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

551–560 of 568 posts

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

#551

Post by notch656c »

yellowapple wrote: post #547
notch656c wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When I had my wisdom teeth removed I received a legal prescription for opiates and had the prescription filled and took possession of them. Thankfully I was able to tough it out with just NSAIDS and never took them.

Was I an opiate user? If I just keep the script but never fill it am I more an opiate user than the guy on the street with a little baggy of white powder? People seek out and obtain scripts for stuff they never use, all the time.

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

#552

Post by yellowapple »

notch656c wrote: post #545
yellowapple wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those are what I was alluding to when I said "it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause" :)

Both those cases entailed the defendants manufacturing something, which would be where the Feds would claim jurisdiction via their jurisdiction over interstate commerce. It's harder to make that argument w.r.t. something after a retail sale has already concluded (i.e. after the interstate commerce has happened). I wouldn't doubt the Feds would try to assert that literally everything that ever happens is or pertains to "interstate commerce", but that'd be sufficiently broad as to invalidate all sorts of other judicial precedents if actually held up in court.

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

#553

Post by notch656c »

yellowapple wrote: post #552
notch656c wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Those are what I was alluding to when I said "it wouldn't be the first time the Feds abused the ever-loving hell out of the Commerce Clause" :) Both those cases entailed the defendants manufacturing something, which would be where the Feds would claim jurisdiction via their jurisdiction over interstate commerce. It's harder to make that argument w.r.t. something after a retail sale has already concluded (i.e. after t…

Wait until you read the gun free school zone act, which seemingly makes it interstate commerce merely to be on a public property proximal but not on school property, no matter you have no intent to interact with the school or the school property in any way.

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

#554

Post by the_af »

lukan wrote: post #541
the_af wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wil…

> Or you can be responsible for the death of a child

This is unrelated to whether you speak to the police. In fact, you can be indirectly responsible of a death because you speak to the police, making them narrow down their investigations on you ("9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who did it"), wasting time and letting the criminal go unimpeded for enough time to kill someone. Duane provides examples of this, which for some reason you insist on disregarding.

If you want to help, I'd say call a non-police missing children hotline instead, if those exist in your country.

> 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.

You're risking spending 20 years in jail or even death row, then (not hyperbole: watch Duane's video). You don't need to spend hours preparing anything, just call a lawyer.

> And I did talk to the police without a lawyer in a couple of situations.

By your own admission, you don't live in the US. While I'd really hesitate to involve the police even in my country (where they are truly corrupt and dangerous), Duane's advice is specific to the US. It doesn't necessarily translate to other countries.

> But overgeneralisation is never helpful.

In this case, it seems that it's the truth rather than "overgeneralization" (Duane mocks these warnings "not to generalize" in his video, to great effect! "But what if I'm about to fall from a cliff and the only person who can help is a cop, should I talk to them?"). This lawyer speaks from experience and is an expert on the Fifth Amendment; you are not. Cops agree with him and follow his advice. He has plenty of evidence to back his advice.

Ignore him at your own peril. You're free to do so, but it's unwise.

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

#555

Post by chiefgeek »

euroderf wrote: post #487
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.

Yes, it is about blackmail. At the start of the 80s, smoking weed or being gay was OK with DISCO (Defense Industrial Security Clearance Organization) as long as you came clean about it and (for example) did not try to hide your sexual orientation from your friends & family. Because therein would lie the opportunity for blackmail. This attitude of tolerance eroded later in the 80s. During the Reagan regime, they (DoD?…

Interesting. This was mid 90's.

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

#556

Post by simonebrunozzi »

> On another occasion much later, I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. But that is another story.

Wait, I want to hear THIS! (not interested in the security clearance, and not even a US person for that matter; just super curious!)

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

#557

Post by yellowapple »

notch656c wrote: post #551
yellowapple wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When I had my wisdom teeth removed I received a legal prescription for opiates and had the prescription filled and took possession of them. Thankfully I was able to tough it out with just NSAIDS and never took them. Was I an opiate user? If I just keep the script but never fill it am I more an opiate user than the guy on the street with a little baggy of white powder? People seek out and obtain scripts for stuff they…

> Was I an opiate user?

Given that they were prescribed to you, "yes" would be a reasonable assumption, barring you able to provide evidence introducing reasonable doubt (e.g. "I still have every pill I was ever prescribed").

In any case, "was" is the key word. You were given a prescription for a finite number of doses, whereas usually a medical marijuana card is more indefinite.

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

#558

Post by Aeolun »

KMag wrote: post #524
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?

The US is safer if you don't bring home classified information. You don't have control over what the president does. It's in your rational self-interest to not bring home classified information. Your perception of fairness has nothing to do with it, and if you can't get over that, you shouldn't be handling classified information. Also, guarding the houses of a few high officials is much easier than guarding the house…

Yeah, that’s not for me. My tolerance for that kind of BS is way too low. It’d no doubt take less than a week before I started to follow the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter.

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

#559

Post by sizzzzlerz »

JamesSwift wrote: post #550
JamesSwift wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interesting because I thought the exam had to follow a script, to the letter. I would have believed that "setting a proper psychological atmosphere" would have showed up at step #1 or #2. Apparently not.

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

#560

Post by untech »

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…

What is wrong with friends from foreign countries?
Post reply on HN