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

561–568 of 568 posts

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

#561

Post by int_19h »

aeturnum wrote: post #540
int_19h wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Part of life is learning when you'll be rewarded for following the rules v.s. breaking them. Employers will sometimes ask their employees to break the law. Will you break it for them? They want you "on their side" - meaning they want you to takes risks for them. So what you are describing as a problem with the form looks like a feature to me.

The expectation on this varies very widely across cultures, and sometimes even between classes or other social strata within a culture.

And then if someone is on the spectrum, and they already know that they have trouble reading those wink-wink-nudge-nudge clues properly, they might stick with the rules as written simply because that's something objective that they can be sure they're interpreting correctly.

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

#562

Post by int_19h »

wkat4242 wrote: post #543
notch656c wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's much older than that. There was that one guy who was the founding commissioner of the US Federal Bureau of Narcotics back in 1930s, and he was obsessed with the dangers of weed in particular:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

As to why, the guy had many purported horror stories to tell about weed - collecting such was his hobby. Often, although not always, they boiled down to overt or covert racism. Some choice examples:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others.”

“I think the traffic has increased in marihuana, and unfortunately particularly among the young people. We have been running into a lot of traffic among these jazz musicians, and I am not speaking about the good musicians, but the jazz type.”

“Colored students at the Univ. of Minn, partying with female students (white) smoking and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy.”

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

#563

Post by aeturnum »

int_19h wrote: post #561
aeturnum wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of life is learning when you'll be rewarded for following the rules v.s. breaking them. Employers will sometimes ask their employees to break the law. Will you break it for them? They want you "on their side" - meaning they want you to takes risks for them. So what you are describing as a problem with the form looks like a feature to me.

The expectation on this varies very widely across cultures, and sometimes even between classes or other social strata within a culture. And then if someone is on the spectrum, and they already know that they have trouble reading those wink-wink-nudge-nudge clues properly, they might stick with the rules as written simply because that's something objective that they can be sure they're interpreting correctly.

For sure! I don't mean it's universal at all - I'm saying the question is setup to catch people who are nor primed with the right enculturation. It's not good! It just is a good filter that selects for the sorts of people the business wants to hire.

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

#564

Post by BrandoElFollito »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #405
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No s**t, my g*d these Americans are really ***** (who would have thought it is so difficult to beep out words in HN, I had to escape each *)

Reminds me of the time I said the fuck word kinda loudly in public in Provo, Utah. Had people looking at me like I'd just grown a second head. That's kinda why I always say "the fuck word" instead of "the eff word". I've had too many interactions where somebody felt comfortable correcting my word choice for me to be polite about it. ("Fuckin' heck!" is pretty fun too; people just don't know how to respond.)

I am French and we are quite liberal with our swear words. This is interesting because the ones that are used in everyday conversation, due to the intonation, are not rude. Not poetry, but not vulgarity either.

For instance the word "merde" ("shit"). When you say "ET. MERDE." clearly breaking the words apart and emphasizing them - everyone will think "something definitely bad happened" but nobody would be offended. This is only one of the zillion examples.

Now, there is a very, very fine line between being "appropriately, cleverly vulgar" and "vulgar". You do not want to be the latter.

You can say a whole daisy chain and still be fine: "oh putain de merde, quel enfoiré de Word, ma thèse sur Paul Sartre a disparu" ("fucking shitty bastard of Word, my PhD thesis about Paul Sartre has just vanished").

When I go to the US, I always forget to switch on the puritanian-s**t-filter and people look at me really sternly. I even had one older lady coming to my table where I was seated with my teenager boys when she somehow head the word "merde" (as in "et. merde." when I broke something) to tell me that the children should not hear such words.

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

#565

Post by GTP »

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…

So in the end using drugs while possesing a firearm makes it worse, it's just that those aren't federal laws but still apply.

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

#566

Post by anthomtb »

untech wrote: post #560
anthomtb wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The chances of someone being a foreign agent increases significantly if they are from a foreign country. Meaning if you have foreign friends there is a small but non-zero chance that they desire, for their home country, the sensitive information you are being trusted to protect.

You are not going to lose or be rejected for a clearance because you have a few foreign friends. It is just another one of those things you have to report to the government (meaning the government issuing the clearance).

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

#567

Post by no-s »

dragonwriter wrote: post #500
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, any illegal use or addiction to a wide array of drugs makes it a crime for you to own, possess, buy, sell, transport, etc., a firearm, and separately a crime for anyone to knowingly sell or transfer one to you. Marijuana is included, and because it is a Federal Schedule I narcotic, all use is, by definition, illegal use, even state-permitted medical use (and even though there is a federal policy against direct en…

> The quasi-legality of state-permitted and federally-prohibited-without-direct-enforcement is kind of an awful trap

Perhaps a trap that rises to the level of (HHOS) conspiracy to commit a crime: TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

disclaimer: The answers I give on form 4473 are absolutely truthful.

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

#568

Post by WirelessGigabit »

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…

The scan of your license does not leave the computer of the dispensary.

That is until they get ransomwared.

In that case I need to report that my identity has been stolen.

Post reply on HN