Slashdot Mirror
JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court
Dthief writes "A long-running legal battle between the United States government and a group of 29 scientists and engineers of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, has now reached the US Supreme Court." At issue: mandatory background checks for scientists and engineers working at JPL, which they allege includes snooping into their sexual orientation, as well as their mental and physical health.
JPL employees are not federal employees. Rather they are employees of Caltech which is contracted by NASA to run JPL. The federal government owns all of the equipment and facilities, but Caltech is in charge of the personnel.
A much better article:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html
If you'd like to read their claim in detail:
http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS_Nelson_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf
Also, low-level clearances (Secret, for example) are basically just a criminal background check and a quick sweep over the government databases to make sure you're not someone /obviously/ bad. There'd be no reason whatsoever to stick in "are you gay?" to that level of check.I agree with you completely.
However, it would be nice if we could even find out what is included in the background check.
As an example -- I am an amateur radio operator who would like to be of assistance in a disaster to help organizations like the American Red Cross. However, the haughty management at ARC, a couple of years back, took it upon themselves to mandate the imposition of a very intrusive background check on all employees -- and on all VOLUNTEERS.
It is a three-part check -- criminal, credit and LIFESTYLE.
What is that in aid of? They refuse to say what is included in the lifestyle check, beyond saying it's "not limited in scope". And you can be damned sure they will not tell you on what basis you may be rejected. They've obviously been sucked into the current DHS hysteria and think they can just lay on requirements and expect those affected to just knuckle under and accept their crap without question.
The ARRL (American Radio Relay League) is a nationwide organization which covers issues affecting radio amateurs. As a result of the ARC's decision, the ARRL found it necessary to caution amateurs that they should carefully consider what they are giving permission for if they sign up as a volunteer. In further negotiations, the ARC apparently backed off the lifestyle requirement for people volunteering for seven days or less. (Pretty minor disaster, huh?).
Here is a link to the ARRL statement on this issue
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/RC-Background-Checks0610.pdf
The ARRL takes no position recommending any specific action to be taken over this issue beyond cautioning potential volunteers to carefully consider the details of what they are authorizing. The link includes the high-handed language insisted upon by the company to which the investigation has been outsourced.
Note that the doc is dated son\me two years ago. To the best of my knowledge, the situation has not yet been resolved to the point where the ARRL will sign a final MOU for co-operation with ARC.
A later doc explaining the ARRL position, after further negotiation, is at http://www.arrl.org/announce/ARRL-ARC-bg-check.html. Despite the ARRL backing down, the investigating company still asserts that you are consenting to investigations of unlimited scope.
Raw intransigence, if you ask me.
That's the thing!! The work they're doing is not top secret. In fact, it's quite far from it. The research those 28 people are doing at Cal Tech goes directly into the public domain.
And of course, they have no issue with background checks for Professors that want to do classified work, or have access to classified work, or even access to classified equipment, but those researchers complaining are not doing any of that, they're just mathematicians, and if need access to something proprietary or classified, they just need to apply for it separately (which is fine with them).