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.
...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?
Likely the issue was not that the background checks were too invasive but that the people who had access to the information gathered from the background checks did not have the self-control to keep their mouth shut...
So once you have a background check pretty much the entire world knows about that time that you crapped your pants in third grade because your Mom forgot to wash her hands before she packed your lunch.
Background checks for security... sure. Background checks used to humiliate and intimidate... that's the problem.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
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.
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
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!
Well do you want Barney "Let's crash the rocket into the White House and kill the President" Gumble working at NASA?
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
It's funny you'd say that.
I'm a military contractor. It took about 8 months to get my clearance so I could get onto the base, but so far (and I'd like to keep it this way) I don't know anything Classified. Obviously that's private industry, and while you're right that a lot of innovation is happening in the private places, they are incredibly unstable and I've worked for four places that have gone bankrupt. Your best bet is to find a place with a generous personal IP policy and hone your skills at a place where there's no worries about your next direct deposit not showing up.
I've only had to give a "cup sample" for personal reasons. (post-vas check)
However, the most extensive check was for volunteering at the YMCA. I had to get fingerprinted and have that checked out to make sure I wasn't a suspect in any violent crimes. Hell, they have better gates there than at the military base down the road -- you have to sign in with a scanner, go through a turnstile, and your picture is displayed on the computers. By contrast, I could fake a better base pass with a laser printer and nobody knows who is on the base.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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?
Lots of that stuff is subjective. And when they come around to check up on you, they don't limit themselves to the contacts you have listed.
When I was a kid, my dad worked on some aerospace stuff for Boeing. So did our next door neighbor. But we didn't get along with them very well. The guy and his wife were alcoholics and have one (maybe two) kids suffering from fetal alchohol syndrome. My folks just didn't care to associate with the riff-raff. But they didn't mind venting about us. At one point, my dad completed an interview about the neighbor with the DoD investigator. When it was done he said that, even though he wasn't supposed to discuss it, he had also conducted the interview with our neighbor about my dad. Hew said, "Boy, that guy really hates your guts. If it wasn't for the fact that we know he's got problems, we might take him seriously. But don't worry about it."
Now that I'm in the position my dad was in, I can only wonder what kind of crap my bible thumping nut case neighbor might be telling the authorities. After all, if I don't have Jesus in my heart, how can I possibly build weapons systems for killing non-Christians around the world? I know they talk to him because, in spite of instructions not to discuss the interview, their kids come over and say, "Hey mister! The FBI was asking my dad questions about you!"
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
I suspect they checked your record for child and/or sex related crimes. You know, the things that the little darling's parents would sue them for if they let you near their little Johnny or Suzy and you touched them.
Think of the children!
However, the most extensive check was for volunteering at the YMCA.
Mine was for teaching an Astronomy course at a community college. Fingerprints, photos, and various criminal record, background and credit checks that I got to pay for. All for $125 a week in salary. (And they say public employees are so much better paid than private employees.) And after that: no ID, no guards, no security. Anyone could just walk off the street and into my classroom (which was fine with me).
Welcome to the post 9/11 world.
Support SETI@home
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
A background check can be a part of a security clearance. Or not. But when the questions go beyond the factual (Did this person actually live at the address given for NN years? etc), problems car arise. The question in the post I replied to, "Do you have any reason to question this persons honesty or trustworthiness?' is completely subjective. Questions about my financial or criminal background are 1) a matter of pubic record, and 2) not necessarily shared with the people may list as contacts for tings like residence verification. If I know in advance that these questions will be asked of those I'll list, I'll have to leave that list blank.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
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?
However, the most extensive check was for volunteering at the YMCA. I had to get fingerprinted and have that checked out to make sure I wasn't a suspect in any violent crimes.
I suspect they checked your record for child and/or sex related crimes. You know, the things that the little darling's parents would sue them for if they let you near their little Johnny or Suzy and you touched them.
Think of the children!
So you don't think there's anything wrong with employing paedophiles at schools, youth groups, and so on?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No taxation without representation.
A foreign citizen can either petition their country to negotiate with the US for a better deal or become a US citizen. And they can always protest whether or not they are US citizens.
You're right, it's the "Vulnerable Sector Screening" but I was simplifying it for /.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
I'm still not understanding exactly what your problem with the questions is? Asking a reference for their (subjective) opinion on a candidate is standard practice for every company on this planet. Why should we hold Federal employees to a lesser standard?
Find a lawyer. Fast.
Answering anything other than factual questions (Does this person live at this residence? Is he/she employed at XYZ corporation?) can get your ass sued off should that person lose a job due to your answers.
Given that lying to a federal official is a crime (and possibly state officials as well), if some gov't official asks me anything about my neighbors that goes into a subjective area, I'm just hanging up.
Have gnu, will travel.
So how did you come to that absolutely ridiculous conclusion? Oh, sorry, I forgot. This is /., where a statement about why something was done is assumed to be approval for or denouncement of that action, depending on the day of the week.
Let me clear it up for you. The fact that his background check was probably for sex or child-abuse related crimes does not mean I support the automatic hiring of those who fail said background checks.
Ok?