Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
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.
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.
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.)
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)
Casual Games/Downloads
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 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.
-- Give us your technology and we'll give you all the cow lips you want.
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!)
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.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
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
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.
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)?
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
...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
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.
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.
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
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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.
...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.
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.
:), 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.
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
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*.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.