Comment by LadyCailin
15 hours ago
THIS should be illegal. If you are arrested and have all charges dropped, you should not show up on any database whatsoever, nor be required to answer “yes” to “gave you been arrested.”
15 hours ago
THIS should be illegal. If you are arrested and have all charges dropped, you should not show up on any database whatsoever, nor be required to answer “yes” to “gave you been arrested.”
The SF86 has a 7-year lookback on arrests. Clearance is fundamentally discretionary, though; it's a risk assessment. I don't think you have even a due process right to it.
I say all this but --- knowing that the principals in this story might read this thread and drop in and correct me, which would be awesome --- I think it's actually more likely that their careers benefited from this news story, and that they probably didn't lose any cleared business from it. I can't say enough that these two became industry celebrities over this case.
> Clearance is fundamentally discretionary, though; it's a risk assessment. I don't think you have even a due process right to it.
Security clearance is subject to due process protections (at least, insofar as it is a component of government hiring and continuation of employment), because government employment is subject to due process protections and the courts have not allowed security clearance requirements to be an end-run around that.
Are you sure about this? I looked into it, but only for about 45 seconds, and there are cases like Navy v. Egan that basically say the opposite.
(I'm going to keep saying: this is just an abstract argument; I don't think there's any evidence these two pentesters had any clearance issues.)
1 reply →
pretty sure the companies making money providing this service would bring a freedom of speech defense if you tried to get a law passed keeping the information from showing up in a search, and would win, despite the obvious idiocy of the result.