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

461–470 of 568 posts

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

#461

Post by acchow »

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.…

> How do they find that person? How do they blackmail them? It becomes exponentially more complicated

In a Hollywood movie, they would just locate an old acquaintance from your youthful years who is currently in debt.

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

#463

Post by ipaddr »

michaelt wrote: post #429
ipaddr wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it did was reflect poorly on Australia.

Eh, I thought the fact rich celebrities were held to the same standards as us normal people reflected pretty well on Australia.

From the outside it seemed like lets go hard on this foreign player from an eastern European country no one cares about hurting relations with. He didn't get the vaccine and we are still trying to push lockdowns hard locally lets use this to score political points.

I feel bad for him that he got caught up in local politics. I understand those normal people ate up the rich guy foreign ploy. What they missed was their rights were being trampled on while the rest of the world opened up and they were distracted by a fake booeyman.

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

#466

Post by austhrow743 »

anthomtb wrote: post #249
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 first clearance interview, about 10 years ago, it was all going along just fine. I had the standard litany of "bad" things any early 20-something American guy gets into - a few mushroom trips, an alcohol ticket, friends from foreign countries. No deal-breakers so long as you are honest and I answered honestly. The only stumbling block came when the interviewer asked "have you smoked marijuana?". I truthfully answe…

Now I'm curious. How had you never tried marijuana given that situation?

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

#467

Post by MertsA »

ibejoeb wrote: post #426
Aeolun wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If two US presidents in a row (and probably more) can bring classified information home, who are they to request me not to?

Only one was a president.

Yeah but that was the one claiming he could retroactively make it okay so now that Biden is president I guess by that logic it's retroactively okay as well.

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

#468

Post by actually_a_dog »

c0nsumer wrote: post #71
saalweachter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent thirty years telling doctors I'm allergic to amoxicillin; I'm not sure if I am, but that's how my parents started every doctor visit when I was small so I carry on the tradition. I think I might have thrown up after taking it as a small child, but I have no recollection myself.

I have something similar with epinephrine. Every visit I'm asked "allergy to epinephrine?" and I have to, again, clarify "no, but I'm sensitive to it, and it makes me really jittery, so I prefer to not have it unless there's no choice". It makes me feel like I've had way too much caffeine and is just generally unpleasant. Those conversations don't seem tomatter much, because when getting common small procedures done…

I’m pretty sure it’s not actually possible to be allergic to epinephrine. After all, it is commonly known as adrenaline. You’d probably die if you were allergic to it.

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

#469

Post by Kamq »

kortilla wrote: post #396
rodgerd wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I said, in the US, "Peter Thiel is a woman-hating monster and the country would be better if he and every politician on his payroll was swinging from a lamppost Mussolini style" it would be difficult to make any case that I was doing anything not covered by first amendment protections. If I'm a visitor to the country and say the same thing having signed an affirmation that I'm not going to advocate for violent ove…

I don’t think death threats are covered by the first amendment.

For the purposes of the first amendment, this isn't a death threat, it's the expression of an opinion.

Even advocating for violence is constitutionally protected.

A credible threat would, generally consist of specific actions that the person would have means to carry out.

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

#470

Post by alexjurkiewicz »

int_19h wrote: post #455
aeturnum wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

Part of the problem is that normally you're also very explicitly instructed to not lie on such forms.

> ‘Isn’t learning fun? Oh, and here’s another one.’ > DO NOT FEED THE ELEPHANT. > ‘Now that,’ said Susan, ‘is good. You can’t obey it…’ > ‘… because there’s no elephant,’ said Lobsang. ‘I think I’m getting the hang of this…’ > ‘It’s an Auditor trap,’ said Susan, peering at a packing case.

Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Post reply on HN