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

341–350 of 568 posts

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

#341

Post by the_af »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #299
NikolaNovak wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've watched that video several times; as somebody "largely" honest, I need it to pragmatically re-adjust my perspective every few years - because I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop :) The other piece of advice is trickier, and I personally do not follow it too closely (everything in life is circumstantial:). Two aspects to mention: 1. Often, a lie…

> I TOTALLY am the person who would inherently monologue for 3 hours when asked a simple question by a cop Then for you especially, but really for everyone -- don't talk to the cop without a lawyer. Just don't. (at least if you are in the USA). For all the reasons you mention. Lying to the cops can be committing a crime in itself. Trying to think it through and figure out exactly how much of the truth to tell in what…

The video I linked to, which frequently makes the rounds, is essentially a defense attorney explaining that you should never speak to cops, even if you're innocent, and gives plenty of examples of innocent people that ended up convicted of something just because they thought they were safe (because they didn't do anything). For example, he explains even an innocent person making an innocent mistake while recollecting the facts to the cops can get screwed, whereas an innocent person who simply won't talk to them cannot get screwed as easily.

I'll repost it here for emphasis. I'm sure this applies mostly to the US, and also that the attorney is overstating his case a bit for comedic effect, but I'm also convinced that what he's saying is mostly right (at least, for the US legal system).

Again, for emphasis: he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

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

#342

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#343

Post by devin »

werdnapk wrote: post #162
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…

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.

At a family gathering we were all sharing we've considered this while driving. Not specifically veering into oncoming traffic but "what if" things like letting go of the wheel, intentionally driving into a ditch at high speed, etc.

One person in my family claims they've never had this thought ever, and it truly baffles me.

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

#344

Post by aeturnum »

tejtm wrote: post #293
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So they are filtering for a ethic that accepts boldface lying to them is necessary to cover essentials. I can not see how this paradigm could end well.

I mean - all ethical systems favor boldfaced lying in some situations? Even Kant's Categorical Imperative simply says that, if you lie, you should do so in a situation where anyone in that situation should lie (i.e. hiding Jews from the Nazis, etc). Even within a Kantian framework, you could argue that in this context (a formal job application) it is moral to lie because no one believes your answer represents your most deeply held beliefs - but rather represents your willingness (and ability) to perform a role (the role of the Good Employee). If you can't be a Good Employee you should reveal it by not lying - but if you can be you can reveal it by lying on the form (which reflects the lying you will be expected to do in the job).

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

#345

Post by quocanh »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #307
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have this backwards - Apparently, Americans are considered more brutally honest and direct in negotiations than other cultures: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-negotiate-around-the-...

That doesn't mean that Americans are more brutally honest in social interactions. In my experience, Americans commonly (admittedly, not always) avoid topics and observations which they think a listening party would find uncomfortable.

This actually reminds me of something I've been thinking about lately. What we call honesty is actually two different things: truthfulness and openness. Americans are probably truthful and not open.

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

#346

Post by peeters »

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…

When I was in the security clearance process, the first step in the process was a 500 question multiple choice psychological exam (randomized order). The test is designed to have some level of error checking to make sure participants are taking it seriously (e.g. questions that would be expected to correlate). Near the start of the exam was a question "do you have back pain", I answered "no". Near the end was the same question phrased slightly differently, I answered "yes". When in my subsequent interview to discuss the results, the interviewer questioned why I didn't answer consistently. She seemed to accept my answer of "I had been sitting in an uncomfortable chair for 2.5 hours by the time I got to the second question".

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

#347

Post by Natsu »

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…

People are using a different version of 'considered' where it's not just a passing fancy, but something you would be likely to do.

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

#348

Post by shagie »

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…

A retail company that I worked for (I worked in the general office and we got a bit of a chuckle talking about the test) had a test that was very much in the same vein - though it wasn't a "have you ever considered" but rather put on a "agree to disagree" spectrum.

    It is ok to get into fights during your break as long as you aren't at the store
    It is ok to take office supplies home if they aren't valued more than $10
    It is ok to not clock out for a smoke break if it is less than five minutes long
There were other questions that were ones you were supposed to agree with too - just those weren't as memorable.

Apparently, there were people who failed the test.

The other part of the test is that it is on record. So when someone does get into a fight during their break the GM can pull the test out and say "see, you knew this."

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

#349

Post by philwelch »

51Cards wrote: post #317

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 interna…

> "Have you participated in overthrowing a government?"

This must be an awkward question for Iraq War veterans.

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

#350

Post by jkaplowitz »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #301
jkaplowitz wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the passport is not actually required at the CBP checkpoint if you present a valid unexpired green card. But yeah, there's no way different officers should be yelling contradictory things at you. Side note: A passport may still be required to board an inbound international flight even if I'm right about it not needing to accompany a green card at the CBP checkpoint, depending on the rules of…

Is it? I've been yelled about doing or not doing it so much that I can't keep track anymore. That part of my life is behind me so now I get the next fun challenge: Which passport to use when going up to Canada and back as a dual citizen.

That one is clearer, at least. TL;DR for the easiest experience - bring both passports, enter and leave each country on the respective passport, and if anyone is confused, show both passports and explain that you're a dual citizen.

To enter and leave the US, you're supposed to use a US passport and not a Canadian one. To enter Canada, it's smoothest and fastest to use your Canadian passport, but they do have an exception for US-Canadian dual citizens that allow you to use a US passport.

If you use a US passport and claim to be a Canadian citizen at a CBSA checkpoint, they might send you to immigration screening to verify your claim, especially if you don't also show some evidence of citizenship like your citizenship certificate. If you use a US passport and claim to be a Canadian citizen to a commercial transportation company like an airline on the way into Canada, they're advised to do "due diligence", but there is no specific set of documentation required. The citizenship certificate would probably satisfy them, and in practice many times maybe the US passport by itself too.

Post reply on HN