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!
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.
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.
Say, if I was really callous and sociopathic, and I wanted to scale back operations and cut costs, I wouldn't fire or lay off anyone. I would require the employees to do things they wouldn't tolerate, but seem "necessary and proper" for their jobs. I'd switch reporting to 4:00am so that reports would be ready for management, give 3 hour lunches to people who live too far away to commute home for lunch, or other highly inconvenient tasks or requirements.
When they quit, you didn't have to report to investors you were scaling back operations, just that you couldn't fill the positions. Then you could cut the positions and claim better productivity.
If I wanted to scale NASA's budget back, and not catch tons of flak, I would do this. When the researchers refused to comply, I could just say "They're a security risk, we're all about security after 9/11, so you can't work on 90% of projects." When they quit, or I fired them for not complying, I could just say "We have a shortage of qualified engineers, we can't fill these positions."
And when nobody cared anymore, I'd scale back operations and cut the positions, shrinking the budget. It's a great way to handle a budget crisis and cut without making it look like one.
p/Just imagine that Simon guy saying, You call THAT data! Get out of here!"
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
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
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).
Ironically, the FBI might not even exist today if its illustrious founder had been subject to these same background checks.
But he's President, so he gets to mandate these requirements to people who just want to keep their personal lives private.
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.
This kind of invasive crud is becoming rampant in our society.
Recently the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) published a notice to the nation's radio amateurs advising them of a similar situation. Many hams are routinely involved in emergency communications support for the American Red Cross (ARC).
Without stating a position for or against, the ARRL advised potential communications volunteers to read very carefully any documents they might be asked to sign before volunteering.
It turns out that the ARC had recently implemented a policy of requiring background checks for all volunteers. The checks were outsourced to an outfit called MyBackgroundCheck.com http://www.mybackgroundcheck.com/ which does the same kind of malarkey. The ARRL pointed out that, if you went to the web page to sign up for the check, you would be authorizing not only a criminal history check, but also credit and "lifestyle" checks. The nature of a "lifestyle check" was not specified (worst of all possibilities), but it can easily be guessed what it entails.
Again, the ARRL did not take a position on whether individual hams should go along with the terms, but only advised careful reading and consideration before authorizing investigations of such vague or unspecified scope. Personally, I have crossed the ARC off my list of organizations I will either volunteer for or provide financial support for.
It is my understanding that the ARC has backed off on the requirement for communications volunteers and restricted the requirement to "permanent" volunteers only. Sorry -- too late, too little. You shouldn't even have considered the scheme in the first place.
Now that I'm retired, I expect never again to be tested for drugs, smoking (quit thirty-five years ago anyway), use of alcohol nor to submit to intrusive examinations of any kind. I had to pee in a cup to be hired by IBM, but never again except as required by law. And certainly never when my intent is only to help some organization. If they feel a need to pull this crud on volunteers, then, as far as I'm concerned, their pool of volunteers is way too large.
i also quit helping with the youth group at my church over this kind of stuff. When the San Francisco archdiocese decided anyone who came into contact with kids had to be fingerprinted, that was where I drew the line. If my twenty-five years of involvement with the kids was not good enough to trust me, then a lousy set of fingerprints was superfluous. I told the youth coordinator that, if the policy was implemented, then she should look for another volunteer to drive kids to retreats, because I would refuse to comply with the policy. They did, so I won't
As she said, "It's a stupid policy anyway -- why are they bothering the catechists and helpers and not the priests, where the offenses against kids have occurred?"
By the way, I have already been fingerprinted five times for hiring on with a railroad for five summers, once more for hiring on permanently, once more when entering the military, once more to apply for a state teaching credential and one last time to sign up for the Block Parent program (police- and school district-sponsored) so little kids could have a safe place to go if injured or bullied outside of school hours.
Enough is enough!
Oh, I forgot to add up the number of times I've been thumb-printed to cash checks or to get my driver's license renewed (that was three days ago).