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

441–450 of 568 posts

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

#441

Post by intelVISA »

c0nsumer wrote: post #71
saalweachter wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spent thirty years telling doctors I'm allergic to amoxicillin; I'm not sure if I am, but that's how my parents started every doctor visit when I was small so I carry on the tradition. I think I might have thrown up after taking it as a small child, but I have no recollection myself.

I have something similar with epinephrine. Every visit I'm asked "allergy to epinephrine?" and I have to, again, clarify "no, but I'm sensitive to it, and it makes me really jittery, so I prefer to not have it unless there's no choice". It makes me feel like I've had way too much caffeine and is just generally unpleasant. Those conversations don't seem tomatter much, because when getting common small procedures done…

That's kinda what epinephrine does..

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

#442

Post by int_19h »

drdaeman wrote: post #424
walrus01 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, you can answer this too truthfully and just screw yourself up for no reason. Example: I know Afghan former translators/employees for ISAF projects who have been arrested by Pakistani "authorities", local police in various cities just for the purpose of shaking them down for bribes/money. I can guarantee you that no record of any such arrest exists in paper or electronic form anywhere in a database…

I don't think any consular officer would hold it against someone if they truthfully tell "yes, I've been arrested", even if the documentation doesn't confirm it. During an interview they would most likely ask about the circumstances (whenever they know no record of it exists or not), and telling them "I was arrested for [cite the reason if there was any or say "an unexplained reason"], they openly told me they wanted…

I've seen immigration officers go on power trips before, and it ain't pretty. That much discretion with little if any opportunity for the potential victims to retaliate goes to some people's heads. And then they just need an excuse.

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

#443

Post by yamazakiwi »

NavinF wrote: post #399
alasdair_ wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*Flavor Aid They didn't actually use Kool-aid in the Jonestown massacre, people just think they did.

"drinking the Flavor Aid" doesn't sound nearly as good. It sounds like a knockoff

I personally think Flavor Aid rolls right off the tongue and into the garbage.

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

#444

Post by [deleted] »

cm2187 wrote: post #176
threatofrain wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there are many who do use “considered” to mean that a thought crossed their mind. Surely this does not shock you. The problem is not the interpretation of a word. The problem is how the ocean of other people answered this question. There comes a point when being honest is completely stupid, and when most people use the word honesty they don’t mean to cross into the completely stupid territory. That being said I’d…

Perhaps filtering out stupid people is the goal of the question. No one is completely honest. Courtesy is the art of lying.

[deleted]

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

#445

Post by JenrHywy »

washywashy wrote: post #131

The illegals drugs question never made sense to me. It’s asking you to admit to something that won’t necessarily show up on a criminal background check if you haven’t ever been caught. Assuming you have been caught or are still using, other preemployment screens will catch that. So why not ask other questions like: “Have you ever murdered someone?” “Have you ever stolen?”

a) they want to know if you lie b) they dig far deeper than criminal background checks. They'll interview your friends and family and if all the stories don't align, you fail

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

#446

Post by kccqzy »

ant6n wrote: post #17
Daub wrote: post #13

This quote... > When I handed the form in to the security officer, he scanned it quickly, looked me over slowly, then said, ``Explain this''--pointing at the FBI question. I described what had happened. He got very agitated, picked up my form, tore it in pieces, and threw it in the waste basket. Reminds me of this scene from Starship Trooper... https://youtu.be/Le-uDcNlJO4?t=118

This sort of thing happened a lot with East Germans in the 90s etc. After unification, we of course all became Western Germans, with the right to travel to the US on the visa waiver program. You just had to fill out the I-90 form (and pay 6$ when crossing a land border). It’s a relatively small form, but it does ask whether you’re criminal, used to be a nazi, terrorist… or member of a communist party. Well, most East…

It's also commonly faced by Chinese immigrants to the U.S.

I believe (I could be wrong) certain organizations in China basically only hire members of the communist party, so some people became a member of CCP due to their employment.

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

#447

Post by int_19h »

notch656c wrote: post #283
dilznoofus wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yeah. It's like gun laws that prohibit having a joint whilst commit armed robbery or whatever - it's not actually trying to stop the behavior, merely empower the prosecutor after the fact. But, hey, there might be a true believer on the T-side! God says you're not supposed to lie, so it's a real Catch-22 - 'Render unto Caesar the evidence he deserves.'

It's my understanding that same law about the joint still applies just for having an otherwise lawful firearm in the safe doing nothing. Disclaimer: not legal advice, for entertainment value only.

You're correct. In fact, there doesn't need to be a joint at all - you become a prohibited person by virtue of being "an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". Note that, since this is a federal law, it doesn't matter if it's legal on state level.

There's already precedent that having a state medical marijuana card already makes one ineligible, and using as an ID when trying to purchase a firearm is grounds for automatic denial by the seller. Hawaii, which requires all firearms to be registered, went even further, proactively cross-referencing their gun registry with the medical marijuana one (https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/surrender-your-guns-pol...).

It's not really surprising that the law is so broad, given that it was written in 1968 when anti-drug craze was still ramping up. The reason why it doesn't get amended is, I think, because it manages to touch two third rails at once: Republicans don't want to be perceived as "soft on drugs" by their base, while Democrats are afraid of being seeing as not sufficiently aggressive wrt "gun violence". And so, here we are.

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

#448

Post by nl »

notch656c wrote: post #422
bena wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you see what he's saying. If you want top secret documents, you don't start by asking for top secret documents. You start by asking them to violate a relatively innocuous rule. Changing a date by one day on a file so it's no longer late or something like that. Doesn't matter what it is. The point is that it's not worth being exposed over. And the rule you're breaking would technically be worthy of getti…

If someone can be blackmailed to do ever progressively worse things over something minor, why couldn't you do the same thing and possibly even faster with something major?

There's no "one size fits all" answer here.

If someone has done something really bad (maybe murdered someone) then yes, directly blackmailing them to do something major might work.

But in general the things we are talking about are mostly things were someone lied on their clearance form and if they decided to they could get that cleared up and cause the foreign agent significant problems by reporting an approach.

So instead they escalate. They don't directly blackmail you - you just happen to meet a woman at a bar who happens to have pictures of you smoking weed at a party 5 years ago. So you are joking around about what a great party that was, and it just happens to turn out that this woman works at a defense contractor and they are waiting on this stupid proposal to be released so they can bid on it, and you don't happen to know when it will be released do you?

So you go look it up. It's not classified, maybe it's commercial-in-confidence at worst. But then this woman needs to know how long she should rent her apartment in town for, so exactly how big is the project? How many units are they ordering?

That's still not classified, but is need-to-know. But she's hot, so you tell her.

And now they have you. You might not actually realize yet you are being blackmailed, but as soon as they ask for classified info you realize she can ruin you.

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

#449

Post by naniwaduni »

notch656c wrote: post #422
bena wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you see what he's saying. If you want top secret documents, you don't start by asking for top secret documents. You start by asking them to violate a relatively innocuous rule. Changing a date by one day on a file so it's no longer late or something like that. Doesn't matter what it is. The point is that it's not worth being exposed over. And the rule you're breaking would technically be worthy of getti…

If someone can be blackmailed to do ever progressively worse things over something minor, why couldn't you do the same thing and possibly even faster with something major?

Because dealing with experienced blackmailers is not something that most humans have good intuition and fully rational responses for.

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

#450

Post by naniwaduni »

notch656c wrote: post #435
woah wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm no expert on spycraft or anything like that, but this sounds overly reductionist. If they can threaten you to lose your career, then maybe doing one tiny little other thing that won't matter seems like it might be worth it. Now they can blackmail you further.…

> somebody who actually has a guilty conscience. If working for a murderous government that sends drones to bomb kids overseas, invade vietnam and iraq, imprisons innocuous non-violent offenders for decades, funds nun-raping militias in central america, etc doesn't give one a guilty conscious I honestly have no idea what would. It's got to make you feel far more guilty than whether you put on a form you grew a bad pl…

> etc doesn't give one a guilty conscious I honestly have no idea what would.

Most people care a fuck of a lot more about things that are close to them than things that are far, far away.

If you're wondering in good faith and not just trying to score stupid political points, all I can say is, uh, strongly recommend you Log Off.

Post reply on HN