Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

milk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 568 posts

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#41

Post by dotancohen »

My email sig for years:

  > This electronic communication has been processed by the United 
  > States National Security Agency.
I've had lots of people tell me about this as if they're informing me about something nefarious. I've stopped responding, because no matter what I answer _I_ appear to be the one with some kind of problem.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#42

Post by pjc50 »

xdfgh1112 wrote: post #7
Reubend wrote: post #4

> I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. But that is another story. Did he ever write about what that trick is?

https://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html Other poster posted the same link but is getting downvoted so might get overlooked.

Tremendous essay. As someone else pointed out, this was back when Virginia was still an apartheid state, in the process of getting desegregation imposed on it; racial categorization was an important weapon of the state against some of its citizens, and not one they were going to give up easily in the face of some guy (correctly) declaring it nonsensical.

There's so much Seeing Like A State in the punchcard incident as well. Having invented the categories, you must be made to fit them. These days plenty of people will say "well, of course he's right, you can't jam everyone into racial/ethnicity categories, and you shouldn't" then turn around and code gender as an immutable M/F binary in their database.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#43

Post by mauriciolange »

bell-cot wrote: post #10

Sadly, the moral of the story seems to be that the 1943 FBI had loads of zealous (performative?) plods on staff, but ~zero law enforcement professionals. In '43, the US had plenty of highly competent professional cryptographers, who were quite experienced with current Japanese, German, Italian, British, etc. codes. Before an entire local FBI office spent even a day on this case (let alone 6 weeks), maybe they should…

This was a code key, not a codified message, so there was nothing to break, but only the indication that messages could have been exchanged using this key.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#44

Post by pjc50 »

bell-cot wrote: post #10

Sadly, the moral of the story seems to be that the 1943 FBI had loads of zealous (performative?) plods on staff, but ~zero law enforcement professionals. In '43, the US had plenty of highly competent professional cryptographers, who were quite experienced with current Japanese, German, Italian, British, etc. codes. Before an entire local FBI office spent even a day on this case (let alone 6 weeks), maybe they should…

That was Hoover's FBI, the peak of hunting for anyone suspected of being a communist, gay, dissident, or anti-segregationist.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#45

Post by lallysingh »

yosito wrote: post #25
Reubend wrote: post #4

> I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. But that is another story. Did he ever write about what that trick is?

This is an interesting point. I once had to fill out a security clearance form for a job at NASA detailing every individual I had had contact with outside of the US in the last 10 years. Since I've traveled extensively internationally, and couldn't even begin to mention all the people I've been in contact with, I just wrote an essay explaining my lifestyle. I expected to get denied, but I got security clearance faste…

Probably because you didn't give them names to check!

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#46

Post by blagie »

mcv wrote: post #33
olsgaarddk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I was at the doctor, I answered “not that I know of” when asked if I had any allergies. Afterwards at the pharmacy, it turns out my prescription included a box of antihistamine.

I have a very obscure allergy to some specific compounds in some medication. It gives me a rash, nothing serious. I'm always very diligent in mentioning what little I still remember about that allergy.

It can be important.

Obscure allergic reaction and obscure disease often look the same. You treat them opposite. The former, you want to suppress the immune system, and the latter, you don't. In obscure circumstances (e.g. a doctor is debugging a serious rash after a surgery while you're unconscious and on an IV), those sorts of tidbits can be important.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#47

Post by saalweachter »

mcv wrote: post #33
olsgaarddk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I was at the doctor, I answered “not that I know of” when asked if I had any allergies. Afterwards at the pharmacy, it turns out my prescription included a box of antihistamine.

I have a very obscure allergy to some specific compounds in some medication. It gives me a rash, nothing serious. I'm always very diligent in mentioning what little I still remember about that allergy.

I've spent thirty years telling doctors I'm allergic to amoxicillin; I'm not sure if I am, but that's how my parents started every doctor visit when I was small so I carry on the tradition. I think I might have thrown up after taking it as a small child, but I have no recollection myself.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#48

Post by bell-cot »

pjc50 wrote: post #44
bell-cot wrote: post #10

Sadly, the moral of the story seems to be that the 1943 FBI had loads of zealous (performative?) plods on staff, but ~zero law enforcement professionals. In '43, the US had plenty of highly competent professional cryptographers, who were quite experienced with current Japanese, German, Italian, British, etc. codes. Before an entire local FBI office spent even a day on this case (let alone 6 weeks), maybe they should…

That was Hoover's FBI, the peak of hunting for anyone suspected of being a communist, gay, dissident, or anti-segregationist.

True-ish. But in 1943, it sounds like they'd gotten badly distracted by some less-important "Japanese" stuff...

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#49

Post by ckastner »

jemfinch wrote: post #38
ckastner wrote: post #18

It's a great story, but didn't the author confess to a felony by publishing it? He lied on an official document, even if directed to do so by the person across him. I know this is pedantic, but that's exactly what I would expect from a security clearance vetting process.

He wasn't investigated by the FBI. The FBI was investigating a hypothetical Japanese spy; since he wasn't a Japanese spy, any follow-up that led to him was merely incidental. If the FBI investigates a spy seen driving a silver Honda Civic with license plate ABC-1234, and looks into an unrelated civilian who drives a silver Honda Civic with license plate ADC-1234 in case their witness misremembered the license place,…

This isn't a case of a mistaken identity, the FBI found exactly the person they were looking for. It just turned out that said person wasn't a threat, after all.

I'd say determining that is exactly the point of an investigation. That fact that it ended well doesn't change the fact that the process happened, and was triggered by said person.

Re: What not to write on your security clearance form (1988)

#50

Post by ckastner »

mcv wrote: post #31
ckastner wrote: post #18

It's a great story, but didn't the author confess to a felony by publishing it? He lied on an official document, even if directed to do so by the person across him. I know this is pedantic, but that's exactly what I would expect from a security clearance vetting process.

The event happened 80 years ago. I don't know what the statute of limitations is here, but I would guess that it's passed by now. Edit: it's a story from 1988, so at the time it was only 45 years ago.

True. I admit that I just assumed that the statute of limitations for these national security-related kinds of things were indefinite.
Post reply on HN