What not to write on your security clearance form (1988) • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by IIsi50MHz » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

robocat wrote: post #297

frogpelt wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the word “consider”: A friend of mine tells a story about his dad and his appreciation for the practicality of a brick house. Someone once asked him “Would you ever consider putting any other siding on your house besides brick?” His answer: “I’d consider it. And then I’d brick it.”

Bricks have bad failure modes in earthquake prone areas. Worst case: falling over and killing people in an earthquake (happened especially with many commercial properties in my hometown, Christchurch, in 2011 earthquake). Even with very minor damage you end up with fine mortar cracks so sealing fails, and wind blows water through cracks. Nobody fixes cracks properly so the problem is hidden by the repointing and pain…

Tangent: Some historic brick-built structurer in Cali are reinforced by apply fiberglass resin (just the resin, no fibers) to the surface of the bricks. This usually manifests as a glossy clear layer completely covering brickwork of the ground floor, followed by narrower and narrower strips of resin for the next floors. It can be applied to interior, exterior, or both surfaces, depending on assessment of the structure.

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

#312

Post by Tangurena2 » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

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…

One book that describes these tests, and how they've come to dominate low-level jobs is titled Punching In [0]. The philosophy is that what sort of personality that would be successful at, say, Home Depot, would be completely different from American Eagle. At many retail companies, you cannot get into the payroll system unless the personality test system approves your application.

My experience with the same sort of personality tests that you've described is somewhat similar. When trying to get hired (I was desperate for anything at that time) at WalMart, the personality tests seemed to ask 3 basic questions - but about 20 different ways to approach each question - (a) do you get into fights at work? (b) do you steal? and (c) do you care if your boss steals?

0: - https://www.amazon.com/Punching-Frontlines-New-Brand-Cultu-e...

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

#313

Post by nkrisc » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

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…

This gave me a good chuckle, and definitely speaks to the imprecision of language and how shared cultural context and understanding does a lot of heavy lifting. Context and understanding that everyone takes for granted but may not be apparent to some, even those in the culture.

Almost certainly HR and your therapist were not interested in every infinite possible though you may have ever had, but whether it was something you seriously considered or planned and may have even made intent towards actually completing.

> but I genuinely don't understand people who have "never considered" it - how do you block & limit your mind? What mental fences do you have that you have never "considered" such an obvious course of action in the likely billion of seconds of thinking?).

Having an intrusive though pop into my head ("You could totally just jump in front of the train!") is not the same as actually considering the steps towards actually planning suicide. I have had intrusive thoughts, but I would say I've never "considered" suicide.

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

#314

Post by akiselev » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:16 PM UTC

jrumbut wrote: post #141

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you haven't proven they are a terrorist, how can you prove they are lying about being a terrorist? They might not be a terrorist, in which case they weren't lying.

I doubt that this is the logic but there are different standards of evidence. If the traveler faces a criminal charge they'll get an attorney and the government will need to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it's likely to be about the preponderance of evidence and in front of some non-court administrative body there may be no particular standard of evidence at all.

Immigration courts aren’t real courts and the judges are part of the executive branch (Department of Justice), not the judicial branch [1].

Their evidentiary standards are closer to “nonexistent” than to preponderance of evidence.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Judge_(United_St...

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

#315

Post by gr4yb34rd » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:20 PM UTC

emn13 wrote: post #61

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.

I kind of _hope_ any statutes of limitations would have expired 35 years ago for events then 45 years ago. There's not much point in retaining liability for events that long ago; it's not like you'll ever catch the "crooks", nor likely have the ability to really judge events reasonably anymore by that time. 'course, with the general urge to be "tough on crime" and the inevitable occasional horror-story of truly heino…

i felt like it might be an embellishment. mostly because i interviewed so many infosec people in the early 2000's and like a quarter of them had some similar story from when they were 10-12 about contact with 3-letter agencies or other nonsense that "got me started on this path at an early age".

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

#316

Post by DoctorOetker » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #93

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?…

This is surprising because it's the exact wrong thing to do. Past drug use will not disqualify you from a clearance, but lying absolutely will. Depending on the clearance level they will interview a number of people, including second degree connections. I know someone who used to be an investigator, and it surprised me when they told me how often first degree connections would say bad things about their 'friend'.

I would also expect lying to be a bigger red flag compared to past drug use, and while it seems these stories invalidate such an idea, I believe they actually validate it: these are stories of people who did get security clearance and they were honest, the ripping up part is more like a symbolic gesture from the system "let's both pretend none of that happened".

These stories don't mean the person would have past when immediately denying the past offense...

While growing up, and during my studies I had often considered job roles where security clearances would presumably be required, but I decided to stay away from that world for multiple reasons:

1. when a sector is heavily propagandized / advertised in media (books, films, ...) then usually it's to attract more talent who wouldn't spontaneously apply. lots of people get disillusioned in armies etc around the world, which is why the experience is artificially inflated in movies etc...

2. I understand that in some situations people in certain job roles need to sacrifice some of their personal freedoms in order to protect the freedoms of the population at large, think for example freedom of expression vs secrecy, and the need of secrecy say among the Polish, French, British, ... in the context of the cracking of the Enigma coding system. To join and apply for security clearance entails signing away certain rights and freedoms. The mere thought that the only way to find out if that's a good decision or not is by taking that decision for life is nauseating to me. Even if I were to become an employee and the practical experience would be that the organization and the individual that signed up agree on the need for secrecy 99% of the time (which sounds very optimistic), I would balk at that 1% or more of the time where I disagree, where I might be convinced the secrecy is creating more problems than solutions. That thought seems unbearable to me, so I'd rather have no security clearance at all and feel ... free.

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

#317

Post by 51Cards » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:26 PM UTC

Bit of an aside story but I'm in the process of renewing a US work Visa (travel into the US for work often from Canada). I was reminded going through the online form last week that there are 3 full pages of questions like: "Have you ever participated in child trafficing?", "Have you participated in terrorist activities?", "Have you participated in overthrowing a government?", etc. etc. All of the most extreme international crimes you could think of.

I later realized that they don't expect any one to answer these truthfully, however if in future you are caught doing (Edit: or having previously done) any of these things the "lied on Visa application" is grounds for an instant revocation of the Visa without all the other possible complications.

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

#318

Post by sailfast » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

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?…

This response is a really bad idea, and I think the security office people that recommend this are actually compromising security by making value judgments about what is and isn't relevant to background investigators based on their own personal beliefs. If this came to light they might get fired, despite it being way too normalized.

The conventional wisdom is to answer truthfully, and justify your answers. You really don't want to get caught lying. It's not up to the person asking you to fill out the form to tell you what to list and what not to list.

If the government can't find enough qualified people they need to adapt the process (and they have). Some things are 100% dealbreakers and should have been changed a long time ago (see local Marijuana jurisdiction laws), but I'm a firm believer you shouldn't lie to get the job. Find another one and move on. My .02.

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

#319

Post by ALittleLight » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

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…

Personality tests aren't about a test of your personality, but your ability to project the ideal personality for an employee. That has some value because it shows you'll know how you're supposed to act on the job.

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

#320

Post by sailfast » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 6:29 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #93

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?…

This is surprising because it's the exact wrong thing to do. Past drug use will not disqualify you from a clearance, but lying absolutely will. Depending on the clearance level they will interview a number of people, including second degree connections. I know someone who used to be an investigator, and it surprised me when they told me how often first degree connections would say bad things about their 'friend'.

This is the right answer. Drug use (outside the past 12 months) should not rule you out for clearances.