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]."

18 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. They only ask important questions by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:They only ask important questions by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Their job isn't to hire good engineers, it's to hire good AMERICANS!

      Wasn't our early space program staffed with Nazis?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:They only ask important questions by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're not getting hired, buddy!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:They only ask important questions by hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sort of, some were ex-Nazis, but point taken. That was the whole point of operation paperclip.

    4. Re:They only ask important questions by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They were aiming for the stars, but accidentally hit London.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:They only ask important questions by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Speaking as someone who has been interviewed many times by the FBI re High School friends who were seeking a "Q" clearance, I can say the questions they asked about my friends were not intrusive and related directly to the character, honesty, and truthfulness of the candidate. I realize all of these are now outmoded and tired cliche instead of esteemed and admired character traits but that is the evolution of culture right there.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    6. Re:They only ask important questions by nohelix · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obligatory "Our Germans are better than their Germans." (From The Right Stuff)

    7. Re:They only ask important questions by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sort of, some were ex-Nazis, but point taken. That was the whole point of operation paperclip.

      They were Nazis but they got better? ;-)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    8. Re:They only ask important questions by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      What, a "newtzi?"

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:They only ask important questions by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Aren't people animals?

      Most sadly are not animals in bed. At least not the ones I've been with.

      I think GP's example question maybe was supposed to be "barnyard animals."

  2. What was the suit? Wool? A blend? by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...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?

  3. That's Too Bad by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. NASA and security of data by shatfield · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Werner Von Braun by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    It was a question of not letting the enemy have them instead.

    Thing is, replace Soviet Union with Taliban and you still have the same issues. It's just not being handled as intelligently anymore. Instead we're letting political correctness run rife.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  6. Re:TFS/TFA misleading; not about govt. employees by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah it should be nothing like a security clearance for a defense contract. They're just shooting giant missiles with possibly nuclear payloads into the sky every couple months. I mean why even background check anyone?

  7. Re:TFS/TFA misleading; not about govt. employees by bware · · Score: 3, Informative

    Caltech/JPL employees don't work on the shuttle. No one was objecting to clearances for anyone who needs one. The objection was to an open-ended background check for jobs that don't deal with sensitive data or need a clearance. The folks who do that had to get clearance anyway. The Soops just pretty much said that if you get paid by the government in any way, shape, or form, even twice removed, the government has the right, nay the duty, to investigate your background. For instance, JPL employees are not government employees: they work for Caltech (once-removed). And JPL contractors don't work for JPL, they get paid by their contracting firm (twice-removed).

    Again, JPL employees typically don't deal with classified or sensitive data; most NASA data and inventions are required by law to be released to the public eventually (pick up a copy of NASA Tech Briefs sometime). This will propagate; the DOE doesn't have to do this now, but they will. As will the DOT and DOEducation, and every other government organization and contractor. How many of you will be free from this? How many of your jobs depend on government money at some stage?

    Not in the headline is Scalia's concurring opinion, where he comes right out and says that there is no right to informational privacy. Good luck with that too.

    Adios, Fourth Amendment.

  8. A plaintiff's view by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

    (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
  9. Re:TFS/TFA misleading; not about govt. employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You missed the part where the issue being decided was whether or not employees termed low risk (i.e., have no access to mission systems) had to submit to an open-ended investigation. My wife doesn't even have access to the computer room with her machine, much less any flight stuff, and she had to "volunteer" to be investigated more thoroughly than for a DoD secret (trust me, I know). It's the ability of the government to simultaneously call someone low risk and demand an intrusive background check that's so... impressive.