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

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

#351

Post by hindsightbias » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

During a very warm part of the Cold War, a relative in service in Germany got a visit from the services security agency. They put him in a room and grilled him and eventually asked “why didn’t you tell us you had relatives on the other side of the wall?”

He asked where, and informed them they were all presumed to have died in WWII. They informed him one of his cousins was a near counterpart on the other side and provided a village name. Then they asked “would you talk to your parents and tell them to tell the neighbors it’s ok to talk to the G-Men”.

The FBI had apparently been going thru his tiny upstate hometown and scaring all the Polish/Czech/Slovak/Latvian/etc emigre neighbors who spoke little English.

Of course he didn’t tell them his sister wrote a letter to that village, re-established contact and then she, her husband and pre-teens (who only spoke English) flew over to Europe and took a train to visit. Thankfully everyone on the train distracted the security officials whenever they got near the kids.

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

#352

Post by xboxnolifes » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:32 PM UTC

tuyiown wrote: post #96

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.

Why would you think someone would check ? This information is only consulted if it's needed, or for later cross checks. Nobody cares if it's correct or not until your health is in the line.

When I go to a new doctor, they read the intake form information.

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

#353

Post by what_is_orcas » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:34 PM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #235

mason55 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>>I imagine that someone who really would steal is also dishonest enough to lie on the question. Bingo! I do expect that there are attempts to filter out overly intelligent people for some jobs. There was a lawsuit in Connecticut by an applicant who scored too high on the police exam and was denied a job. He lost the case, and established the right for police to reject people for being too smart as they might get bor…

Found this because I was curious (and this was the first non-paywall link that I knew the domain from, sorry if there are other, more reputable sources): https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

Looks like the reason is: we refuse all smart people equally and it's a means to reduce turnover...

What a joke.

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

#354

Post by mixmastamyk » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

kayodelycaon wrote: post #128

ckastner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is true that the FBI found the person they were looking for, and that person was the terminus of their investigation. It is not true that the article author was investigated by the FBI; he wasn't To me, these are the same, so I guess that's probably just my layman's view then.

They aren’t the same. There is a legal distinction. They were attempting to identify the source of a document. After they found and identified who created it, the investigation was dropped before they investigated any particular person.

That’s what the word means. If they mean convicted, they should ask that instead.

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

#355

Post by wedn3sday » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:46 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #304

idopmstuff wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reminds me of the scene in Cryptonimicon, again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866629

Many things remind me of scenes from the Cryptonomicon, especially things that rhyme with "torpedo."

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

#356

Post by Vrondi » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

grishka wrote: post #82

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?…

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…

Diseases. The livestock thing is related to diseases. Are you carrying the new strain of swine flu inside your body?

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

#357

Post by gdavisson » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:47 PM UTC

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #223

> On another occasion much later, I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. Gotta know this piece!

I have an example of the opposite: When I was quite young, I got into model rocketry as a hobby. Buying engines required a pyrotechnician's license, and I was too young to get one, so I talked both of my parents into applying for licenses. My dad had been in the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos in WWII, so when he got to a question on the form that asked if he had any previous experience with explosives, he put something like "Yes, conventional and nuclear." His application took significantly longer than my mom's to process.

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

#358

Post by porpoisemonkey » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:48 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #150

matwood wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

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.

To reiterate half of what you've said, but maybe in a slightly different way, the defense security clearance process is designed to determine how likely you are to be incentivized or coerced into revealing classified information.

The point of the deep dive is not to prove you've always been an upstanding citizen, but to look for factors that make you an easier target for foreign intelligence services such as:

1. Do you have any financial problems that could make you easier to buy off? (Bad credit, gambling problems)

2. Do you have any (real or perceived) addictions that might impair your judgement or can be leveraged against you? (drugs and DUIs)

3. Are you currently attempting to hide any criminal activity that you could be blackmailed with?

4. Do you have any sensitive foreign connections or other possible allegiances?

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

#359

Post by bityard » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:51 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #341

jrochkind1 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yep.

I am good friends with police officers and firmly believe that _most_ of them are good people trying to do good work.

But the most succinct way to put it is: if you are an innocent person, you simply have nothing to gain by talking to the cops without a lawyer. And potentially everything to lose if they choose to pin something on you somehow.

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

#360

Post by Zak » Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 7:52 PM UTC

b112 wrote: post #142

pokot0 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jaywalking is illegal. It doesn't have to be the same illegal thing they want you out for. They're just giving them more options.

The Freedom to Walk act, in California, just made it legal. (Not relevant to your point, just a side bit of interesting info). edit: Huh. These guys: https://www.dlawgroup.com/california-freedom-to-walk-act-for... claim it is still illegal, but cannot be ticketed for without certain conditions. I wonder why, or if, this weird condition exists. (I see it is supposedly to prevent police harassment, but that doesn't exp…

The main purpose is likely to allow the police to cite a pedestrian who is at fault for an accident, which helps protect the other parties involved from civil liability.