Slashdot Mirror
NASA Requires JPL Scientists To Give Up Right To Privacy
Markmarkmark writes "Wired is reporting that all NASA JPL scientists must 'voluntarily' (or be fired) sign a document giving the government the right to investigate their personal lives and history 'without limit'. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists this includes snooping into sexual orientation, mental & physical health as well as credit history and 'personality conflict'. 28 senior NASA scientists and engineers, including Mars Rover team members, refused to sign by the deadline and are now subject to being fired despite a decade or more of exemplary service. None of them even work on anything classified or defense related. They are suing the government and documenting their fight for their jobs and right to personal privacy."
These guys are scientists, not super secret spies. Besides, a clean slate is no guarantee a rocket scientist isn't going to go psycho after getting dumped and stalk his ex. Also sets a horrible precedent for other top-tier science fields.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I've been to JPL a couple times when I worked on some Mars Odyssey related stuff, and security is kind of tight for the whole facility. One of the software engineers in our lab is a Pakistani citizen and he wasn't even allowed to come to a party we had there once.
To my knowledge, there's little classified work that goes on there, but I'm sure there's sensitive stuff... it's literally rocket science. These background checks sound a little too intrusive for a bunch of science geeks, though.
How long would it take the average person to realize that the scientists had all walked out, though?
It's not like Tang would disappear, or their car's GPS system would suddenly turn off. It's just that things wouldn't advance. Progress would grind to a halt, but it's not like the immediate "oh shit" effect you get, when the garbagemen don't show up on Monday morning.
Probably the first thing most people would know is when they get told to start learning Mandarin, because their company just got bought.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
(insert standard diatribe about clueless slashdot editors and even-more-clueless slashdot readers/commentors)
1. JPL is not the government
2. the scientists this would have applied to are the subset of JPL employees who do not work with classified material
3. many of this subset of JPL employees specifically elected years ago not to work with classified material because they didn't want to go through the clearance processes
4. all the way back in October the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit blocked (URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601372.html/) this directive thereby obsolescing the portion of submitter's summary claim that these scientists were in danger of being fired at any moment for not having signed the permission slips by the due date.
I work IT for a for profit research laboratory. We hire Lab Technicians with a BS at about $45,000 a year. When we hire PhD's it is for significantly more (although we haven't hired a new PhD since I started there, so I don't know what the going rate is for our post doc's). So those post doc's making less than $32,000 a year are either working at the wrong place or in the wrong field.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
NASA doesn't have a choice. HSPD12 (which is causing this) is a Presidential Directive (hence the "PD" in HSPD12). All Executive Branch agencies are required to comply.
Now, whether HSPD12 itself is f'ing stupid is a whole other ball of wax.
Oh, now it's open season on the Constitution, is it? Not when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Not when Wilson nationalized industries, jailed protestors, and created an income tax. Not when Roosevelt put citizens in concentration camps, set up price controls, and nationalized some more industries. Not when the Senate held hearings of suspected Communists in show business. No, now that 1300 people let police conduct 10-second bag checks, now the Constitution is going down in flames.
Get some perspective.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" . The Southern States breaking away from the Union and firing on a Federal Fort sounds like "rebellion" to me.
and created an income tax"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"
You won't get any argument out of me that the original intent behind the Constitution has been/is being subverted. My favorite example is the interstate commerce clause becoming a blank check for Congress to do whatever they want (like controlling what I can put into my own body as a consenting adult). But using the income tax and Lincoln as your examples doesn't seem very justifiable.
Most of the examples I can think of (the Controlled Substances Act and the use of highway funding to blackmail state legislatures being the two that come to mind) are recent inventions.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Even HSPD12 isn't that ridiculous. It states that it must be implemented consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, which if you read section (b), is completely incompatible with the NASA process being described.
IANAL, but it sounds like there weren't any smart lawyers behind this idea anyway.
Decide for yourself what this is all about. The intent of the process becomes clearer when you read the form in question.
http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/SF85.pdf
INSTRUCTIONS
--------
Purpose of this Form
The U.S. Government conducts background investigations to establish
that applicants or incumbents either employed by the Government or
working for the Government under contract, are suitable for the job.
Information from this form is used primarily as the basis for this
investigation. Complete this form only after a conditional offer of
employment has been made.
Giving us the information we ask for is voluntary. However, we may
not be able to complete your investigation, or complete it in a timely
manner, if you dont give us each item of information we request. This
may affect your placement or employment prospects.
Authority to Request this Information
The U.S. Government is authorized to ask for this information under
Executive Order 10577, sections 3301 and 3302 of title 5, U.S. Code;
and parts 5, 731, and 736 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.
Your Social Security Number is needed to keep records accurate,
because other people may have the same name and birth date. Executive
Order 9397 also asks Federal agencies to use this number to help
identify individuals in agency records.
The Investigative Process
Background investigations are conducted using your responses on this
form and on your Declaration for Federal Employment (OF 306) to
develop information to show whether you are reliable, trustworthy, and
of good conduct and character. Your current employer must be
contacted as part of the investigation, even if you have previously
indicated on applications or other forms that you do not want this.
Instructions for Completing this Form
1. Follow the instructions given to you by the person who gave you the
form and any other clarifying instructions furnished by that person to
assist you in completion of the form. Find out how many copies of the
form you are to turn in. You must sign and date, in black ink, the
original and each copy you submit.
2. Type or legibly print your answers in black ink (if your form is not
legible, it will not be accepted). You may also be asked to submit your
form in an approved electronic format.
3. All questions on this form must be answered. If no response is
necessary or applicable, indicate this on the form (for example, enter
"None" or "N/A"). If you find that you cannot report an exact date,
approximate or estimate the date to the best of your ability and indicate
this by marking "APPROX." or "EST."
4. Any changes that you make to this form after you sign it must be
initialed and dated by you. Under certain limited circumstances,
agencies may modify the form consistent with your intent.
5. You must use the State codes (abbreviations) listed on the back of
this page when you fill out this form. Do not abbreviate the names of
cities or foreign countries.
6. The 5-digit postal ZIP codes are needed to speed the processing of
your investigation. The office that provided the form will assist you in
completing the ZIP codes.
7. All telephone numbers must include area codes.
8. All dates provided on this form must be in Month/Day/Year or
Month/Year format. Use numbers (1-12) to indicate months. For
example, June 10, 1978, should be shown as 6/10/78.
9. Whenever "City (Country)" is shown in an address block, also
provide in that block the name of the country when the address is
outside the United States.
10. If you need additional space to list your residences or
employments/self-employments/unemployment or education, you
should use a continuation sheet, SF 86A. If additional space is needed
to answer other items, use a blank piece of paper. Each blank piece of
paper you use must contain your name and Social Secu
Granted, but what's your point? The Constitution provides for an amendment process and makes it pretty damn hard (75% of the States need to approve) to do so. If an amendment survives this process and is approved by the required number of states then whatever changes it makes have the same weight as the original text of the document. For better or worse this was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Unfortunately, while the 18th was finally repealed after disastrous consequences, the 16th hasn't been repealed yet in spite of all its negative effects.The biggest negative effect I see to the income tax is that it has given the Federal Government "the power of the purse" over the States. I don't have any qualms with the concept of an income tax. I do take issue when Congress decides to blackmail (err, "convince") the states to do what it wants (raising the drinking age to 21) by threatening to withhold funding.
I don't see an easy solution to this either. The Libertarian in me is tempted to say that the Federal Government has no business funding ANYTHING for the states (be it education, highways, etc). If this were the case then the Federal Government would lose the ability to blackmail the states and the (Federal) income tax would go down. Personally I'd rather pay higher State taxes then Federal because my Assemblywoman is a hell of a lot more responsive to me then my Congressman or Senator. That said, I don't think a blanket ban is justifiable, because I can see legitimate scenarios where a small number of states may require the assistance of the union as a whole. Disaster relief is an obvious example. Funding for projects that benefit the nation as a whole might be another.
Anyway, if you want to pick on a specific amendment as being responsible for the rise of Washington at the expense of the States I'd probably point the finger less at the 16th and more at the 17th. One would assume that if Senators were responsible to the State Legislature back home that they'd be less inclined to do things that take power away from the States. Of course, there were problems with the Legislatures picking Senators too -- so I don't pretend that repealing the 17th wouldn't have it's downsides either. Perhaps allowing the people to elect Senators but giving the State Legislature some sort of "recall" authority over them?
Gerrymandering also comes to mind as one of the bigger problems that we face, but I'm not sure what sort of solution could be purposed that would be remotely Constitutional (short of an amendment). One of the ideas that I'm interested in is an expansion of the size of the House of Representatives. Presumably they'd be more responsive to the people if they represented less of them. Of course this wouldn't really solve the aforementioned problem, but one could argue that it might be easier to challenge a sitting Congressman for his seat if the district was smaller.
Anyway, I'm probably rambling here. But it's interesting to have a discussion like this with somebody that has actually read the Constitution :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.