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

251–260 of 568 posts

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

#251

Post by skissane »

bell-cot wrote: post #107
skissane wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> True, but it's not completely bleak either. I once wanted to take out $40 from an ATM, and it gave me $60! One time, I wanted to take $40 out of an ATM, it gave me $80 instead. I checked my Internet banking - they had the ATM withdrawal at the expected location, but only for $40, which is all I’d asked for. Then, a few days later, I got another $40 debit transaction, but of a strange type I’d never seen before - it…

Guess: They screwed up in loading or configuring the ATM, so it believed it was (say) giving you $10 bills, when it was actually giving you $20 bills. I've seen that happen - as an insider, to hear more of the (dull) detail.

From what I recall, it gave me 4x $20 bills instead of 2x. I attempted the transaction, it made this “flipping bills” sound for an unusually long time, then gave me a “dispense” error message. But obviously the cash had partially made it through the machine and got stuck somewhere, because when I retried the transaction, it gave me both the cash from the successful transaction, and that from the earlier failed one. Only the successful transaction ever appeared on my bank statement as a proper ATM withdrawal, but obviously they somehow detected the previous one and processed it manually.

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

#252

Post by erehweb »

toss1 wrote: post #198
NikolaNovak wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and No. I have "Considered" stealing from my employer several times. When I was 15 I was a refugee and worked in a Radio-Shack-like store in Croatia. We built PCs in back and sold them in the front. The front and back were separated by a curtain, and highest value items (ram sticks) happened to be stashed on the shelf on the side of the entrance. I realized it would take literally 5 seconds for a customer to reac…

Yup. "Considered" is certainly ambiguous enough to be a failure in the context of a job application. When I was working at IBM, a my manager introduced me in passing to one of his peers who was getting a huge promotion, about three levels up. Why such an unusual promotion? He'd noticed a way that 4 people could conspire to exfiltrate $25 million on a Friday and be in some non-extradition country before it was noticed…

Nitpicking that thinking about a vulnerability is not the same as considering exploiting that vulnerability.

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

#253

Post by justsocrateasin »

derbOac wrote: post #221
foobarbecue wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 distrau…

I actually feel like this is a good argument for normalizing the fact that probably everyone has thoughts about suicide (as OP said, thinking about the implications versus considering).

I remember a period of my life where I was struggling a bit more than normal with anxiety, and my creative / intrusive brain was like "how about you think on the concept of suicide?" to which my brain responded "wow now you're thinking about suicide, you should really seek help".

In reality, it was just an intrusive thought. But the fact that my brain jumped on that thought, and ruminated on it as "if the thought popped into my head, maybe I'm not OK", that was the thing that caused problems.

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

#254

Post by CapmCrackaWaka »

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 can't pretend to know what the original test writers had in mind. However, I actually think this question serves a different purpose than to determine if you had actually considered stealing from an employer. These types of questions are better suited to determine if someone can walk the corporate walk and talk the corporate talk. They don't want a low level employee to go off on a customer, or make rude remarks, or otherwise say "between you and me, fuck this company lmaoooo", because that opens them up to litigation. On that front, I would say they achieved their goal.

The _obvious_ answer to this question, if you want a job, is "no". Anyone that answers "yes" is a liability, regardless of their actual intention to steal.

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

#255

Post by idontpost »

leoqa wrote: post #244
Symmetry wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is absolutely not the case. Law enforcement background checks are more intense than clearance, and drug use policies are very black-white. The general principle is that you must be unimpeachable such that your testimony is valid in court.

[dead]

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

#256

Post by idontpost »

thechao wrote: post #145
turminal wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a true story about Kurt Gödel's citizenship application: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_Loophole#Backgr...

> Other writers have speculated that Gödel may have had other parts of the Constitution in mind as well, including the possibility that a partisan ratchet effect, via lifetime Supreme Court appointments and selective application of the law, could permanently stack the Supreme Court with Justices of one political persuasion. This is mentioned in the article. It's a pretty standard way to overthrow democracies — it sub…

[dead]

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

#257

Post by toss1 »

erehweb wrote: post #252
toss1 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. "Considered" is certainly ambiguous enough to be a failure in the context of a job application. When I was working at IBM, a my manager introduced me in passing to one of his peers who was getting a huge promotion, about three levels up. Why such an unusual promotion? He'd noticed a way that 4 people could conspire to exfiltrate $25 million on a Friday and be in some non-extradition country before it was noticed…

Nitpicking that thinking about a vulnerability is not the same as considering exploiting that vulnerability.

exactly the point — that nit falls well within the ambiguity of the wording

(and yes, if you're reasonably sharp and not a super-stickler, you should be able to suss out the screening intent of the question, constrain the current meaning of "consider", and answer "No" regardless of your previous thoughts and understanding of the word — it's not like thoughtcrime is prosecutable ...yet)

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

#258

Post by sizzzzlerz »

JamesSwift wrote: post #245
sizzzzlerz wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over my years working for defense contractors, I've held clearences from multiple agencies and have gone through 5 or so polygraph tests. In everyone of them, the examiners were professional in every sense of the word. They clearly explained the procedure, went over what questions were to be asked, and ran the tests calmly and fairly. I never had a reason to complain about any one of them. Now, I didn't like to be te…

Thats.... the exact opposite of my experience lol. I was at a 3 letter agency for ~5 years and close to everyone I knew failed the first poly of every round. IMO its a ploy to raise the stakes and get you on edge.

I wonder if that's because you were working for the agency instead of as a contractor. Since the testing costs the company money, they might get pissed if too many of their employees kept failing and require a retest. For large contractors like LMSC or Raytheon, that can be a sizeable expense. Of course, it goes into the overhead charges when they bill but still, not something they want.

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

#259

Post by idopmstuff »

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #254
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 can't pretend to know what the original test writers had in mind. However, I actually think this question serves a different purpose than to determine if you had actually considered stealing from an employer. These types of questions are better suited to determine if someone can walk the corporate walk and talk the corporate talk. They don't want a low level employee to go off on a customer, or make rude remarks, o…

Yeah, seems like if you're hiring for a low-level retail employee, it's not necessarily a plus if they're the kind of person who deeply analyzes this sort of question instead of giving the superficially correct response. Particularly if this was in an employer-friendly time from a hiring perspective, and they had an endless supply of candidates.

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

#260

Post by trifurcate »

flatline wrote: post #219
the_af wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My mind never stops and there's virtually nothing in the world I have not "considered" One piece of advice my mom gave me which I always follow is: don't tell them (a company/job/boss) anything that could be used against you. There's no need to be truthful here, this isn't a consultation with your doctor. So lie, tell them you're healthy, you never had any problems with anyone ever, never admit to anything. Truth i…

For those of you who are like I used to be and are just honest in an unfiltered way that sometimes caused you trouble: don’t think of it as lying, think of it as keeping secrets. You can also view it as maintaining a personal boundary, which is not something people of my generation were brought up with. We all keep secrets to some extent: shameful memories we do not readily recount; job confidentiality; things we onl…

> You can also view it as maintaining a personal boundary, which is not something people of my generation were brought up with.

Which generation do you belong to, out of curiosity?

Post reply on HN