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

331–340 of 568 posts

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

#331

Post by im3w1l »

mason55 wrote: post #214
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…

> but this is an absolute fail on the job application, unless the goal is to filter out intelligent people who have naturally curious minds. Not sure why you think this is a crazy goal for a retail job. If you can't figure out that you should say "no" to the stealing question, no matter what the truth is, then you're probably not a good fit to work retail. In fact, I'd bet that most of the "yes" answers to this quest…

Don't underestimate how stupid criminals can be. It's not like the prisons are empty because no one ever gets caught.

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

#332

Post by PuppyTailWags »

dsr_ wrote: post #325
PuppyTailWags wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is possible and I think it helps to explore what you don't think about. Everyone has things that never/rarely occur to them to consider performing as an action, even people with significantly broader consideration-spheres than others. For example, I've considered suicide but never going pro in ballet. I've considered stealing from my employer but never becoming an opera influencer. I'm less athletic than a…

Unfortunately, now I have considered going pro in ballet (result: not going to happen), becoming an opera influencer (result: highly unlikely but not absolutely impossible; can I reasonably work towards the return of the comic operetta? Probably not without writing one. I could manage the book but not the music. Who do I know who might want to write the music?) and I have frequently considered but discarded the likel…

But that's the thing, right, you didn't consider those things before. There's no difference between not having considered suicide and not having considered pro ballet and it doesn't reflect anything about you in particular. That's why I'm saying I don't think it's incomprehensible that some people just haven't thought of things you've considered before. Because obviously you also haven't thought of things to consider until someone else (myself) brought them up.

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

#333

Post by notch656c »

leoqa wrote: post #329
notch656c wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what country is this the case that police have unimpeachable history?

I’m mostly referring to federal law enforcement, I’m not familiar with local police suitability (but I’m guessing it’s not nearly as well resourced as the feds).

I wish my experiences with federal LEO in CBP could reflect that. I've lived some corrupt ass places but federal CBP officers take the cake.

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

#334

Post by alasdair_ »

NavinF wrote: post #323
yamazakiwi wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's common in most roles for employers to check if you are flexible, teachable, and ready for cool-aid.

*kool-aid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid

*Flavor Aid

They didn't actually use Kool-aid in the Jonestown massacre, people just think they did.

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

#335

Post by adrianmonk »

olsgaarddk wrote: post #30
mcv wrote: post #29

I'm so that guy. Not for security clearance, but medical questionaires. I always fill them in with total honesty, listing the most minor and irrelevant details if they fit the question. My wife keeps telling me not to fill that stuff in, and she's quite the opposite, giving the preferred answer everywhere, even when I think: "but shouldn't you mention that thing?" Of the two of us, she's the one who has tons of exper…

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'm not sure how to interpret this. Were the antihistamines in case you had a drug allergy? Or were they for the other kind of allergy (pollen, pet danger, dust, etc.)?

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

#336

Post by bhelkey »

bell-cot wrote: post #51
greggsy wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s important not to fall into the trap of hindsight. At the time, they very well thought it was important, but it of course seems silly once you hear the full story.

Note my edit, above. If they suspected it really was important, then they should have passed it up to the code-breakers ASAP.

My reading was that the FBI ended up with a key not an encrypted message.

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

#338

Post by im3w1l »

Jerrrry wrote: post #192
werdnapk wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a similar vein... while driving down the road, have you ever "considered" just pulling into the opposing lane? I'd never ever do that, but I've considered others driving into my lane, which leads me to consider myself doing that to their lane. Lots of other similar "I'd never do that" situations I've definitely considered. I admire your honesty though. 99% of people would lie.

The call of the void is a natural instinct evolved to help judge possibly (dis)advantageous choices. As long as you label it as an "intrusive thought," and it isn't incredibly (daily) common, that is perfectly normal.

I always figured that the "call of the void" was to illustrate to us what a careless movement could lead to. So that we will shy away from the edge or constantly second guess our movements for danger while we remain.

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

#339

Post by foobarbecue »

kibwen wrote: post #269
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?

It boils down to a semantic argument. People have differing definitions of what it means to "think about committing suicide". If you're up on top of a tall object and happen to imagine yourself plummeting over the edge even without any intention to do so, some people will consider that "thinking about it", and some people won't. The useful interpretation is to exercise empathy and put yourself in the mind of the pers…

I agree that one should attempt to answer the /intended/ question.

In this case, however, it wasn't semantic. My ex and I were on the same page as to how we were using "think". She was claiming that by our shared definition of think, most people didn't, and we did.

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

#340

Post by JamesSwift »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #258
JamesSwift wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well I was actually military (which is a non full-scope poly) then contractor (full-scope poly) : )
Post reply on HN