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

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

#541

Post by lukan » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #538

lukan wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about this scenario, I described above: "because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X? " Assuming the kid is still alive and was in that van (which you do not know) - but by providing that info to the cops, they could track down the adress of the kidnappers and save that child. I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing i…

> I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing it. In your scenario, there are definitely downsides to providing this information by talking to cops : you can get implicated and even convicted of the crime, and the actual criminal be left alone. At any time during your conversation with the cops, they may decide you know too much (or know details only the kidnapper would…

"In your scenario, there are definitely downsides to providing this information by talking to cops: you can get implicated and even convicted of the crime"

Or you can be responsible for the death of a child. With kidnapping and possible sex crimes, it can be a matter of minutes between life and death. And if I have seen something and can pass that information directly to the officer investigating the case, then I will do it, instead of taking hours preparing my legal defenses risking it all.

"It's of course your choice to risk it and speak to the police without a lawyer."

And I did talk to the police without a lawyer in a couple of situations. As a wittness and also as accused (actually a bit like Duane describes, meaning they did not tell me that, asking me only wittness questions, but I knew).

"This is not at all what Duane claims."

No it is not, but this is what his advice implies for me, if it means I should not help finding a missing child without contacting a lawyer first.

I know that people have been wrongfully thrown in jail and worse. But overgeneralisation is never helpful. So yes, if there is time (and money!), a lawyer is helpful, but lawyers can make misstakes too and if it is a matter of life and death and minutes, I take those chances to potentially save someone and I would be surprised, if you wouldn't, if you come into such a situation in reality.

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

#542

Post by notch656c » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #509

notch656c wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even assuming grandma is going to buy it herself, which probably isnt always practical, there's probably some people out there not thrilled about going to jail because grandma put pot in the console of the car or left it on the kitchen table and suddenly they have constructive possession without a card.

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

#543

Post by wkat4242 » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

notch656c wrote: post #534

wkat4242 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's strange especially because marihuana makes people very docile and laid back. Probably not a bad state for someone handing a firearm. On the other hand for someone pumped up on coke it would be a big worry. Though I guess if the US had medical coke cards they would be banned as well :)

Cocaine is schedule II. You can get a script for it. So the thing you say not only exists, but such a person could hypothetically legally own guns unlike the pot user.

WTF...

So Marijuana with a widely accepted medical benefit is considered a more dangerous drug than coke which is much more addictive and makes (some) people total pumped up jerks?

I really can't imagine that, it should be the other way around. This is what I don't understand about the US federal drug policy. Most countries define marijuana as a "soft drug".

I wonder how this came to be.. It sounds a bit like a 'war on hippies' thing from the 70s still lingering around the law books or something.

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

#544

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:33 PM UTC

GTP wrote: post #520

yellowapple wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would apply as it pertains to being "in or affecting commerce"; it'd be quite the stretch to apply that to possession outside the immediate context of a purchase/sale/transfer, though I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause. Maybe taking a gun across state lines while high would qualify?

> 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.

The law in question derives from the federal government's Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, which is (I would guess) why the language fixates on that aspect. The federal government doesn't otherwise have the power to infringe on the Second, Fourth, and (possibly) Tenth Amendments - as would likely be necessary to federally require gun owners to submit to random drug tests over something that one's state has made legal.

Meanwhile, my state (last I checked) has laws on the books separately prohibiting intoxication (be it via cannabis, alcohol, or whatever) while in possession of a firearm; to my knowledge, most (all?) states do.

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

#545

Post by notch656c » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:40 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #544

GTP wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It would apply as it pertains to being "in or affecting commerce"; it'd be quite the stretch to apply that to possession outside the immediate context of a purchase/sale/transfer, though I suppose it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause. Maybe taking a gun across state lines while high would qualify? > Also it would make little sense to have a law saying that you…

Read up on Jeremy Kettler's attempt to avoid interstate commerce and also Wickard v Filburn. You probably know about the latter but not the former.

If growing your own plants with nothing but seed and material from the earth on your property, and then feeding it to your local animals is interstate commerce.... then it's hard to imagine any firearm even if made of iron pulled from the earth underneath you and machined on site and never sold to anyone or hell even fired could be considered to not have interstate nexus.

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

#546

Post by JamesSwift » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:43 PM UTC

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #532

JamesSwift wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, its all part of the game. The failures are real, but the reasons might be BS. In any case, you have to do another poly and now the stakes are higher. Its hard to understand the stress around the process without experiencing it. Passing the poly is a very important step in be able to get/keep your clearance so you can actually work. Otherwise you need a new profession. I miss the work itself but I dont miss the p…

You may remember the Aldredge Ames spy case some years back. Supposedly, his CIA polys revealed some strange results but rather call him on it and investigate it further, they shuffled him off to the FBI, still holding his clearances and accesses where he continued to pass classified information to the russians for several more years. Polys are not the end-all for detecting bad guys but if you choose to ignore it any…

I think thats basically an indictment of the system. They are so unreliable that even the practitioners dont believe what it says as a scientific tool.

I hadn't heard of the Ames poly history but I just looked it up and its interesting because apparently he had the same mindset that I do about polys in general [1], and basically when the poly tech said during the interview that they were getting some weird results, he essentially told them the same thing [2] and they were like "yeah youre right" lol.

  [1] - https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ames.html
  [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2002/04/16/failure-of-the-polygraph/07c406a5-0aa3-4e20-8dcc-89781162aaa8/

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

#547

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:53 PM UTC

notch656c wrote: post #542

yellowapple wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Even assuming grandma is going to buy it herself, which probably isnt always practical, there's probably some people out there not thrilled about going to jail because grandma put pot in the console of the car or left it on the kitchen table and suddenly they have constructive possession without a card.

Right, but that's the thing: possession (even in the actual sense, let alone constructive possession) doesn't mean use. A card declaring (in effect) "I have been prescribed cannabis to use it as medicine" does mean use.

If anything, Grandma being the card-carrying pot user and not you would likely be evidence in your favor - to be presented and argued by a competent defense attorney in court, of course, not by you to some power-tripping cops interrogating you (the only correct response to a cop asking you anything for any reason at any time under any circumstance is for you to invoke your rights to silence and an attorney - and such a "shut the fuck up" strategy has indeed gotten people out of pot-related convictions, at least if these lawyers are to be believed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o).

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

#548

Post by yellowapple » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 6:58 PM UTC

notch656c wrote: post #537

yellowapple wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I recommend you consult a lawyer. Always understand the difference between "the law can be flouted and probably safely gotten away with so long as I don't piss off anyone powerful" and "this is legal."

That's the thing: as written, the law puts everything short of "I was literally high at the time I took possession of the firearm" in the "this is legal" category.

This of course only pertains to federal law; states have their own laws, and said laws usually prohibit being armed while intoxicated - regardless of the legality of the intoxicating substance.

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

#549

Post by notch656c » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 7:06 PM UTC

yellowapple wrote: post #548

notch656c wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend you consult a lawyer. Always understand the difference between "the law can be flouted and probably safely gotten away with so long as I don't piss off anyone powerful" and "this is legal."

That's the thing: as written, the law puts everything short of "I was literally high at the time I took possession of the firearm" in the "this is legal" category. This of course only pertains to federal law; states have their own laws, and said laws usually prohibit being armed while intoxicated - regardless of the legality of the intoxicating substance.

Once again, because I am not a lawyer I cannot give you specific legal advice for your situation.

I strongly, strongly believe you are overconfident in your interpretation, particular when I read the provisions regarding possession which may be a seperate crime from say what was written on the 4473 at the FFL.

But I'm not the one you have to convince. I pray you are never in a position you must do the convincing.

I do not believe I am an authoritative enough of a professional to convince you, even were it that I had time to type a more complete explanation. Again I recommend you consult a lawyer, and preferably one that has worked in this area. My opinion as a rando on HN has no legal bearing on the justice system.

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

#550

Post by JamesSwift » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 7:13 PM UTC

JamesSwift wrote: post #546

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may remember the Aldredge Ames spy case some years back. Supposedly, his CIA polys revealed some strange results but rather call him on it and investigate it further, they shuffled him off to the FBI, still holding his clearances and accesses where he continued to pass classified information to the russians for several more years. Polys are not the end-all for detecting bad guys but if you choose to ignore it any…

I think thats basically an indictment of the system. They are so unreliable that even the practitioners dont believe what it says as a scientific tool. I hadn't heard of the Ames poly history but I just looked it up and its interesting because apparently he had the same mindset that I do about polys in general [1], and basically when the poly tech said during the interview that they were getting some weird results, h…

Actually I just found one of the primary sources on this [1]. Its pretty interesting and not what I said above.

In his original 1986 poly, he popped on one question but basically smooth talked his way out of it so it never was something that required followup (i.e. they were sufficiently convinced he was a good guy). In the 1991 poly it gets more interesting because the entire poly was partially a ruse because he was _already under investigation_. Due to timing, the interviewer didn't get coached to dig in on specifics around financial issues, and so they followed a bog-standard interview which Ames passed. The really interesting quote around this is how the postmortum basically says this was a bad poly because they didnt play enough mind games to get him nervous in the first place:

  In its review of the Ames polygraphs, the CIA IG report quotes several current and former polygraph examiners who stated that the Ames case should not be considered to be a polygraph "chart interpretation" problem. Rather, they say, the fundamental problem is that the 1986 and 1991 polygraph charts were invalid because the examiner in each case failed to establish a proper psychological atmosphere in the examination sessions. A former polygrapher noted that without proper preparation, a subject has no fear of detection and, without fear of detection, the subject will not necessarily demonstrate the proper physiological response. Consequently, they surmise, the Ames polygraph tests were invalid because the process was flawed by examiners who had not establish the proper psychological mind set in Ames because they were overly friendly. As a result, Ames's physiological reactions were unreliable.

[1] - https://irp.fas.org/congress/1994_rpt/ssci_ames.htm