties in a bunch (Score:3, Interesting)
Every government position that has access to dangerous materials, sensitive/proprietary information, or responsibility of human life requires such checks, and rightly so to protect the public and the Union. Anyone who has worked in the government is quite used to the clearance process. To make matters "worse" for you privacy doom and gloomers, it occurs at regular intervals-- every 10 years for Secret, 7 years for Top Secret, and 5 years for clearances beyond that.
Sure, its uncomfortable to have a stranger rummage through your life as everyone has skeletons they'd prefer to hide, but its not worth sweating bullets about. Considering that the goal is to exclude obvious risks to the public, I'm more or less okay with the occasional privacy reinvasion to maintain my clearance knowing that the same process is going to hopefully keep John Q. Smackhead from becoming a reactor safety manager at the nuke plant in the next county.
Maybe if people understood the process...
After completing the encyclopedic questionnaire, a team of investigators is sent to verify your answers-- very often these will be local people that have retired from law enforcement who are contracted by DSS. If its your first clearance, an upgrade, or if clarifications are needed after the precursory review, you'll also sit down with an investigator for an interview where the two of you go over the questionnaire. They'll proceed scour PUBLIC record and talk to your references, neighbors, and acquaintances (heck, during my first TS clearance, the investigator spoke to my 2nd grade teacher!) Once all of the information is assembled, you are assessed as a whole person by DSS. Adjudicators (employed directly by DSS) look at the following in order of importance:
-Honesty in answers versus the investigative findings (you didn't report that you had declared Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in 1997? Whoops!)
-Accuracy of your answers versus the investigative findings (correct addresses, date ranges, employment history, account numbers, etc. mostly to determine if there's a deliberate attempt to misdirect or hide aspects of your history)
-Immediate red flags (habitual substance abuse, uncontrollable debt, felony convictions, etc)
-Travel/residence for the scope of the investigation (frequent visits to a 'non-friendly' foreign country not of your origin or without familial association)
Its the adjudicator's job to generate a mean risk assignment to your case based on these criteria. Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to have a spotless history to obtain a clearance. As long as you are HONEST and UPFRONT about your history, there's little that will stop you from obtaining it. 75% of clearance requests that are rejected are due to that alone. Many of those rejections get a second chance to come clean, as it were, and ultimately receive a clearance assignment.
Regardless of rejection, you are entitled to appeal the final decision. ALWAYS. In that event, I believe a team of 3 adjudicators (not including the original) independently assess the package with the majority ruling.
Its a rough approximation of how trustworthy a person you are. That's all.
Now, that's all fine and dandy for the government sector, but what about the corporate world?
I don't necessarily agree with some of the extensive garbage that is foisted upon corporate folk, especially for positions that don't justify such extensive checking, but it comes down a point that I mentioned earlier.
Investigations are EXPENSIVE. A potential employer isn't going to i
This happened once before (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the people who had their clearances revoked was the first "Robbert Goddard Professor of Jet Propulsion" at Cal Tech, Dr Tsien. I'm sure I don't have to explicitly mention that he was a total genius. They arrested him and then wouldn't let him leave the country for five years so that his scientific knowledge would be obsolete. As soon as he was allowed to, he moved back to China.
In China Tsien was very well respected (respecting intelligence is an archaic custom of some Asian cultures), he became Chairman Mao's tutor in science, and went on to supervise the development of China's ICBM program. So when the US gets nuked by the China, we'll have American paranoia to thank.
That's one thing that the US can make better than the Chinese ever will. We are great at making enemies out of friends.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA says that the janitors have to undergo the background check; i.e. you won't even be allowed to clean toilets.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's a shame that eventually anyone who doesn't want to allow the FBI to open a dossier on them and start monitoring all their past and present communications will only be allowed to flip burgars or clean toilets"
Guess you've never wondered what a "terr'rist" and a bottle of Crazy Glue can to to a toilet seat ... or what any burger-flipper can do to your meal if you piss them off. Hint - that green stuff wasn't relish.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought that was a little silly, myself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:thats the stupidest thing ive heard... (Score:4, Informative)
The current background check (on everybody who works at a federal facility - not just JPL) are pretty lenient:
http://editthis.info/images/jpl_rebadging/a/ab/S uitability_Matrix_mods.pdf
You have nothing to worry even if you are a regular pot-smoker, or were convicted of not paying your taxes, or committing any car-related offense short of vehicular manslaughter. I mean - Assault, Harassment, Forgery -- none get you into column "C"....
Re: (Score:2)
They are fighting the American people, stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
... and the voters too! (Score:2)
Bottom line is that any prohibitive approach will fail.
IF you screen to exclude, say, gay employees because they are a security risk that will not stop many getting through the screen where they will be even more prone to being blackmailed.
It is far easier, and more effective, to be accepting of gay employees. That removes the blackmail pressure... and means that you don't exclude people that might be great for
Re: (Score:2)
As for druggies, I'd say that while I'd personally respect your right to alter your mind, its perfectly legitimate for an employer (like NASA) to want its employees to be in thei