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

531–540 of 568 posts

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

#531

Post by c0nsumer »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #468
c0nsumer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m pretty sure it’s not actually possible to be allergic to epinephrine. After all, it is commonly known as adrenaline. You’d probably die if you were allergic to it.

Yeah, that's what's weird about it. It's very much NOT an allergy, but I don't like how it makes me feel. So, optionally, if it can be avoided I prefer to. But it seems to be listed as an allergy and is stuck in my medical records forever. :\

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

#532

Post by sizzzzlerz »

JamesSwift wrote: post #521
Cyberdog wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they fail the polygraph? Or were they told they failed a sham polygraph in the hopes that they would confess their crimes afterwards? The police do this tactic often; if you are suspected of a crime, never consent to a polygraph not done by a neutral party no matter how not guilty you are, or you will probably "fail." (Polygraphs are pseudoscientific BS in the first place, but I know there are some cases where yo…

Yes, its all part of the game. The failures are real, but the reasons might be BS. In any case, you have to do another poly and now the stakes are higher. Its hard to understand the stress around the process without experiencing it. Passing the poly is a very important step in be able to get/keep your clearance so you can actually work. Otherwise you need a new profession. I miss the work itself but I dont miss the p…

You may remember the Aldredge Ames spy case some years back. Supposedly, his CIA polys revealed some strange results but rather call him on it and investigate it further, they shuffled him off to the FBI, still holding his clearances and accesses where he continued to pass classified information to the russians for several more years.

Polys are not the end-all for detecting bad guys but if you choose to ignore it anyway, it certainly becomes useless.

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

#533

Post by NikolaNovak »

lukan wrote: post #530
the_af wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my other comment, let me add that this follow up video by Duane specifically addresses your scenario: the concerned parents of a missing girl unwisely spoke to the cops, without knowing they were suspects in the case (because the cops regularly suspect this, "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime" as one cop put it). In this case, the cops suspected the father. After they found the body…

And what about this scenario, I described above: "because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X? " Assuming the kid is still alive and was in that van (which you do not know) - but by providing that info to the cops, they could track down the adress of the kidnappers and save that child. I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing i…

This is an interesting debate but one thing to correct, Duane (and many though probably not all other proponents of "don't speak to cops") are NOT saying that cops are bad, or corrupt. This is not a necessary condition for this advice.

One thing that most people don't understand is that cops are 1. regular people 2. with a job; and most people misunderstand what that job is.

In criminal cases like this, a lot of their job is "gather evidence that can be used to prosecute". They will approach it with certain amount of professionalism, jadedness, focus, empathy, skill, awareness etc based on how much of it they started with and how much of it has worn off in this harsh harsh profession. On the other hand, from young age, we are taught their job is "to protect you", which we tend to subconsciously personalize and interpret as "protect me" and therefore "are implicitly on my side".

Two of my close friends are cops, for one I photographed their wedding, and... stories are fascinating and completely not what the naive child in me would expected. My friends are good people trying to do a good job. We are just brought up with a misapprehension as to what that job is.

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

#534

Post by notch656c »

wkat4242 wrote: post #477
int_19h wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's strange especially because marihuana makes people very docile and laid back. Probably not a bad state for someone handing a firearm. On the other hand for someone pumped up on coke it would be a big worry. Though I guess if the US had medical coke cards they would be banned as well :)

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.

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

#535

Post by notch656c »

varispeed wrote: post #517
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…

Even if you are a (legal) medical user?

There's no such thing as a legal pot user, but it does have a nice ring to it while the state tax man is collecting money to make people believe that.

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

#536

Post by notch656c »

wkat4242 wrote: post #519
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…

Thanks, that explains a lot. I still wonder why the law is that way though. As drugs go, marijuana is probably the least worrying when it comes to gun possession. As it makes people docile and relaxed, it will help de-escalate conflicts. As opposed to coke which makes people pumped up or even the fully legal alcohol... It sounds like federal law should catch up to reality. Though as a European I am not in favor of wi…

Cocaine is schedule II. A doc can write a federally valid script for it. So someone could be using it and hypothetically not be breaking the law regarding illegal user with guns.

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

#537

Post by notch656c »

yellowapple wrote: post #508
notch656c wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can not give you legal advice but only tell you my personal understanding for entertainment purposes. And my personal understanding is that the same prohibition applies even for possessing it, not just when you acquire it. My non-lawyer mind it's pretty clear under 18 USC 922. At the end of the day the feds got a warrant to drag me to the hospital and internally search my body for drugs because third party hearsay…

The relevant bit(s) would be "It shall be unlawful for any person [...] who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) [...] to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported…

I recommend you consult a lawyer. Always understand the difference between "the law can be flouted and probably safely gotten away with so long as I don't piss off anyone powerful" and "this is legal."

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

#538

Post by the_af »

lukan wrote: post #530
the_af wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my other comment, let me add that this follow up video by Duane specifically addresses your scenario: the concerned parents of a missing girl unwisely spoke to the cops, without knowing they were suspects in the case (because the cops regularly suspect this, "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime" as one cop put it). In this case, the cops suspected the father. After they found the body…

And what about this scenario, I described above: "because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X? " Assuming the kid is still alive and was in that van (which you do not know) - but by providing that info to the cops, they could track down the adress of the kidnappers and save that child. I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing i…

> 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 know), or find some turn of phrase suspicious, and turn you into the primary suspect. Remember Duane's claim that many cops believe "9 out of 10 times, the caller is the one who committed the crime". This applies here, too.

The downside is pretty big: not only could you be in legal trouble -- even convicted -- but the actual criminal could get away. This is not hypothetical, since Duane mentions cases where this happened! (E.g. the man wrongfully convicted of killing his wife; or the man wrongfully convicted of killing a local shopkeeper after volunteering to help the police find the killer, out of a sense of civic duty).

If at all possible in your country, I would advise you to report this information to a missing children hotline unaffiliated with the police, instead of speaking to the cops without a lawyer.

> But like I said, if the assumption is (like Duane apparently has), that cops are always bad, corrupt and the enemy, well, then this is the problem to deal with.

This is not at all what Duane claims. Respectfully, I must ask you to refresh your memory of the video. I also recommend the follow up video which I linked to, where he explains his motivation (i.e. decreasing the appalling number of wrongful convictions in the US).

> He didn't ended up in jail, right? He was just wrongfully accused and interrogated in a very wrong way adding to his misery. That chance wouldn't stop me from cooperating with the police, if there is a chance to save someone.

We don't know whether he ended in jail or not, Duane doesn't say. We only know he got in real trouble, and this after the cops knew his daughter was dead, so at that point there was no possible way to "save" anyone. He does mention at least two cases where an innocent ended up in jail, one of them for 20+ years, while the assassin of his wife got away. His mistake? He spoke to the police, volunteering information, and without a lawyer present.

It's of course your choice to risk it and speak to the police without a lawyer. In the US, it's a risky, unwise choice -- one cops wouldn't take themselves, for example -- but it's your choice. A choice your attorney would strongly urge you not to take, but that you're entitled to take anyway.

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

#539

Post by the_af »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #533
lukan wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what about this scenario, I described above: "because you happened to see the number plate from a black van speeding off at time X? " Assuming the kid is still alive and was in that van (which you do not know) - but by providing that info to the cops, they could track down the adress of the kidnappers and save that child. I see no downside with providing that information. Only lots of downsides of not providing i…

This is an interesting debate but one thing to correct, Duane (and many though probably not all other proponents of "don't speak to cops") are NOT saying that cops are bad, or corrupt. This is not a necessary condition for this advice. One thing that most people don't understand is that cops are 1. regular people 2. with a job; and most people misunderstand what that job is . In criminal cases like this, a lot of the…

Exactly. I think Duane's point is that police corruption and ill-intent are not at all necessary for a miscarriage of justice to occur. The cops doing their job, using their tricks of the trade, or committing human mistakes, are enough for injustice to happen.

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

#540

Post by aeturnum »

int_19h wrote: post #455
aeturnum wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN