The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around.
> DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” a DHS spokesperson told Reuters.
Maybe that’s true? I think HN was ok with this because it felt like a rational reaction to bringing guys like Big Balls into the SCIF.
It’s not illegal for me to share non-confidential data of my employer either, but if you were hiring, would you want to understand an applicants attitudes towards such leaks especially after having issues with it in the past?
From Teuters: "officials quickly launched an investigation to find out who was leaking to the press"
Leading is a bit different than "loyalty tests" isn't it?
The story is about “new applicants” and positions with no access to classified material. It is not illegal to share unclassified material, which is why DHS was having NDAs passed around.
> DHS said it was "unapologetic" about its drive to root out leakers. "We are agnostic about your standing, tenure, political appointment, or status as a career civil servant - we will track down leakers and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,” a DHS spokesperson told Reuters.
Maybe that’s true? I think HN was ok with this because it felt like a rational reaction to bringing guys like Big Balls into the SCIF.
It’s not illegal for me to share non-confidential data of my employer either, but if you were hiring, would you want to understand an applicants attitudes towards such leaks especially after having issues with it in the past?
I would.