What is the process for getting a security clearance?
April 15, 2016 9:11 AM Subscribe
People in the United States who hold security clearances should be those: “...whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information.” Executive Order #12968
The process of getting a clearance or access authorization is can be a long one and involves filling out a 127 page form (now replaced with an online system, eQIP, many of the 127 pages were usually blank) which has some fairly intrusive questions. Once you complete the form there is an investigation whose scope depends on the clearance level sought and involves criminal and credit checks, interviews with your friends, coworkers, neighbors, and possibly doctors. Depending on job and agency it may include polygraphs. The polygraph is more a psychological tool to get you talking than a reliable detector of truth. In the future social media checks will be instituted. They don't read your mail or email. (Well, any more than they read everyone's email)
One the investigation is complete, the adjudication phase begins. Some understanding of the adjudication system can be gained by reading the fascinating Adjudicative Desk Reference. If you’re interested in the subject and read one thing, read or skim this. It describes the 13 areas in which concerns about the eligibility for a clearance can be raised, and examples of ways those concerns may be mitigated. It also covers the standards for the different types of investigations being adjudicated. It is a well cited and researched document which should be read by anyone with or thinking about a job requiring a security clearance. There is also ample justification for usual Ask Metafilter advice for honesty on clearance forms. Many things you might expect to be disqualifying are not, but any untruth later discovered is a major hurdle to getting or keeping a job.
The timeline for this process has lengthened significantly since the recent OPM data breach, when it appears much of this very personal information about people with access to classified information whose release would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available was obtained by a foreign power.
Despite this long and involved process, clearance denials are the exception rather than the rule. Debt is the most common reason for clearance denials. There are appeals processes after an initial denial, although: Once the agency has made a showing of derogatory information raising security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient to convince the agency that granting or restoring access authorization ‘will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest.’” This can be a challenge, but is not impossible as shown in the results of the final steps in the appeal process available online for DOE and DOD.
Once the whole thing is over (with luck until your 5 or 10 year reinvestigation), you can request the record of your investigation.
The process of getting a clearance or access authorization is can be a long one and involves filling out a 127 page form (now replaced with an online system, eQIP, many of the 127 pages were usually blank) which has some fairly intrusive questions. Once you complete the form there is an investigation whose scope depends on the clearance level sought and involves criminal and credit checks, interviews with your friends, coworkers, neighbors, and possibly doctors. Depending on job and agency it may include polygraphs. The polygraph is more a psychological tool to get you talking than a reliable detector of truth. In the future social media checks will be instituted. They don't read your mail or email. (Well, any more than they read everyone's email)
One the investigation is complete, the adjudication phase begins. Some understanding of the adjudication system can be gained by reading the fascinating Adjudicative Desk Reference. If you’re interested in the subject and read one thing, read or skim this. It describes the 13 areas in which concerns about the eligibility for a clearance can be raised, and examples of ways those concerns may be mitigated. It also covers the standards for the different types of investigations being adjudicated. It is a well cited and researched document which should be read by anyone with or thinking about a job requiring a security clearance. There is also ample justification for usual Ask Metafilter advice for honesty on clearance forms. Many things you might expect to be disqualifying are not, but any untruth later discovered is a major hurdle to getting or keeping a job.
The timeline for this process has lengthened significantly since the recent OPM data breach, when it appears much of this very personal information about people with access to classified information whose release would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available was obtained by a foreign power.
Despite this long and involved process, clearance denials are the exception rather than the rule. Debt is the most common reason for clearance denials. There are appeals processes after an initial denial, although: Once the agency has made a showing of derogatory information raising security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient to convince the agency that granting or restoring access authorization ‘will not endanger the common defense and security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest.’” This can be a challenge, but is not impossible as shown in the results of the final steps in the appeal process available online for DOE and DOD.
Once the whole thing is over (with luck until your 5 or 10 year reinvestigation), you can request the record of your investigation.
Yes, 127 pages. I've done it a few times now.
First time was difficult because it was shortly after college and they want everywhere you've lived in the past 10 years. Which for a good chunk of that was a few months in a dorm, a few months at home, back to the dorm, back to home... it was a long section.
Last time I did it I got hung up when it asked me for (literally!) every foreign national I've had contact with in the past ten years. I work on committees with international participants and some of my work is on NATO contracts, I probably have hundreds of foreign nationals I've worked with over the past few years. I eventually gave up and just made a note about that and told them to contact me if they needed more information.
I filled that last questionnaire out in... September, I think? I was supposed to hear something by this month, and still no word. Wait times have gotten ridiculous. I got my first clearance in less than a month.
posted by backseatpilot at 9:25 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
First time was difficult because it was shortly after college and they want everywhere you've lived in the past 10 years. Which for a good chunk of that was a few months in a dorm, a few months at home, back to the dorm, back to home... it was a long section.
Last time I did it I got hung up when it asked me for (literally!) every foreign national I've had contact with in the past ten years. I work on committees with international participants and some of my work is on NATO contracts, I probably have hundreds of foreign nationals I've worked with over the past few years. I eventually gave up and just made a note about that and told them to contact me if they needed more information.
I filled that last questionnaire out in... September, I think? I was supposed to hear something by this month, and still no word. Wait times have gotten ridiculous. I got my first clearance in less than a month.
posted by backseatpilot at 9:25 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
With the OPM breach, I am really thankful that I never applied for a clearance.
Maybe once I see the process is managed by people who know WTF they're doing, I might step forward.
posted by ocschwar at 9:27 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe once I see the process is managed by people who know WTF they're doing, I might step forward.
posted by ocschwar at 9:27 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
... freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion ...
Welp, that excludes anyone who has ever accepted corporate and/or sovereign donations to their federal campaign fund ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:27 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Welp, that excludes anyone who has ever accepted corporate and/or sovereign donations to their federal campaign fund ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:27 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
I have some friends and relatives with security clearance, for various reasons and roles. One person works for a generically named company that gives a certain Umbrella Corp. vibe, especially because this person can't describe the work done or who it's done for, so it's always "The Client sent us thing to test" and things like that.
And from what I've heard, DEA doesn't ask you to report as far back for your drug use history as CIA. Wacky government agency discrepancies.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:29 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
And from what I've heard, DEA doesn't ask you to report as far back for your drug use history as CIA. Wacky government agency discrepancies.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:29 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have three nationalities, which means I've never bothered even applying to any jobs that required this. My understanding is that they'd ask me if I would be willing to relinquish my other nationalities, and my choices would be to lie and say I would but hope they don't actually ask me to do so, or to tell the truth and say I wouldn't and be branded disloyal to America.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:30 AM on April 15, 2016
posted by 1adam12 at 9:30 AM on April 15, 2016
My dad always was getting new security clearances when I was growing up. This is cool because I never knew what it entailed.
posted by Marinara at 9:35 AM on April 15, 2016
posted by Marinara at 9:35 AM on April 15, 2016
I've acted as a reference for a couple of folks getting security clearances. It's a ridiculous process where some guy from a government contractor insists on meeting in person at a hotel or somesuch place because this apparently can't be done over the phone. Then you show up and say "Yeah Adam's a reliable and trustworthy guy and I've never seen him hanging out with shady people" and they write that down and you go on your way. In the meantime, the uncleared person is paid to sit around and not do their job for like a year until the process is finished. I'm not sure how the interview part of the process makes anybody safer.
posted by zachlipton at 9:36 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 9:36 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
I'm not sure how the interview part of the process makes anybody safer.
It'd be too obvious if they asked for your ethnicity over the phone.
posted by Talez at 9:38 AM on April 15, 2016 [19 favorites]
It'd be too obvious if they asked for your ethnicity over the phone.
posted by Talez at 9:38 AM on April 15, 2016 [19 favorites]
... a generically named company that gives a certain Umbrella Corp. vibe ... this person can't describe the work done or who it's done for, so it's always "The Client sent us thing to test"...
Got it; SAIC.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:43 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Got it; SAIC.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:43 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
I hope I'm never in a situation where I'm desperate enough to need one of these.
posted by indubitable at 9:44 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by indubitable at 9:44 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
The whole process is stupid and filters out critical thinking, which explains a lot about our intelligence agencies.
The sooner this shit goes away, the better.
posted by phooky at 9:49 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
The sooner this shit goes away, the better.
posted by phooky at 9:49 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
I am dying to hear about your proposal for a replacement system. It's not like state secrets are going to suddenly stop being a thing once the clearance system is removed.
posted by backseatpilot at 9:53 AM on April 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
posted by backseatpilot at 9:53 AM on April 15, 2016 [14 favorites]
Then you show up and say "Yeah Adam's a reliable and trustworthy guy and I've never seen him hanging out with shady people"
It's even more fun to say "I have no idea who this person in my 250-person class three years ago is."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:55 AM on April 15, 2016
It's even more fun to say "I have no idea who this person in my 250-person class three years ago is."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:55 AM on April 15, 2016
... a generically named company that gives a certain Umbrella Corp. vibe ... this person can't describe the work done or who it's done for, so it's always "The Client sent us thing to test"...
Got it; SAIC.
Most of that stuff is probably done by the LEIDOS half of the company now...
Which should end the nonsense about SAIC being CIAS in reverse. Even the CIA isn't that blatant.
posted by inthe80s at 9:55 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
Got it; SAIC.
Most of that stuff is probably done by the LEIDOS half of the company now...
Which should end the nonsense about SAIC being CIAS in reverse. Even the CIA isn't that blatant.
posted by inthe80s at 9:55 AM on April 15, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's even more fun to say "I have no idea who this person in my 250-person class three years ago is."
I was a reference for my college roommate right after graduation when he was going on nuclear submarines and when the interviewer asked about alcohol abuse I can only imagine what expression my face was making.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:00 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I was a reference for my college roommate right after graduation when he was going on nuclear submarines and when the interviewer asked about alcohol abuse I can only imagine what expression my face was making.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:00 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
If tens of thousands of people have to be qualified to keep state secrets, we have to qualify what we mean by "secrets". The replacement would be a system that understands that not every person the government interacts with needs to have deep background checks, and that the number of people who do need that level of security needs to be kept relatively small, or the information will slip through the cracks. Giving someone "security clearance" is not a replacement for actually keeping a secret.
And yes, fewer state secrets would be very nice.
posted by phooky at 10:02 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
And yes, fewer state secrets would be very nice.
posted by phooky at 10:02 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Giving someone "security clearance" is not a replacement for actually keeping a secret.
Absolutely agree, and the government does, too! That's why the full phrasing for sharing secrets is "clearance... and need to know". Just because I have a clearance doesn't mean I can walk into NSA headquarters and start rifling through the drawers. Hell, I don't even have access to most of the labs in my building.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:05 AM on April 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
Absolutely agree, and the government does, too! That's why the full phrasing for sharing secrets is "clearance... and need to know". Just because I have a clearance doesn't mean I can walk into NSA headquarters and start rifling through the drawers. Hell, I don't even have access to most of the labs in my building.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:05 AM on April 15, 2016 [8 favorites]
I grew up in DC and still live here, so I know lots of people who've had to wait ages for clearance, or have wacky getting-a-clearance stories (like the friend who had to explain what Harry Potter fandom is), and I've been interviewed in person for three different friends who were getting clearance and on the phone for a few more. It's weird, but it's just sort of a fact of DC life, too, where occasionally a person in a suit comes to your house with a clipboard to ask if your old roommate is affiliated with any terrorist organizations. And you say no, and also say that they definitely never smoke pot ever, and they go on about their day and you go on about yours.
posted by nonasuch at 10:09 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nonasuch at 10:09 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
The basic rule of thumb would be: Don't try to keep secrets that could be used to blackmail or otherwise control you.
Also, if you think you might ever have one of these jobs, keep good records of where you've lived, where you've worked, and who could vouch for that. It can be hard to dig up the details on that place you lived for three months one summer as a student 8 or 9 years ago.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 10:14 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Also, if you think you might ever have one of these jobs, keep good records of where you've lived, where you've worked, and who could vouch for that. It can be hard to dig up the details on that place you lived for three months one summer as a student 8 or 9 years ago.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 10:14 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Just this morning I received a callback to follow-up on an interview I did for a friend last week. This friend got a different job with the same agency, and the new job requires the same clearance that they already have (current, not lapsed), but rules are rules, so another background check it is. What an incredibly inefficient and expensive system, and you don't even get free Global Entry out of it.
posted by wintermind at 10:16 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by wintermind at 10:16 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
My security clearance questionnaire was only 30 pages, but did include "Have you ever been involved in actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means?" with a yes/no tick box, which I presume filters out most of the bad guys.
posted by Catseye at 10:18 AM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
posted by Catseye at 10:18 AM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
You, the interviewee, do get a free Starbucks drink out of it though, IME.
posted by maryr at 10:19 AM on April 15, 2016
posted by maryr at 10:19 AM on April 15, 2016
Catseye: conjures up an image of Guy Fawkes looking at the form and going "Damn!"
posted by scolbath at 10:21 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by scolbath at 10:21 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
maryr, the interviewer came to my office. I received nothing. :-/
posted by wintermind at 10:24 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by wintermind at 10:24 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I've also been through the process a few times, having worked for the government for a while. Does seem rather silly, like Zachlipton said, especially when I have to answer questions about one of my colleagues, like I REALLY know any of them THAT well. The investigator asks questions, we give the same old answers, and the person gets their clearance...like I'm really going to say "Yeah, he seems really sketchy, and he's always saying "death to America" every morning...but other than that, he's a good guy..." And when it's my turn to be investigated, I have to know my neighbors name (on either side of me, which I still don't know after living in the same house for 8 years), names/phone numbers of people that I used to work with years ago....it gets pretty ridiculous.
Interesting factoid: according to one of my colleagues (who used to work in D.C. for many years), members of Congress do not actually have security clearances. According to my friend (I haven't fact checked him on this, so someone correct me if I'm wrong), members of Congress are automatically cleared (up to a certain level) by virtue of the fact that they are elected officials. Which (if true) strikes me as total B.S.....if you ask me.
posted by KillaSeal at 10:25 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Interesting factoid: according to one of my colleagues (who used to work in D.C. for many years), members of Congress do not actually have security clearances. According to my friend (I haven't fact checked him on this, so someone correct me if I'm wrong), members of Congress are automatically cleared (up to a certain level) by virtue of the fact that they are elected officials. Which (if true) strikes me as total B.S.....if you ask me.
posted by KillaSeal at 10:25 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
I just filled out a security clearance form for Canada, and it was 3 pages,
That's the most basic level "reliability", which just checks that you don't have unmanageable credit problems or an obvious criminal record. That means you can handle things that many people would consider personal (like "tombstone" info, birth, addresses, etc...) or day-to-day financial data. For higher levels there are more through (and more frequent) checks, which can involve providing fingerprints, interviews and even the RCMP talking to your neighbours, at their discretion. This is the standard up for seeing pending legislation, criminal information, detailed financials, taxes, etc..., with a demonstrated need to know.
There are clearences above that that get more scrutiny, including polygraphs (apparently).
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's the most basic level "reliability", which just checks that you don't have unmanageable credit problems or an obvious criminal record. That means you can handle things that many people would consider personal (like "tombstone" info, birth, addresses, etc...) or day-to-day financial data. For higher levels there are more through (and more frequent) checks, which can involve providing fingerprints, interviews and even the RCMP talking to your neighbours, at their discretion. This is the standard up for seeing pending legislation, criminal information, detailed financials, taxes, etc..., with a demonstrated need to know.
There are clearences above that that get more scrutiny, including polygraphs (apparently).
posted by bonehead at 10:29 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've spent more years than I care to count as an Army Security Manager at every echelon from Company (commanded by a Captain) up through Division (commanded by a 2-star general). I have also worked on software directly for DoD CAF (the consolidated adjudications facility used for all DoD adjudicative determinations). I've been investigated a number of times, and have been used as a reference on other people's investigations even more. I'll give some information I've gleaned over the years.
1. The form, also called SF-86, is 127 pages if you download the PDF. One reason for that is that it provides lots of excess space, since it doesn't have any way of predicting how many results you have to list for different sections. When you fill it out online, via eQip, it will print out only as long as it needs by removing excess space. For example, my latest re-up, done earlier this year, is only 39 pages (and that includes the fact that the first 3 1/2 are all information about the form).
2. eQip is suspected to be the way that OPM was hacked. It's a great system, but it has clear vulnerabilities. Probably the best (and by extension the most dangerous) thing about it is that it saves your prior submission so that the information is already there when iit's time to re-up.
3. When you request your investigation from OPM (under the Privacy Act) it takes about 2 months, and will include the typed-up version of the investigator's notes (anything that was in the final document set sent to the adjudicator) but none of the draft notes. These are fascinating, and give a minds-eye into the thoughts behind the investigation. You'll see lots of comments along the type of "This information is public and cannot be used against [him/her]."
4. Remember, OPM *only* does the investigative half, not the adjudicative one. They hand that off. Also, while you have a Privacy Act right to your investigation, you do *not* have such a right to the adjudicative information on your case, *except* specifically to the degree necessary to grant you due-process rights to appeal a denial/revocation of clearance.
5. The security world doesn't actually talk about people's "clearance," except as a short-hand. Officially, you have "eligibility" (what it's deemed permissible for you to get access to) and "access" (what you've actually been granted ongoing access to based on your job and an active need to know). The investigation and adjudication grant you an Eligibility; it's your local security personnel who document your need for -- and receipt of -- Access.
6. The 13 guidelines are standard as it applies to national security investigations, but not for others. For example, there's different guidelines for Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), the policy governing whether someone can be granted a CAC (Common Access Card -- the standard US Gov ID Card). Even within National Security standards, there are minor but important differences in the cited concerns and mitigators for Collateral (Top Secret and below) versus SCI access, and you'll have a hard time finding the SCI versions on the web.
7. Which concern/mitigator applies can make a big difference when you appeal, as well as for determining if you even get denied/revoked. And some mitigators are innately tricky... For example, one of the mitigators for having dual-citizenship is having an affidavit saying you're willing to renounce the foreign citizenship. Trick one is that this affidavit must already be with the case files during adjudication to apply. Trick two is that if your affidavit says anything like "I'll renounce if requested" it will actually count AGAINST you, because you put an "IF" condition in there. Oh, and the investigators generally don't know this, and the adjudicators can't tell you (because they can only communicate via official correspondence, which is extremely specific and formal).
8. If you are appealing a denial/revocation, which will come with a document called a Statement of Reasons (SOR), pay careful attention to the format they tell you to respond in, and don't put in ANYTHING that isn't directly related to refuting or mitigating the allegations.
9. If you're being investigated (or are being interviewed for someone else's) the best practice is something I refer to as Serial Honesty. Tell the investigator anything you think may apply to the question asked, no matter how minor. You can tell them that [X] is just rumor, but by all means, tell them. It's THEIR job to suss out fact from fiction so that they can accurately assess a person's ability to hold that position of trust.
10. Don't mentally lump polygraph in with clearance investigations. Whole different animal, and that's aside from their questionable usefulness. Polygraph for clearance issues comes in 3 basic flavors: Counterintelligence (trying to find out if you've done something bad/disqualifying), Lifestyle (extremely intrusive questions to see if you have any skeletons in the closet), and Full-Scope (basically the first two combined). Some positions require them, while for others it's only if the need arises (eg. you're suspected of something bad). CI polys are extremely straight-forward, and they will pretty much walk through in advance what they plan to ask you. Likewise, the "control" questions are likely to be ones where the *ask* you to lie on something. Lifestyle polys are the ones commonly said to make grown men cry. They will try to trick you and confuse you, because the goal was never the poly itself but getting you to inadvertently break composure and reveal the real you.
posted by mystyk at 10:31 AM on April 15, 2016 [39 favorites]
1. The form, also called SF-86, is 127 pages if you download the PDF. One reason for that is that it provides lots of excess space, since it doesn't have any way of predicting how many results you have to list for different sections. When you fill it out online, via eQip, it will print out only as long as it needs by removing excess space. For example, my latest re-up, done earlier this year, is only 39 pages (and that includes the fact that the first 3 1/2 are all information about the form).
2. eQip is suspected to be the way that OPM was hacked. It's a great system, but it has clear vulnerabilities. Probably the best (and by extension the most dangerous) thing about it is that it saves your prior submission so that the information is already there when iit's time to re-up.
3. When you request your investigation from OPM (under the Privacy Act) it takes about 2 months, and will include the typed-up version of the investigator's notes (anything that was in the final document set sent to the adjudicator) but none of the draft notes. These are fascinating, and give a minds-eye into the thoughts behind the investigation. You'll see lots of comments along the type of "This information is public and cannot be used against [him/her]."
4. Remember, OPM *only* does the investigative half, not the adjudicative one. They hand that off. Also, while you have a Privacy Act right to your investigation, you do *not* have such a right to the adjudicative information on your case, *except* specifically to the degree necessary to grant you due-process rights to appeal a denial/revocation of clearance.
5. The security world doesn't actually talk about people's "clearance," except as a short-hand. Officially, you have "eligibility" (what it's deemed permissible for you to get access to) and "access" (what you've actually been granted ongoing access to based on your job and an active need to know). The investigation and adjudication grant you an Eligibility; it's your local security personnel who document your need for -- and receipt of -- Access.
6. The 13 guidelines are standard as it applies to national security investigations, but not for others. For example, there's different guidelines for Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), the policy governing whether someone can be granted a CAC (Common Access Card -- the standard US Gov ID Card). Even within National Security standards, there are minor but important differences in the cited concerns and mitigators for Collateral (Top Secret and below) versus SCI access, and you'll have a hard time finding the SCI versions on the web.
7. Which concern/mitigator applies can make a big difference when you appeal, as well as for determining if you even get denied/revoked. And some mitigators are innately tricky... For example, one of the mitigators for having dual-citizenship is having an affidavit saying you're willing to renounce the foreign citizenship. Trick one is that this affidavit must already be with the case files during adjudication to apply. Trick two is that if your affidavit says anything like "I'll renounce if requested" it will actually count AGAINST you, because you put an "IF" condition in there. Oh, and the investigators generally don't know this, and the adjudicators can't tell you (because they can only communicate via official correspondence, which is extremely specific and formal).
8. If you are appealing a denial/revocation, which will come with a document called a Statement of Reasons (SOR), pay careful attention to the format they tell you to respond in, and don't put in ANYTHING that isn't directly related to refuting or mitigating the allegations.
9. If you're being investigated (or are being interviewed for someone else's) the best practice is something I refer to as Serial Honesty. Tell the investigator anything you think may apply to the question asked, no matter how minor. You can tell them that [X] is just rumor, but by all means, tell them. It's THEIR job to suss out fact from fiction so that they can accurately assess a person's ability to hold that position of trust.
10. Don't mentally lump polygraph in with clearance investigations. Whole different animal, and that's aside from their questionable usefulness. Polygraph for clearance issues comes in 3 basic flavors: Counterintelligence (trying to find out if you've done something bad/disqualifying), Lifestyle (extremely intrusive questions to see if you have any skeletons in the closet), and Full-Scope (basically the first two combined). Some positions require them, while for others it's only if the need arises (eg. you're suspected of something bad). CI polys are extremely straight-forward, and they will pretty much walk through in advance what they plan to ask you. Likewise, the "control" questions are likely to be ones where the *ask* you to lie on something. Lifestyle polys are the ones commonly said to make grown men cry. They will try to trick you and confuse you, because the goal was never the poly itself but getting you to inadvertently break composure and reveal the real you.
posted by mystyk at 10:31 AM on April 15, 2016 [39 favorites]
In many ways it is a ridiculous process, the execution is riddled with flaws. But it's a hard problem, to try to a develop a system to categorize human trustworthiness. Particularly given that despite some intrusive questions, they don't really have much to go on. The process really doesn't impinge much into your life. They try to inject a certain amount of latitude with the "whole person" concept, but building common sense into rules and regulations is difficult. They've got to do something though, I think most everyone would agree that there is some information, or access to some locations, where the government has a legit interest in trying to screen people pretty carefully.
you show up and say "Yeah Adam's a reliable and trustworthy guy and I've never seen him hanging out with shady people" and they write that down and you go on your way... I'm not sure how the interview part of the process makes anybody safer.
You may be establishing mitigating conditions for your friend or affirmative evidence that they would be a responsible clearance holder. By saying that your interactions with them were positive and non-worrisome you could be mitigating otherwise disqualifying concerns.
The replacement would be a system that understands that not every person the government interacts with needs to have deep background checks, and that the number of people who do need that level of security needs to be kept relatively small
The number of people with clearances has been declining by 10-15% a year for a couple years. Overclassification and too many positions requiring a clearance is definitely a thing though.
Also, if you think you might ever have one of these jobs, keep good records of where you've lived, where you've worked, and who could vouch for that. It can be hard to dig up the details on that place you lived for three months one summer as a student 8 or 9 years ago.
Save your old eQIP/SF86s. Nothing is more certain than that a discrepancy between your new form and your old one will be examined in excruciating detail.
One of my favorite things about metafilter is that it can make me want to defend systems I generally find sort of indefensible.
posted by Across the pale parabola of joy at 10:33 AM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
you show up and say "Yeah Adam's a reliable and trustworthy guy and I've never seen him hanging out with shady people" and they write that down and you go on your way... I'm not sure how the interview part of the process makes anybody safer.
You may be establishing mitigating conditions for your friend or affirmative evidence that they would be a responsible clearance holder. By saying that your interactions with them were positive and non-worrisome you could be mitigating otherwise disqualifying concerns.
The replacement would be a system that understands that not every person the government interacts with needs to have deep background checks, and that the number of people who do need that level of security needs to be kept relatively small
The number of people with clearances has been declining by 10-15% a year for a couple years. Overclassification and too many positions requiring a clearance is definitely a thing though.
Also, if you think you might ever have one of these jobs, keep good records of where you've lived, where you've worked, and who could vouch for that. It can be hard to dig up the details on that place you lived for three months one summer as a student 8 or 9 years ago.
Save your old eQIP/SF86s. Nothing is more certain than that a discrepancy between your new form and your old one will be examined in excruciating detail.
One of my favorite things about metafilter is that it can make me want to defend systems I generally find sort of indefensible.
posted by Across the pale parabola of joy at 10:33 AM on April 15, 2016 [10 favorites]
And yes, fewer state secrets would be very nice.
Most of the time "state secrets" don't mean nuclear launch codes, but things like your parents' tax filing, someone's health records, even sensitive company data. And to give you an idea of why that's important: imagine that the government wants to know how much mercury comes out of smokestacks (a big problem). Imagine that the companies don't want to disclose that, not just because of the public ill-will, but because it might give hints to their competitors about what they're doing. So, the government requires them all to report, but keeps the specifics confidential. The alternative being a major fight in congress for access to the data.
Most secrets are pretty boring in aggregate but really super important to the people or organizations to which they relate directly. And there are millions, probably billions of such secrets the US government has to keep.
posted by bonehead at 10:39 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
Most of the time "state secrets" don't mean nuclear launch codes, but things like your parents' tax filing, someone's health records, even sensitive company data. And to give you an idea of why that's important: imagine that the government wants to know how much mercury comes out of smokestacks (a big problem). Imagine that the companies don't want to disclose that, not just because of the public ill-will, but because it might give hints to their competitors about what they're doing. So, the government requires them all to report, but keeps the specifics confidential. The alternative being a major fight in congress for access to the data.
Most secrets are pretty boring in aggregate but really super important to the people or organizations to which they relate directly. And there are millions, probably billions of such secrets the US government has to keep.
posted by bonehead at 10:39 AM on April 15, 2016 [9 favorites]
A former coworker had moved on several jobs, and I was being interviewed for his clearance. I made it clear to the interviewer the guy was a piece of dirt. He continually lied about his progress and research, never presented anything, checked anything in, demoed his prototype, nothing. He just left for a new job with my team holding the bag.
Interviewer didn't seem to care about that, oddly enough. Was more interested in overthrow the US govt, member of a commie organization etc. Yeah, way to see the forest through the trees there.
posted by k5.user at 10:41 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Interviewer didn't seem to care about that, oddly enough. Was more interested in overthrow the US govt, member of a commie organization etc. Yeah, way to see the forest through the trees there.
posted by k5.user at 10:41 AM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
members of Congress are automatically cleared (up to a certain level) by virtue of the fact that they are elected officials.
Cleared for some things. The thing to remember about having a clearance is that it's not a license to see every classified thing. You still need a reason, and that reason needs to get better the higher the classification of the material. "I'm in Congress" isn't much of a reason for any particular thing.
posted by Etrigan at 10:42 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
Cleared for some things. The thing to remember about having a clearance is that it's not a license to see every classified thing. You still need a reason, and that reason needs to get better the higher the classification of the material. "I'm in Congress" isn't much of a reason for any particular thing.
posted by Etrigan at 10:42 AM on April 15, 2016 [6 favorites]
I wonder how this compares with what attorneys have to go through to join their state bar. I know a few people who got their licenses many years ago who had to go through an invasive background investigation in order to be admitted.
posted by indubitable at 10:43 AM on April 15, 2016
posted by indubitable at 10:43 AM on April 15, 2016
Cleared for some things. The thing to remember about having a clearance is that it's not a license to see every classified thing.
Unless you're the President, I hope.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:45 AM on April 15, 2016
Unless you're the President, I hope.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:45 AM on April 15, 2016
Unless you're the President, I hope.
"Two words, Mr. President: Plausible Deniability."
posted by xedrik at 11:30 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Two words, Mr. President: Plausible Deniability."
posted by xedrik at 11:30 AM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Does seem rather silly, like Zachlipton said, especially when I have to answer questions about one of my colleagues, like I REALLY know any of them THAT well.
Well, there is that coworker of mine who sat me down one day and told me he thinks that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy and no plane actually hit the Pentagon. I hope that would be relevant to a security clearance investigation.
I hope I'm never in a situation where I'm desperate enough to need one of these.
The irony is that if you have a reason to be desperate to get a clearance, they'll probably reject you for that very same reason.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 11:33 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, there is that coworker of mine who sat me down one day and told me he thinks that 9/11 was a US government conspiracy and no plane actually hit the Pentagon. I hope that would be relevant to a security clearance investigation.
I hope I'm never in a situation where I'm desperate enough to need one of these.
The irony is that if you have a reason to be desperate to get a clearance, they'll probably reject you for that very same reason.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 11:33 AM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
The closest I ever came to a full-bore federal security check was back in the late eighties, when I was considering applying to the FBI to be a file clerk. Aside from the expected questions, at least expected from the FBI--was I gay, had I ever done drugs, had I ever belonged to an organization that was dedicated to overthrowing the government of the United States of America by force--they had the "list everyone you've ever lived with, plus their current addresses" question, which was the real sticking point; in my freshman year alone, I had four different roommates, three of whom were from three different countries and whose current addresses I had no idea of, and the sole American someone who probably wouldn't answer any questions, at least coherently. Probably for the best in the long run that I didn't apply, but still.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:34 AM on April 15, 2016
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:34 AM on April 15, 2016
Geeze, it was super easy getting Reliability status in Canada. Fill out short form, pay your money to get a police check, list two references you've known for over 10 years, and the annoying part, list everywhere you've lived for X time period (I was later informed I could have listed multiple places for the same time period, i.e. my parents house and the house I lived in during the semester, instead of listing myself moving back home every summer). Done.
posted by Canageek at 11:55 AM on April 15, 2016
posted by Canageek at 11:55 AM on April 15, 2016
The basic rule of thumb would be: Don't try to keep secrets that could be used to blackmail or otherwise control you.
And since the lie itself could be disqualifying, even if the thing you're lying about isn't, that pretty much turns EVERY thing into a job-threatening situation, which could be used to blackmail or otherwise control you. It seems backwards that the system puts you in a position where you could be blackmailed over smoking pot back in college. Not because anyone cares about that, but because you said you didn't.
posted by ctmf at 12:02 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
And since the lie itself could be disqualifying, even if the thing you're lying about isn't, that pretty much turns EVERY thing into a job-threatening situation, which could be used to blackmail or otherwise control you. It seems backwards that the system puts you in a position where you could be blackmailed over smoking pot back in college. Not because anyone cares about that, but because you said you didn't.
posted by ctmf at 12:02 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Interesting reading: Security clearance decisions - A voyeuristic peak into what circumstances qualify or disqualify people from a security clearance.
I am curious to see what will happen to the security clearance process if marijuana ever becomes federally legalized. Will they still ask about it? Will it still disqualify you? A friend of mine was thinking of applying for some (private sector) jobs that would require a security clearance at some point, but it's incredibly unclear whether smoking pot ever in your life completely disqualifies you. It's basically up to the discretion of whoever takes your case if you tell the truth about smoking pot previously, and he spent a lot of time reading through the decisions linked above. If you lie about it, well, that always disqualifies you. If you tell the truth but say you haven't done it in awhile, sometimes you still get it. It just sucks because you wouldn't want to start a job with an unknown chance that you will or will not get the clearance required to do your job.
posted by permiechickie at 12:12 PM on April 15, 2016
I am curious to see what will happen to the security clearance process if marijuana ever becomes federally legalized. Will they still ask about it? Will it still disqualify you? A friend of mine was thinking of applying for some (private sector) jobs that would require a security clearance at some point, but it's incredibly unclear whether smoking pot ever in your life completely disqualifies you. It's basically up to the discretion of whoever takes your case if you tell the truth about smoking pot previously, and he spent a lot of time reading through the decisions linked above. If you lie about it, well, that always disqualifies you. If you tell the truth but say you haven't done it in awhile, sometimes you still get it. It just sucks because you wouldn't want to start a job with an unknown chance that you will or will not get the clearance required to do your job.
posted by permiechickie at 12:12 PM on April 15, 2016
Ah, didn't see it was linked above as well.
posted by permiechickie at 12:13 PM on April 15, 2016
posted by permiechickie at 12:13 PM on April 15, 2016
In 1966/67, I got a TS/Crypto clearance to begin training as an Elint analyst--it took six months. About six months later I got an update to do a special project, and then a year after that another update for another special project. I don't remember filling out a 127 page document, just a few pages, with some references, family, employment history. The investigators, it seems, weren't too interested in the testimony of my references, but they used the references I gave them to locate other witnesses--you know, people I wouldn't put down as references. That made sense. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they interviewed that asshole at Goodyear Aerospace who laid me off.
Jim, who I grew up with, got a Secret clearance when he applied to Special Forces. An investigator interviewed him when he began training, and told him that he was cleared, but that he might want to talk to his father about his family history. Seems like the surname he grew up thinking was his wasn't. The investigator didn't tell him what his father's real name was, or even if his "father" was his actual father. Turned out that his father was informally adopted into the family as an infant...well, long story, but the family had wanted to bury those details of the their history, of which even his father was unaware.
posted by mule98J at 12:25 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
Jim, who I grew up with, got a Secret clearance when he applied to Special Forces. An investigator interviewed him when he began training, and told him that he was cleared, but that he might want to talk to his father about his family history. Seems like the surname he grew up thinking was his wasn't. The investigator didn't tell him what his father's real name was, or even if his "father" was his actual father. Turned out that his father was informally adopted into the family as an infant...well, long story, but the family had wanted to bury those details of the their history, of which even his father was unaware.
posted by mule98J at 12:25 PM on April 15, 2016 [5 favorites]
What I want to know about is top secret three later agency internal security guys and Mormonism. Google is no help. The best thing I could find was a Mormon church promotion pamphlet.
posted by bukvich at 12:26 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by bukvich at 12:26 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unless you're the President, I hope.
"Two words, Mr. President: Plausible Deniability."
Bill Clinton asked about the aliens before he left office.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:18 PM on April 15, 2016
"Two words, Mr. President: Plausible Deniability."
Bill Clinton asked about the aliens before he left office.
posted by Halloween Jack at 2:18 PM on April 15, 2016
>I've acted as a reference for a couple of folks getting security clearances. It's a ridiculous
>process where some guy from a government contractor insists on meeting in person at a
>hotel or somesuch place because this apparently can't be done over the phone.
I had to do this recently! A friend of mine (former coworker) applied for a job that required a security clearance / background check, and I ended up meeting the investigator at a Starbucks.
The investigator was a cool guy and it seemed that he hated the "have to do it in person" bit as much as everyone else. He even pointed out the absurdity in one of the first questions - "Does this person work with computers?" - the job being applied for was a programming gig.
Other stuff was along the lines of "Have they ever advocated for the overthrow of the US government?" and "Have they ever spent long periods of time outside the United States?"
It sounded like a lot of the paperwork hadn't been updated in 30+ years.
posted by mrbill at 2:21 PM on April 15, 2016
>process where some guy from a government contractor insists on meeting in person at a
>hotel or somesuch place because this apparently can't be done over the phone.
I had to do this recently! A friend of mine (former coworker) applied for a job that required a security clearance / background check, and I ended up meeting the investigator at a Starbucks.
The investigator was a cool guy and it seemed that he hated the "have to do it in person" bit as much as everyone else. He even pointed out the absurdity in one of the first questions - "Does this person work with computers?" - the job being applied for was a programming gig.
Other stuff was along the lines of "Have they ever advocated for the overthrow of the US government?" and "Have they ever spent long periods of time outside the United States?"
It sounded like a lot of the paperwork hadn't been updated in 30+ years.
posted by mrbill at 2:21 PM on April 15, 2016
It seems backwards that the system puts you in a position where you could be blackmailed over smoking pot back in college. Not because anyone cares about that, but because you said you didn't.
If you don't lie about it to them, there's not an issue. Very few of the branches will disqualify you for it (the FBI will and for some reason is hurting for computer security people applying), you just have to be honest. I flat out told the interviewer for someone I was giving a reference for that they'd smoked a lot of pot, had a lot of extramarital sex, and half of his family was German. That lined up with what he'd told them, so he got his rather high level clearance without a problem.
posted by Candleman at 3:12 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you don't lie about it to them, there's not an issue. Very few of the branches will disqualify you for it (the FBI will and for some reason is hurting for computer security people applying), you just have to be honest. I flat out told the interviewer for someone I was giving a reference for that they'd smoked a lot of pot, had a lot of extramarital sex, and half of his family was German. That lined up with what he'd told them, so he got his rather high level clearance without a problem.
posted by Candleman at 3:12 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
We sell software to three-letter agencies, and at one point I had to begin the application process for a clearance. Deal fell through, so we didn't push it to completion, but the real sticker for me was to list all the names you or your spouse has ever used.
Well.
Easy for me, but not so much for my wife. Her parents were married only very briefly, and her bio dad kinda peaced-out. Her stepdad really raised her, so at some point in her childhood she (legally) took HIS name instead, which was a big Thing. Then, in her early 20s, she was married briefly and took THAT name before reverting to her maiden name after the divorce & annulment, and then took MY name when we married.
This took more space than was provided on the form.
posted by uberchet at 3:35 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well.
Easy for me, but not so much for my wife. Her parents were married only very briefly, and her bio dad kinda peaced-out. Her stepdad really raised her, so at some point in her childhood she (legally) took HIS name instead, which was a big Thing. Then, in her early 20s, she was married briefly and took THAT name before reverting to her maiden name after the divorce & annulment, and then took MY name when we married.
This took more space than was provided on the form.
posted by uberchet at 3:35 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
And since the lie itself could be disqualifying, even if the thing you're lying about isn't, that pretty much turns EVERY thing into a job-threatening situation, which could be used to blackmail or otherwise control you. It seems backwards that the system puts you in a position where you could be blackmailed over smoking pot back in college. Not because anyone cares about that, but because you said you didn't.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. If you smoked weed in college, just say you smoked weed in college. Now you've got nothing to hide and can't be blackmailed. Don't try to lie about it.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 3:49 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
Perhaps I wasn't clear. If you smoked weed in college, just say you smoked weed in college. Now you've got nothing to hide and can't be blackmailed. Don't try to lie about it.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 3:49 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
I have three nationalities, which means I've never bothered even applying to any jobs that required this. My understanding is that they'd ask me if I would be willing to relinquish my other nationalities, and my choices would be to lie and say I would but hope they don't actually ask me to do so, or to tell the truth and say I wouldn't and be branded disloyal to America.
Yep. The most awkward conversation with my advisor (more awkward than the "I don't want an academic job" one) was about how I couldn't get a security clearance (since the obvious non-academic jobs for people with math PhDs are all in the national security establishment). First he had to tell me how being queer no longer made you untrustworthy,* which was the start of the awkwardness, since everyone in math of his age knows someone who couldn't get the job they wanted for being queer and he was clearing thinking of someone specific while talking about how it wasn't like it used to be. Then we had to establish that, no, I wasn't about to disclose a felony he didn't know about or something. Which left the dual citizenship thing. And, of course, he's baffled that I'm unwilling to say I'm willing to renounce (even if they're not going to make me). And suddenly we're in super personal territory for both of us.
Really, I just resent the implication that I'm to be treated with extra suspicion due to who my mother is. Until I went to college, I constantly had to prove I was American "enough". I don't need the government to tell me I'm not as patriotic or trustworthy or as good as the kids in school who told me I wasn't American. Like, yeah, I'd swear up and down to do nothing involving my other citizenship while in the government's employ, fair enough. But if you're going to ask me about renouncing, you can go explain that one to my mother.
*Though, frankly, I wonder how out they'll accept as out enough.
posted by hoyland at 4:23 PM on April 15, 2016
Yep. The most awkward conversation with my advisor (more awkward than the "I don't want an academic job" one) was about how I couldn't get a security clearance (since the obvious non-academic jobs for people with math PhDs are all in the national security establishment). First he had to tell me how being queer no longer made you untrustworthy,* which was the start of the awkwardness, since everyone in math of his age knows someone who couldn't get the job they wanted for being queer and he was clearing thinking of someone specific while talking about how it wasn't like it used to be. Then we had to establish that, no, I wasn't about to disclose a felony he didn't know about or something. Which left the dual citizenship thing. And, of course, he's baffled that I'm unwilling to say I'm willing to renounce (even if they're not going to make me). And suddenly we're in super personal territory for both of us.
Really, I just resent the implication that I'm to be treated with extra suspicion due to who my mother is. Until I went to college, I constantly had to prove I was American "enough". I don't need the government to tell me I'm not as patriotic or trustworthy or as good as the kids in school who told me I wasn't American. Like, yeah, I'd swear up and down to do nothing involving my other citizenship while in the government's employ, fair enough. But if you're going to ask me about renouncing, you can go explain that one to my mother.
*Though, frankly, I wonder how out they'll accept as out enough.
posted by hoyland at 4:23 PM on April 15, 2016
I wonder how this compares with what attorneys have to go through to join their state bar. I know a few people who got their licenses many years ago who had to go through an invasive background investigation in order to be admitted.
Based on experiences between Mr. Motion and I, at least in my state, the State Bar's character and fitness review is far less intensive (while still being pretty invasive).
The bar wants to know where you lived, but doesn't care about anyone you've ever lived with.
The bar wants to know if you've ever had bad debts, but not the details of every bank account that you and your spouse might have.
I don't think the bar even cared about marital status, let alone birth details (date and city) about your spouses whole family.
Etc, etc.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:18 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
Based on experiences between Mr. Motion and I, at least in my state, the State Bar's character and fitness review is far less intensive (while still being pretty invasive).
The bar wants to know where you lived, but doesn't care about anyone you've ever lived with.
The bar wants to know if you've ever had bad debts, but not the details of every bank account that you and your spouse might have.
I don't think the bar even cared about marital status, let alone birth details (date and city) about your spouses whole family.
Etc, etc.
posted by sparklemotion at 5:18 PM on April 15, 2016 [1 favorite]
→ "Have you ever been involved in actions intended to overthrow or undermine Parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means?" with a yes/no tick box, which I presume filters out most of the bad guys.
True, but checking it means that you might have a great future at the CIA.
posted by scruss at 5:29 PM on April 15, 2016
True, but checking it means that you might have a great future at the CIA.
posted by scruss at 5:29 PM on April 15, 2016
The young FBI agent asked me where my father was born and I said "Yugoslavia". Then I had to explain where that was.
posted by acrasis at 6:35 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by acrasis at 6:35 PM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]
Every time we have to fill out a form listing my father's birthplace, we have basically the same conversation:
"Breslau, Germany"
"Which doesn't exist."
"Well, the place exists, but it's now Wroclaw, Poland."
"So, should we put Wroclaw, Poland?"
"No, because he wasn't born there when it was Poland. Or Wroclaw."
Fortunately, thus far, no one has ever questioned it. I imagine they see Germany, assume Breslau is still a place in it that they simply haven't heard of and move on. We'll see if it is any different for security clearances.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:01 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
"Breslau, Germany"
"Which doesn't exist."
"Well, the place exists, but it's now Wroclaw, Poland."
"So, should we put Wroclaw, Poland?"
"No, because he wasn't born there when it was Poland. Or Wroclaw."
Fortunately, thus far, no one has ever questioned it. I imagine they see Germany, assume Breslau is still a place in it that they simply haven't heard of and move on. We'll see if it is any different for security clearances.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:01 PM on April 15, 2016 [4 favorites]
First time was difficult because it was shortly after college and they want everywhere you've lived in the past 10 years. Which for a good chunk of that was a few months in a dorm, a few months at home, back to the dorm, back to home... it was a long section.
I have moved to about 27 different places. No one has a record of all of them. Not me, not my parents. No one. Except Amazon. Amazon knows all of them and is the only way I can properly fill out my clearance forms...
posted by the christopher hundreds at 1:03 AM on April 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
I have moved to about 27 different places. No one has a record of all of them. Not me, not my parents. No one. Except Amazon. Amazon knows all of them and is the only way I can properly fill out my clearance forms...
posted by the christopher hundreds at 1:03 AM on April 16, 2016 [9 favorites]
Amazon is also how I know the addresses of my family members. I realize that in theory, I could put their address information into my phone, or my gmail contacts, or any of about a million other contact lists I own, but, eh, I've already put them into Amazon, and I can always just look them up there.
You know, the one time a year when I need to know their address and it isn't to ship them something from Amazon anyway.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:43 AM on April 16, 2016
You know, the one time a year when I need to know their address and it isn't to ship them something from Amazon anyway.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:43 AM on April 16, 2016
There is never going to be a "[clearance] process .. managed by people who know WTF they're doing", ocschwar. It'll just get worse.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:45 AM on April 16, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 5:45 AM on April 16, 2016
I did a DD49 in '82, and again in '87. I think it was only 6 pages- I remember it was about my height- and it was at least 4-part, maybe 5- or 6-part. When '92 rolled around I was being 'encouraged' to do another one, but my job had changed a little, and I only needed access occasionally, instead of every day, so I decided it was worth it to me to get escorted to the bathroom if I didn't have to fill out that form ever again.
So my official clearance status is 'Revoked', which I think gives me a little outlaw vibe. At least more than 'Expired' would.
posted by MtDewd at 5:10 PM on April 16, 2016
So my official clearance status is 'Revoked', which I think gives me a little outlaw vibe. At least more than 'Expired' would.
posted by MtDewd at 5:10 PM on April 16, 2016
Pretty sure I've been disqualified from birth, given that my parents were socialist wannabe revolutionaries with FBI files on them.
Being interviewed for a former roommate's clearance was fun, though. I'm naturally a very chatty oversharer so the conversation went on for over an hour and the interviewers seemed to be really excited over the stuff I was telling them even though it was nothing scandalous. I got the impression that most people they'd interviewed prior to that didn't have much to say about him. (He did end up getting the clearance.)
posted by Jacqueline at 5:40 AM on April 17, 2016
Being interviewed for a former roommate's clearance was fun, though. I'm naturally a very chatty oversharer so the conversation went on for over an hour and the interviewers seemed to be really excited over the stuff I was telling them even though it was nothing scandalous. I got the impression that most people they'd interviewed prior to that didn't have much to say about him. (He did end up getting the clearance.)
posted by Jacqueline at 5:40 AM on April 17, 2016
Trevor Paglen's book Blank Spots on the Map gives a nice analogy on security clearances:
"Most people are under the impression that security classifications are relatively straightforward. The higher the clearance someone has, the more stuff they get to see. But that's only part of the story.
In fact, security classifications are more like a tree. The standard classifications - Restricted, Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret - form a hierarchical trunk. "Above Top Secret," however, the system branches off into thousands of arms, which in turn branch off into even more obscure subcategories. Each branch is known as a "Special Access Program" (SAP), and each has its own specialized security "channels." Every person associated with the program must be "read" into the SAP's specific information compartments. Even then, they only get access to the information they need to know to do their job. An SAP can split into multiple sub-branches within each information channel.
If, for example, an engineer on a classified satellite works on a new infrared imaging capability, she might be read into a compartment like "Top Secret-Byeman-Crystal-Dragon," where "Top Secret" is the baseline clearance, "Byeman" indicates a general engineering compartment for spy satellites, "Crystal" is the channel for a specific type of satellite (in this case, a KH-11), and "Dragon" refers to the infrared imaging capability of that satellite. The engineer with the Dragon clearance would not be read into the necessary security compartments to see how other parts of the satellite (its propulsion system, for example) were designed."
posted by cynical pinnacle at 8:10 AM on April 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
"Most people are under the impression that security classifications are relatively straightforward. The higher the clearance someone has, the more stuff they get to see. But that's only part of the story.
In fact, security classifications are more like a tree. The standard classifications - Restricted, Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret - form a hierarchical trunk. "Above Top Secret," however, the system branches off into thousands of arms, which in turn branch off into even more obscure subcategories. Each branch is known as a "Special Access Program" (SAP), and each has its own specialized security "channels." Every person associated with the program must be "read" into the SAP's specific information compartments. Even then, they only get access to the information they need to know to do their job. An SAP can split into multiple sub-branches within each information channel.
If, for example, an engineer on a classified satellite works on a new infrared imaging capability, she might be read into a compartment like "Top Secret-Byeman-Crystal-Dragon," where "Top Secret" is the baseline clearance, "Byeman" indicates a general engineering compartment for spy satellites, "Crystal" is the channel for a specific type of satellite (in this case, a KH-11), and "Dragon" refers to the infrared imaging capability of that satellite. The engineer with the Dragon clearance would not be read into the necessary security compartments to see how other parts of the satellite (its propulsion system, for example) were designed."
posted by cynical pinnacle at 8:10 AM on April 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
With further divisions between the people designing the thing (to spec), the people deciding what the specs need to be (so it can do X), and the people who know why we want to do X and when.
posted by ctmf at 12:40 PM on April 17, 2016
posted by ctmf at 12:40 PM on April 17, 2016
Just some hacking related amusement :
Detecting the use of "curl | bash" server side
posted by jeffburdges at 6:58 AM on April 20, 2016
Detecting the use of "curl | bash" server side
posted by jeffburdges at 6:58 AM on April 20, 2016
« Older Every Disney song, from worst to best | The scientific way to train white people to stop... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I just filled out a security clearance form for Canada, and it was 3 pages, only about half of which I actually had to fill out.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:18 AM on April 15, 2016 [2 favorites]