Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: hspd12jpl.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to hspd12jpl.org.

Comments · 14

  1. How you can help by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative · on JPL Scientists Take NASA To the Supreme Court

    As a named plaintiff in this lawsuit, I'm awfully happy to see the widespread support here on Slashdot. I'd like to be able to keep driving Mars rovers around without having to sign a form that says NASA can interrogate my priest, my doctor, my lawyer, my accountant, and my ISP to make sure I'm sufficiently uninteresting.

    If you'd like to help, please consider donating to keep our amazing legal team afloat. The privacy you save could be your own. Thank you!

  2. Suitability Matrix by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Informative · on JPL Scientists Take NASA To the Supreme Court

    By the way, here's a copy of the suitability matrix.

  3. Re:[citation needed] -- Wrong file linked? by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Informative · on JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court

    I believe he was trying to link to this file, provided courtesy of this post.

  4. Re:I'm not clear on what their case is... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 3, Informative · on JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court

    This[PDF Warning] is the "suitability matrix", their criteria. Notice that "sodomy" is a Class C (D being the worst) offense. Weren't the nations archaic sodomy laws struck down by the supreme court in 2003?

  5. Re:I'm not clear on what their case is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting · on JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court

    These employees had gone through a background check (NAC) when they were first hired. They have no access to classified information, nor do they have access to locations where classified projects may be developed. The requirement extends to the cafeteria workers and the groundskeepers. The plaintiffs are employees of Caltech and are not civil servants.

    The investigations (and re-investigations every 5 years) would require the employees do "voluntarily" sign a waiver (http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf85.pdf) that would authorize any investigator to "obtain any information" from a long list of enumerated and "other" sources, and would authorize any custodians of such information to release it on request, "regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary".

    The investigators then send questionnaires (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf) to neighbors, former employers, and references asking, in an open-ended manner, for any derogatory information.

    After the investigators are done, a NASA official "adjudicates" the applicant based on criteria that include "carnal knowledge", "attitude", "sodomy", and, sometimes, "adultery" and "cohabitation". The criteria had been posted on a NASA website, (http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf ), now replaced with an empty page. The plaintiffs have posted a copy at (http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf , see page 65 of the pdf). In their latest court filing (http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf) the Solicitor General denies that NASA uses this.

    A lot more on this is at the plaintiff's website, http://hspd12jpl.org/.

  6. Re:I'm not clear on what their case is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting · on JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court

    These employees had gone through a background check (NAC) when they were first hired. They have no access to classified information, nor do they have access to locations where classified projects may be developed. The requirement extends to the cafeteria workers and the groundskeepers. The plaintiffs are employees of Caltech and are not civil servants.

    The investigations (and re-investigations every 5 years) would require the employees do "voluntarily" sign a waiver (http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf85.pdf) that would authorize any investigator to "obtain any information" from a long list of enumerated and "other" sources, and would authorize any custodians of such information to release it on request, "regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary".

    The investigators then send questionnaires (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf) to neighbors, former employers, and references asking, in an open-ended manner, for any derogatory information.

    After the investigators are done, a NASA official "adjudicates" the applicant based on criteria that include "carnal knowledge", "attitude", "sodomy", and, sometimes, "adultery" and "cohabitation". The criteria had been posted on a NASA website, (http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf ), now replaced with an empty page. The plaintiffs have posted a copy at (http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf , see page 65 of the pdf). In their latest court filing (http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf) the Solicitor General denies that NASA uses this.

    A lot more on this is at the plaintiff's website, http://hspd12jpl.org/.

  7. Considerably more information by jfengel · · Score: 4, Informative · on JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court

    A much better article:

    http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html

    If you'd like to read their claim in detail:

    http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS_Nelson_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf

  8. not anymore, things changed post-9/11 (HSPD 12) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Woman With Police-Monitoring Blog Arrested

    So what if the precise name for what a lot of who-really-cares TLAs require post-9/11 is an SF-85 ("Position of Public Trust") instead of an SF-86 (security clearance) -- the investigations they do are the same (as Secret). There's an inverted value system somewhere if "badge carrying officers of the law" are subject to less tracking of their personal lives than are the I/T guys who program or manage the systems that track vacationers from Europe, etc.

    http://hspd12jpl.org/ has detail on just one example where who-really-cares TLAs (OK, four-letter agency in that case) are doing exactly this kind of digging in employee's personal lives.

  9. Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again. by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Informative · on 9th Circuit Says Feds' Security Checks At JPL Go Too Far

    The real crap was that JPL was going to "resign" employees who did not submit to or pass the new background checks, attempting to circumvent California law with regard to unemployment etc. There was never any question that would be struck down.

    Can someone please tell me what things like that damn suitability matrix have to do with suitability to work? Such as sexual orientation, traffic tickets, bad checks, eviction, incest, and bestiality have to do with ability to Science?

    http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Suitability_Matrix.pdf

    What will likely happen is JPL will be forced to follow the law ith regards to termination, and NASA will enact reasonable guidelines to keep our nation safe (most of the research at JPL isn't even that secret. It's not like we built WMDs or bioweapons. We build science satellites and probes.) that do not go above and beyond the President's directive.

    Disclaimer: I was an intern at JPL when this shit started to hit the fan two summers ago.

  10. Re:Don't sign it by RKBA · · Score: 1 · on NASA Requires JPL Scientists To Give Up Right To Privacy

    "Then take the case to court- because you got fired without just cause."
    Please see: http://hspd12jpl.org/lawsuit.html
  11. Re:Levers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check
    The suit was filed by 28 JPL employees against NASA, none of whom hold sensitive positions. Yet, they are still required to fill out a "questionnaire for non-sensitive positions" (SF85) that includes drug usage, draft registration numbers, etc., and sign a release that gives "any investigator" of "any federal agency" the right to obtain any information they want for an investigation that is "not limited."

    See http://hspd12jpl.org/

    The questionnaire that kicks of their background investigation is here: http://hspd12jpl.org/files/sf85.pdf

  12. Re:Levers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check
    The suit was filed by 28 JPL employees against NASA, none of whom hold sensitive positions. Yet, they are still required to fill out a "questionnaire for non-sensitive positions" (SF85) that includes drug usage, draft registration numbers, etc., and sign a release that gives "any investigator" of "any federal agency" the right to obtain any information they want for an investigation that is "not limited."

    See http://hspd12jpl.org/

    The questionnaire that kicks of their background investigation is here: http://hspd12jpl.org/files/sf85.pdf

  13. For additional information... by oringo · · Score: 4, Informative · on NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check

    http://www.hspd12jpl.org/press.html

  14. JPL Rebadging Controversy by dnoble · · Score: 2, Interesting · on Spirit Outlasts Viking 2 Lander

    Kudos to everyone who has worked so hard to keep the rovers roving.

    I just want to draw attention to the submitter's link:

            http://www.hspd12jpl.org/

    There's a situation brewing where JPL employees (who are employed by Caltech, not the federal government) will be fired if they do not submit to unprecedented invasions of their privacy. Some other relevant links:

            http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/08/hspd12_c oncerns.html
            http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/nasa_jpl _hspd12.html
            http://www.editthis.info/jpl_rebadging/Main_Page