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

431–440 of 568 posts

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

#431

Post by Aeolun »

ActorNightly wrote: post #265
JamesSwift wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the written form, I've always been told to be 100% truthful. During the polygraph though I've had several antagonistic interactions similar to yours. Its all part of the game though at that point. They are trying to get under your skin. My personality does not play well in that scenario. Glad to be out of that line of work now, and I generally say no to anyone asking if I'd be open to having a clearance again.

I got put in for a poly for one of my older job. Naturally being of a rational mindset, I started googling how to beat a poly. During the poly, few question in, guy asked me if I ever looked up how to beat a poly. I naturally said yes cause I was startled that this in fact could be one of the questions, which automatically ended the interview. Thats when I realized that smart people don't work in the government.

Hell, I never even had an interview like that (what an insane thing btw), and even I have looked up how to beat a poly at some point. What a silly question.

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

#432

Post by lukan »

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…

"he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!"

I think it is wrong to overgeneralize.

What if the cops ask you about a missing kid, where you are innocent and actually might have information to get that kid back alive, because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X?

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

#433

Post by Aeolun »

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.

They literally ask “How are you doing?” and expect a meaningless answer as a matter of course.

To me this sounds like an invitation to unload my worries.

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

#434

Post by the_af »

lukan wrote: post #432
the_af wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!" I think it is wrong to overgeneralize. What if the cops ask you about a missing kid, where you are innocent and actually might have information to get that kid back alive, because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X?

I recommend you watch the video.

If the cops ask you about a missing kid, you don't know that you are not a suspect. You cannot know, actually. If you are a suspect -- regardless of your innocence -- and you talk to the cops without a lawyer, you may implicate yourself in some way. Yes, innocence doesn't matter one iota. Having factual evidence about the kidnapping could conceivably implicate you faster. Recollecting what you thought happened and making an honest mistake can potentially implicate you. The video goes into examples of this.

Really, watch the video.

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

#435

Post by notch656c »

woah wrote: post #427
notch656c wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can be blackmailed. If the thing you did was less bad than the penalty for treason or revealing secrets (life in prison and/or death) then the blackmail argument falls apart. It's just more irrational hocus pocus by self-important bureaucrats. Hell the thing you're blackmailing doesn't even have to be true, they can just find an ex lover and blackmail that person to say you raped them or whatever, and well eve…

> If the thing you did was less bad than the penalty for treason or revealing secrets (life in prison and/or death) then the blackmail argument falls apart. I'm no expert on spycraft or anything like that, but this sounds overly reductionist. If they can threaten you to lose your career, then maybe doing one tiny little other thing that won't matter seems like it might be worth it. Now they can blackmail you further.…

> somebody who actually has a guilty conscience.

If working for a murderous government that sends drones to bomb kids overseas, invade vietnam and iraq, imprisons innocuous non-violent offenders for decades, funds nun-raping militias in central america, etc doesn't give one a guilty conscious I honestly have no idea what would. It's got to make you feel far more guilty than whether you put on a form you grew a bad plant or not.

>How do they find that person? How do they blackmail them?

Finding someone's ex is not complicated. We're talking about blackmailers so I think a blackmailer knows how to... blackmail. And the example I gave was just one of a million possible scenarios I can imagine an enemy using. The point was using something fake is likely as easy or possibly even easier than using a real crime for the purposes of the enemy, and thus the ratcheting effect you describe is immaterial to whether they start with the bad plant grown that wasn't listed on the form or because they told the compromised person that they'd reveal the false criminal allegations.

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

#436

Post by yterdy »

walrus01 wrote: post #388
notafraudster wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. My father didn't do secure work, but he was an immigrant to the country where I was born. As part of the immigration process, he was asked whether he had ever been arrested (maybe it was charged, I don't recall and he's long gone so I can't ask). He said "no". In fact, he had been arrested as a pre-teen for stealing an idling tractor and joyriding in rural post-war England. Immigration authorities don't care th…

On the other hand, you can answer this too truthfully and just screw yourself up for no reason. Example: I know Afghan former translators/employees for ISAF projects who have been arrested by Pakistani "authorities", local police in various cities just for the purpose of shaking them down for bribes/money. I can guarantee you that no record of any such arrest exists in paper or electronic form anywhere in a database…

The same happens in many developing nations.

The same happens in the US. We've just given authorities leeway to institutionalize stops and arrests and even convictions that would otherwise be considered illegal - especially if they were ever to be put under scrutiny and scrubbed of the blank check that is given to avoid gumming up the works with accountability. And these incidents do affect employability and eligibility for aid, at much lower levels than applying for a clearance or a visa. It's just something to keep in mind.

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

#437

Post by nobody9999 »

ipaddr wrote: post #385
Delphiza wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Oz government used some similar loophole (or threatened to use it) with the Djokovic covid saga at the Australian open. As I recall, a judge said that he could get a visa for whatever covid medical exemption reasons, but on his immigration form he said that he hadn't been travelling elsewhere. Social media proved otherwise, so he was caught in an easily provable lie on an immigration form. He was then able to be…

All it did was reflect poorly on Australia.

>All it did was reflect poorly on Australia

I'm not Australian, but did follow the story with some interest as I do like professional tennis.

I thought it reflected much more poorly on Djokovic than on Australia. They set the visa rules, Djokovic violated those rules (and not subtly either).

It was too bad that he was unable to play at the AO last year, but that was (AFAIK) specifically due to his actions in violation of Australian law.

Those actions being lying on visa forms. And he did so regarding something that could be easily checked and confirmed/debunked.

Had he not lied, he probably would have gotten his visa.

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

#438

Post by ant6n »

Symbiote wrote: post #97
watwut wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not that different today, includes are you a war criminal or wanted by Nuremberg and are you a islamic terrorist no? Similarly there's still increased rules if you have been to particular places Those are widely different questions. These people were affirmatively not war criminals nor wanted by Nuremberg. And they were not equivalent of islamic terrorists either - the equivalent of that would be membership in stas…

Nowadays there's the question "Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs?" [1]. As late as 2018, they were asking about communist party membership [2] [1] https://www.nnuimmigration.com/esta-questions/ [2] https://papersplease.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/DS-01...

The earliest i94 I could find is from perhaps 2004 [1], and it doesn’t ask about membership of a communist party. It’s funny, I feel like I remember answering that question, and my first trip was 2002. it’s not an easy thing to search for nowadays when Google doesn’t quite work anymore and the old web is very hidden.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040708201659/http://immihelp.c...

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

#439

Post by JenrHywy »

godelski wrote: post #266
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'.

I'd be careful, a friend of mine answered yes (and doesn't smoke anymore/at the time of the question) and got denied a clearance for it. But we can also see others who are suggesting interviewers are pressuring them into a "no" answer, which I had some personal experience with. But it seems different people are having different experiences. I understand why people lie though. I always found this odd too because I agr…

AFAIK they never tell you why you fail. It's quite possible/likely that your friend failed for another reason.

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

#440

Post by halJordan »

greggsy wrote: post #37
bell-cot wrote: post #10

Sadly, the moral of the story seems to be that the 1943 FBI had loads of zealous (performative?) plods on staff, but ~zero law enforcement professionals. In '43, the US had plenty of highly competent professional cryptographers, who were quite experienced with current Japanese, German, Italian, British, etc. codes. Before an entire local FBI office spent even a day on this case (let alone 6 weeks), maybe they should…

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.

This is an important lesson I think. Much of the assumed professionalism we have now is built on the lessons these people learned from serious introspection of their own actions.
Post reply on HN