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

501–510 of 568 posts

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

#501

Post by chiggsy »

ufmace wrote: post #236
hackingthelema wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abandon guided meditations and audio-based meditations, and focus to a simple programme of breath-focus. You just: 1. sit quietly and comfortably 2. breathe through your nose 3. find the feeling of air moving in and out of your nose 4. observe that feeling of air 5. if your mind starts observing other thoughts instead of the breath feeling -- 'I have an itch', 'this sitting position is uncomfortable', 'what about my…

This is basically the idea. Exact techniques vary, but the point is to keep gently re-focusing on something minor and physical. It doesn't really matter what it is, scan direction vs breath flow vs something else, none of it matters, just pick one and work on focusing.

When you sit you may feel discomfort of a kind that makes you want to move. Sit for a bit longer. The discomfort will move rapidly from place to place, since it is an artifact of the revolutions of the mind stuff.

It's kind of like spam subject lines... a call to action.

My nose is bleeding? I need to... Wait, my ankle is killing me, let me just... Oh, no, now my back, quick stretch will ... Hmm, I'd be so much more meditative if I just pop on to Amazon and order a proper cushion...

Just sit. You'll be fine.

Remember that the word user also governs the skeletal muscles. Not the most ideal situation, but you have to expect some strange things if you grow such a complex thing as a brain from some goo. When these things, or other things happen, just watch them, let them pass, and then bring your attention back to the breath in your nose.

It's like balancing. How do you get better at balancing? Stand precariously every day and eventually your muscles will strengthen and you will be balanced.

Similarly, bringing your attention back to the breath in your nose is how you get better at this thing.

Just some tips that helped me.

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

#502

Post by dale_glass »

ipaddr wrote: post #463
michaelt wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't have any right to travel to a foreign country. You only get in if you convince them you won't be a troublesome guest.

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

#503

Post by yellowapple »

notch656c wrote: post #483
wkat4242 wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why the US is so full on about marijuana. I've heard this is a major thing in federalinterviews but other much more scary drugs are not. What's the hangup with this particular drug that's actually legal in many states? Ps: I've been asked that question too in less formal settings and I always truthfully say no which does raise some eyebrows as I'm Dutch :) But I've really never done it. Not countin…

A great deal of government positions involve carrying a gun. Having a gun and being a pot user is a felony with 10+ years in jail. It's one of the most serious non-violent offenses for mere personal use possession on the books. It's also very easy to detect because pot stays in your system longer than about any other drug and the penalty for pot use by non-firearm owners is so weak and unenforced that people often fo…

The flip side is that someone hoping to prosecute a "pot user" for being such while obtaining a firearm would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was indeed a "pot user" at the time one answered the question.

I've submitted to no less than five background checks for purchasing firearms. My ID has also been scanned at multiple dispensaries in the same state as those background checks. Not once has the latter caused any issue with the former - in all likelihood because "I at one point set foot in a dispensary" != "I actually purchased something in that dispensary" != "I actually consumed something purchased from that dispensary" != "I was a user of something purchased from that dispensary at the time that I answered a question about whether or not I use federally-controlled substances".

Maybe if background checks included drug tests this would be a practical concern, but as it stands, unless you show up to the gun store stoned out of your gourd (hell, even then), there is little opportunity to demonstrate "the defendant lied about not being a user of illicit substances at the time one purchased the firearm".

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

#504

Post by yellowapple »

notch656c wrote: post #495
carlmr wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it is a very severe crime for the ~40% of US that owns arms. Only if you carry them with you, right?

No. A single speck of pot + just being someone that owns guns at all is 10 years in jail. Look up "constructive possession." AFAIK it's the feds position that even merely having a medical marijuana card (which doesn't mean you actually have ever even bought/consumed weed) and owning a gun makes you a felon. Note: not a lawyer, not legal advice.

A medical marijuana card is a much stronger indicator of "I am currently a user of marijuana" than even current possession, let alone some past purchase. The whole point of such a card is to be prescribed marijuana, and the whole point of a prescription is for you to follow it.

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

#505

Post by notch656c »

yellowapple wrote: post #503
notch656c wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great deal of government positions involve carrying a gun. Having a gun and being a pot user is a felony with 10+ years in jail. It's one of the most serious non-violent offenses for mere personal use possession on the books. It's also very easy to detect because pot stays in your system longer than about any other drug and the penalty for pot use by non-firearm owners is so weak and unenforced that people often fo…

The flip side is that someone hoping to prosecute a "pot user" for being such while obtaining a firearm would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was indeed a "pot user" at the time one answered the question. I've submitted to no less than five background checks for purchasing firearms. My ID has also been scanned at multiple dispensaries in the same state as those background checks. Not once has…

I can not give you legal advice but only tell you my personal understanding for entertainment purposes. And my personal understanding is that the same prohibition applies even for possessing it, not just when you acquire it. My non-lawyer mind it's pretty clear under 18 USC 922.

At the end of the day the feds got a warrant to drag me to the hospital and internally search my body for drugs because third party hearsay that an anonymous cop said an anonymous dog supposedly said I had drugs (there were none and their search was fruitless). If third party hearsay is good enough for a warrant why wouldn't video evidence or ID scan of you at the gun store and the pot shop? Sure you can claim "well the test at the hospital shows metabolites and the video shows buying weed and guns but hey you can't prove I actually used weed" but good luck with that.

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

#506

Post by notch656c »

yellowapple wrote: post #504
notch656c wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. A single speck of pot + just being someone that owns guns at all is 10 years in jail. Look up "constructive possession." AFAIK it's the feds position that even merely having a medical marijuana card (which doesn't mean you actually have ever even bought/consumed weed) and owning a gun makes you a felon. Note: not a lawyer, not legal advice.

A medical marijuana card is a much stronger indicator of "I am currently a user of marijuana" than even current possession, let alone some past purchase. The whole point of such a card is to be prescribed marijuana, and the whole point of a prescription is for you to follow it.

Why? I've read a number of accounts of people who got the card just to buy/grow for their cancer stricken grandma or whatever. Sure maybe it's a lie but then again it's pretty believable and reasonable.

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

#507

Post by walrus01 »

notch656c wrote: post #486
drdaeman wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if they decide they don't want you to pass - I suspect they'll find their excuse then, no matter what. With power tripping people, I believe, it's typically not about someone's file but if they arbitrarily like you as a person or not.

I had one tell me, a US citizen presenting with valid passport, he had the authority to prevent me from entering the united states. I told him he had no such authority, unlike with the room full of Mexicans around me he was used to harrassing, and even if I didn't answer his (non-citizenship related) questions he'd still have to let me in. By god did that piss him off, and I spent many hours detained, but in I went.…

Reminding CBP/ICE of something like that in a confident way is a good way to get a thorough anal cavity search and/or all the carpets and upholstery in your car destroyed.

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

#508

Post by yellowapple »

notch656c wrote: post #505
yellowapple wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side is that someone hoping to prosecute a "pot user" for being such while obtaining a firearm would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspect was indeed a "pot user" at the time one answered the question. I've submitted to no less than five background checks for purchasing firearms. My ID has also been scanned at multiple dispensaries in the same state as those background checks. Not once has…

I can not give you legal advice but only tell you my personal understanding for entertainment purposes. And my personal understanding is that the same prohibition applies even for possessing it, not just when you acquire it. My non-lawyer mind it's pretty clear under 18 USC 922. At the end of the day the feds got a warrant to drag me to the hospital and internally search my body for drugs because third party hearsay…

The relevant bit(s) would be "It shall be unlawful for any person [...] who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) [...] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."

So a prosecutor would need to prove that I was "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" at the time that I received a firearm or ammunition that has crossed my state's borders (which would presumably be nearly all the firearms and ammunition I own, but still). There's also the parallel prohibition on the seller's end (and another one involving the actual background check questions), with the same present-tense language of "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance".

> If third party hearsay is good enough for a warrant why wouldn't video evidence of you at the gun store and the pot shop?

A warrant != a conviction. The video evidence of me at both stores would not establish that I was "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" at the time that I took possession of the firearm.

Now, if there was video evidence of me smoking a phat blunt right outside the gun store before walking in and walking back out with a firearm, then yeah, that'd be a slam dunk case (assuming the prosecutor could convince a jury that it was indeed cannabis I was smoking). Likewise, if I was actually tested for cannabis in my system and the tests indicated that it was indeed in my system at the time I took possession of the firearm, then that would similarly be a slam dunk case.

(I guess even in the latter case I could maybe argue "yeah, I was an unlawful user, but I quit before buying the gun", but that defense is pretty weak if it's still in my system; I reckon it'd be stronger if I was sober for an actually-significant amount of time.)

Barring those? I ain't a lawyer, either, but my personal understanding is that the present-tense wording leaves a loophole big enough to drive a truck through it. Obviously the safest bet is to not rely on that being the case, but it's pretty easy to answer "No" to "Are you an illegal user of or addicted to any controlled substance?" without it being a felonious lie.

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

#509

Post by yellowapple »

notch656c wrote: post #506
yellowapple wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A medical marijuana card is a much stronger indicator of "I am currently a user of marijuana" than even current possession, let alone some past purchase. The whole point of such a card is to be prescribed marijuana, and the whole point of a prescription is for you to follow it.

Why? I've read a number of accounts of people who got the card just to buy/grow for their cancer stricken grandma or whatever. Sure maybe it's a lie but then again it's pretty believable and reasonable.

Usually it'd be the grandma getting the card, then, no?

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

#510

Post by vkou »

walrus01 wrote: post #507
notch656c wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had one tell me, a US citizen presenting with valid passport, he had the authority to prevent me from entering the united states. I told him he had no such authority, unlike with the room full of Mexicans around me he was used to harrassing, and even if I didn't answer his (non-citizenship related) questions he'd still have to let me in. By god did that piss him off, and I spent many hours detained, but in I went.…

Reminding CBP/ICE of something like that in a confident way is a good way to get a thorough anal cavity search and/or all the carpets and upholstery in your car destroyed.

Indeed. They have to (eventually) let you in, but they don't have to put your car back together after they tear it apart.
Post reply on HN