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.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12:
You do not talk about Homeland Security Presidential Directives.
...or something like that.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
I understand many components of rocket engines are manufactures by private companies. Are they subject to these security standards?
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
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
The plaintiffs are scientists, engineers and administrative workers at JPL, which is operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Like the vast majority of JPL employees, they do not have or need security clearances, and have been identified by the government as holding âoenon-sensitiveâ positions.
I had to read further and deeper through the links to find this comment. So these people not needing security clearance were subjected to the expansive and open ended review permitted by the HSPD #12.
There was a briefing where I work about the plan. 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. What if it had been simply that you donated money to a certain person, or that your spouse was from a certain country, or a mistaken identity? The other problem was that it took so long to do the checks. Since the program had not started they had no idea, but it was thought that the new process would likely add 6 months to the already tedious process in place. To give you an idea I have had two background checks here. Once it took 4 months the other time 2 since I had already passed an earlier one. Soon we learned about the likely challenge from NASA employees and we waited it out. It has taken years to get this far and thankfully it looks like this overstepping is going to end. The other thing is that the dept I work for and the job I do has me doing absolutely nothing secret or anything of the sort that might need this level of background check. Every employee was going to need it.
The final point I want to add is that during the briefing it became clear that not only was this a terrible new big brother style of infringement but that there were companies that were going to make a fortune doing this. As an example we were going to have to get a new set of IDs and all the doors and computers would have readers in order to use them.
I'm not clear from the link, but it appears that the situation may only apply to to existing employees.
You are happily working at your established job and some presidential directive comes down that establishes that you need a background check to get your smart card needed to access the network and do your job.
Current employees are now offered the "choice" of submitting to a background check or lose their jobs. The court ruled rightly that this is a no go, but I suspect new employees have to agree to a background check before accepting employment.
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
As I recall, the 9th Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than any other court.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The real crap was that JPL was going to "resign" employees who did not submit to or pass the new background checks, attempting to circumvent California law with regard to unemployment etc. There was never any question that would be struck down.
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?
http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Suitability_Matrix.pdf
What will likely happen is JPL will be forced to follow the law ith regards to termination, and NASA will enact reasonable guidelines to keep our nation safe (most of the research at JPL isn't even that secret. It's not like we built WMDs or bioweapons. We build science satellites and probes.) that do not go above and beyond the President's directive.
Disclaimer: I was an intern at JPL when this shit started to hit the fan two summers ago.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
At one of hte protests I went to, one guy stood up to speak and basically said he was glad he had a top secret clearance because it meant he didn't have to have his privacy invaded like this. That's saying something.
Disclaimer: I was an intern at JPL two summers ago when this was starting to be a problem.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
The report in the linked article from networkworld is not accurate. Quote from the article "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."
/. but no wonder that the government always screws up!!
A close friend is one of the Caltech (technically, he is a contractor at JPL) employees who sued the Federal government. Caltech manages the JPL labs for the federal government. After 9/11, the Bush administration passed this directive to subject federal employees and contractors, working on sensitive and non-sensitive matters to the same invasive background checks. These background checks do not have a set standard or criteria for evaluation, are not disclosed and can affect your employment (read termination). This means that if someone who knows you, when interviewed, says he/she thinks you did pot, that's it, you can be terminated.
To subject federal employees and contractors who are working on confidential/sensitive projects is one thing although still not fair but it is completely unfair to subject employees or contractors working on non-sensitive projects to such arbitrary background checks.
As they say, devil lies in the details. The presidential directive itself does not require background checks. What is requires is that all employees and contracts, irrespective of the nature of work, have to be issued a standard identification card for entering federal facilities. Sounds fair, right? The rub is that to be issued this card, you must pass the background check. So by mandating a standard identification card, the government has mandated all employees and contractors be subjected to background checks. And this is what this group of 30 or so JPL/Caltech scientists are protesting.
On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you. Another friend who worked for PG&E waited 3 months to enter the facility he was supposed to work at because the feds could not finish his background check soon enough. Imagine if thousands of other employees or contractors are subjected to this new directive? The quality of these checks is directly proportional to the number of federal agents who do this work and we all know that the number of experienced federal agents is not going to quadruple overnight. So the end result is going to be dilution in the quality of these checks which then defeats the intent and purpose of these checks.
Phew!! My longest post on
Just in case someone missed calmofthestorm's sarcasm, the suitability matrix he refers to (and the whole idea of background checks) has nothing to do with Science, and everything to do with trustworthiness.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column
... sodomy ... incest ... abusive language ... unlawful assembly." It also said homosexuality could be a security issue under some circumstances."
"As The Times noted in January of last year, the government demanded that the scientists fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and waive the privacy of their financial, medical and psychiatric records. The government also wanted permission to gather information about them by interviewing third parties. At one point, JPL's internal website posted an "issue characterization chart" -- since taken down -- that indicated the snoops would be looking for a "pattern of irresponsibility as reflected in credit history
What will likely happen is JPL will be forced to follow the law ith regards to termination
Wow, a federally funded organization being FORCED TO FOLLOW THE LAW! Sure sounds like socialism to me! (I'm being sarcastic, for the folks to brain-dead to know it.)
I was once offered employment at JPL--it was my dream job, working in the Advanced Propulsion Group to design and build the next generation of unlaunchable engines (unlaunchable because NASA is on such a shoe-string budget for that they don't dare deviate from conventional tech for a wide range of things, particularly propulsion tech.)
There were strings attached: I'm not an American and would have had to become one, which I wasn't willing to do for a whole bunch of reasons. It was hands-down the single best choice I have ever made in my life. I had doubts and second thoughts for about five years after, but in the past decade or so have really come to realize what I nightmare I avoided. Stories like this about JPL's management and culture really help reinforce that belief.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Is this the same 9th circuit that said the government can pass a resolution condemning a specific religious group by name and insult its members, without violating the 1st amendment? I think it is.
You are happily working at your established job and some presidential directive comes down that establishes that you need a background check to get your smart card needed to access the network and do your job. Current employees are now offered the "choice" of submitting to a background check or lose their jobs.
As I pointed out when this was posted on the NASAwatch website, the actual presidential directive, HSPD-12, is a directive that says government identification cards (including NASA IDs) should have pictures and be difficult to forge. Nothing more. The presidential directive does not say anything about requiring an invasive background check including checking medical, financial, and other personal background information along with a blank authorization to check any records at all. Nothing.
The whole thing about background checks was a stealth policy change that was slid into the new ID regulations by the OPM. It has nothing to do with HSPD-12, and most particularly it was not authorized by presidential directive.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I know an IT worker who had to fill out a questionnaire for a law-enforcement agency ("cops" basically). One of the questions asked if they'd ever had sex with animals. I swear it's true. Personnel administrators sometimes go too far.
Table-ized A.I.
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.)
Good. Now can we return back to having site-specific badges that are appropriate for the level of work being done at different federal facilities? Or we can use this new common ID that creates a single point of failure in the creation of badges, makes it easier to wander unescorted in facilities that you don't have access to, and adds significant cost and delay in getting people badged. Either way.
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?
I see you're unfamiliar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those loons are usually in a completely separate orbit from reason.
Advice: on VPS providers
Most of what JPL does is completely completely non-sensitive. Keep in mind this crap only applies to employees /not/ working on sensitive material, there is a different system in place for those on sensitive stuff.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
15+ years ago I had a Top Secret/SSBI clearance. As part of the background investigation, I was required to give references that had known me for at least 15 years. Since my first security interview I had always told the truth: "yeah, I tried pot a few times in high school, but I never bought it or sold it and I never used it after that." I also told them that all of my family and friends knew about it and I didn't care who else knew. I told that same story at every interview, and I never had a problem getting any clearance. In the days before glasnost, when the KGB were the primary bad guys, we were always briefed that the biggest threat was an employee being compromised because of something that could be used against them - financial debts, drug use, criminal background, relatives in hostile foreign countries - anything that could be used as leverage to make you vulnerable to espionage. The idea with drug use wasn't that you were some drug crazed idiot - it was that you might be ashamed of the drug use, or might need money - and that made you vulnerable. I guess since I said everyone already knew about my minor BS, and I didn't care who else knew, it wasn't a problem. I think lying about it and then having it turn up during the investigation would have been much, much worse.
My investigation was in the 90's - before 9/11 and before Homeland Security. Officially, my employment was not dependent on my clearance - but everyone knew that the reality was that the position required a clearance, so without the clearance, there would not be an available job for me and I would be let go. It happened to a couple of guys who for whatever reason could not get cleared.
All ancient history now...
You should know that JPL employees are actually employees of Cal Tech. JPL is what is known as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center. And many of the employees there are not drones who like to roll over for government abuse, even if their paychecks ultimately come from that direction.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
Maybe he was an old timer who was grandfathered in before the government got serious about screening people in sensitive positions but rest assured the procedures for vetting someone for secret or top secret clearance are pretty invasive and this was the case before HomeSec existed.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Yeah! If only they had this policy back in the 70s - Carl Sagan wouldn't have been allowed to work there. Fuckin' good-for-nothin' dope-smoking hippie.
Say Australia, Israel, UK or some other country close to the USA learns that something new and big is been contracted for. Asking for a front row seat, you are told it does not exist.
What now?
You need this kit. So you target the middle, someone with access. Find their house and tap the broadband. Waiting to see what "Bob' or "Sally' does to relax.
If its incest, and bestiality you might meet them on a forum chat room or in bump into them in real life over 6 months, building up a friendship with cute oneliners.
Their first real friend who understands them 100%. Who just listens and 12 months later files flow out.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Or they'd go to nasa.gov and download those same files without all this effort.
That's the issue you see, and one that a lot of people seem to be missing. the employees being subjected to this crap are specifically the ones who are NOT working on ANYTHING sensitive. The 5% of JPL employees who are involved in 'sensitive' work go through a different process.
The other members of my group were going to have to go through this. They did non-classified work on computer algorithms. You could download all their data, results, etc from the jpl/nasa website or read it in scientific journals.
I seem to recall at the time their propaganda told us that 95% of employees were in "non-sensitive" positions.
It's hard to take them seriously about all this security bs when everything you do is being put online anyway.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
> Homeland Security Presidential Directive
Homeland, much like Fatherland, gives me proud images of charging in Panzer Tanks across the Ukrainian plains to stick it to the undermenschen. Long live Das Homelanden! Mein Liebe!
When I got my clearance back in the dark ages (1985 or so) they were extremely interested in the organizations I belonged to. They weren't happy when all I had to tell them about was the Auto Club and, decades previous, the Book of the Month Club. It was only after I confessed to being a Campfire Girl that they removed the thumbscrews and granted my clearance. At one point the current JPL Overseer (not Bruce Murray) let it be known that those who required clearances for their jobs would be seriously limiting their careers if they refused to apply.
JPL employees are not Federal employees. They work for a private university, Caltech.
At one of the protests I went to, one guy stood up to speak and basically said he was glad he had a top secret clearance because it meant he didn't have to have his privacy invaded like this. That's saying something.
It seems strange, but as you get to the higher level clearances, like TS and SCI, as done for the 3-letter agencies, the process becomes quite intrusive, but is reasonably rational and run by competent people. Also, at the higher levels, the security clearance process is entirely independent of the employer. At the higher security levels, where there are real field background checks, employee background information is closely held - it could be used by enemies to find vulnerable employees.
The problem with JPL is that they were doing a by-the-numbers process on a huge number of people using arbitrary criteria, but with the level of intrusiveness of a real clearance investigation. And they were running the process out of their own human resources department.
I might accept traffic tickets and bad checks as potential indicators of trustworthiness... but carnal knowledge is listed as a class C offense (with D being the worst), along with sodomy. Carnal knowledge commonly refers to sexual acts in general (knowledge of the flesh). Sodomy commonly refers to anal and oral sex (legal in most states, should be legal in all states (providing there is mutual consent, of course)), and much less commonly bestiality. While I think that it is absolutely ludicrous to think that either of those things indicate trustworthiness (Many people have carnal knowledge of their spouse on a regular basis, likely including our President, the majority of our armed forces and intelligence agencies, as well as Senate members of intelligence subcommittees... a significant amount of those same people also likely engage in sodomy as well). This is really humorous in light of J Edgar Hoover and his rumored sexual proclivities... especially since this is the sort of thing I could see him creating.
There are several other questionable things on the matrix, which should likely be reviewed and changed just in the name of efficacy. Many of the other things I see on that chart seem quite reasonable in assessing the risk of a security breach, if nothing else from a standpoint that it is better to err on the side of caution.
In regards to JPL and HSPD #12, I think the major national security issue is related to the fact that while a disturbing amount of countries have the ability to construct a nuclear device, one of the big tricks is getting that device to detonate far enough away from said country to do more damage to the target then to said country. The other big trick is sending said weapon to another continent. ICBM's require advanced propulsion as well as satellite technology. Whether or not such measures at JPL are effective, considering how many loopholes corporations use to export sensitive technology to boycotted nations is another argument entirely...and then there's the amount of publicly available information as well. Again, from the standpoint that it is better to err on the side of caution, it seems reasonable to require security checks on JPL employees.
Where this is potentially dangerous in my opinion is if these types of security checks are considered unconstitutional for JPL employees, they will be considered as such for other government contractors...which could conceivably pose even more significant risk.
Ultimately, I hope we use this situation as an opportunity to modernize and revamp the security clearance process without causing undue security risks. I believe a review of the efficacy of the varied suitability matrix in determining security risk would have been sufficient, but if it has to happen under the auspices of Constitutionality, so be it, as long as it is done in a timely fashion and does not break the process of Government security clearance screening.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
Stories like this about JPL's management and culture really help reinforce that belief.
And it's not as if it stops with governmental bodies. It may even be worse in the business environment. Businesses routinely respond to objections based on constitutional rights by saying the constitution is binding only on the government. Otherwise they can provide contracts where you "voluntarily" sign away your basic rights. Granted NASA is a gov't agency, so they can hide behind all the DHS bullshit they can cobble together.
As a non-government outfit, the Red Cross has the same attitude about "background checks". All their employees, I assume, have to consent to -- a criminal background check, a credit check and for the love of Christ A LIFESTYLE CHECK. No details are given on the scope of the "lifestyle check", so it's anything the RC decides would be fun or "interesting".
I have an amateur radio (ham) license. As a group, amateurs are strongly encouraged to get involved in providing public service to various events and organizations (marathons, cancer "walkathons", bike runs, etc. They are also expected to receive and drill in emergency communications for natural disasters, widespread power/phone outages and the like, all on a volunteer, completely unpaid basis.
One of the organizations which is the recipient of a great deal of this volunteer help is the Red Cross.
So, in the past year or two, some single-digit high-roller at RC HQ decided to impose the same background check requirements on all VOLUNTEERS. Stupid shits!
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) widely dispersed this information to the amateur community, as information only, with no recommendation pro or con. They just wanted to make sure that all potential volunteers understood exactly what they might be signing on for.
There was a lot of furor (and fury) about this imperious decision on the part of the RC. Eventually they backed down, at least on the lifestyle check, but only, as I understand for "short time" volunteers, like when the duration of service is expected to be only perhaps a week or two.
The ARRL engaged in negotiations with the RC to back down before signing a Memo of Understanding about conditions of service. I don't know at this time if the MOU ever did get signed.
Personally I wouldn't get involved with the RC in any case, for any reason. I've despised them for years. As far back as the Korean war, I was told by someone who was over there on the front lines that when the RC was on site distributing donuts and coffee, it was available only if the GI had money to pay for it. I dunno -- that's what I heard.
Then some years back they got involved in some financial jiggery-pokery. It was said that it only involved people at the top. Tough shit -- some kind of board of directors obviously had to be not taking care of business.
Screw them all -- I only give to individuals or to small charitable organizations I know well.
It's really simple:
1.) You have to disclose all your potentially embarrassing misdeeds of the past.
2.) The government stores this information on a poorly guarded unecrypted hard drive.
3.) The government then "accidentally" loses this unencrypted hard drive.
4.) What you thought was a confidential disclosure is now in the public domain.
Result: Blackmail opportunity eliminated (possibly job change opportunity too). Profit!!
The UK utilizes this method quite often, most recently with its air force pilots, see here: Data Breach Exposes RAF Staff To Blackmail
I worked at JPL for a few years (pre 9/11). It was a congenial environment. I got my badge with no hassles; I certainly sympathize with the present plight of my former colleagues and wish them good luck, and may they win if the case goes to the US Supreme Court.
I certainly hope the Obama administration will scale back Bush-era excesses. They have harmed us much more than terrorism ever could.
Incidentally, back then I was tickled to find out that the code we were writing for NASA spacecrafts was in the public domain -- anybody could request a copy. May I assume it is no longer so?! :)
Umm...couldn't the President (Obama) just overturn this directive? After all, It's not called the "Homeland Security Presidential Directive" for nothing.
JPL actually isn't a NASA (federal government owned) installation. It's CalTech operating for-profit as a contractor to NASA. The only actual government jobs at "JPL" are the contract administrators and some management types.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If it accepts Federal money they pwn it. What college has refused to accept such welfare and refused to accept students getting such welfare and how have the courts ruled for/against the college?
If you'uns don't wanna be slaves don't suck from the fed trough! :-D :-D
You know WORK for a living like the rest of us vorkers.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
That document is very reasonable. It weeds out all but the top of the bell curve of immoral or illegal behavior. I grant you that most JPL employees could not pass a TS SCI clearance. I think the full nude 3D body scan would make them a bit reticent. That was common practice in the 80s. Yes it's soooo 1980s. The full and complete dental photograph is ridiculous silly.
Am I getting all pervy if I want to see me when I was thin, young and svelt? I should try and get a copy of that 3D photog. I could map it onto a DOOM 3D figure.
I've been damned since birth, this is just gravy.
.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
http://orwellian.org/docs/Cryptography_Manifesto.txt
* The Puzzle Palace, Author James Bamford, 1983 revision
*
* Infested by moles and potential defectors for more than twelve of its
* first fifteen years, NSA managed the distinction of not only becoming
* the most secretive and most hidden member of America's growing
* intelligence consortium, but also the most thoroughly penetrated.
*
*
*
* The NSA began a McCarthy-type purge, and dozens of NSA employees
* suspected of homosexuality were forced to resign or were fired.
*
* Since then, any hint of homosexual behaviour resulted in either
* the person's not being hired or, if the fact is revealed later,
* being forced to resign.
*
* Any man exhibiting the slightest effeminacy became an instant suspect.
* The Office of Security was on full alert for limp wrists and telltale
* lisps.
*
* During his security clearance polygraph test, Mitchell told his
* interrogator about certain "sexual experimentation" with dogs
* and chickens he had done when he was between the ages of thirteen
* and nineteen.
*
* The Agency's Office of Security thought about it for a week, then issued
* him his security clearance to work at the National Security Agency.
http://harvey-mars.com/
I don't think it matters. California law shouldn't apply here.
If the JPL is on US government property and owned by the US government, the California laws applies only at the whim of Congress. The constitution gives congress the exclusive authority "To exercise exclusive legislation" over Washington DC, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other _needful buildings_. Unless the JPL is a wasteful project and not a "needful building", then California law would only apply by extension of power granted by congress.
Now this is by a presidential directive, the problem is that if congress gave the president that power over this program, then it relies on the same extension or at will as congress extended state law. So the problem here would be to define the intent of congress. If the presidential power came after the extension of state laws, then the will of congress is clear in that it supersedes state law because congress would have known of the effects on previous laws.
I don't think this issue is completed yet. It will most likely hit the Supreme Court simply because the federal government doesn't like to give up powers. That seems to be the case regardless of which party is in power.
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.
Being an American is being a US citizen. You are talking about naturalization rights here and there is no such thing for a set of continents.
And if continental approximation is what you were intending to refer to, you fail on that too, there are the North and South American continents so you wouldn't be American, you would be North American or South American with the possibility of Central American depending on the school of though concerning the validity of geographical location being continent worthy but you wouldn't ever be just an American unless you are from the only country with America in it's name.
I'm not sure why idiots attempt to claim that but clearly the smallest examination of the situation show how wrong you are. I suspect it's because they secretly love the US so much while despising their own countries that they have to somehow twist reality in a way that gives them the America name. It's amazing when you find what shit hole most of these people come from.
JPL employes are not government employees*. They are employees of the California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125, which is not on government property.
They work a few miles away at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is government property.
* Slight lie. Some of their staff (security officers, few others) are gvmt employees. But the scientists and engineers aren't, as a rule.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
That's interesting. Once those employees made it to the government labs, they would be under congress's domain though. I wonder how this would play out if the requirement was places on only those with access to the labs and the sensitive information within them?
Recently? He died 13 years ago.
The term "directives" gave me a chill of terror down my spine. In "Atlas Shrugged" ludicrous anti-capitalism restrictions were enacted, ones that would never make it through congress. How? Because they weren't laws, they were "directives", basically laws that could be enacted *without* democratic process.
Let's hope this ruling get the directive off the books.