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."
All of this is done in the name of "protect[ing] personal privacy."
If that doesn't shed light on the fact that this is complete and utter nonsense, I don't know what will. As the article pointed out, that's Newspeak if I ever heard it.
I got a catholic block.
Easy fix indeed. Given the approach this country has taken to its scientists, I wouldn't be surprised if what you suggest will be exactly what happens - the scientists rebel, and promptly get fired en masse. Why? Because nobody cares.
Railroad workers, airline workers, even taxicab drivers - when any of these professions strike, it is felt immediately by the general population, so there is a push to resolve the issues amicably, so that they could return to work.
If all scientists in the US... not just the NASA rocket scientists... stop working RIGHT NOW... the vast majority of the population won't know, and the majority of those who know, won't care.
Why? Because nothing that these people do affects us EVERY DAY. Thus, they're not important. Which is why a post-doc at a top-tier academic institution, will be making <$32'000/year.
Unfortunately more than 90% of the roughly 5000 employees at JPL have already signed. Only a few hundred are actively protesting, and 28 are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
We really have become a nation of sheep, haven't we? This is why our rights are going down the toilet, because most people simply do not care. It would be a vastly different story if that 90-10 ratio were reversed.
This reminds me of an incident (I'm going entirely on memory here) in the months after 9/11 in which some jurisdiction or other was conducting random bag/backpack searches of bus passengers. One guy filed a suit after refusing the search and being hauled in. In the article, it said that out of something like 1300 of these searches that had been conducted, fewer than half a dozen people objected or refused. When the populace has become that complacent and trusting, it's open season on the Constitution.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
As an expert at abusive management during the failing days at Krispy Kreme, this sounds like they want the employees to quit. I've seen this happen too many times.
The people who quit in situations like this are your best employees. The ones who aren't afraid to lose their jobs because they're good enough to work just about anywhere. The ones you're left with are the people who are afraid they have no other options and will take it up the ass just to keep a job. It's not a smart way to run a company, unless you want to run it into the ground.
Heck, you wouldn't believe the background checks I went through for the FBI.
Yes, I would. Having worked in a similar environment (to the JPL folks) for the federal government, I am quiet familiar with the background checks that you went through. The issue is that since 9/11, our government has gone "secret happy". NASA is a civilian agency and most NASA missions are unclassified and in the public domain, like this one (CloudSat). There is quite simply no good reason that the scientists and engineers working on that mission (and others like it) need to be cleared. More importantly, science not directly related to defense belongs in the public domain. To remove it stifles innovation, creativity, and education.
Where would you draw the line? Would you start requiring background checks to go to college? Perhaps a basic background check for Physics 101 and a full secret clearance for Nuclear Physics? Following that train of thought, in the name of defense, would we start doing background checks (and clearing) workers in the financial industry? After all, an attack on that sector could cripple the country as well. As a quick aside, the baby background checks we all already go through to get jobs (criminal history, credit, etc.) are childsplay compared to what is required for a clearance. As such, there is no comparison. Back to my point, though. Following in the same vein, would we then require extensive background checks for all public sector IT workers/software engineers, in the name of security?
The reason the government can get away with the invasion of privacy is because smaller groups are targeted. That is, its fairly easy for someone to say "Yes, but since they work for the feds, they have no privacy...". However, it is not that simple. The government should be critically looking at the projects and missions of the organizations that they are requiring to go through these investigations. If it is REALLY needed, as it would be for the creation of defensive capabilities and intelligence gathering, by all means - require an investigation and clearance. If it is NOT really needed, as is likely the case with the JPL engineers in question, all the government is doing is expanding its powers and wasting your tax dollars (as getting cleared is an expensive proposition).
But he's President, so he gets to mandate these requirements to people who just want to keep their personal lives private.