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.

Comments

I'm not clear on what their case is...

[BitterOak]

And TFA doesn't provide much enlightenment. They claim it's a violation of their privacy, but it isn't unusual for government jobs to require background checks. There's no constitutional right to work at JPL. Even if the employees concerned do not handle classified data, they do work at a lab where classified information is kept and highly secret defense projects take place. If they think their background checks are intrusive, they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.

If they're that concerned about their privacy, maybe they should work elsewhere.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am also not entirely sure what the issue is, but it could be something like this: JPL, as an EO employer, cannot discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Therefore any background checks that are done should not be explicitly seeking out information on, for instance, whether they are gay or not unless there is some outside relevance (eg, their gay S/O is a known terrorist or something). If the background checks /were/ screening for sexual orientation without cause, I can see where they might get uppity about privacy concerns and the like.

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.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[shoota]

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.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[kriston]

It still does not matter. The customer is the US Government. They want contractors to abide by certain rules including security clearance vetting. These do not involve sexual orientation but they do involve blackmail risks which is perfectly reasonable for them to be concerned about.

If you do not agree with security clearances you should not work for entities that require them. They really do not care about sexual orientation. They only care about exploitation risks. It really is that simple. The question is: can you be extorted? It's a valid question. It needs to be addressed.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[TubeSteak]

I am also not entirely sure what the issue is,

Scientists working in the lab on unclassified and non-sensitive research are objecting to an invasive background check.

If the background checks /were/ screening for sexual orientation without cause, I can see where they might get uppity about privacy concerns and the like.

The reason sexuality and sexual activity is part of a background check is because, in the past, it has been used to blackmail individuals into disclosing classified and sensitive information.

Background checks aren't just snooping for red flags.
All that information gets considered together and used to make a risk assesment.
To the government, a guy secretly cheating on his wife can be just as risky as a closeted homosexual.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW, YOU POMPOUS, BLOODY FUCK!!!

I am sick to goddamned death of you little shits who pretend to be Constitutional scholars and can't understand (likely due to having never read) the Ninth amendment -- a single clear statement.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

IOW, asshole, rights need not be explicitly granted to the people.

Harsh language and harsh argument were had to guarantee the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It was absolutely a show-stopper. One sentence used was directly aimed at dipshits like you -- "... otherwise some fool, two hundred years from now, will try to assert that people may not have a certain right, just because we failed to enumerate it."

Write to your congress-critter, dumbass -- they pass out copies of the Constitution for free.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[honkycat]

There is very, very little classified work at JPL. The vast majority of the jobs have no need for any sort of clearance. The few that require a clearance already have it, and there is no objection to this requirement or to the background checks for those who need the clearance. The problem is that they're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access. Furthermore, there were strong signs that absurd criteria based on the results of these background checks were going to be used to deny them.

I was affected by this as a graduate student who used to work at JPL. As you suggest, I would have changed projects rather than submit to this. Several high-profile scientists and engineers there made a similar decision, and they and others filed this suit. You can be flippant about it, but the work they do there is important, and it's awful, awful policy to force these people out over a ridiculous show of force like this. These people could make a lot more money working in the private sector, but they offer their talents toward projects that benefit us all. It takes a special kind of stupid to act like anyone's doing THEM a favor by "letting" them work there.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[Concerned Onlooker]

OK, so you're a little uninformed about the whole issue. Well, a lot uninformed.

The deal is that people who have been working loyally FOR YEARS could suddenly find themselves unacceptable and out of a job due to a background check that is abusive enough to qualify for a security clearance even though in fact it would not be a security clearance. Not only that, but the abusive snooping extends to everyone you've ever known. That's a wide net. Not to mention having to list every place you've ever lived in the past 7 years along with contact info to prove you were there.

Also, very little classified work goes on at JPL. Very little. Most everything they do is released to the public sooner or later; usually sooner. They partner with universities all over to provide them with scientific data from instruments on spacecraft and those institutions get their data in minutes, not even days or weeks.

"There's no constitutional right to work at JPL."

Yeah, I love that one. There is no constitutional right to privacy either, but it would be a mistake not to fight the government every step of the way when it comes to invasion into the personal lives of its citizens when it is not warranted.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[ClosedSource]

If you're a typical geek and an attractive woman approaches you at a bar, you should know right away that something is wrong. She's most likely a hooker, a spy, or a process-server.

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[Ethanol-fueled]

This[PDF Warning] is the "suitability matrix", their criteria. Notice that "sodomy" is a Class C (D being the worst) offense. Weren't the nations archaic sodomy laws struck down by the supreme court in 2003?

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[bware]

JPL employees do not work for the government; they work for Caltech. NASA data is not classified; just the opposite. By law it is required to be made available to the public (subject to ITAR restrictions). Very few projects at JPL require any kind of clearance. 5% of JPL works on non-NASA projects, i.e., something that could be classified, so 250 people of 5000. Of those, probably less than 100 need a clearance (most non-NASA projects at JPL are not classified, rather the money comes from NSF or industry or some other grant). Those projects that are sensitive, are not "highly" secret, as those things go. It just isn't that kind of lab. On those that are sensitive, the people working on them do go through the background checks. On the usual need-to-know basis, why does that mean that everyone else working there (4900 people of 5000) need to have a clearance or this sort of intrusive background check? If the 100 people with clearance do their job, no one else has access to anything classified. If they don't, having the other 4900 people have a background check won't help because security has already failed. I've had a clearance elsewhere so I'm familiar with the drill. If you have clearance to one thing, that doesn't mean you have clearance to anything else, whether at that level or below. One of the reasons I took this job is because it had no background check.

These sorts of checks haven't been required at JPL for the last 50 years, through wars cold and hot. Why now?

Or are you suggesting that anyone who works for the government, directly or indirectly, be subject to this sort of background check? Teachers? Dept. of Interior? Fish and Wildlife? USGS? Highway subcontractors? After all, it's all federal funds. No one has a right to government money. Do your rights go out the window if you get paid by the government first, second, or third hand?

Clearly it's ridiculous to suggest that USFS employees go through a background check, as it is the guys pushing shovels on the highway. So the question is, where is the line drawn? For the past 50 years, it's been drawn on the other side of JPL employees with no issues. Why so eager to toss our rights down the drain, and for what benefit?

Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...

[TheMidget]

Actually, the probability of being blackmailed goes up significantly once the government has access to the information.

... and the probability goes up once the government cares about this information. Indeed, if being gay can get you fired or will harm your career, then any "bad" guy could threaten to reveal this info to the government.

If, on the other hand, the government doesn't care, that'll leave only decompilers.

some of it i agree with

[timmarhy]

I don't know about you, but i'd certainly like to know my employer has looked into the mental health of the people i work with at a JET PROPULSION LAB.

sexual preferences shouldn't come into it though, unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man, and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus.

NASA Bureaucracy gone mad

[wisebabo]

Just for your reading enjoyment, here's my submission MONDAY MARCH 08, @11:44AM (http://slashdot.org/submission/1188548/Bureaucracy-at-NASA-gone-mad?art_pos=7).

Guess the slashdot editors don't like my writing style. ;)

Okay, if there was ever a reason to shut down, dismantle and start NASA over it is this. The Supreme Court is deciding whether invasive (to me at least) personal background checks (sex lives, medical records) will be required of all JPL employees/independent contractors. No top secret work is done there and (I suppose) nothing military or even directly industry related. (In fact I thought the work of NASA was "For All Mankind".) Anyway, 28 scientists and engineers have so far refused to comply and if they lose this case will be fired.

While NASA claims that all Federal employees must go through this kind of check, I don't think these guys fit into the "all" category. It IS rocket science and I'm sure most of them have an IQ/educational background/creativity quotient that is extremely rare. I guess there could be a reason to do this if you were afraid that some personal information could be used to blackmail someone but as I mentioned before, what they are creating is destined to be public anyway.

So what if one guy has a fetish for SCUBA gear and chicken feathers? More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war). As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.

Look, if one of them is committing a crime/becoming a public menace, let the police deal with it. Otherwise keep the Republican religious police out of our bedrooms! (drug dens?).

Considerably more information

[jfengel]

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

Re:mental health?

[stephanruby]

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).