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

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

#451

Post by drdaeman » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:08 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #442

drdaeman wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, if they decide they don't want you to pass - I suspect they'll find their excuse then, no matter what. With power tripping people, I believe, it's typically not about someone's file but if they arbitrarily like you as a person or not.

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

#452

Post by roarcher » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:10 AM UTC

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…

I knew several guys in the military who had never smoked weed. Their recruiters had them lie on their applications and say they had smoked it because they feared nobody would believe them and their honesty would be questioned. This was such a common experience that it was almost a trope: the only people who have to lie about their marijuana history are those who have never used it.

On the other hand, I also never smoked weed and I said so on my application, and nobody ever gave me trouble about it. Maybe I just looked like enough of a square for it to be believable.

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

#453

Post by dns_snek » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:20 AM UTC

lukan wrote: post #432

the_af wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video I linked to, which frequently makes the rounds, is essentially a defense attorney explaining that you should never speak to cops, even if you're innocent, and gives plenty of examples of innocent people that ended up convicted of something just because they thought they were safe (because they didn't do anything). For example, he explains even an innocent person making an innocent mistake while recollecting…

"he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!" I think it is wrong to overgeneralize. What if the cops ask you about a missing kid, where you are innocent and actually might have information to get that kid back alive, because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X?

That's a very unfortunate side effect of a legal system and style of policing that, instead of being carried out reasonably by building trust and respecting rights of citizens, violates rapport and human rights at every step of the way with no repercussions for people in power.

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

#454

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:21 AM UTC

walrus01 wrote: post #414

ActorNightly wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got put in for a poly for one of my older job. Naturally being of a rational mindset, I started googling how to beat a poly. During the poly, few question in, guy asked me if I ever looked up how to beat a poly. I naturally said yes cause I was startled that this in fact could be one of the questions, which automatically ended the interview. Thats when I realized that smart people don't work in the government.

What if you're being recruited for a counterintelligence job for a 3-letter agency and part of the job definition is being intimately familiar with the details of how persons might attempt to beat a polygraph? That's definitely something a person in that specific field would spend a good deal of time studying. I guess this is sort of a chicken/egg problem since you can't or won't get hired for the job if you appear t…

Polygraphs are very unreliable in general, so this was never anything other than security theater.

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

#455

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #344

tejtm wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they are filtering for a ethic that accepts boldface lying to them is necessary to cover essentials. I can not see how this paradigm could end well.

I mean - all ethical systems favor boldfaced lying in some situations? Even Kant's Categorical Imperative simply says that, if you lie, you should do so in a situation where anyone in that situation should lie (i.e. hiding Jews from the Nazis, etc). Even within a Kantian framework, you could argue that in this context (a formal job application) it is moral to lie because no one believes your answer represents your mo…

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

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

#456

Post by int_19h » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:51 AM UTC

lukan wrote: post #432

the_af wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video I linked to, which frequently makes the rounds, is essentially a defense attorney explaining that you should never speak to cops, even if you're innocent, and gives plenty of examples of innocent people that ended up convicted of something just because they thought they were safe (because they didn't do anything). For example, he explains even an innocent person making an innocent mistake while recollecting…

"he recommends that even innocent people never talk to cops!" I think it is wrong to overgeneralize. What if the cops ask you about a missing kid, where you are innocent and actually might have information to get that kid back alive, because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X?

Then you have to ask yourself whether helping with something like that is worth sticking your neck out. But make no mistake that you're doing exactly that.

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

#457

Post by rodgerd » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 1:58 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #396

rodgerd wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I said, in the US, "Peter Thiel is a woman-hating monster and the country would be better if he and every politician on his payroll was swinging from a lamppost Mussolini style" it would be difficult to make any case that I was doing anything not covered by first amendment protections. If I'm a visitor to the country and say the same thing having signed an affirmation that I'm not going to advocate for violent ove…

I don’t think death threats are covered by the first amendment.

Where's the death threat?

That paragraph is not much different from what you'll find from self-described stocastic terrorist LibsofTikTok.

And, you know, I certainly agree that this kind of speech is terrible! But just as the US first amendment has protected, for example, supplying lists of doctors providing women with healthcare, showing crosshairs over them, putting red crosses over ones who have been murdered, and so on, the US has decided over the years that you have to issue very direct threats, or very clear instructions, to be held liable for speech that could incite harm.

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

#458

Post by moistly » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:01 AM UTC

NikolaNovak wrote: post #149

When I moved to Canada, at age 16-17 I initially failed a lot of job applications at places like Staples, Future Shop, Best Buy, Radio Shack, etc. For some reason, many of them had a type of "Corporate Personality Test" on their application, and asked the same "Have you ever considered stealing from your employer?" to which I would cheerfully answer "Yes". Apparently this was an automatic deal-breaker; there was no f…

I think the question is used to weed out those people who do not want the job. It is a synonym for “so you want this job?” What mental fences do you have that prevented you from interpreting the question correctly, or that encourage you to self-sabotage (assuming you needed the job; if you knew you didn’t want the job, the question provides an easy out)? Or not, I dunno you nor what the test designer intended.

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

#459

Post by everly » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:04 AM UTC

JamesSwift wrote: post #183

everly wrote: post #81

"Lady, this case has cost the government thousands of dollars. It has been the top priority in our office for the last six weeks. We traced the glasses to your son from the prescription by examining the files of nearly every optometrist in San Diego." It apparently didn't occur to them that if I were a real Japanese spy, I might have brought the glasses with me from headquarters. First of all, absolutely hilarious -…

What makes you think that type of thing is old school? This kind of brute forcing is still very much in use [1], but usually we are better at having computers do a lot of the filtering these days. [1] - https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/white-sedan-police-found...

As you mention, these days we use computers to filter; lacking those is what made it old school, as I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that they were manually reviewing paper records.

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

#460

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

naniwaduni wrote: post #450

notch656c wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]