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.

Comments

Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.

[belmolis]

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?

Re:Expect retaliation

[Presto Vivace]

We owe a great deal to those who brought this case.

Of interest

[ShadowRangerRIT]

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.

There are Constitutional rights here

[gavron]

I'm sorry that's how it is in your country, but in the US the Federal Government has to abide by the Constitution and all right not specifically given to the Federal Government (by same) are reserved elsewhere. (See the 9th and 10th Amendments.)

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

Re:you would not know why you failed

[Ethanol-fueled]

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.

Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.

[Beardo the Bearded]

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.)

Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.

[Migity]

Umm...couldn't the President (Obama) just overturn this directive? After all, It's not called the "Homeland Security Presidential Directive" for nothing.