Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 153 posts

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#11

Post by dragonwriter »

jghn wrote: post #3

It'd matter more if polygraphs weren't completely bogus pseudoscience in the first place

I think distinction needs to be made between:

* Polygraph “tests” presented as objective, independent evidence for the truth or falsehood of statements, and

* Polygraph used as an additional channel (similar to but on top of assessment of body language, voice tone, etc.) by an interviewer to determine how to guide an interview to elicit information from a subject, including information that they might prefer to conceal.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#13

Post by jghn »

exasperaited wrote: post #10
jghn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it bother me? Yes. But the real solution is to not have polygraphs at all, not to get upset that a few people didn't get them.

You really mean it's not worth getting upset that employees are put through stupid and sometimes even quite invasive or degrading questioning in a humiliating and fear-driven process that bosses don't?

I'd prefer they just get rid of them altogether. They're stupid.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#14

Post by gishh »

bediger4000 wrote: post #2

the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally diffic…

> Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder.

Not really. I know a litany of people who had TS/SCI clearances in the 90s. It was literally a job requirement for entire divisions of the US govt.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#15

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

bediger4000 wrote: post #2

the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally diffic…

SCI is not above TS. It is a parallel system to restrict information within controlled silos. You can have SCI access with secret only.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#17

Post by CGMthrowaway »

bediger4000 wrote: post #2

the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally diffic…

Is Kash Patel's assistant rich? What does rich have to do with anything, that came out of nowhere. A more likely scenario is that these are political appointees and presumably an elected official wants to be able to get their guy in there no matter what

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#18

Post by bediger4000 »

gishh wrote: post #14
bediger4000 wrote: post #2

the FBI’s employment eligibility guidelines say all employees must obtain a “Top Secret” clearance in order to work at the agency following a background check. The furor here is about Dan Bongino, and Nicole Rucker, Kash Patel's assitant The article goes on to say that FBI employees at the level Bongino and Rucker are working at have "SCI" clearance on top of Top Secret. Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally diffic…

> Back in the 1990s, it was exceptionally difficult to get TS clearance. SCI on top of that must have been even harder. Not really. I know a litany of people who had TS/SCI clearances in the 90s. It was literally a job requirement for entire divisions of the US govt.

Even for the 15 page "short form", required to get a "Secret" clearance, you had to list everywhere you'd lived for the past N years, N >= 10 as I recall and give a non-family person who could testify you lived there. You had to list all the organizations you belonged to.

Some fed contacted every single reference I gave, my old scoutmaster, and the minister of the church I was a janitor for during college. Top Secret was notoriously more difficult in terms of paperwork and scrutiny of your past.

The article about Bongino's waiver made it clear that TS was a requirement for FBI employment, an entire division of the government, although it wasn't clear if that was everyone, or just the higher level administrative staff.

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#19

Post by tialaramex »

jghn wrote: post #13
exasperaited wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really mean it's not worth getting upset that employees are put through stupid and sometimes even quite invasive or degrading questioning in a humiliating and fear-driven process that bosses don't?

I'd prefer they just get rid of them altogether. They're stupid.

Right, when people sow chaos sometimes the random chaos includes a few nuggets that are good. "No more polygraphs" isn't quite "Stop making pennies" but it's also not "We're reintroducing slavery" is it?

Re: FBI Director Waived Polygraph Security Screening for Three Senior Staff

#20

Post by sigmarule »

jghn wrote: post #7
trehalose wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but don't you find it a little curious that these tests are being waived so selectively? If the FBI believes polygraphs serve some purpose, why would it choose to waive them?

Does it bother me? Yes. But the real solution is to not have polygraphs at all, not to get upset that a few people didn't get them.

That solution is to a problem that is not the topic of conversation here.

The problem is selective waiving of vetting processes due to political pressure and affiliation.

Acting as if the efficacy of the vetting process is a point relevant to this conversation either implies you believe they waived this process for these three due to their ineffectiveness - very much not the belief held my most observers, why just 3 then - otherwise it’s a pure strawman argument. Neither option is good.

Post reply on HN