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

221–230 of 568 posts

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

#221

Post by derbOac »

foobarbecue wrote: post #168
NikolaNovak wrote: post #149

When I moved to Canada, at age 16-17 I initially failed a lot of job applications at places like Staples, Future Shop, Best Buy, Radio Shack, etc. For some reason, many of them had a type of "Corporate Personality Test" on their application, and asked the same "Have you ever considered stealing from your employer?" to which I would cheerfully answer "Yes". Apparently this was an automatic deal-breaker; there was no f…

I'm like you. An ex of mine claimed that most people never even think about committing suicide. It's hard for me to understand how anyone could avoid such an obvious thought, but I have since seen a lot of evidence that some people's minds really don't explore the possibility space, and when they do it's only along prescribed paths... So I guess it's possible?

FWIW, this sort of issue is a serious problem for many people with severe OCD. Basically a thought comes into their minds, about something disturbing or taboo, and they start obsessing over the fact they had the thought, because they're so distraught about the idea it would even come into their mind. In most cases, they are so far from actually doing anything related to the thought, and that's why they are so distraught. This leads to penitential behavior, and compulsions, etc.

Sometimes figuring out if they're just obsessing because they're worried about a thought, versus actually perseverating over a potentially actionable drive, is really really difficult.

Not saying you have OCD, it's just a whole area that can lead to seriously debilitating problems for some individuals.

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

#222

Post by paulmd »

hotpotamus wrote: post #95
airesearcher wrote: post #90

I often answer the doctor office intake questionnaires with a glaring mistake just to see if anyone checks. Where it says “have you ever been pregnant?” I answer yes. I also mark that I am a male. No doctor’s office has ever mentioned this to me after I turn in the forms.

Those aren't actually considered to necessarily be in conflict these days. I think sex assigned at birth or something like that would probably be the relevant medical question.

modern medical forms do indeed ask for sex assigned at birth (or some variation on that) rather than gender, unless gender is specifically what they're after. And there really is very little variation since almost everyone is part of a hospital system nowadays and literally everyone does state/insurance interactions that require specific questions/etc.

OP is just being colloquial. But you are correct that there is a difference between sex at birth and gender and the medical system does handle that.

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

#224

Post by Scoundreller »

rqtwteye wrote: post #135
grishka wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My only experience with serious US government forms was applying for a tourist visa. This form also has some bonkers checkboxes like "do you plan to commit any crimes in the US". Also the entry form they give you on your flight deserves a mention. This one has "did you handle livestock in the last X months" repeated like 3 times in different phrasing. Not as stupid as the first one, but... why? Why is that question t…

In the 90s we had to fill out a form when dealing with Apple to certify that we didn't plan to build nuclear weapons.

That’s still a thing. I know I signed pages and pages of stuff like that requesting a sample of 5 ancient TTL chips from Texas Instruments.

Part of it is liability (tho I like to think they send the most reliable parts on sample orders), but also ITAR.

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

#225

Post by Symmetry »

robcohen wrote: post #203
Symmetry wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's been my impression with myself and several friends going through the process. The defense establishment is looking for honest people without drug abuse problems, not people who've never tried a joint. But I understand the opposite is true when applying for a job in law enforcement.

Police typically have a 5 year period they want for zero drug involvement. The military is more dependent on the position and clearance level, but the max limit numbers are arbitrarily set. They set the numbers high enough to make recruiting possible, but it isn’t based off of any science.

I meant that lying was more acceptable on police applications because police, in the course of their duties, often have to lie whether its telling a suspect that you have proof of their guilt and they just need to confess or using boilerplate language like "there was a strong smell of marijuana" to justify a search in the paperwork whether you smelled anything or not.

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

#226

Post by paulmd »

washywashy wrote: post #131

The illegals drugs question never made sense to me. It’s asking you to admit to something that won’t necessarily show up on a criminal background check if you haven’t ever been caught. Assuming you have been caught or are still using, other preemployment screens will catch that. So why not ask other questions like: “Have you ever murdered someone?” “Have you ever stolen?”

pretty sure there is indeed a "are there any felonies you've committed for which you've never been convicted/indicted" question to cover that base

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

#227

Post by anthomtb »

stingraycharles wrote: post #70
technothrasher wrote: post #67

"Here, fill it out again and don't mention that." I had the exact same experience when applying for a clearance while I was in college, for the "have you taken illegal drugs" question. When I honestly answered yes, the interviewer got fidgety and then asked, "well do you take them now?" no. "Do you know any drug users?" We're on a college campus, what would you like me to say? "Well, are you friends with any of them?…

What would the ramifications be if they ever found out you lied? It’s an innocent lie, but still, I can imagine that lying on these types of forms could turn out badly.

They would revoke your clearance. You would lose the job which required the clearance. And you would never get cleared again (source: happened to a now-former coworker).

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

#228

Post by foobarbecue »

foobarbecue wrote: post #196
SpaceL10n wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this concept fascinating, where can I read more?

[Fox News joke removed since upon further reflection it wasn't funny] Seriously though, I suppose I was misusing the word "evidence" here... I haven't actually studied this beyond observing and talking to people I know. I would also be interested in reading on the topic if anyone can suggest something!

I'm sad that Slava_Propanei's comment below is dead. I'm stoked to learned the word "keyfabe."

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

#229

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ckastner wrote: post #50
mcv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It might be - for an actual spy. For omitting that detail on a security clearance form? After 45 years, no, nobody cares.

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

#230

Post by ectopod »

javawizard wrote: post #103
hotpotamus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't actually considered to necessarily be in conflict these days. I think sex assigned at birth or something like that would probably be the relevant medical question.

This exactly: gender and possession of a uterus are two very different things.

Medical forms tend to ask for sex, not gender.
Post reply on HN