NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check
Electron Barrage writes "Longtime JPL scientists, many of whom do not work on classified materials, including rover drivers and Apollo veterans, sued NASA, Caltech, and the Department of Commerce today to fight highly invasive background checks, which include financial information, any and all retail business transactions, and even sexual orientation."
http://www.hspd12jpl.org/press.html
If you peruse my website and/or posting history you'll see that I'm against almost everything the government does. That said . . .
I held a TS with SBI once upon a time. The main reason for background checks, as I understand it, is to ferret out any levers that could be used against you by hostile agent. Too much debt? We'll get you out of trouble if you give us info. Cheating on your wife? With a man?! It would be a shame if we had to call her. Think of your kids.
It's not that they're morally judging you, its that they're making sure that you're not unduly susceptible to influence.
It's not fair, but it's not about fairness.
-Peter
It seems that NASA is implementing PIV-II. Those smart cards mentioned in TFA look like those mentioned in the FIPS-201 standard.
Basically, everyone getting a PIV card has to pass a background check. However, it seems that asking those scientists and engineers about all that data mentioned in TFA is a bit excessive. The standard has an informational appendix (appendix C) that specifies what sort of checks should be done. It even specifies two levels of checks for different security levels. Looks like someone got a little bit too anal when deciding what checks to do. The checks mentioned in FIPS-201 seem reasonable, though. Can anyone that knows about background checks explain what they are exactly?
The cards themselves seem pretty good. It is pretty clear that the designers of FIPS-201 cards do not trust the wireless interface, making all biometric/sensitive information available only on the wired interface, unlike those e-passports every government is promoting. Pretty interesting reading material.
GPG 0x1B479C78
I might add that any contractor at any NASA center is subject to this equivalent of a personal cavity check. We recieve no official clearance for turning over our secrets, only the "privilege" of working for a company that contracts to NASA. (Or subcontracts, for that matter)
Contractors are being screened first, actually. Civil Servants have already had a background check, so to resolve the glut of overdue checks, the government is hiring one of Bush's friend's companies to do all the screening. And once they do their screening - unlike any background check in the private sector - the information is available to any government agency complying with HSPD-12.
Which, I believe, despite Griffin's protestations, is only NASA at this point.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. I work at Ames.
We are entitled to freedom of speech. We are entitled to privacy. We are entitled to freedom of movement. We are entitled to enjoy the fruits of our labor. We are entitled to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, or something like that. Rights come from power, not weakness or acquiescing to authority. Nobody will give us any rights unless we are willing to take them. The rights you enjoy came from force. Not necessarily the force of arms, but they can be acquired through the force of unity. We are losing our rights due to our own divisions, nothing more. Too many of us are giving them up to false pretenses and promises. So if a company does not want to support the community, then the community has no reason to support the company. We can unite to put that company out of business. If they want our patronage, then they must provide something in return. It's a two way street. No violence required, but history has shown who usually draws first blood. It is generally well understood who steals the land and a person's livelihood. So, yes we are ENTITLED to something from them...if we are to allow them to maintain possession of stolen property. Otherwise we have every right to run them off.
What?