Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Says NASA Background Checks OK
coondoggie writes "In a long-running dispute about privacy and security, the US Supreme Court today sided with NASA saying its background checks were not invasive and that the information required for not only NASA but most government positions was a reasonable security precaution and that sufficient privacy safeguards existed to prevent any improper disclosures. You may recall that in this case, 28 scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory filed suit against the US government and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 2007 saying that NASA's invasive background investigations as required by government regulations [inappropriately violate workers' privacy]."
Questions like "Are you now, or have you ever been a Communist--or voted Democrat?" "Have you ever criticized NASA, one of its employees, or a relative of one of its employees?" and "Does the movie Red Dawn give you an erection and, if not, why?" are vital in assessing the security risk of a new employee or contractor. Otherwise, they had might as well put a sign out that says "Pinkos and homosexuals welcome!"
NASA is the first line of defense, people. Their job isn't to hire good engineers, it's to hire good AMERICANS!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Growing up I really wanted to work at NASA. Now that I'm a software engineer I can see that NASA is a beurocratic clusterfuck and most of the real innovation is taking place in private industry.
Also, many private employers are less obsessed with the content of my urine private life, and criminal record.
...28 scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory filed suit against the US government and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 2007 saying that NASA's invasive background investigations as required by government regulations.
Perhaps you meant to finish that sentence with a verb or two? I am forced to guess... Did the background checks insult their mom and kick their dog?
The issue in this case was not "background checks required for government positions", it was "background checks required for employees of firms with government contracts".
Um, sorry: TFS is misleading; TFA is not.
They're smart guys. They don't have to work for JPL. They do so because the really like to.
I'm sure COMAC would be delighted to hire any one of these guys for blue sky research.
A NASA spokesman said, "We just wanted to make sure we don't hire any illegal ALIENS".
I'll be here all week, enjoy the veal!
> You may recall that in this case, 28 scientists and engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory filed suit ... were what? Saying that "NASA's invasive background investigations" WERE WHAT?
> against the US government and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 2007 saying that NASA's
> invasive background investigations as required by government regulations.
Is this just an incomplete sentence, or is the rest of the sentence??
Did you seriously expect the current incarnation of the US Supreme Court to do anything other than uphold more government intrusion? The only interesting part of this case is that it was basically unanimous.
I am officially gone from
I disagree with.
See subject line, & this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
APK
P.S.=> His background, Nazi Scientist, didn't stop him from being utilized in the name of United States Progress in Sciences & Military applications... why? Because he was a pre-eminent scientist in the field of rocketry so, especially at that time, pretty much everyone wanted what he was good at so, there you are! apk
The Soviets were just as reliant on Nazi tech.
Reminds me of the quote from The Right Stuff "Our Germans are better than their Germans"
A significant portion of the space concentration aerospace engineers that I graduated with from Cal Poly specifically avoided the defense megacorps when hunting for jobs (Lockheed, Boeing, Northrup) precisely because they did not want to work for an organization that had that kind of access into their personal lives. Many of those folk saw JPL as one of the 'civil' workplaces where they could find a job without having to deal with all of the security clearance BS. After this ruling, I am pretty sure that even more talented upcoming engineers will specifically avoid working for JPL (opting, instead, for places like Loral and SpaceX).
I would wager that this ruling had to due with ITAR technology though. ITAR agreements tend to apply to just about any space technology in the U.S. (which, incidentally, is hampering progress to a degree). So exposure to many advanced technologies must be heavily regulated and monitored. Hell, I plan to take a tour of JPL Tuesday, and I will be required to show proof of citizenship just to enter the facility; a facility that is entirely and completely funded by our tax dollars.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
but what if the reason you can't maintain a federal security clearance is because of your state approved medical marijuana?
Well do you want Barney "Let's crash the rocket into the White House and kill the President" Gumble working at NASA?
I don't see the big deal. Most NASA employees are responsible for managing vast amounts of public equipment and resources. Furthermore, many are directly responsible for the safety of others, and many others deal with sensitive (ITAR, SBU, etc.) information. As a taxpayer (and employee) I'd rather they pass a quick lookover to make sure they aren't complete screwups!
As someone who's gone through the NASA background check process last year, it's just a series of questionnaires (all done via phone/mail). Far less intrusive than an actual security clearance screening.
You fill out an initial form accounting for all the places you've resided for the past few years along with people that can vouch for that. Those people (1 from each place of residence) then get another scantron form asking 9 very basic questions Here are the questions from last year's form :
How long have you known this person:
My Association with the person is/was as a :
I last associated with this person : 0-3 months ago, 3 to 12 months ago... etc. etc.
Does the information on the front of this form concerning this person appear to be correct?
Do you have any reason to question this persons honesty or trustworthiness?
Do you have any adverse information about this person's employment, residence or activities concerning
y/n - Violations of the law
y/n - Financial integrity
y/n - abuse of alcohol or other drugs
y/n - mental or emotional stability
y/n - general behavior or conduct
y/n - other matters (if so explain)
Additional information which you feel may have a bearing on this person's suitability for government employment or a security clearance. This space may be used for derogatory as well as positive information.
Do you recommend this person for government security clearance or employment? y/n/I don't know this person well enough
A friend of mine used to be a contractor to NASA and he used to tell me stories about how you could get into trouble if you queried the wrong column in a database table. His background check was so extensive that it went on for 3 months, while he just sat around and brought home paychecks for doing absolutely NOTHING.
He also said that if you pushed the wrong number on the elevator and got off on the wrong floor, you would be interrogated and possibly fired. If you did it more than once, you would definitely be fired.
Those gubment folks are pretty strict.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
As someone who just turned down a job offer at a "big company" because I felt the background check was becoming too invasive, I now worry about how much control big employers have in defining candidates' eligibility to be employable.
It was much more about security theater than security. And, I'm troubled that the definition of employability is now the willingness to send one's tax records to outsourced fact checkers on the other side of the world.
I don't really get it, what's the big deal over this whole issue? These guys are raging because they were about to get a thorough background check before they were let into possession of government info. Personal experience, I applied for an internship at the Hungarian Foreign Ministry, and part of the requirement was submitting to a Type-C background check, which is the most thorough of the three types in the Hungarian system: it includes a written questionnaire (which, I might add, included questions on my sexual orientation, and whether I know of anything can be used to blackmail me, such as homosexuality and addictions), a statement from you, and anyone living in the same household, that you consent to overt/covert surveillance and questioning of relatives and neighbors. All this for an internship, during which I probably wouldn't have been given access to any sensitive materials.
In light of this, such a check on people having access to government tenders and cutting-edge tech being developed, that other countries might show an interest in doesn't seem so harsh, does it?
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
You act like you've never accidentally a sentence.
Extra medication for all!
Anyone who has worked for the government, a contractor to the government and is/was employed by a company has had a background check done. You don't think said entities simply file away your personal information, do you? You've seen the many stories on /. about people not being hired or getting fired because of their Facebook/My Space/etc account. Well, you also invite the government/employer to use the rest of the information they collect from you to find out who you really are and not the prim and proper job candidate/employee that graced their doorstep.
Face the facts: Our world is a world where collection of information is a hot business and you are the prey. And your personal data that has been given or harvested WILL come back to haunt you.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
NASA has a sort of close working relationship with the military. Sort of like the Department of Energy and nuclear weapons. See http://www.energy.gov/nationalsecurity/nuclearsecurity.htm for more info. NASA often develops and tests tech that the military wants. The military looks at space as the "high ground" critical for national security.
Some people think that parts of the DOE and NASA budgets should be considered part of the US defense budget.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The 28 who sued were long time JPL employees, some with over thirty years service. Since JPL does no classified research they thought the government was over-reaching in requiring they allow open-ended investigations into their backgrounds. The SC disagreed.
Hey now, we all make mistakes, but what is far more worse is then you realize you fainted from it being so bad.
The world is how you make it
The Shuttle is retired, and the replacement launch vehicle has been canceled, what is there for NASA to hire people for? I Can't see the new Congress giving them any more money either...
what if your your inability to maintain your federal security clearance is a result of your state authorized medical marijuana use?
As for the argument that a background check is necessary and why should you object if you have nothing to hide, for a position in the government that requires you to hide information seems a bit uneven in concept. I guess its true if they do not find anything about you they should definitely hire you because, either your clean or your already good at hiding information.
No you not.
Support SETI@home
(Disclaimer: I'm a named plaintiff in this lawsuit.)
I'm only about halfway through the ruling, but it's hard for me to know where to begin criticizing it. Here are some choice bits:
* The ruling says that we shouldn't be worried because the government promises to protect our privacy. That's fatally absurd in the era of Wikileaks: if the government can't keep its own secrets secret, what are the odds that it'll keep my secrets secret?
* The ruling says that the government needn't show that its questions must be crafted as narrowly as possible to further its interests. This seems to ignore an interesting distinction between the government and private employers: the government can now ask you anything it wants, and jail you if it doesn't like the answers. Worse, the government can change its mind about what you get in trouble for, as a lot of people discovered unpleasantly in the 1950s, so something that's perfectly safe to admit now can get you in trouble a decade from now.
* It's a special irony that Justice Thomas held (in a minority view) that there's no right to informational privacy at all. (Fortunately, the majority explicitly refused to rule on that point.) Perhaps Justice Thomas would like to tell us what really went on between him and Anita Hill, then? Or maybe privacy is good for the gander, in his view, but not so much for the goose.
* Remember that this ruling is only on a preliminary injunction. We haven't even gone to trial yet. The legal system is as intricate as only a centuries-old piece of code can be, and we have a long way to go yet. (Contrary to a highly misleading internal all-hands JPL email message issued after the ruling, incidentally.)
I have lots more to say, but I'm going to meet with our lawyers now. Grr.
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
For those unaware, I figure I'd make it clear that people were making references to the song "Wernher Von Braun", one of Tom Lehrer's classics of satirical songwriting - it refers to the oddity of that case, but its deeper meaning is the problem of science becoming decoupled form ethics.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Humans are animals, right?
If the govermint's questioning gets too invasive then no one will qualify/want to work for the governmint, and many position will remain unfilled. Eventually no one worth-a-shit will want to work for them...
Could this be a way of reducing the governmint budget by reducing interest in governmint related jobs?
No taxation without representation. Ring a bell?
I say, if you don't like the way you as an employee or even prospective employee are treated by your company and if you have any serious doubt that you or others will be treated in a way that you feel acceptable on legal and moral grounds by said company, then make a big decision and tell them to go fuck themselves. After all that's what Wernherr von Braun and others should probably have done once the Nazi government took an interest in their toys and wanted to fund them. Technological types are so easily subverted, just give them the opportunity (or even the promise or hint of an opportunity) and they'll likely to consider very hard whether it wouldn't be so bad after all to sell their souls to be able and continue to play around with ever more sophisticated/expensive technology.
There is rampant espionage in U.S. .gov projects using foreign science researchers, just
look around at the latest tech our adversaries are rolling out..
China and Russia both have research students applying for .gov jobs
like crazy.. get a clue..
mod me troll I don't give a fuck!!!
china, russia, pretty much anyone ripping us off goes through h1b or just plants tech spies to steal our IP and our R&D and its been going on for 60 fucking years..
too bad liberal and democrat asshat morons on this site spin the hell out of this topic to directly benefit everyone but our own
people.. what a fucking disgrace crying about background checks..
It's our national security and JPL is national security you ass hats!! Rocket engines is a national security issue..
try to fly a JPL rocket at your local flying field you idiots!!