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

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

#511

Post by vkou » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:18 AM UTC

pedrovhb wrote: post #91

grishka wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah, the "are you a terrorist" section of the U.S. visa application is hilarious. I was honestly laughing out loud at some of the questions, imagining a sincere terrorist having their plan foiled by their strict moral code which requires them to lay out in detail their plan to topple the government :)

That one's not funny, the really funny one is the "Are you a communist/polyamorous degenerate" section.

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

#512

Post by the_af » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:40 AM UTC

lukan wrote: post #490

the_af wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 . Recollectin…

I watched that video, but I refuse to see cops always as the enemy. So maybe let me refine my question, what if it is your neighbors child, you know closely or even your own child. You still would not talk to the cops, out of the fear that they wrongly suspect you and have a dead child on your consciousness? I mean, I am not from the US, but if your police is really that bad, I think you gotta change something. And I…

I'm not from the US either, and this is about their legal system I think. Whether they need to change this is up to them. I think your intuition from another country doesn't apply to the US. If you ever live in the US, ignore his advice at your own peril.

This attorney seems to think the Fifth is enough, but people don't know they can use it. He doesn't think all cops are bad, where did you get this idea?

> So maybe let me refine my question, what if it is your neighbors child, you know closely or even your own child. You still would not talk to the cops, out of the fear that they wrongly suspect you and have a dead child on your consciousness?

Yes, that's the advice. You shouldn't talk to the cops without a lawyer even in this case, lest you end up implicated in a crime. If you want to talk, lawyer up! (Note: if the missing kid is your neighbor's, you can bet your ass you are a suspect and should definitely lawyer up. People the victim knew are suspects! If the missing kid is your own, you have more pressing concerns than being careful and will probably ignore this advice; know that you are definitely a suspect).

By the way, in my country you can give information about missing children through a hotline (unrelated to the police), no need to go talk to cops. Not sure how it works in the US.

> And I watched that video (some years ago) and if I remember it right, in his example the person that stupidly talked to the cops, was actually guilty.

You misremember. Most of the examples he gives are of innocent people (or of not obviously guilty people). He claims the people who are more at risk when talking to the cops are innocent people. In a followup video he mentions the Innocence Project and that his primary motivation is preventing a lot of wrongful convictions in the US.

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

#513

Post by uneoneuno » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:41 AM UTC

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.

Whhhhaaat how do I not know this??? Thank you sir. I'm gonna be asking my lawyer some questions.

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

#514

Post by rcxdude » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:47 AM UTC

notch656c wrote: post #398

chiefgeek wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I filled out DoD form for TS clearance years ago and answered honestly that I had smoked weed and done coke in college. That's what my boss said to do. He said if they caught you in a lie you were finished because that meant you could be blackmailed. EDIT to add: Ironically he had gotten in trouble for phone phreaking as a teenager.

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…

You're assuming a level of rationality on the part of the person being blackmailed which blackmailers will do everything to avoid. Look at the reports of people getting caught giving away secrets for and it's often shockingly little given the stakes. Remember the main issue with harsh punishments as a deterrent: people generally don't assume they'll be caught.

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

#515

Post by refurb » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 11:54 AM UTC

simonjgreen wrote: post #493

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…

This doesn't really answer the question though. "Why" is it looked on in this way?

Security screening criteria doesn’t get updated often.

It wasn’t that long ago that marijuana was an illegal drug in every state. And as a schedule 1 drug marijuana gets lumped in with crack and PCP.

I have no doubt updating security clearance requirements is a massive bureaucratic mess nobody is interested in doing.

So the requirements remain, but everyone just “massages” the answers to fit current norms.

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

#516

Post by Traubenfuchs » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 12:18 PM UTC

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…

> "Have you ever considered stealing from your employer?" to which I would cheerfully answer "Yes".

I absolutely do not mean this as an insult and I a honestly curious, but could you be chance be on the autism spectrum? I know I am, but not so much that I don't know that you must lie to that question. Though I did have to learn the hard way that you should not tell romantic partners that you wish your loud neighbors would die, because it would objectively improve your life. Or like when we learned about illegal slash-and-burn agriculture destroying the rain forests and hurting the global climate and I asked my teacher why the government wouldn't just shoot the farmers, to his intense horror and revulsion.

> but I genuinely don't understand people who have "never considered" it - how do you block & limit your mind?

I fully agree and think the same way, but neurotypical people generally scare away from thought experiments that make them uncomfortable because of their, as you said, mental fences.

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

#517

Post by varispeed » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 12:24 PM UTC

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…

Even if you are a (legal) medical user?

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

#518

Post by halifaxbeard » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 12:43 PM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #302

xdfgh1112 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html Other poster posted the same link but is getting downvoted so might get overlooked.

My former boss has similar experience with TSA and customs. His father in law runs a farm back in his home country, and he usually goes once to visit whenever he is there. So, technically, he visited a farm which is one of the questions on most immigration forms. As a resident alien without a green card, he usually gets the 9th degree from TSA and customs. He has found, however, that if he checks this box they immedi…

On the declaration when entering Canada there’s the same question, along with this similar one: “ Meat, fish, seafood, eggs, dairy products, fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, plants, flowers, wood, animals, birds, insects, and any parts, products or by-products of any of the foregoing.”

I check yes because I have a half eaten chocolate bar in my backpack.

They ask what I have and I tell them, and immediately send me on my way, it’s great.

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

#519

Post by wkat4242 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:41 PM UTC

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…

Thanks, that explains a lot.

I still wonder why the law is that way though. As drugs go, marijuana is probably the least worrying when it comes to gun possession. As it makes people docile and relaxed, it will help de-escalate conflicts.

As opposed to coke which makes people pumped up or even the fully legal alcohol...

It sounds like federal law should catch up to reality. Though as a European I am not in favor of widespread gun use anyway but that's another discussion.

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

#520

Post by GTP » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:55 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #508

notch656c wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> or possess in or affecting commerce

Doesn't this mean that the prohibition of using such substances doesn't apply just to the moment of purchase, but to the whole period of time that you posses a firearm? I'm not a lawyer either and I'm not even American, but this is how I would interpret it. Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you can't be a user of illegal drugs at the moment of purchase of a firearm, but you can start using such substances afterwards.