Comment by godelski
17 hours ago
Security clearances are probably a really good example of Goodhart's Law.
One reason for all these questions is really to determine if someone can be blackmailed, and thus a security risk. (Big reason they look at your financials and why debt can cause you to lose clearance) But the letter of the law trumps the spirit. A common lie these days is about weed usage. You may get or entirely rejected for having smoked in the past even if you don't today (e.g. you tried it once in college but didn't like it). So everyone lies and it creates a system where people are even told to and encouraged to lie, like in TFA. The irony being that this is exactly what creates the situation for blackmail! Now you can get blackmailed for having that past thing cause you to lose your job as well as lying on your clearance form.
Honestly it seems smarter to let the skeletons out of the closet. Spill your secrets to the gov. Sure, maybe the gov can blackmail you but a foreign government can't blackmail you for something that the gov already knows. You can still have filters but the dynamic really needs to change. Bureaucracy creates its own downfall. To reference another comment, I'd rather a functional alcoholic have a clearance and the gov know about it than a functional alcoholic have a security clearance and the gov not know about it (or pretend to not know). We've somehow turned clearance checks into security risks. What an idiotic thing to do
You shouldn’t be denied for smoking weed in college and disclosing it. I had no issues with that. The other thing is you can appeal a denial of your clearance if you can demonstrate the issue is not an issue. If you truly did only smoke weed in college and get denied due to that, you could appeal and make your case that your weed use is not ongoing, ended in college, and not an issue in your personal life. It’s not guaranteed to be a successful appeal, of course, but the process does exist.
The bigger problem is when people fib about their usage. Saying you only used it in college when you’ve used it more recently is something people do fairly often, and seemingly are encouraged to fib about.
It seems to me that if you lie and get the clearance, it is better than being honest and getting NACKed. Maybe morally dubious, but there's financial incentive and motivation for having a clearance.
I think you need to reread my comment... you seem to have misunderstandings...
Yeah on my SF86 I listed all the dumb shit I did and the investigator called obviously kind of concerned but receptive. We went through each one and his key point was "do you understand you can't do that" and as long as you answered yes, documented it on the form ahead of time, and it was obvious you weren't lying through your teeth then pretty much anything you did that wasn't in the last 3-5 years was pretty much immediately forgiven.
Some security officers are really touchy on these kinds of things and will tell you to exclude or lie but investigators pretty much never care what you did as long as it is obvious you don't plan on doing those types of things again or being an active problem.
They just want it for their records and they want you to be an open book such that they don't feel you are concealing anything problematic.
But this is the problem. It is good that the investigators don't care but the security officers are the one you meet and talk with. They set the tone. Them doing this gives people the impression that investigators will care. And frankly, some do. I don't think we can dismiss the security officer's role here.
This information is highly outdated. You can say any number of things on your SF86 and still get cleared. This is indeed the point.
The weed example is something that happened to a friend of mine. That's within the last 5 years...
In fact, I remember Comey saying something about it too. But the rule as I know it is not having smoked in the last 3 years. While that is probably fine for most people, it does seem to have a bias when you're considering people fresh out of college. Considering that college is frequently where people try weed, along with a lot of other things (not even drugs, just new activities, dress styles, and so on) as they find themselves.
That is not the rule by any means. 6 months is a rule of thumb.
What exactly happened to your friend? It is not in the domain of possibility that they were explicitly informed “you are being rejected for X reason”, so everything they do say is pure speculation. Probably, they lied about something and got caught.
imagine curing alcoholics and drug dependant ppl who work for you ?
I'm really surprised at how they would rather ignore or silence all and report that they is strictly no problem among their pool of employees, to say they have the best employees and good KPIs
It doesn't look like a winning strategy indeed.
I myself refused to do government jobs as the table in which you had to list foreigners in your friend list was just so small. They prefer you to say you don't know nobody.
Also yeah, I agree with you. These forms are straight out of the 1950s when more liberal habits have been coming since the 60s. And we're straight up declining anyone who is outspoken about his habits while he knows the true boundaries of the laws.
The government is just selecting applicants who do the sharia or some straight up vague "you have to be a good guy" menaces that completely opens them to blackmail
To complicate this further I think people don't recognize how people can start their jobs without problems and then gain them. These are stressful jobs (and with low pay) so that itself is a common gateway to a drinking problem. But there's also very mundane ways too. A large number of heroine and fentanyl addicts had their addictions begin through use of legal medication. The problem is we have a culture that pretends addiction is a choice and that the only to become addicted is through poor decisions and that to kick an addiction just requires "really wanting to stop". But that's not really consistent with the definition of addiction...
It seems like a poor strategy for high security topics, like you say. If anything, I want these people to have zero fear of opening up about their addictions. Be it gained unintentionally or through bad decisions. Reason being that 1) it reduces the risk of blackmail and 2) giving them a pathway to help also reduces their chance of blackmail. We don't even need to mention the fact that these are people and should be treated with kindness, we have entirely selfish reasons to be selfless.
I always found that odd myself. Do these people know what the demographics of a typical American University are these days? If you don't have a decent list of foreign nationals then you're either 1) a social recluse or 2) in a cultural bubble, and probably not the kind that we want people with this kind of authority to have... But I think they could resolve some of this by clarifying what level of contact they mean. Is it someone you sit next to in class and talk to frequently? Or do they not count if you don't talk with them outside class or study groups? Last time I looked at the forum it seems like they want you to just list anyone you ever talked to.
Personally I've avoided getting a clearance because I just don't see the value. It is a lot of work to put together, forces you to be more quiet about what you work on, means you need to be more careful/vigilant in every day things and especially when traveling, and all for what? Low pay and not even that cool of work? I mean if it was working on alien technologies and cool sci-fi shit, sign me up! But the reality is that most of the work isn't very exciting. I'd rather have more freedom, more pay, and work on more interesting things. Maybe their work can have more purpose and more impact, but I am also not convinced that's true for the majority of things you need clearance for (even as a person in STEM).