Slashdot Mirror
JPL Scientists Take NASA To the Supreme Court
CheshireCatCO writes "Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, concerned about background checks now required of federal employees, sued NASA to suspend the checks back in 2007. The case has now worked its way up to the Supreme Court. At stake: whether all federal employees can be forced to undergo open-ended background checks whether or not the employee has exposure to classified or sensitive information. The background checks, which can include interviewing people from employees' pasts such as landlords and teachers, may seek, among other things, sexual histories."
I hope the JPL scientists win!
The "sexual history" questions will unfortunately remain relevant in background checks for highly important/secret positions so long as sexual history related topics remain highly taboo in society. The (intended) purpose of these questions is to determine if the applicant has anything in their past that would make particularly them subjective to blackmail.
They leave a bad taste in my mouth too, which is why I avoid those sorts of jobs...
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
At stake: whether all federal employees can be forced to undergo open-ended background checks
Really? I don't see that in the questions being answered by the supreme court.
This signature intentionally left unblank.
For all hath sinned and fallen short of the federal government. But the federal government hath made a way for us to be forgiven of our sins. The Background Check.
We need to rethink our entire foreign policy, rather than rely on unsustainable, unworkable "solutions" of restricting access to information and then panicking if that information gets out there, we need to make sure that the world won't use that information against us.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
My sexual history fits on a post-it note.
Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, concerned about background checks now required of federal employees, sued NASA to suspect the checks back in 2007.
I always suspected the checks. Oh wait, did you mean suspend?
True or false is large irrelevant as everyone has made enemy SOMEWHERE that would happily provide questionable testimony against you. In that light, J Edgar Hoover (whom I would think is a strong proponent of this nonsense) would've never passed the background check, for his alleged cross dressing habit.
I believe that when government employees or any employee of any company handles sensitive data such as social security numbers, credit cards, etc.. should all be given thorough background checks because there's no telling just how many employees actually take advantage of their position to steal from the people they "help". Sexual background checks are good in schools to prevent child molesters from teaching, however I don't think sexual history makes any difference if you're in the JPL since your sexual history probably comes as short as your hand. The model of "one-size-fits-all" doesn't work, and I believe that these strict regulations should be given more thought onto where they should be applied and less on employee privacy.
Why is Snark Required?
It's ironic that the people who would be comfortable discussing their sexual history with strangers in a stressful interview situation would probably be the sorts of people who have done some things the interviewers would not want to hear about. Conversely, the people who haven't done much will probably be reluctant to talk about the little they have done, and so would look guilty.
It's a perfect Fail/Fail!
When you are talking about giving someone access to classified information, yes you need to make sure they have no skeletons in their closet, nothing that can be used as leverage. This means checking mundane things like credit history, and more taboo things like sexual history. The investigators for an SSBI doesn't care if you are gay, they are if you care that you are gay. If you are in the closet, well maybe someone could use that as leverage. If you are happy with who you are, no problem.
However, I don't see why any of that should apply to normal jobs. If a clearance isn't needed, then what's the issue? You shouldn't be giving classified information to people without a clearance (that's the point of such things) so it shouldn't be reliant.
I'm not against the government doing extremely through background checks, but only when there's a reason. If you are a scientist working on cracking cryptographic codes form other nations, yes you need a check. If you are a scientist working on a new shuttle, no you do not.
Singapore Citizen Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Takes God to the U.S. Supreme Court Singapore Citizen Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wants to sue God for His utter negligence on earthly affairs. How can I file a lawsuit against Him at the United States Supreme Court, the European Court of Justice, and the International Court of Justice? Like Nebraska Democratic State Senator Ernie Chambers, I want to seek a permanent injunction against God. Singapore Citizen Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) Singapore Identity Card Number: S78*6*2*H Location: Bedok Reservoir Road, Singapore 470103 Mobile Phone Number (Starhub Pre-paid): +65-8369-2618 Photo of Singapore Citizen Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) #1: http://i53.tinypic.com/207tamp.jpg Photo of Singapore Citizen Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) #2: http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/7534/enmingteodscf2511.jpg
Nothing could be worse than the terrorists gaining critical strategic information regarding Saturn. We should just encase all of CalTech in amber just to make sure there are no leaks.
It always cracks me up here on nerdot how supposedly really smart people fail basic simple analysis.
OK, I'll spell it out, security is in layers, and it is ongoing. Nothing is perfect, but you start at the outer perimeter, which is the grounds and buildings, the physical plant. You do not want a potentially compromised employee present, even if said employee is not "working on classified material". Yes, even the janitor.
That "classified" work might be done within the same area/building is reason enough to start your security screening THERE.
Think about it as your network, where is your first layer of security? Your second, your third, or do you just run wide open with consumer grade "firewalls" on individual PCs? Nope, you do it in LAYERS and each layer is as good as you can do it.
This is why we have specialization and different jobs, some people are good at some things, some at others. You may be a whizzbang coder or materials scientist, but you could still suck so bad at security you would "take offense" at what the experts KNOW they should do.
And I am not a huge rah rah rah flag waver or anything, I am actually quite critical of both foreign and domestic policy trends today, just I know about this from some work in the past, which I don't want anything to do with now or ever again..but really..will you ultra smart guys one trick pony people just STOP thinking you are smart in every single discipline that exists? You aren't. No one is an expert in everything, even if your IQ is 160 or higher, you could still be dumb as a box of rocks in any number of subjects.
By the way, here's a copy of the suitability matrix.
Sometimes those background checks are run without employees having a clue. I am of the belief that even for private sector jobs that our government is involved in those checks. And they are not always for positions that one might suspect that they would be run. I found out about this as a consequence of a burglary in which files were found by various employees.
And there is some good that can come from this. For example I know of a stock boy who was throwing thousands of dollars in parts into the dumpster buried in shipping trash. And for good measure a higher up employee who was given time to find another job who was causing the loss of tens of thousands of dollars worth of parts.
Perhaps it is not such a bad thing that these checks take place. If they do I can think of two people that I just mentioned that will be black listed forever.
Your wife cannot legally be compelled to testify against you, thus if all your sex (taboo or otherwise) is with her, your sex dungeon is safe.
IANAL
For some time JPL and the California Institute of Techmology have flaunted employment and State Department laws.
Now. the Department of Home Land Security, want stewardship of JPL.
This is the GAME.
Officials at Department of Homeland Security are blackmailing persons at the Jet Propulison Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
Officials at the Department of Homeland Security want sexual gratification from persons at the Jet Propulison Laboratory.
This is all it is .... rather small balls I'd say. Well that is what DoHS is all about.
The HR people get to read the stuff security collects. Something that will get past security as being unimportant suddenly becomes a reason for you not to have a job.
The primary stupidity of security getting irrelevant information still applies, but I thought I'd mention the above as long term consequences from things that should be private trivia.
Blackmail as an espionage tool is a joke. Nobody turns over highly classified information to an enemy due to infidelity/being gay/embarasing photo. The biggest spy cases always involve ego. Nothing more. Google it. Of course, this is why our intelligence infrastructure is a joke. There's a monoculture of tee teetotalers/fidelity freaks/paranoids/non fun people. This is why we invade other countries without any credible evidence for the need.
"Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, concerned about background checks now required of federal employees, sued NASA to suspect the checks back in 2007"
what the hell? what are they suing for? to suspect the checks? what checks? suspect what? i don't get it.
Let me just address the JPL for a second...
Hey JPL, I had to go pee in a cup and get a background check to do an inventory project for IBM for 2 weeks and it was through another contractor, not IBM directly. I think if you're working on a tube with a gigantic bomb strapped to it, you should probably not be an axe murderer or have a history of mental illness. Just about any job that's remotely important in the US has a background get, get the hell over it.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
The background checks, which can include interviewing people from employees' pasts such as landlords and teachers, may seek, among other things, sexual histories.
JPL scientists should be safe considering the last one...
They just didn't believe that NASA was being allowed to do its job anymore, so they decided to sue for that as part of their requested remedy.
Well...that's what I would have sued for anyway.
I care much more about issues like illegal prisons, torture (whether or not by that name), secret kidnappings, state secrets, assassinations without trials, warrantless wiretapping, and policies like that than I do about downloading free music, but Obama's Just-Us Department is defending the Bush Administration's policies on all of those things. Instead of Hopey Changey Stuff, we've been getting Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss. And the kind of people who want the uncontrolled spying on people's music download habits get along really well with the politically-motivated spooks who want the same powers and same infrastructure.
As far as the economy goes, Keynes himself was smarter than most people who use his name to describe themselves - it's not surprising that the Obama Administration tried to fix Bush's massive economic damage by borrowing and spending lots of money, but if that were all it took, the way Bush racked up deficits by spending money like a drunken sailor with a bunch of stolen credit cards should have helped things instead of hurting them. It's certainly better to spend them on domestic pork-barrel projects than on wars, but Obama hasn't slowed down the wars by much either. There's a better excuse for it (naive optimism instead of cynical irresponsibility), but I don't see it getting us out of the tar pits, since we're still going to have to pay that money back, and with the demographic hit of all the boomers going on Social Security in the next decade, the general budget will need to start running surpluses, not deficits, which will be tough with fewer actual workers.
(And religious bigotry's not pretty even if you are attacking politically correct targets. Blamin' Texans is ok, though...)
(Also, I once pulled a bird out of the La Brea Tar Pits; it was still alive, but the folks at the museum said it was unlikely to recover from getting stuck in that stuff.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Blackmail isn't always about things you personally feel ashamed of - I've had friends who got fired from their jobs for being gay (hey, she didn't know her boss was a homophobe when she started working there), and there are people whose families would freak out if they knew.
One of the TLAs, probably NSA, once wanted to hire a guy who was gay, some time after it had stopped being illegal in most of the US. The deal they made was that he had to come out to his family, so it couldn't be used for blackmail. If it had been the Army, either under DADT or the previous Hunt Down The Queer Witches policy, blackmail would have still been a possibility even if his family was fine with it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The only thing that matters is whether or not you can be blackmailed. When they did my interview, there was exactly 1 question that has anything even remotely to do with sexual history:
Is there anything about your lifestyle, conduct, personal habits, family, or associates that is not generally known which could ever be used to pressure, influence, or coerce you?
The way it was explained to me is they don't really care, from a security standpoint if you're (let's say) gay. What they care about is whether or not you can be blackmailed for it (whatever 'it' is). If you're gay or whatever, and you can't be blackmailed, then you truthfully answer 'no' to that question and that's it. They don't ask anything else about sexual history.
You'll stea...borrow the robot arm and use it to masturbate.
Sheesh. The editing leaves something to be desired, doesn't it?
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't hear the phrase "sexual histories" and "JPL" in the same breath and not think of Amy Mainzer. She's on Wikipedia.
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
it just takes awhile to lose the momentum. You're right about GWB. But I doubt we're coming back from his presidency despite BO's efforts. We're gonna see a decline as our infrastructure ages out, as income disparity widens still more, and as we no longer lead or accomplish much because we can't pay for much. It was nice while it lasted.
Dear AC, there is a difference between flaunted and flouted. Look them both up, decide which of the two words it is and do let us know. Thanks ever so much.
As a named plaintiff in this lawsuit, I'm awfully happy to see the widespread support here on Slashdot. I'd like to be able to keep driving Mars rovers around without having to sign a form that says NASA can interrogate my priest, my doctor, my lawyer, my accountant, and my ISP to make sure I'm sufficiently uninteresting.
If you'd like to help, please consider donating to keep our amazing legal team afloat. The privacy you save could be your own. Thank you!
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
Homer Simpson originally postulated The Universe is shaped like a chocolate donut with sprinkles to Steven Hawkings. Doh The stuper computer at NASA has proven his theory to indeed be correct. :)
Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, concerned about background checks now required of federal employees, sued NASA to suspect the checks back in 2007.
What does sued to suspect mean?
Looking at the USA government policies from outside the country, we see where all Americans are second or third class citizens. The government has become so paranoia about insecurity as to create bureaucracies that spy on bureaucracies. FBI, Homeland, CIA, and death squads too. Now if you have unusual but normal sexual habits, you may and most probably be ineligible to work for any government agency. Shades of Monica Lewinsky are enough to disqualify you. We don't want another one of these ML situations to arise ever again, even if it is between consenting partners in their own bedroom. Is it any wonder that the smarter talent is leaving the USA to live elsewhere.
Jack Parsons, one of the founders of the JPL, was heavily involved with sex magick and other weirdness with L Ron Hubbard & Aliester Crowley. It's pretty hard to imagine him passing a thorough background check. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons
Where I work, HR is primarily responsible for ensuring policies and procedures are adhered to. In some cases, a security issue could very well involve matters that could not be disclosed to anyone ourside of a particular department or group, in fact restricted by Federal law or laws of any number of countries. In these cases, I would expect HR would be told that the dismissal was per policy, and corporate counsel would confirm without divulging details.
Yes, there are things that HR would not know the intimate details of. Maybe not in a lot of companies, but in some.
And no, this is not military or government. Those are indeed 'special'.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
How can these politicians justify forcing anyone to endure background checks the politicians themselves couldn't pass?
I also support random drug testing for Congress.