Slashdot Mirror
9th Circuit Says Feds' Security Checks At JPL Go Too Far
coondoggie writes with an excerpt from Network World which explains that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "this week ruled against the federal government and in favor of employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in their case which centers around background investigations known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Nelson et al. vs NASA). The finding reaffirms the JPL employees claims' that
the checks threaten their constitutional rights. The stink stems from HSPD #12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are, so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected."
At issue in particular: an employee's not agreeing to "an open ended background investigation, conducted by unknown investigators, in order to receive an identification badge that was compliant with HSPD#12" was grounds for dismissal.
Whistle-blowers get protection from retaliation, but you know anyone who complained about this policy probably doesn't have friends in high places. Anyone who complains can expect their career to stagnate or progress slower than it would have if they had said nothing.
Such is the way with large employers.
Sorry, but no. Federal employees do have rights, as the court has ruled. If the matter were settled, it wouldn't have ruled that way, would it?
From TFA, these in-depth background investigations were being conducted for personnel in non-sensitive jobs. I'd understand the checks for jobs which require clearance, but in this case they are wasting resources background checking everyone who works there, for the sake of uniformity. It's a bit over the top.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
That means that it's not really about the people being harassed and forced to undergo invasive searches (See 4th Amendment) finding another job. No. It's about their job being just fine, and the Federal government having to be reasonable with its searches and seizures. (Again, 4th Am.)
That's how it is in our country. If you don't like it, watch the door doesn't hit you in the ass on your way out, and remember to wipe your feet on the "good riddance to those who don't respect civil liberties" doormat.
E
If you failed the background check, you had no way of learning the reasons. Though you could technically appeal, what would have been the good of that had you not known why.
Kafkaesque.
That sure is carefully worded. The absolute difference between the averages is only 13%, and is only 20% of the smaller number. It also quietly ignores all the decisions that are not considered for appeals (meaning when a case from the 9th is appealed, it is somewhat more likely to be overturned than other courts, but saying nothing about what percentage of all the cases heard in the 9th are overturned upon appeal).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Can someone please tell me what things like that damn suitability matrix have to do with suitability to work? Such as sexual orientation, traffic tickets, bad checks, eviction, incest, and bestiality have to do with ability to Science?
Well, when the Science is super-ultra-secret, all of those things indicate possible ways that a foreign power could exert influence over a scientist to cause them to fork over the super-ultra-secret scientific information (i.e., through blackmail or bribery).
It's fairly likely that new incoming employees still have to submit to the background checks. At this point, many many federal employees do, and the level of probulation depends on the level of access to information given (e.g., confidential, secret, or top secret).
(On a side note, it's interesting that they treat marijuana with kid gloves compared to other drugs.)
It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age. And since when is sodomy "irresponsible" ? Is Fred Phelps a federal consultant on security matters now ?
As the almighty MC Frontalot often says, "You shouldn't ought to be intolerant about who queers like to fuck"
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I read that PDF - when was it written, 1955? Carnal knowledge? Sodomy? What?
I work on Naval vessels, and that requires a NATO security clearance. That's because - surprise - they don't want just anybody looking at the weapons systems. Some of that stuff is of vital importance to the military. THey want to keep it there and not give the bad guys leverage on me. The idea is that if I participate in one of those activities and Someone From Asia finds out, they might pop over to my house for a visit.
"Hey, Beardo. It sure would be a shame if your boss found out about your DUI... or that carnal knowledge. Can you copy document 1992FITH-559G for me? It's not even Classified. Anyway, see you tomorrow."
It seems antiquated at best, but there's SOME logic to what they're going for. I'm not saying it's current, but it's the Federal Government. They move S.L.O.
(The W. is in processing and will be sent after approval from the joint committee on W approval.)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
And the entire point of my post is that they aren't as "wacky" as you'd like to believe. Hell, look at the 5th circuit. If it weren't for a couple low years, its turnover rate is surprisingly high. Same goes with the 6th and 10th circuits in the later years of the data.
Umm...couldn't the President (Obama) just overturn this directive? After all, It's not called the "Homeland Security Presidential Directive" for nothing.
During the cold war, closet homosexuals and married but cheating husbands who stood a lot to loose have turned state secrets over to the Russians surrounding the threat of exposure of those acts. Basically, anything that could publicly humiliate someone or present financial strain is a security risk. We had subs that would attach leaders to Russian telecommunications cables and was listening in on conversations for years, it was exposed to the Russians for 35K when a worker who was dissatisfied with his position and in economic trouble turned over information on it.
Perhaps an ask and tell policy is worth implementing. The issues you raised are only a security problem if they somehow apply pressure to the person. Suppose you don't want your wife to know you were by and tried sex with a sheep once, that could be my leverage to get you to do things you would never otherwise do (even if it's something as simple as dropping infected USB sticks around the facility in hopes that someone will plug it into a computer to see who's it is). Now suppose you fears loosing you job over that information, would you then be willing to do even more? But if you declare the information, that can never happen (assuming they aren't anal about the truth). And if they keep the information private, then instead of fearing the loss of your job, or your wife finding out, then you report it to a JPL liaison officer who gives you fake information while tracking the spy down and taking the entire ring out with hopes of never exposing you. And if you are exposed, the liaison officer simply claims it was part of a cover operation you participated in when we knew someone was poking around looking to steal secrets.
Personally, I would prefer this over just disqualifying someone. Knowing who and why someone is seeking unauthorized information is more powerful then preventing the possibility in the first place. However, discretion needs to be made.