Interviewing with the NSA

George Maschke writes "'Interviewing With an Intelligence Agency (or, A Funny thing Happened on the Way to Fort Meade)' is a humorous and entertaining account of one man's recent experience seeking employment with the National Security Agency (NSA). But this story, newly posted to the Federation of American Scientists website, is also one with a serious message. Written under the pseudonym 'Ralph J. Perro,' it includes discussion of the job interview, psychological testing, polygraph, and background investigation. It will be of interest to anyone contemplating employment with a federal intelligence agency."

Comments

Are you sure this is a good idea?

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

Remember, foreign intelligence's wish list never changes:

1. Classified Material
2. Signal intelligence/Radio
3. Infiltration Methodology/Insider

And here's Slashdot, linking directly to a glaring example of #3. I don't know why exactly this guy decided to write up an experience and procedures which they tell you at the door are secret, but I know that the government isn't going to take too kindly to this web site giving Al Queda what is nearly a HOWTO document for infiltrating the NSA. I think we all remember the last time the Secret Service had to delete content from Slashdot. I hope the administrators have the good sense to pull this before the men with the folding uzis visit again.

Re:Are you sure this is a good idea?

[xyzzy]

What are you, high?

This kind of information is practically public knowledge, and they can't reasonably expect it not to leak out. "howto document for infiltrating the NSA", my hairy backside.

Re:Are you sure this is a good idea?

[EinarH]

There is no such thing as "this web site" as "any web site" in this case.
"This web site" is The Federation of American Scientists and they have released information on nuclear policy, WMD's and intelligence since the early fifties. They are in a somewhat uniqe position.

I'm pretty sure that would not release anything unless they thought they could get away with it without problems. And they have alwayse stretched the limit of what's acceptable.

I tried

[slyckshoes]

I interviewed with the NSA for a co-op when I was in college. It went great and I wanted to work for them, but I failed the polygraph. Not once, but twice. That would be fine if I was actually lying, but I told them all the bad things I had EVER done and I still couldn't pass. It said I was lying when I answered that I hadn't been involved in espionage, taken drugs, or committed major crimes. That was my first experience of what a confessional must be like. They called me back and offered to fly me out again to try and pass the polygraph, but I passed. That experience made me lose all confidence in the supposedly all-powerful polygraph test. It's a farce and it's about as effective as reading tea-leaves.

Re:I tried

[TheMidget]

but I told them all the bad things I had EVER done

That's the problem. Questions such as "did you ever steal candy when you were a kid" are so-called control questions, which are intended as a calibration tool for the polygraph. The idea is that everybody hoes done these, but nobody admits, so everybody will lie. Now they know what the subject's biological parameters are when he lies. This is important to have, as each person reacts differently.

Now, if you answer every control question truthfully (whether by admitting that you did indeed steal candy, or if you are one of those rare guys that really never did such a thing...) they have trouble properly calibrating the polygraph. So they might pick up just some general excitedness/exam-stress as a sign of lying, and if they find the same signs of excitedness in the real questions ("Do you work for al Qaeda"), they naturally assume that you are lying on that one as well...

Conclusion: to successfully pass a polygraph, you have to lie to some of the questions, or else they won't know the difference...

Re:I tried

[Garak]

I think the main point of the polygraph test isnt to see if your telling the truth but how you handle such a situation.

The author made many mistakes durning the interviews. The main one that comes to mind was getting in the car and answering questions without checking the persons ID and confirming they are from the NSA.

Little things like that are the real test, how careful you will be with secrets, who you trust, how normal do you look and how you react under pressure and stress.

Re:I tried

[eric76]

When I was an undergraduate, an acquaintance of mine was manager of a convenience store.

One day he mentioned that he was short of workers. I told him I'd like to apply for a job there.

He said to not bother. It turned out that they had changed polygraph examiners about six months earlier and that since then not one person had passed.

That was why they were short on personnel.

Re:I tried

[trixillion]

I had a friend go through the exact same experience when he was in finishing grad school. One of the smartest and most honest people I know. He failed the lie detector twice on the same set of questions. They just simply couldn't believe that he had never ever experimented with drugs.

Re:I tried

[dillon_rinker]

they have trouble properly calibrating the polygraph
Bingo.

So they might pick up just some general excitedness/exam-stress as a sign of lying,
BZZZT! Thanks for playing.

This is the NSA, not the Goober County Sheriff's office. If they can't calibrate, they realize they can't evaluate. The candidate is thus an unknown quantity. They look at the long line of applicants, most of whom are known quantities, and decide this one's not worth the trouble.

Re:I tried

[eric76]

It was for a part time job while I was working on my BS.

Well, I didn't actually say "part time", but I figured that should have been intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

I also dispute your "employment of no consequence" remark. I've known many people who worked at minor jobs while pursuring their education. In general, I thought more of them than those who never needed such jobs.

For what it's worth, as an undergraduate, I worked as a waiter, bus driver, mechanic, and gas station attendant during school and did farm/ranch work during the summers.

I take it you didn't do anything as an undergraduate?

Re:This is a repost that needs to be said....

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps. But the NSA polygraphs are frightening.

I honestly dont think i would be too freaked out about some putz from a police station interviewing me, but when you are in a room with an NSA police officer who specializes in counter-intelligence and has been giving them for 15 years, it all feels really freaking scary.

I knew that i had nothing to worry about, and that polygraphs are inaccurate, but when taking an NSA polygraph, you have to remember you are dealing with the best, and people who activly train people evasion techniques. You cant help but feel a little scared, even though you are innocent of anything. Dont knock it till you've tried it :)

I applied, was offered a crypto position, and got sufficently annoyed/concerned after the polygraphs had dragged on for a few months, that i withdrew my application.

Working for the NSA sounds cool, until you get there and you feel a little too trapped.

security

[Anonymous Coward]

A somewhat interesting read, although no huge surprises for me, as I've done work at secured governement testing centers before (hense, posting anonymously).

The extensive psychological testing of NSA would-be employees is a Good Idea. Remember that the major security leaks from the Mannhattan Project were government scientists who decided that it was their duty to humanity to hand nuclear secrets over to the communists. (We now know exactly who the commie spies were thanks to the declassification of old Soviet Union documents... None of the people McCarthy accused were on the list, but multiple scientists from Los Alamos were.)

Friend of mine intereviewed with the CIA

[strictnein]

They had contacted him, which was interesting, for I believe a "Field Op" position... but anyways, he didn't tell me much about it, but one of the questions they asked him, when hooked up to the lie detector was:

"Have you ever inserted your finger into your asshole for pleasure?"

The guy was straight faced and did not even show the slightest sign of thinking this question was odd or funny.

A couple other things he mentioned where much much interesting than that... but I don't know, after hearing it I haven't ever mentioned it to anyone (not even my wife)

The Questions on the test (from the article)

[mr100percent]

The Handwritten Questionnaire

The handwritten questionnaire asks for a lot of information already supplied on the security forms, such as:
Name, age, education, marital status, children (if any), etc.
The more interesting questions were (as best I can recall):
- Describe the relationship to your mother
- Describe the relationship to your father
- Describe your parent's relationship to each other

- Have you ever had psychological counseling? (when/how long, etc.)
- Have any relatives ever had psychological counseling?
- Have you ever attempted suicide?
- Have you ever had a substance abuse problem?
- Do you drink? If so, how many drinks per week? per day?
- When was the first time you drank alcohol?
- Have you ever had interpersonal issues at work? (e.g., work relationships)
- Have you ever had disciplinary issues at school/military?
- Have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor/felony?
- Have you ever been questioned by the police/authorities? (N.B., this would appear to be the catch-all, in case
someone wasn't convicted)
- Do you have any relatives that were in trouble with police/authorities?
- Have you ever taken something that was not yours? (This may have been worded as something slightly different.
but this was the intent)
- Have you ever committed computer abuse? (N.B.: whether deliberate or not, I recall the term 'abuse' being left
unspecified, ostensibly leaving the door open for all sorts of self-reporting ranging from checking personal email at
work, to having used Napster/Morpheus etc., to writing viruses, hacking websites and stealing credit cards
numbers.)
- Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?
- Have you ever clucked like a chicken? If so, did you scratch backward or frontward?
- Describe your relationships to chickens.

The last page had about 20 sentences for the applicant to complete. Some that I remember were...
- Men should ____
- Women should ____
- I get angry when/because ____
- Chickens should ___

Given the theme, I would hazard a guess that the other sentences were ones that touched on potentially strong
emotional reactions like "I most regret," "If I only could", "I won't" and things like that.

The Computerized Test

As close as I can remember, these were some of the actual questions on the test. (true/false)
- I would like the job of a forest ranger
- I hear voices in my head
- I read the crime reports in the newspaper
- I have a mortal fear of earthquakes
- I have neck/hand pain
- I usually know what's going on (with my circle of friends)
- People are out to get me
- I would like the job of a librarian/florist (I can't remember which one it was, and it might have been both)
- I often feel that I can't get out of bed
- If someone has their possessions stolen from their unlocked car they had it coming.
- I like/enjoy children
"Animal-relationship"-type questions (e.g., "I enjoy animals", "I don't enjoy animals", "I like hurting animals", "It
bothers me when I hear about animals getting hurt" etc.)
- I am totally insane and like to stand on tables and cluck like a chicken

A few previous questions might not have actually been on the exam or the handwritten portion, but you get the
point. The questions went on and on.

a side story...

[knitting fool]

A friend of mine from India was recently trying to decide between two jobs, one with the US Government and one in the private sector. He was leaning toward the government job, because he enjoyed the work more, until he talked to a collegue who had just joined the NSA. She told us how the agency required her to report all of her international friends, and keep tabs on their meetings. She had to get special permission to travel abroad. He decided, on the spot, to take the job at the private company.

Re:Just wondering ...

[netsharc]

I don't think the pseudonym would cover his anonimity either, on the 3rd page, he tells how he missed his connection flight, took another one (that went to a different destination airport) and had to pay $60 for a taxi, that he'd ask the agency to refund. So, the HR folks can just look up which recent interviewee requested a $60 transportation refund and they'll know his name and everything else there is to know about him..

What it takes to join the NSA

[mitchell_pgh]

The article said: "After the process was over, I was talking to one of my references - a veteran Silicon Valley software executive, and former manager of mine. My reference commented on what transpired "That's disappointing. If they can't hire you, I have no idea who they can hire. That process seems to be designed to retain only the most bland." This is VERY TRUE A quasi-good friend of mine is in the NSA. He doesn't drink (maybe 8 beers in his life) has never been drunk, no drugs, lived with parents for 3 years after college, parents do well financially (not rich, not poor), father was a state trooper (parents never divorced), only one sister (small, tight knit family), had never left the United States (except to Canada... once), commuted to college (lived at home), received good grades 3.8+, graduated in the top 3% of his high school class, religious, comes from a small town, well rounded (played sports, basketball coach for teens... I'm also sure he had an amazing credit history and glowing reviews from previous employers. Why would the NSA want to hire qualified people that may be a security risk when they can simply hire people 2-3 years out of college from the middle of nowhere and train them the way that they want them to be trained. What's more risky, someone that is 100% loyal and quasi-qualified or someone that is 100% qualified, but potentially a security risk. They also may have been stringing this guy along to see if he was an agent for another country. (PS, I sure hope they wouldn't hire someone that has the potential to post a 13 page auto-biography and post it on the net!)

Re:Most relevant question

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh - naww, there are people at the NSA who read slashdot for work, to see what's going on.

I currently have a position there, so I know.

I found that to be a fairly accurate description of how interviewing works. Sometimes, they'll take you to a perspective office, switch on a police-style light, and then yell "uncleared! uncleared!" as you walk to the office you are going to interview with.

I kid you not.

We do loose a lot of applicants to the clearance process; I've heard hiring managers say that they loose 1 out of every two offers they make. In addition, the people who do come through often have multiple offers, so that's another pain for hiring managers. I know someone who couldn't pass the polygraph who would have been a great asset here. He got several attempts at it, though.

I am suprised they didn't call him back for another polygraph, though. Usually, they give you several strikes; the clearance process isn't cheap, and they want as many as possible to make it. Perhaps it had something to do with other factors.

The DoD investigators are contracted out, so maybe he got a bad interviewer in that Cadelliac. I don't remember a vague question being asked and then being told "you're being defensive" when I asked for clarification.

Re:And for a security clearance ...

[devphil]

When one of my friends and I were both getting our clearances, we joked ahead of time about the final step, the one-on-one interview with a Very Serious Agent[tm]. He suggested:

"One of my fondest childhood memories was laying in a crib, and a man with a heavy Russian accent leaning over me and saying, 'Excellent, Boris, now his mind will be putty in our hands.'"

or

Agent: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any organization whose stated goal is the violent overthrow of the United States government?" [*]
Hapless Geek: "Uh, not sure, lemme check with the {Boy Scouts, IEEE, marching band director} on that one."

Both of us had the same experience: we each kinda had it in the back of our heads right up until the agent asked some very heavy question which let you know that it was not a game at all, and then the joke went right out the window. I at least told the agent some of the jokes after the interview was over. :-)

[*] Actual question, just like the 60's spy movies. No kidding. Word for word. It was not a forgettable moment, let me assure you.

Psychological test

[bytesmythe]

The test he's talking about in the article is called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) II. It consists of 567 true/false questions (the original had 566). As you might suspect, it takes a while to answer them all.

The test is very thorough. The scoring process includes statistical analyses to determine how much you're lying and whether you're trying to "fake good" or "fake bad". There are also a large number of scales that report how likely you are to be an alcoholic, have some kind of schizotypal personality disorder or depression, levels of anxious/antisocial/obsessive behavior, etc., etc.

I have to agree

[Anonymous Coward]

with what this person has said. I too went for an interview with one of our intelligence agencies and the process he describes is spot on.

I went through the 10+ page background information packet and even had to ask my dad for his naturalized citizen number! I couldn't explain why other than to say, "I need it for a form I'm filling out."

I drove down to the interview location and was told in my pre-interview packet to avoid urinating in the morning before I came down as there would be a urinalysis test. Let me tell you, it's darn near impossible not to take a piss in the morning even if you don't have anything to drink later than 8 pm the previous night.

I did stop on the way down because I knew I wouldn't make it but drank a load of water to hopefully help compensate. (not like I had any worry about what they might find mind you).

The tests on the first day were urinalysis, blood test, sight test, hearing test and after lunch the big one, polygraph. We got to watch a short video about how a polygraph works and what to expect and then one-by-one we were taken to a room for our exam.

The first of my two polygraphs was given by a woma who was polite but professional. We went over the questions she was going to ask so there was no confusion as to whether I understood them or not. In some cases where clarification was needed I wrote down why I was going to say what I eventually said. In my case a relative was working for the federal government and I did have a relative who was not a native-born or naturalized citizen.

While most people are anxious when taking a polygraph I can tell you I was completely bored and almost fell asleep a few times during the questioning. I had to fight to stay awake and resorted to looking at different spots on the wall in front of me.

The two funniest parts of the whole situation were these: initially when she asked me baselining questions she told me I had given excellent responses. Exactly what she needed. Then, after the round of questions was over she walked in front of me and told me, "You're lying. These are the worst readings I've ever seen from anyone."

I had to really fight not to smirk, smile or laugh and finally ended up saying I don't know what she's reading but I answered everything truthfully. She said she'd let me alone for a while to "think over what I had said" and walked out of the room. What did I do? I closed my eyes and rested myself.

When she came back in the second funny thing happened. As she standing there with a cup of coffee in her hand she proceeds to tell me I'm lying again, all the while she's yawning her head off. Again I had to force back a smile and repeated that I was truthful in my answers.

She gave a second round of questions (I was able to stay awake more easily) and was once again told I was giving bad readings. Thus endeth my first day.

The second day was composed of my second polygraph, a booklet of questions (Do you care what happens to yourself?) and finally the meeting with the psych doc.

My second polygraph was with a man who was slightly more pleasant to deal with who, when asking me how things went the previous day, was told, "Apparently I gave the worse readings the previous examiner had ever seen".

We went through the same process of reading over the questions beforehand and then answering. At one point late in the process he asked, "What are you doing?"

I was puzzled and asked what he meant and once again was told I was giving bad readings. I certainly wasn't nervous though I was very relaxed. He came over and adjusted the blood pressure sleeve on my arm (I have small upper arms) and back we went with the questioning.

The only real difference between the second exam and the first was that in the second exam I could see the two-way mirror to my right at about the 1 o'clock position (so obviously was being watched) whereas on the first day it was behind me.

At the end of the second exam the examiner st

blackmail

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be fine if I was actually lying, but I told them all the bad things I had EVER done and I still couldn't pass.

Maybe they didn't want you BECAUSE you have nothing to hide. Nothing to hide means they can't blackmail you. If they can't blackmail you, how can they really trust you?

Re:Just wondering ...

[Dr Reducto]

It's probably not classified officially. A lot of stuff is merely classified through obscurity. i got a lot of books from my dad in the military about certain topics that were unclassified, but said in the liner of the book (Roughly Summarized): Not for distribution to non-military. Basically, it's not classified, but they kinda treat it as such.

Speaking of lie detection

[Gudlyf]

A few years ago I picked up The Truth Machine, by James Halperin. It's definitely a geek's book. Just imagine the government awarding a "prize" grant to whomever can develop a 100% accurate "truth machine" -- detect lies with complete accuracy. Then imagine someone was able to do that (and no, it has nothing to do with what was in The Minority Report ).

The "Analysys" section of that NSA interview document is definitely interesting, sort-of playing on the "AH HA! Made you look!" way of getting info out of people. Has anyone had similar experiences with lie detectors (that they're willing to admit)?

Well...

[DaneelGiskard]

...seeing his tendency to reveal confidential material, I can understand why they rejected him ;-P

Seriously, a great read. I had to laugh out loud many times :)

Mine wasn't quite so funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking from experience, it really is something. My application to the NSA occured when I was significantly younger than this gentleman (senior year of high school), so I didn't get asked questions like "do you engage in wife swapping." But I did have to go through the background check, the interviews, the polygraph (which I failed on the first attempt, for reasons still unclear, but passed on the second. I've heard of people taking up to 7 tries to pass (and still getting the job)).

My story ends in being told, just before graduating, that I was in consideration for the position, and likely to get it ... only to find out later in the summer that the number of slots available shrank and I was out.

Yes, what fun.

Re:Meanwhile

[RevMike]

The NSA doesn't really care that you tried pot 6 years ago as long as you're not trying to hide that fact. Someone that wants that fact hidden is a prime candidate for getting started down that slippery slope. It would probably start with something harmless, "Tell me what time so-and-so gets to work or I'll tell your entire church you smoked dope." If you're a neurotic person that needs to hide your past actions and pretend you were always the law-abiding, church goer that you are now then that may be perceived as a real threat that you'd go for.

My wife has been interviewed multiple times by the feds as some of her friends applied for jobs in the Justice Department. The above comment is exactly right. "Experimentation" with recreational drugs, and lots of other "bad acts" are not automatic disqualifications. Deceit is a definite disqualification.

We have one friend who was convicted of a felony count of child abuse and still got a job working in the field for the FBI. She had been either shot or stabbed (I can't recall) by a minor during a robbery. The (brilliant) judge sentenced the minor to counseling and she was required to go to one of these counseling sessions and describe to the perp how she felt being attacked. The kid laughed in her face, at which point she took off her shoe, lept accross the table, and started beating him with the shoe. This resulted in here being convicted of child abuse. The FBI agent doing the interview actually laughed at the circumstances.

Government Jobs and Security Clearances

[rickerbr]

A long time ago as I graduated from college I had exactly 2 job offers, one from Mitsubishi and one from the US DOD. Now being 6'6" and the Mitsubishi job was 50% travel to Japan, I feared that I was a gaijin as they come and that I wouldn't survive as business class hotel occupant, I took the DOD job. So I began the waiting for all the clearance paperwork and process to start and clear. At least at this time you could begin working on unclass stuff while waiting for the background investigation and all the other stuff. I never had to do a polygraph, but I did have the security interview. I was 23 at the time and had grown up in a pretty conservative, Christian midwestern household (e.g. church on Sunday, I was an Eagle Scout, no trouble with the law except a speeding ticket etc.). To the government spooks this screamed plant - They asked me repeatedly if I had used drugs (nope), Are you sure? You can tell us it's ok?, Have you ever had an extramartial affair? (I was single at the time) Do you have deviant sexual habits etc etc. Answering those questions truthfully just increased their skepticism. Eventually it was over and I went back to working on my unclassified work (which tended to be keeping myself busy with make work and crossword puzzles). They were also very concerned that I had gone to E & W Germany, Austria and Czechoslakia on a high school german club trip. Three months later they granted my clearence. The work was completely unintersting (and they couldn't tell me much about the job during the interview since it was all classified). Within a year I had found a better job in the private sector and never looked back. I believe part of the reason the job was classified was so they could hide the costs in a budget. The total cost to the US taxpayer was approx $75k for my salary and background check costs. The applicant is better off getting denied a clearance.

Re:This is a repost that needs to be said....

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything was going fine for me during the interview process at the NSA in the summer of 2001. I was hoping to get a position there, do some graduate studies (as part of the educational plan they offer), and then move onto Wall Street or continue at the NSA.

Thinking I had secured a position in either of a couple departments that I interviewed with, I spent the summer mountain biking rather than frantically searching for a job. I was confident that my background check would clear as I've never been in any legal trouble or anything of that nature.

I repeatedly "failed" the polygraph, the examiner claiming that I had committed some felony after the age of 18, that I had abused/sold/bought illegal drugs, and some other completely ridiculous claim. It was also probably a mistake to be conscious of my breathing, but it is difficult not to be since they strapped on the abdomen apparatus pretty tightly.

Perhaps it was all just a psychological exam, but apparently I didn't pass anyway (three times). I called them twice a week until they told me late October that they couldn't keep the positions open any longer and that my clearance was not finished. The Sept. 11 attacks probably did not help my situation either.

Now I've found myself at a large IT company in another country making less money than the average Wal-Mart cashier. For anyone applying for a job there, don't expect their process to be quick and make sure you have a current job that you can fall back on. Hope this bit of knowledge helps others.

Reminds me of a story

[sirgoran]

My father once told me about a crew member he flew with in the U.S Air Force.
Note: My father was a Navigator on some of the "Looking Glass" flights during Vietnam.

Seems the man was up for promotion and needed to go through a background security check to get his grade increase. After filling out the stack of forms and giving the addresses of every relative, he sat back and waited for final approval and clearence.

After three months of no word, and finding that his C.O. was told to ground him until further notice, he felt he needed to call around to his relatives to find out what the problems were and to find out what, if anything was said.

Being from a very small town in the back hills country of the Ozarks, it took a little while to locate the troubles and find out what went wrong. The man finally got in touch with his own father and asked if Air Force Security had sent someone out to interview them. His father replied, "Yep. Them revenuers been sniffin 'round here askin all sorts of questions 'bout you. But don't worry none. We didn't tell them nothin!"

It took about an hour to straighten out his father and after asking his C.O. to re-submit the paperwork, he got his promotion in about a month.

-Goran

Re:This is a repost that needs to be said....

[chihowa]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like you're saying the best way to pas a lie detector test is to tell the truth!

Actually, I see what you're saying, but that was my first impression. Ironically, that's pretty true. If you can lie in the fashion as you tell the truth without getting bothered about it, it will be impossible to tell the difference. If you're scared, it's almost impossible not to give yourself away. You don't need a machine to tell if a scared person is lying, but as a parent up there said, the machine itself provides a good source of fear.

Re:i feel sorry for this guy

[vidarh]

You're making the assumption that he wrote under a pseudonym to prevent the NSA from finding out who he is. Frankly, if that is the reason he is a complete idiot, as it would be extremely hard to write something like this without giving himself away to someone with inside info.

For what you know he might have cleared this with the NSA in advance.

What's a more likely reason for the pseudonym is that he made very clear choices as to which information he think is acceptable to post, and that he don't want to enter into any discussion, or don't want people to try to trick him into revealing anything he shouldn't be revealing.

Writing under a pseudonym makes this a one way communication that is very restricted in scope. Apart from which specific tests they are using, the write up reveal very little that could be useful for anyone. And even that information would have little relevance, as someone intending to trick their way into an intelligence agency would presumably expect psychological profiling and be briefed on, or read up on, the most common tactics to handling them.

He also makes some assumptions on the interpretation, but fact is he don't KNOW the profile they are looking for, and hence can't reveal it - he doesn't even reveal his own profile so we don't even have a single data point of someone who was rejected.

He assumes they want someone that don't exhibit significant tendencies in any way on the test, but that's not necessarily correct. They obviously want someone "safe", but without knowing the details of the position it's hard to say anything more. They might be looking for a risk taker, and someone with moral inclinations that wouldn't give them a problem in massively invading peoples privacy (which is certainly a big part of NSA's work, at least outside the US). Hence being "bland" might be just as wrong as being a paranoid schizophrenic.

Frankly, while the paper was a good read, it didn't tell me anything that you couldn't likely find out or guess by looking at publicly available information and some social engineering to find people who might have been through the process and be willing to talk about it. If they felt they had a great need to keep any of this secret they'd been much more careful about it.

Re:"Ralph J. Perro" is a complete puss

[vidarh]

I find it amusing that several people seem to take this as a massive criticism of the hiring process. While there were certainly a few snide remarks towards the NSA, he did want to work there before going through the process, and most of the complains circled around the polygraph, but some gripes are to be expected from someone who took a personal risk and didn't get the job. Most of all it was a description about how the process works and what to expect that was fairly neutral.

If I'd ever applied for a job like that, and I ended up with the "dentist chair" reaction to the polygraph, I would've screwed up exactly the same way as him - if I'm trying to stay still and calm my breathing subconsciously slows A LOT, and 20 seconds between each breath would certainly not be unusual (I tend to suddenly notice because I get out of breath)

I'd certainly be unhappy if I thought that was a reason for a rejected clearance - if I'd been prepared in advance I would have concentrated hard on breathing regularly, as I wouldn't see any point in trying to lie or evade questions (if I did go for an interview with the NSA, I'd expect them to figure out any lies by secondary means, and would assume that I should focus on ensuring that no dirty little secrets show up during interviews or other background checks without me having already disclosed it to them directly, so lying would be counterproductive), but I know it would be unlikely to be my natural reaction.

But apart from a few gripes relating to their personell policy, I didn't see any condemnation of the NSA, or of what they do - on the contrary.

YANSAIS (Yet Another NSA Interview Story)

[krenn]

When I was a senior in college in the early '80s (yes Im a fossil, get over it :-)) I interviewiewed with the NSA. It sounds like things haven't changed much. You first interviewed at the college (WPI in my case) and then they'd bring you down to Maryland for 2 days at some later point if someone found you interesting. You arrived at BWI and were picked up with a bunch of other college seniors by a gent in a van who was pretty clearly ex military (not a lot of folks with wicked short haircuts and that classic bodybuilder look in the early '80s). Everyone was taken to a hotel in Columbia Maryland. The first day was almost totally tests, the MMI (Michigan Multiphasic Indicator, the paper ancestor to the 500 question computer test), the same stupid questions about parents, and the interview with a psycholgist. Then some interviews at sites where people who were interested you interviewed you. This was almost the same as my interviews at Wang, DEC, Data General etc. but for one little difference. To get to the interviewers desk we had to go through an area where people were working on stuff that required clearance. The guy found a another person in the hall and had them stay with me. Then he went in and you could hear him saying, "Uncleared person coming through". He then came out and got me, as we walked through it cold be seen that most of the desks were clear of papers and the VT-100 clone terminals on a couple of the desks were powered off. Leaving 20 minutes later was a similar process. The second day was at FANNEX in Baltimore this had the dreaded polygraph. It was sureal to say the least. In the application you had to state what experiences you had had with illegal drugs. Unlike a recent president I had inhaled, and had listed my assorted miscreant behavior on the forms (actually needing a seperate sheet). This got me throuroughly questioned on the polygraph. Last thing was having finger prints done as part of the security clearance. I had worked a couple summers in delis and had (and have) a rather distinctinve scar on my left index finger from a cut cleaning a slicer. The young woman (20's?) in a naval uniform that took the prints looked at my left hand prints and said jokingly, "Don't commit any crimes or if you do don't do it left handed, they'll pick you up in a flash...". That was the only bit of humor (besides interacting with fellow interviewees) in the whole trip. Reading the paper it doesn't sound like they've changed much even the polygraph chair sounded familiar. The whole experience left me wanting to sing the chorus of "Alice's Restaurant" on the way out (and see if I couldn't coax it out of some of the others). Never did get an offer, but I can't say I'm disappointed now some 20 years later.

NSA application process in the 1970s

[Anonymous Coward]

I went through this process back in 1971. Back then, it was more mysterious and scary, but surprisingly similar. The polygraph exam and the interview with the shrink sound very similar. The preliminaries were held in the same place, FANX, the complex near the Baltimore airport where NSA has their less critical activities. Even the 0730 start time hasn't changed.

There have been some changes since the 1970s. My instructions said that I would be "picked up by a military vehicle" at the hotel, and an olive-drab bus showed up promptly on schedule. None of my paperwork said NSA on it; my expense check came from a fake furniture company. Those were the No Such Agency days, when NSA denied they even existed.

Unlike this guy, I was invited to visit NSA headquarters at Fort Meade. This was intimidating. Triple fences all around the facility, the middle one electrified. The guards were U.S. Marines. Lots of them. Some searching people going in and out, some standing at attention along halls, some at corridor intersections. Combination locks on doors. Picture badges with the picture anodized into aluminum. Badge-exchange checkpoints (identity check, turn in outside badge, get inside badge).

As it turned out, I got a low draft lottery number and was drafted into the Army, so I didn't end up working there.

NSA's real problem today is that it was build to deal with the Cold War. The USSR was a very slow-moving threat, but secretive, and vast efforts were needed just to find out basic stuff, like how many aircraft they had and whether they really had a titanium submarine. Much NSA and CIA effort was devoted to finding out capabilities. Today, the intelligence community faces quite different problems, like a sudden need for information about specific people in Afghanistan or Bosnia. NSA has had major problems with the transition.

Looking at actual polygraph data

[soullessbastard]

I never really knew about how a polygraph worked until I went to work for a company that does physiology equipment and software for research and education. On our website is a video of polygraph data (caution, 5 MB, windows media 9 format, 4 minutes). We don't make actual lie detectors...just educational stuff to illustrate the basic principles of their operation.

The video shows the kinds of body signals that are used in a polygraph that an examiner would look at to tell if someone's lying:

• GSR - Galvanic skin response. Basically it measures changes in the resistance of the skin...it can tell if you're sweating. If you get tense, you sweat.
• Respiration - Shows the expansion and contraction of the chest cavity (e.g. it expands when you breathe in, contracts when you breathe out...a flatline indicates you're holding your breath). Most people breathe in a regular rhythm. Changes from this rhythm may be an indication of tension or another change in breathing activity.
• Heart rate - Extracted from the electrocardiogram. A faster heart rate indicates tension or excitement.

The text at the top of the video indicates what the person is doing when the red triangle appears above the data. They're a little blurred in the video, so I typed them below.

They start out with a list of tasks from simple to complex, illustrating how these three types of signals respond for things like talking and moderately difficult tasks (they wouldn't be used an an actual polygraph calibration). The 'questioning' period is at the end of the video and shows how these signals are used in a polygraph style situation.

The sequence of tasks at the top are

1. Say your name
2. Count backwards from 18 (speaking)
3. Count backwards from 38 by decreasing odd numbers
4. Touch face
5. Concentration on colored squares (e.g. no speaking, just looking at pieces of paper)
6. white
7. black
8. red
9. blue
10. green
11. yellow
12. orange
13. brown
14. purple
15. Answering "yes" or "no" questions
16. Are you a student?
17. Are your eyes blue?
18. Do you have brothers?
19. Did you last earn an A?
20. Do you drive a motorcycle?
21. Are you less then 25?
22. Have you traveled to another planet?
23. Have aliens visited you?
24. Do you watch seinfeld?
25. Have you answered truthfully?

Can you tell if this subject lied on any of the questions? As you can see, a polygraph is definitely not a machine that can kick out a definitive "he's lying". The key to tricking a polygraph is learning how to control your mental state and bodily functions so that you just always reproduce the nice no-stress style signals (kind of like how athletes can pace their breathing to control heart rate).

Disclaimer: This comment is personal and not any kind of statement by my employer. I just think this stuff is interesting and wanted to share...and I'm definitely no pschyophysiology expert and not a polygraph examiner :-)

The problem with this kind of testing...

[dtjohnson]

...is that it tends to select the same types of individuals and screen out the 'outliers' on the curve. Government work is no different than any other type of work in that it takes all types of personalities and people to get results. Would Abraham Lincoln have been able to pass the screening? What about Douglas MacArthur? Thomas Jefferson? Teddy Roosevelt? Bill Gates? Bill Clinton? In all of these cases, the answer is 'probably not.' Instead, the process tends to select rather bland and reasonable personalities who are attracted to the idea being a small part of a powerful whole. While these types of people can be helpful to any organization, they are not, by themselves, sufficient to accomplish great things. Hence, we end up with government agencies that are hopelessly outclassed in their collective thinking by foreign elements who are antagonistic to our national goals and eventually, we have to pay in our national blood to recover the situation. This pschological/background/profile screening stuff for employees of sensitive government agencies mostly began around the time of World War II and it has not been a good thing IMO.

Things are probably not so black-and-white

[Anonymous Coward]

I've probably seen too many movies but...

Given that certain "extreme" positions do exist within the walls of the NSA (e.g. assassins, spies, field ops, etc), I think it follows that there must be some form of "interview" process for these potential candidates as well. In fact, I suspect that any applicant for pretty much any NSA position probably undergoes this weeding process whether they are aware of it or not. These types of agencies probably always have their eyes open for candidates meeting certain (to use a phrase from Grosse Point Blank) "morally ambiguous" criteria.

For example, I thought it was interesting that the rejected candidate in the above article told the hotel rep that, "Yes, I'm an NSA candidate" when he was already aware that certain aspects of this process should remain a secret. If I were applying for an NSA position, I would assume that everything that happens after the time I start to apply for the job would be a possible test of some kind. That initial disclosure of sensitive information to a (seemingly) innocent question quite possibly closed the door to any sort of "secret agent" possibilities.

Furthermore, I think there was a lot going on during the interview process of which the candidate was not aware. I'm sure that most of what he described (personality tests, psychological evaluations, etc) are standard and can be taken at face value. However, it seems very likely that at least one of the people he came in contact with was someone trained in some form of psychological manipulation or social engineering who was probing for "could he kill a foreign leader?" information.

Also consider the letter he received stating he should arrive at 7:30AM but that his interview wouldn't start until around 12:30PM. Then he was told when he arrived that, yes, he is very early. Is that simply a clerical mistake or perhaps another test of some sort?

Being initially rejected for a position could also possibly be a test. Do you say "ok, fine, it's over" or do you do something creative? (Like pull a Costanza and just show up for work?) (Now I'm giving evidence that I've watched too much TV in addition to the movies.)

Anyway, I think it would be quite something to have an understanding of the candidate selection for spies...but the only people privy to such knowledge are those who have successfully made it through the process....and they're not telling anyone about it unless they follow it up with a cap in the ass.

Been there, done that

[freeweed]

I interviewed for a co-op position up here in Canada with the feds that required a pretty high security clearance level. Think Canada's NSA.

15 page background info to fill out, security interview, polygraph, the whole works. The interview was really, really bizarre. They basically want to know every bad/weird thing you've ever done, so you're pretty much baring your soul to these people.

What amused me the most, though, was when he asked if I had ever looked at pornography (who hasn't). And if I still do (who doesn't).

Well! You'd think I just admitted to killing Kennedy. What followed was probably 10 minutes solid of questions relating to it: What kind do you like (and he broke down into specific categories, some of which *I've* never even heard of, and I click on random Slashdot links all the time :), how often do you look, how much money do you spend on it, what do you do when looking at it (duh :), do you watch with other people, do your friends/s.o. know of your fetishes, etc, etc, etc.

I walked out of that room after 3 hours feeling like I had just run a marathon. To be honest, the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth, and I ended up taking another job in the private sector. But it bugs me - the feds basically have every little thing about me on file. Would suck if our government decided to be less than ethical, now wouldn't it?

Looking back on it, it was an interesting experience, and while I have nothing to hide (the "worst" thing I've ever done is summed up in my nick) it's still unsettling. I now understand a lot better why privacy as a value in and of itself is a GOOD thing.

I kinda regret going through the process now, but *shrug*.

Re:This is a repost that needs to be said....

[c64cryptoboy]

Over the duration of a few years, around the time of the Wen Ho Lee witch hunt at LANL, the "purchase circle" at Amazon.com for Los Alamos (National Laboratory) had A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector as one of their top 10 sold books. Clearly, the employees wanted to protect themselves.

Its obvious why they rejected the guy

[felix9x]

If you were a government agency and someone applied for a job with you who was making three times as much as you could pay him in the private sector would not be suspicious of their intentions? This guy obviously was only trying to get in to satisfy his curiousity. He wanted to wonder the halls of Fort Meade and get a pick at the secrets within. This is exactly the type of people they dont want I would think.