What Not To Write On Your Security Clearance Form

http://milk.com/wall-o-shame/security_clearance.html

by RevRal • 16 years ago

202 98 16 years ago

I'm more interested in these so called "provocative things" one can write that expedite the process.

Alex3917• 16 years ago

There was another one of these stories saying that it looks suspicious if you've never been convicted of a crime or done anything illegal, so if that's the case just say you tried weed once.

ErrantX4• 16 years ago

No, no. No no no.

Extremely bad idea. Cue cautionary tale; a friend of mine (here in the UK) wrote something similar on his form (that he'd been ticked off for smoking weed). They didn't refuse him but he has consistently had random drugs tests for the last 3 years (at a rate of about one every 2 months).

The fact of it is if you tick "yes" to any of those questions you're setting yourself up for a fall. The review officer is extremely happy if you ticked no - because he can just run the default checks and not have to interview you :)

bonzoesc• 16 years ago

I suspect the punchline of the story is a neat little provocative thing. Expediting the process can mean a quick rejection.

ericlavigne• 16 years ago

An example of a "provocative thing" expediting the security process is given in another of Les's stories (copied from Sukotto's comment).

http://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html

"The lesson was clear: if you want a clearance in a hurry, put something on your history form that will make the investigators suspicious but that is not damning. They get so many dull backgrounds to check that they relish the possibility of actually nailing someone. By being a bit provocative, you draw priority attention and quicker service."

ck24• 16 years ago

It's amazing how many people today don't know we once had concentration camps in the USA and what we put innocent families through.

We almost went there again with arabic Americans after 9/11 via census data.

tomjen3• 16 years ago

I heard some people talk about the 9/11 thing, but I have not been able to find a good article that describes the hole thing, so I only know bits and pieces.

Does anybody know where I can learn more?

kilps• 16 years ago

I had no idea about this before this article (I'm not American...) - incredible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

jrockway5• 16 years ago

I'm always a little surprised when Japanese people get so excited about America. We nuked them twice, and before that we rounded up anyone that looked Japanese and put them in prison camps.

When the US kidnaps and murders thousands, it's no big deal. When North Korea kidnapped 12 Japanese, it comes up in the news once a week for decades. I don't understand it.

I guess when North Korea starts buying their bonds...

danudey• 16 years ago

As much as I love to wave the 'Canada is awesome' flag, we've got the same dark spectre looming over our history as well. Pretty shameful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment

brown9-2• 16 years ago

There is actually some controversy over using the term "concentration camp" to refer to the internment. From wikipedia:

"Concentration camp" is the most controversial descriptor of the camps. This term is criticized for suggesting that the Japanese American experience was analogous to the Holocaust and the Nazi concentration camps.[90] For this reason, National Park Service officials have attempted to avoid the term.[88] Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes each referred to the American camps as "concentration camps," at the time.[91] When the nature of the Nazi concentration camps became clear to the world, and the phrase "concentration camp" came to signify a Nazi death camp, most historians turned to other terms to describe Japanese internment.

what2• 16 years ago

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

makmanalp• 16 years ago

Of course there is "some controversy" about anything that might make our politicians look bad. Sure, the severity was not the same, but it looks like they tried to skip the implications altogether. Internment is not nice, especially when the reason for it is simply hysteria.

ck24• 16 years ago

It's funny how they have trouble with the word "concentration" when the word I would have trouble with is "camp". Makes it sound like a weekend getaway or fun for the kids.

Concentration "prison" is more accurate. Try leaving and see what happens.

Dobbs• 16 years ago

I may be the exception or not but we spent a fairly large chunk of time talking about it in middle school.

That would be within the last 6-8 years if you are curious.

dhimes• 16 years ago

I was in middle school three decades before you, and we did not. Glad to hear that it has changed.

qeorge• 16 years ago

We touched on it in middle school as well, in that we all read Farewell to Manzanar, but it never came up again during my schooling. Its a sad part of our history that deserves more attention.

ck24• 16 years ago

6-8 years would be just post-9/11, so I guess some teachers finally remembered it could be relevant.

Looks like the pre-9/11 folks didn't hear about it so much.

mturmon• 16 years ago

On the West coast it's pretty common to know a Japanese American family who had a family member, still living, in an internment camp. It's usually not the first thing that gets talked about. It's very real history.

amh• 16 years ago

And yet, people who don't trust the census and refuse to answer unnecessary questions are considered nutters, even with relatively recent historical evidence that the government can't be trusted.

Kadin2• 16 years ago

Well, yes, they're considered nutters because it takes a special sort of person to specifically refuse to answer a question. On one hand you have to distrust the government with the answer to the question they're asking, but on the other you have to trust them not to remember the fact that you refused and hold that against you. It's a weird position to hold, and to a lot of people appears inconsistent.

If you don't trust the government with the census, it would seem more logical to just lie on the very first paper form that they send you. Chances are (very, very good chances) that they'll never send a human being out to check and thus will never know that you lied about whatever question you're uncomfortable answering.

It's one thing to noisily refuse to answer some question in order to raise awareness of some issue you have with the census, but if you think there's a conspiracy or that the government might use the information to round you up in the future, it doesn't make sense to attract any notice. Better to lie low, if you think that's a risk.

Hoff• 16 years ago

Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me:

http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/liesmyteachertoldme.php

Worthy read.

tvon• 16 years ago

Sounds very much like A People's History of the United States (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Pre...).

njharman• 16 years ago

Have you seen or heard how (some/most?) illegal aliens are detained, today? The main difference between that and concentration camps is the illegals have good chance of relatively short stay.

DavidSJ• 16 years ago

We almost went there again with arabic Americans after 9/11 via census data.

Can you source this, please? I don't recall this being suggested by anyone serious.

borism3• 16 years ago

Gitmo, extraordinary renditions, enemy combatants...don't ring any bell?

olefoo• 16 years ago

We did go there after 9-11, we just outsourced the actual camps to other countries.

What do you think the Maher Arar case was about? And that was just the tip of the iceberg. As a nation we have decided that lawlessness and torture are alright if they are inflicted on suspected terrorists. The continued public silence on this issue does not speak well of the moral qualities of the average american.

cookiecaper• 16 years ago

We didn't go there in a way that's analogous to the camps from the 40s.

bkrausz• 16 years ago

The question of what to reveal on official documents comes up fairly often. On the on hand, telling the truth can cause unnecessary trouble, on the other hand, lying is technically illegal. I'm amazed at how often people are strongly incentivized to choose the latter.

jws• 16 years ago

I have lied on the security it forms, but with approval of the agent. As I recall the question read something like:

Have you ever used or abused <<giant list of drugs, chemicals, and substances that goes on for a good 2 inch tall paragraph in small type>>, or glue?

Right there at the end… glue. I had to confess that I not only used glue on a regular basis, but I had just showed my preschool daughter how to use glue and we had a grand time using glue together.

In a decision to pain logicians everywhere the agent deemed that my "use of glue" was not "use of glue".

chr152• 16 years ago

I would not lie on security clearance applications. Being honest and truthful is a big factor is the security clearance process. It's OK if you have incidences like this in the past, as long as there are mitigating factors such as passage of time and circumstances in which the incident occurred. The investigators just want to make sure you cannot be blackmailed in exchange for secret information.

For example, say John has a drug addiction, but he failed to disclose this on his application. He is eventually granted the clearance, but now he has to keep this secret for the rest of his life. Someone could easily blackmail him for secret government information. If he is caught lying, his clearance will be revoked and he will lose his job, and more than likely he will never be hired for a position that requires a clearance ever again (many US gov't jobs require a clearance).

Honesty is a sign of your loyalty to the U.S. Depending on the type of clearance, you are sometimes required to take multiple polygraph tests, and you will more than likely be caught lying.

Author did the right thing by being truthful.

See http://www.rjhresearch.com/ADR/index.htm for more information.

jugtfghjkuhyg• 16 years ago

So at the airport to the 'have you left your bags unattended, has anyone given you anything to carry on'

Do you answer, yes - the bags have been unattended in the cupboard for most of the year, and on the incoming flight and my company gave me this laptop to carry on?

Incidentally if you fly El-Al they do ask you if you were given a new laptop for this trip and even if it has been out for repair since you knew you were taking this trip.

jrockway5• 16 years ago

Why do people deal with security clearances and government jobs? The pay is better in the private sector, and fucking up won't land you in prison.

The market is clearly not efficient.

hga7• 16 years ago

One very simple reason that one of my friends has been enjoying for some time: it allows you to continue your programming career past age 35-40. This part of the market, where they care if you already have a clearance and can do the job, but not your age, is much more efficient than the civilian US market.

And I'd be surprised if the pay is much better in the private sector for equivalent IT jobs; I've never heard any programmer with a clearance being upset with pay or not being able to live the lifestyle he liked (well, as long as it was average American suburban).

"Fucking up" is pretty easy to avoid; you can talk about the technology you're using (e.g. Suns/UNIX, .NET, Java (the CIA was a 100% Java shop in the middle of the last decade), just not about the domain. Which is often true in the civilian market, it's just that the penalties are higher.

bigmac3• 16 years ago

There are private sector jobs that require security clearance and pay well. Consider Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, etc. Lockheed on GlassDoor: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Lockheed-Martin-Salaries-E40...

natep• 16 years ago

Having a security clearance can be job security for the private sector, too (well, government contractors). I interned at a company that decided they needed to do a large round of layoffs. To my knowledge, nobody with a security clearance lost their job, even though it was a 'classified' project that was lost.

yummyfajitas4• 16 years ago

The job is more stable and there is less pressure to perform. You'll never be outsourced, and you'll never be passed over for promotion in favor of Raju or Yun. If the project doesn't move quickly enough, your dept will just get more money.

The government is a great place for mediocre people to work.

chancho• 16 years ago

Early-career research positions for cleared PhDs at gov't labs pay much, much more than the equivalent positions at universities (post-doc, lecturer, etc.) and still allow you to publish.

amalcon• 16 years ago

Job security. Governments are more stable than big corporations, and are liable to have any cost-cutting initiatives neutered.

That, or wanting to live in the DC area. Some very large percentage of the jobs there are either government or government contractors.

lotharbot2• 16 years ago

Why do people join the military? The pay is better in the private sector, and fucking up won't get you shot or blown up.

starkfist• 16 years ago

The pay is not better in the private sector for most jobs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N...

elblanco2• 16 years ago

You might be surprised what a clearance is worth over private sector pay.

That being said, private sector work is usually for more fulfilling and less frustrating.

Working a private sector job, with a clearance (and the pay bump that brings) making software for the government, now that's not a bad way to burn through a work week.

Kadin2• 16 years ago

You're conflating two very different things. Lots of people have security clearances and still work for private-sector companies (contractors). They just work on government contracts, sometimes in addition to traditional commercial work.

Other people work for the government directly, and most of these people (that I've known) also have security clearances, although there are some government jobs that probably don't require one. Why people work directly for the government I have no idea -- good pension plan, I guess? Doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

But government contracting can be good work and good money IMO. There's more paperwork and overhead than straight commercial work, but you sometimes get to solve weird/unique problems too.

In some areas (DC) there is a big pay difference depending on what level of security clearance you have. Someone with TS/SCI can expect to make very good money, on top of whatever their experience and education would dictate, as a result of holding the clearance. This is because there are some projects which require people with those clearances, and for the highest clearances it's a relatively small pool of people (they're expensive).

However I'll agree with you on the market being inefficient. The labor market very rarely is, however. The natural tendency of people to not want to move around all the time ensures a certain amount of inefficiency, before you even involve the government.

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

> Being honest and truthful is a big factor is the security clearance process.

I would say that knowing how to lie well is a big factor in the clearance process. Being too honest can hurt you as we read in the article.

> Honesty is a sign of your loyalty to US.

That is why one should appear to be honest if they want to appear to be loyal.

As far as polygraph tests -- they only work if those who administer convince you that they work.

eob• 16 years ago

> He then got out a blank form and handed it to me, saying ``Here, fill it out again and don't mention that. If you do, I'll make sure that you never get a security clearance.''

That sentence perfectly sums up my experience with the security clearance process and demonstrates clearly how broken it is.

hga7• 16 years ago

In all fairness this was a particularly special case. And from a long time ago, way past the time anyone would be worried if he really had been a spy for Imperial Japan.

rdtsc2• 16 years ago

This happened in the 50s probably so it was after the war. Also the fact that he was 12 at the time obviously meant it was just a ridiculous coincidence. If he really was suspected of being a spy, the security officer wouldn't have torn up form and would have actually made him never be able to get a clearance again.

What has happened is that the security officer simply knows how the system is set up. It cannot handle 'ridiculous' spy stories. It can handle 'no spy stories' or it can handle 'real spy stories' -- ridiculous coincidences don't fit it. So he basically had forced his guy to lie because his story fit better into 'no spy story' bin.

chr152• 16 years ago

I think any process involving humans will be imperfect. There will always be the potential for loopholes.

avar• 16 years ago

It sounds like the security officer was just some low-level grunt who didn't want to go to the trouble of filing extra paperwork. Rather than someone with the power to "make sure that you never get a security clearance".

Sukotto• 16 years ago

Les Earnest's anecdotes have been a real inspiration for me over the years. His Japanese Spy story is pretty good. But if you want a real laugh, read his Mongrel Race stories: http://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html

hga7• 16 years ago

NOT the best way to vouch for someone: "'Yes, we just celebrated Guy Fawkes Day together.'"

Note also the author is an example of "oh, that's easy" WRT to the programming required to fix the real problem. I can well believe it was worth their while trying to get him to change his official race instead of trying to modify a program when no one on their IT staff was familiar with it and he was the only exception (so far).

Note WRT to Linus Pauling, a) he was indeed an inspiring chemist (his books are still very useful) and is considered to be the best of the 20th century. b) He was also willing Communist/Soviet tool.

trop• 16 years ago

Also well worth reading is his "My analog to digital conversion" (http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/digital.pdf), which despite its title is actually a bildungsroman about some terrifying engineering errors in 1950s military technology.

wglb• 16 years ago

This is a bit along the lines of Patrick's marvelous post http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1438472

raintrees• 16 years ago

What happened to the letter S? Isn't it after T in frequency?

bluedanieru• 16 years ago

It's amazing how much American law enforcement has changed in the last 70 years. It's the most interesting part of this article IMO. When something like this happens today they serve a no-knock warrant and shoot the kid's dog (well, after shooting the neighbor's dog because they got the wrong house). Zero-tolerance and all.

ars2• 16 years ago

You've been reading reddit too much.

In the real world that doesn't much happen.

daten• 16 years ago

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

"These increasingly frequent raids, 40,000 per year by one estimate, are needlessly subjecting nonviolent drug offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they're sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed paramilitary units dressed not as police officers but as soldiers. These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects. "

What Not To Write On Your Security Clearance Form

Related Stories