Amazon Hiring More Than a 100 Who Can Get Top Secret Clearances

dcblogs writes "Amazon has more than 100 job openings for people who can get a top secret clearance, which includes a U.S. government administered polygraph examination. It needs software developers, operations managers and cloud support engineers, among others. Amazon's hiring effort includes an invitation-only recruiting event for systems support engineers at its Herndon, Va., facility on Sept. 24 and 25. Amazon is fighting to win a contract to build a private cloud for the CIA. The project is being rebid after IBM filed a protest. In a recent federal lawsuit challenging the rebid, Amazon took a shot at IBM, describing the company as 'a traditional fixed IT infrastructure provider and late entrant to the cloud computing market.' Among the things IBM says in response, is that the government didn't look at Amazon's outage record. An analyst firm, Ptak Noel & Associates, concluded, in a report about the dispute, that CIA officials 'too casually brush off Amazon's outages' in evaluating the proposals."

Comments

Decent.

[nospam007]

"Amazon has more than 100 job openings for people who can get a top secret clearance, which includes a U.S. government administered polygraph examination."

That's very decent of them, after having sold them all those 'How to beat the polygraph test' books.

Re:Decent.

[ackthpt]

In socialist Brazil the secrets of the Amazon are explored by YOU!

Re:Decent.

[Anonymous Coward]

They will also measure the shapes of their heads, just to be sure.

Re:Decent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear Eric Snowden is looking for a job...

Re:Decent.

[93 Escort Wagon]

So is his brother Edward.

Re:Decent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I though even the CIA had acknowledged that polygraphs are about as accurate as astrology ... they use Tarot cards too?

Re:Decent.

[philip.paradis]

I have mod points, but given the fact that you're bound to get modded up Funny or Insightful anyhow, I'll simply take this opportunity to say "yep."

Re:Decent.

[realityimpaired]

Tarot is probably more accurate, since most people who do tarot will ask probing questions (that are usually answered honestly) before doing the reading... ;)

Re:Decent.

[Russ1642]

Well you can't use them in court anymore, and I'm surprised they're still used at all considering they open you up to lawsuits claiming discrimination. They can discriminate against you for being black, gay, unmarried, fat, whatever and just say it's the polygraph. They might as well hold a seance to see what the dead have to say about you.

Re:Decent.

[gl4ss]

...here's an interesting though however: how the fuck are they getting the contract when they don't even have the guys to do it? someone giving them the free reign to skim federal money? why? why doesn't CIA/NSA inhouse it?

(and polygraphs a joke)

Re:Decent.

[ad5mqesj]

since it's "National Security" they can do whatever they want. It's voodoo but they don't care - they can claim, if you turn out to be a spy or the next Snowden that they did "everything possible" to preempt you - it's just standard bureaucratic CYA. They don't even care that they end up rejecting 90+% of applicants for spurious polygraph failures - there are always enough who pass. Yes it can be abused and probably is - but no one cares and no court will touch it

Re:Decent.

[tnk1]

Many projects are understood to happen over a certain timeline, in that timeline you would spend a lot of time architecting the solution as well as negotiating what detailed features are in scope with the government, getting extra facility space, etc. There is also the understanding that you may need to hire more staff in the timeline. In either case, you probably don't need those 100 jobs until later in the project anyway, so you hire them after you have a contract.

As for in-housing... they could, but one might suggest that a company that already has a cloud solution in place would be able to use their wealth of experience in the area, as well some of their existing supply chains, to produce a better quality cloud faster than the government having to do it from scratch. Why reinvent the wheel when all you need is a cloud with some extra security and reporting features?

Re:Decent.

[pnutjam]

I've asked this question before and apparently it is business as usual to outsource things that are not an organizations core competency.
Now it's pretty difficult to find someone who is good at something you don't know anything about, so they usually hire some big name, or whoever sent them the last advertising postcard, unless someone's uncle does that sort of business. Whoever gets hired skims off enough to make the project fail or go way over budget and hires someone who is good at lying about knowing how to do things.

My understanding might be sort of hazy, I'm not a business person.

Whuffo?

[ackthpt]

Good thing I'm a notorious shifty-eyed weasel or I'd be inclined to join them in whatever their shenanigans are likely to be. Think they're about to pick up outsourcing of the NSA?

I think SO.

Re:Whuffo?

[tnk1]

Since outsourcing the NSA seems to be what got them in trouble to begin with, I am not sure they are liable to outsource it further.

Of course contractors are going nowhere at the NSA. Actual government employees are a pain in the ass to hire, pay, and deal with. Not to mention that once they are in place, they're pretty much able to sit there for life, even with poor performance. Contractors are easier to hire, easier to pay, and while they still could be low quality losers, it is a lot easier to get rid of them by just either not renewing the contract, or telling their consulting firm that you want them off your project (and then the firm takes care of the bother of either moving them or firing them).

More than a one hundred?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basic englishs, you has grasps of its?

Re:More than a one hundred?

[Anonymous Coward]

More than a one hundred?

That's over a nine thousand!!

Re:More than a one hundred?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got "more than a 100" on my IQ test, so all I need now is to learn how to beat the polygraph^w^w^w^w^w^w legitimately get Top Secret Security Clearance.

It's lonely at the top when you're a smarter than average guy with an IQ of 102, though.

A patheic thought

[oldhack]

Finally a project that will hire some Americans.

Yeah, it's pretty sad.

Re:A patheic thought

[gatkinso]

Why do you think clearances are so sought after?

1) no H-1B's
2) relatively few youngsters

Re:A patheic thought

[whydavid]

Yep, it's the old "fool me once, shame on you, ..."

The federal government is done with all of these foreign nationals running around spilling our state secrets to the whole world.

Oh wait, those were American citizens with security clearance? My bad.

Re:A patheic thought

[Trepidity]

On #2, even fewer competent youngsters. Not even the CIA wants to hire your average ideological College Young Republicans member.

Re:A patheic thought

[cascadingstylesheet]

Why do you think clearances are so sought after?

{...} 2) relatively few youngsters

Then again ...

I had a security clearance in the military. All it meant was basically that I hadn't been caught doing anything illegal, and that I wasn't old enough to have had to file bankruptcy because of family medical emergencies and mortgages. Nor was I old enough to have pissed off any neighbors enough for them to bad mouth me :)

Being young can be an advantage for security clearances ...

Re:A patheic thought

[s.petry]

Many military jobs require TS special clearances and those are given to 18/19 year old people. It's actually a benefit to get them that young, since they are still duped by propaganda and have yet to see the illusions being painted by main stream media.

Re:A patheic thought

[__aaltlg1547]

Yeah, it SO worked out that way with Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning.

Re:A patheic thought

[AHuxley]

Re few youngsters
They would understand how to sockpuppet, be up with slag, the culture, spelling, music, tech and faith.
They would also have been bought up in a world at war and could be more ideologically hardened with less of that early 1990's base closure/very early dot com days emotional baggage.
Then you have the math and CS elite, nurtured in top US universities - who know the role and wealth their parents enjoyed or are climbing out of poverty.
The dual citizenship question has issues too - too much US only material flows back to the real country of origin.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Her name is Chelsea

Re:A patheic thought

[Frosty Piss]

I had a security clearance in the military. All it meant was basically that I hadn't been caught doing anything illegal, and that I wasn't old enough to have had to file bankruptcy because of family medical emergencies and mortgages. Nor was I old enough to have pissed off any neighbors enough for them to bad mouth me :)

Being young can be an advantage for security clearances ...

Almost certainly the type you had was a Secret clearance.

Today more than ever, TOP Secret clearances are not only hard to get, they are hard to keep.

If the clearance you had didn't involve am anal probe an deep deep investigation that involved actually physically talking to many of your friends, neighbors, and college buddies, you didn't have a TOP Secret, you had only a Secret, which almost anyone can get.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I had top secret back about 25 years ago and I had to sign off on an agreement that I could be wiretapped and have my mail intercepted during and up to 10 years after my clearance was no longer needed.
 

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a security clearance in the military. All it meant was basically that I hadn't been caught doing anything illegal, and that I wasn't old enough to have had to file bankruptcy because of family medical emergencies and mortgages. Nor was I old enough to have pissed off any neighbors enough for them to bad mouth me :)

Being young can be an advantage for security clearances ...

Almost certainly the type you had was a Secret clearance.

Today more than ever, TOP Secret clearances are not only hard to get, they are hard to keep.

If the clearance you had didn't involve am anal probe an deep deep investigation that involved actually physically talking to many of your friends, neighbors, and college buddies, you didn't have a TOP Secret, you had only a Secret, which almost anyone can get.

There were entry level positions that required a TS when I served from 2001 - 2005, I doubt that has changed.
I know what the difference is, I've been interviewed for my own and other people's clearances.

For the average 18 yr old, their life shouldn't complex enough for the SSBI to be all that difficult. The worst might be if you have foreign nationals in your family, or clearly, if you had a criminal record.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a TS clearance when I was in the military. My clearance took about 6 months longer than "normal" to get and I went though a few more steps then everyone else did. All of my counterparts had got theirs and moved on while I sat in holding doing odd jobs waiting for mine. It could be coincidence but my mother is a Canadian citizen (who has been living in the US since 1964).

Re:A patheic thought

[kumanopuusan]

I had to sign off on an agreement that I could be wiretapped and have my mail intercepted

I don't remember signing an agreement like that but I ended up in a similar arrangement, along with several hundred million of my closest friends.

Re:A patheic thought

[SeaFox]

Argh! All out of mod points.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

emphasis on the not getting caught part. in the old days, it was really really hard to get caught. ROFL.

Re:A patheic thought

[drkim]

Many military jobs require TS special clearances

First it was Don't ask, Don't tell. Then they allowed the homos. Now you can't even join the army unless you're a tranny?

Yeah. Those gay Spartans were terrible soldiers.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to sign off on an agreement that I could be wiretapped and have my mail intercepted during and up to 10 years after my clearance was no longer needed.

Bullshit.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I perceive the young are also a lot more attuned to what is just and "the right thing to do", rather than accepting robotically whatever comes down through the echelons of command. I know I was that way - big time - when I was a kid in the 60's.

There were huge numbers of us who just did not buy into what we called "The Establishment". It was not right. It was not just. And by golly, we were going to change it.

Here is one of our hallmark songs... Graham Nash - We Can Change the World. Betcha that one will bring back memories to those of us who went through the 60's.

I note as I got older, and accumulated more things that someone could take away by nothing more than wagging a pen, I became much more docile and restrained. There once was a time in my life that if you gave me any lip, there was soon work for a dentist somewhere. Hell, I did not think I had anything to lose, and anything propelled with all the force I could muster into that hole a few inches from my face that was irritating me would get the job done.

If its anything I see our young'uns doing, I believe a lot of them see this mess, and this useless obedience to authority which just enriches the ruling class. Its high time that people in high places be called on the carpet to justify their actions and quit shooting the messenger.

Re:A patheic thought

[93 Escort Wagon]

To be fair, you probably live within a couple thousand miles of a national border.

Re:A patheic thought

[davester666]

Obviously, it's in the fine print...

Re:A patheic thought

[Andtalath]

Her name is indeed Chelsea.

But her name was Bradley.

Re:A patheic thought

[Trax3001BBS]

Why do you think clearances are so sought after?

{...}
2) relatively few youngsters

Then again ...

I had a security clearance in the military. All it meant was basically that I hadn't been caught doing anything illegal, and that I wasn't old enough to have had to file bankruptcy because of family medical emergencies and mortgages. Nor was I old enough to have pissed off any neighbors enough for them to bad mouth me :)

Being young can be an advantage for security clearances ...

I agree, being young has many advantages as opposed to being out of school and on your on for any length of time.

Many years ago my job required a Q clearance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_clearance (civilian equivalent of top secret with access to
nuclear material) as did everyone that worked there. While the plant had it's older operators it was a young group, many just out of high school
and their first job, managers still in their 20's.

I on the other hand had been around the block and had a history, it took me longer than most to get my clearance.

BTW: through the freedom of information act you can get what the FBI has on you, it's interesting to read what others had to say about you.

Re:A patheic thought

[return 42]

Charles Stross has some interesting thoughts on this subject. tl;dr: leaks will continue because young people have no reason to be loyal to organizations that aren't loyal to them.

Re:A patheic thought

[gatkinso]

In 23 years of dealing with DOD and IC TS clearances with all kinds of letters after them, I have never ever heard of such a thing.

I'm just glad to be out of that realm. No political reasons mind you - it is just that the US government is no longer a great customer.

Re:A patheic thought

[gatkinso]

Probably not - military is a great place for a younger person to get cleared. Also, the maturity level of a young worker who is former military is generally about a million times higher than that of a civilian.

Re:A patheic thought

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

His name was Robert Paulson.

Re:A patheic thought

[realityimpaired]

I had a security clearance in the military. All it meant was basically that I hadn't been caught doing anything illegal, and that I wasn't old enough to have had to file bankruptcy because of family medical emergencies and mortgages. Nor was I old enough to have pissed off any neighbors enough for them to bad mouth me :)

You didn't have top secret, then. My clearance when I was in military signals took 2 years to come through, and meant that not only wasn't I a risk, nobody in my immediate family or circle of friends was a risk either. They actually delayed giving me clearance because one of my idiot friends in high school joined the Communist party when he was in University. (and I graduated high school in 2000).

Re:A patheic thought

[gl4ss]

if it's so fucking secret why the fuck do they announce that the guy is going to work on such things to everyone the guy ever had a chat with?

do they also do signature analysis and voodoo? because what you just described was just a method for accepting or failing someone based purely on feel you get from talking to people who know him(the non feel, concrete, part is the part of not having been caught of anything).

Re:A patheic thought

[tnk1]

While, yes, the investigation makes it obvious that this person might get a clearance and work on top secret stuff, there's really no way around that. And frankly, it isn't going to do too much harm, it's not like the TS/SCI holders are this tiny segment of the population. There must be tens of thousands of people with that level, just being investigated to get one isn't really making you much more useful to foreign intelligence agencies alone. They usually need to know what you are working on, and so they have spies inside the government who give them that information directly instead of bothering with something as scattershot as a list of people undergoing a check.

Re:A patheic thought

[dcw3]

You didn't have top secret, then.

You don't know wtf you're talking about. Period, end of story.

Re:A patheic thought

[s.petry]

Generalization fallacy. It would also only apply to Manning since Snowden was near 30 and not an 18/19 year old.

Re:A patheic thought

[__aaltlg1547]

The military recruited Snowden and began training him to do what he did when he was a teenager. A young maleable mind and years of indoctrination and it didn't take.

Also the generalization fallacy was more on the part of petry who commented about the young being "still duped by propaganda."

Re:A patheic thought

[s.petry]

It would be fair to for you to claim an opinion that my comment was also a generalization fallacy, but that does not dismiss your fallacy.

That said, I would argue that people claiming that main stream media is not generating propaganda fail to see reality. This of course would make your claim of a generalization fallacy false.

My comment regarding propaganda is not a new or unique thought, and factually it is very correct if you care to investigate. See Gary Allen, Mark Dice, and countless others for references. An exceptional reference is Mark Dice's "Illuminati Fact vs. Fiction" which contains hundreds of references and Gary Allen's 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy" lists nearly as many references. Simply look at every MSM station and how they all claim without providing any facts that Assad dropped sarin gas on his own people, and how they ignore facts numerous other intelligence agencies have discounting his use (most of which are not Russia). Look at how the same media backed a President claiming Iraq had WMDs and was about to dirty bomb New York, or how they ignore Fast and Furious, or the GOA parties, or Benghazi, or thousands of other real examples. Of course looking at who owns and controls the media in the US is a rational and logical starting point.

Back to the first point, you originally claimed that Snowden was an 18/19 year old. That statement was wrong, and is still wrong.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

"Today more than ever, TOP Secret clearances are not only hard to get, they are hard to keep."

All you have to do is stay out of trouble, bankrupcy, divorce, and blackmailable stuff. You need some friends to be interviewed who say you stay reasonably sober, don't gamble etc. I've been on numerous overseas trips for fun (none to sketchy places because I value my skin), without causing suspicion. I just had an anal probe, but that was for a prostate exam. TS is really a pain because you can get shit jobs, have to keep stuff locked up, etc.

Re:A patheic thought

[Anonymous Coward]

"....the US government is no longer a great customer."

They've got no money left, after two presidents drained the treasury dry.

'More than a one hundred'?

[Anonymous Coward]

...

whores

[Anonymous Coward]

have dignity compared to the people who work in this field.

Don't be evil?

[EmperorOfCanada]

I guess they didn't even think about having that as a slogan. As an engineer you can work to make the world a better place or a worse place. This is a choice that is actively made. Here are 100 people who aren't going to make the right choice. I feel bad for them.

Re:Don't be evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that is Google's slogan. I believe Amazon's is "Don't pay taxes."

Re:Don't be evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't pay taxes... not legally required" is a moral imperative.

Re:Don't be evil?

[lgw]

Since taxes == evil, that's really the same slogan.

FFS.

[petteyg359]

Good: A hundred.
Good: One hundred.
Bad: A one hundred.
Bad: A 100.

Re:FFS.

[Anonymous Coward]

"My daughter got a 100 on her math test."

Re:FFS.

[larry bagina]

...and a 69 on her sex ed test.

Re:FFS.

[Anonymous Coward]

There, there are implied quote marks around the 100. Or, to put it differently, what's being said is

"My daughter got a (score of) one hundred on her math test."

, not

"My daughter got a one hundred (points) on her math test."

This is 'hiring more than a one hundred (people)', and is thus broken.

Re:FFS.

[Talderas]

100 can mean two phrases "one hundred" or "hundred". The sentence is only bad if it is written as "a one hundred" not "a hundred".

Re:FFS.

[petteyg359]

No, it cannot. 100 is "one hundred", nothing more, nothing less. It already has the article "one", and adding another article "a" is wrong. Anyone who does so is either a non-native speaker who is not yet fluent, a child in elementary school who sure as heck didn't write the headline here, or an idiot.

Re:FFS.

[Talderas]

From the Oxford English Dictionary.

hundred
number (plural hundreds or (with numeral or quantifying word) hundred)
  (a/one hundred)
  the number equivalent to the product of ten and ten; ten more than ninety; 100
a hundred yards away
there are just a hundred of us here

The only possible argument for bad usage is for "a a hundred job openings" which is tenuous at best or that they used the numeric expression instead of the written expression. Regardless, 100 = one hundred = hundred = one tenth of a thousand. Those terms are all identical.

Re:FFS.

[petteyg359]

Your dictionary definition of "hundred" is a dictionary definition of "hundred". It is not a definition of "100", which clearly starts with a one. You will note that your definition clearly shows that you may use "a hundred" or "one hundred". It does not show "a one hundred". You cannot write the term "hundred" in a numerical format, as it is abstract.

Re:FFS.

[stdarg]

From the Oxford English Dictionary.

hundred

Note that you looked up the definition of hundred, not 100. I don't think 100 is even in the OED.

Regardless, 100 = one hundred = hundred = one tenth of a thousand. Those terms are all identical.

"One hundred and one" means "101" but "one tenth of a thousand and one" means 1/1001. If they were *identical* as you claim then the two sentences would unambiguously mean the same thing.

Another example would be in military time where "zero one hundred hours" means "1am" but "zero hundred hours" means midnight. Clearly "hundred" != "one hundred".

Aside from military time, if you asked someone for "zero one hundred dollars" I'm quite sure they would assume you were awkwardly asking for "zero thousand, one hundred" dollars and not "zero hundred = 0" dollars.

Amz was the only good gov't RFP result I've seen

[Anonymous Coward]

Private buyers are voting with their feet. They grumble about AWS but you don't see them flocking to IBM. The features, the rate of advancement and general ambition to build everything that could be useful, and the smooth automation and general competence of the whole thing outweighs their screwups.

(Which almost all seem to result from a datacenter-wide SAN and a lot of people in us-east-1. Wonder if they're regretting either the reliance on EBS or the concentration in one Region.)

And, yes, they had highly publicized region outages, but if you really need a lot of nines, you put boxes in multiple regions anyway.

Amazon CIA reviews

[JoeyRox]

If Amazon wins the bid will there be a product page where CIA employees can rate the service like we do when we buy a toaster? "Five Stars. Amazon helped our CIA division keep our constitutional-violating secrets away from an unsuspecting American public. I even got to get back at that NSA guy who spied on my hot girlfriend's text messages. That take George!"

Re:Amazon CIA reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes the comments are like "letter to the editor" at dirty magazine - they are a work of fiction and fun to read.

Re:Amazon CIA reviews

[grumpy_old_grandpa]

That's too concise and too much to the point. I believe the reviews would be more personal, littered with titbits of no relevance to the product at hand. Let's see, maybe something like this:

My wife's third cousin twice removed made an interesting comment the other day about her neighbor. Apparently, he had been doing some handy-work on his house lately, but there seemed to be any issue with the payment of the electricity bill. So, his other neighbor had helped out with an extension cord from his house. Now, my wife's third cousin twice removed found all this somewhat suspicious, so she called in the NSA to do a complete check, including a full house search by the local swat team and cavity checks on all family members, even the dog. They didn't find anything, but if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, so they are all good. Thanks CSI for your thorough work. I would definitely order again.

Top Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Amazon need a top secret security clearance to hire those who would hold top secret security clearances? If they do, who gave this company that clearance? This is scary because Amazon sells just about everything.

Re:Top Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

The new hires are even having their clearances fast tracked through the system as well. Flies in the faces of everything that happened with Snowden, etc.

Re:Top Secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Amazon need a top secret security clearance to hire those who would hold top secret security clearances?

I think you just have to be a government contractor. That's my impression as a guy sitting out here looking at job postings. Government contractors are the only ones who care about clearances, and the only way to get them is to work for the government or work for someone working for the government.

I'd google for how to get one but I'm sure that'd put me on A List.

Re:Top Secrets

[gatkinso]

You are referring to Dual Track processing. This is sort of a fast track, but not specific to Amazon.

Clearances take a long time. So to speed things up they passed a law (please refrain from using logic as you read this as I would hate for you to get a headache): All clearances must be finished in X weeks or some such.

So this is what happens (sort of). Folks with NO clearance at all are Dual tracked - their collateral clearance is processed fast and their SCI/SAP clearance is processed at the same time. Folks with an existing lower clearance going for the same program (or having their periodic reinvestigations)... they are put on the back burner. They are Single Track. There is no X week requirement for them... they are already cleared, see?

So a company will hire completely uncleared folks, have them fill out an intensive application and check their criminal record, their credit, and maybe hire a private investigator to peek at them a bit (the applicant agrees to all of this, and this happens much faster than the government would do it). If they look like they would pass the government investigation, they are hired and Dual Tracked.

It is actually a hindrance to have an existing Secret or Top Secret clearance if you want to work for the intel community. I know, this is completely insane, but that is the deal.

Who cares about the polygraph?

[whydavid]

Of all of the things involved in securing top-secret clearance, I'm willing to be the polygraph is the least invasive. Interesting that it would be the only one called out by name.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[alen]

You mean not having the government document your life for the last 20 years is not invasive?

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

it was specifically mentioned because of recent media attention, as well as it's frequent use as plot devices in movies and television. it's what people know (or think they know), and media knows it to be an attention grabbing keyword. canvassing neighbors, digging through government files, credit and call histories, and interviewing family, past-and-present employers, co-workers, etc. is boring shit compared to the high drama of a pass-or-gtfo polygraph.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[DoctorChestburster79]

Of all of the things involved in securing top-secret clearance, I'm willing to be the polygraph is the least invasive. Interesting that it would be the only one called out by name.

It's not that. It depends on the type of investigation you initially undergo to get said clearance in the first place. The big one for anyone holding a TS is a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). That goes through pretty much everything for (to start) the previous ten years. The next piece of the SSBI is the periodic review (PR), which should occur no later than five years after the previous investigation. Having been on the job market for almost 5 months, it was at least a relief to have the PR taken care of prior to my layoff.

Next step up is clearing for Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Having the TS-SSBI (and PR) makes you ELIGIBLE to gain compartmented access, but that all falls under the umbrella of need to know. From what I recall back when I first became eligible, I was asked a few questions by the OPM investigator assigned to my case (really heavy on foreign interactions, etc.). Based on that info, along with the info in the SSBI, is what gets you into SCI.

The poly only comes into play whenever a specific SCI program requires it, and even then, it's a little more involved. The big one that we're all familiar with is the Full Scope/Lifestyle, which is what most of the three letter agencies require for the really involved work. Some programs are only interested in counterintelligence (CI), while other programs don't need a poly at all. The main difference between a FS/LS and a CI poly is pretty simple: FS/LS look at anything you can possibly fess up to in your entire lifestyle (money habits, sexual inclinations, drug experiences, etc.), while CI looks at whether or not you'd be the type of guy (like Snowden) who'd sell US secrets to someone that wasn't an American.

Having personally gone through the CI poly process, it's more tedious than anything else.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Kaenneth]

Really all you need to know about Polygraphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhp2aS9pQU

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[cavreader]

I hate to break the bad news but the government has been documenting you long before the Internet existed. Birth Certificates, SSN, school records at every level, marriage licenses, car registrations, insurance records, credit history, income taxes, employment history, and private property registrations are some of the more common. And now people are freaking out about the government getting your call meta data (basically your phone bill with no bill amounts) and possibly but unlikely reading the contents of your e-mail.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreeing to take the polygraph is like agreeing to be tortured and to be subjected to the falsifciations of results by the "test" givers. Anyone who demands a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not a fit person to breathe, much less work for.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[rwyoder]

Really all you need to know about Polygraphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhp2aS9pQU

Penn & Teller also did an episode of "Bullshit!" on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NLf7XwLpyQ

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[alen]

that's nothing compared what is involved in getting a TS clearance if you don't know

people i've known said they investigate you at least 15 years back. find all your friends, find lost friends, interview them. people in their 20's said the government talked to all their teachers, neighbors, everyone they ever knew in their life

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[drinkypoo]

It has been well-known that the government is searching email (beyond headers) for keywords for quite a few years now. And also, phone calls. It's not expensive any more, you know. Not when you're spending someone else's money.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

And now people are freaking out about the government getting your call meta data (basically your phone bill with no bill amounts) and possibly but unlikely reading the contents of your e-mail.

Yes. And rightfully so. Because while there's almost certainly not a call center of agents working 'round the clock, reading the full text of your e-mails, you can bet your ass they're storing them. And if they ever want to/need to ruin you, the data's already there.

Give me five e-mails and I'll find a felony to charge you with. And I'm not even a corrupt Cardinal.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[the eric conspiracy]

Your friends have been bullshitting you. The investigation for TS is not nearly that invasive. It would be prohibitively expensive if it was. There about 4 million people who hold a TS.

Mostly they are looking for evidence that you are unreliable, prone to criminal behavior or are subject to blackmail.

For a Secret investigation they don't even interview. Just check your records.

It's only when they go to SCI etc. that they get picky.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[AHuxley]

Yes if the gov did not interview your extended family and friends... teachers, neighbours - your clearance was done (post 911) by a contractor, mostly state/federal searches on a computer, ie if its not networked it was never really uncovered. The US gov has really created huge security mess long term.
People the gov will not really know are moving up in the cleared systems and networks with totally unknown pasts eg the really basic stuff of state sealed youth court issues, school, personality...
What the US missed in its hast, the Russians will find over time.- offering cash or exposure or understanding.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all of the things involved in securing top-secret clearance, I'm willing to be the polygraph is the least invasive. Interesting that it would be the only one called out by name.

Because after all your friends, family, neighbors, acquaintances, coworkers, former coworkers, and people you may only know peripherally interviewed by the agency with no red flags, your credibility hinges on the technological equivalent of a Ouija Board that is "read" by a person who actually believes they can "sense" when you are not telling the "truth". Well, at least you'll finally be able to get that OT3 audit and those pesky body thetans taken care of...

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having just gotten past my PR, I can say that PR stands for Periodic Reinvestigation.

Still, everything else you said matches my understanding.

Haven't had to do a poly yet, but am hoping my next job will require one. I'm hoping maintaining TS/SCI et al will keep me employable for another 10 years or more with the government. I am assuming you are/were a contractor who was laid off.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[s.petry]

You are speculating incorrectly. I held a special clearance and they went back and talked to elementary school teachers, old friends, etc... If they come up with concerns, they dig further than they did with me.

The 4 million number includes people that have held a clearance for decades. Renewals do not take much investigation.

In other words, if it was 4million new investigations it would be cost prohibitive. It's not, so don't make up stories.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[DoctorChestburster79]

Wow, make an offhanded comment, and get called a slimeball. Wow. Do you think I actually WANTED to be on the dole? At least I got my ass out there and pounded the pavement, and in the end got interest from a company I hadn't even thought of nor solicited for my services. In short, they wanted me. Before then, I had numerous offers, but most of them hinged on contingencies beyond anyone's control (thank you, budget sequester). So my apologies for not getting my facts straight, because I was too busy trying to find a position than sit at a keyboard and play "Internet Tough Guy".

Look, rightly or wrongly, the guy did what he did. I don't disagree with it, but at the same time, there could have been a better way to handle it (but obviously there wasn't). I don't see him as a hero or as a villain. At best, he's an opportunist.

Also, posting AC just proves that you are exactly that: a coward.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

To ask the question in a less antagonistic manner:

Has it been demonstrated that Snowden has *sold* classified information to anyone? From what I understood, he was delivering it gratis to known-responsible members of The Press.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[vux984]

while CI looks at whether or not you'd be the type of guy (like Snowden) who'd sell US secrets to someone that wasn't an American.

Pretty sure Snowden could have honestly replied to any questions that made him sound like a spy.

Or is a standard question... "If you found out your the entire apparatus of your employer up to the very top was corrupt and conducting illegal acts, and then lying to Congress about it. Would you keep quiet and participate in those criminal acts in violation of the law and the constitution?

Lol... reminds me of those ethics tests they make people take for retail jobs. Where the "right" answers are to be a sociopath freak.

"Suppose there is a coworker you were friends with, lived through a kidnapping with, and who is the god parent to your children and the best man at your wedding, and is in your opinion an excellent employee. Now if they were in a car accident, and he's running a touch late. He calls you from the parking lot as he's rushing in and asks you to punch them in so they would not appear to be late... would you:
a) clock him in early
b) stay out of it
c) promptly report that he asked you to clock him in on time to your manager, and testify for the company against him when we sue him for the attempt to commit fraud?

Company Answer sheet:
a = wrong answer, automatic fail, and you are a worthless criminal
b = wrong answer
c = correct, this is the exactly the kind of people we want as employees. Just think, your new boss passed this test!! We bet you are looking to work with such ethical people!

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[RabidReindeer]

Really all you need to know about Polygraphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROhp2aS9pQU

Polygraphs are a reminder that showy useless security measures do, in fact pre-date the kind of silliness that is currently practiced in airports.

Maybe they should make them take "truth serum".

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Endovior]

Quoth Cory Doctorow:

"Polygraph" is the fancy, semi-scientific name for a "lie detector," a machine that's supposed to be able to tell whether you're fibbing by measuring things like "galvanic skin response" (another science-y word, meaning "sweatiness") and your heart rate. They were invented in 1921, and, like many science-y things, people decided they were so complicated that they must work. This, of course, is an insane reason to believe something.

Lie detectors are crap. What they tell you is whether the person they've been hooked up to is sweaty, or whether his pulse has gone up, but that doesn't mean he's lying. Courts don't admit lie detector evidence for a reason.

But they're still made and they're still used -- for much the same reason that people still wear crystals around their necks to cure their diseases or buy "homeopathic remedies" to get better. It's a combination of two distinct flavors of stupidity. I call the first one "It's better than nothing." I call the second one "It worked for me."

These delusions are why many big corporations, the U.S. military, and the FBI subject their people to lie detectors. Imagine that you're some kind of millionaire big-shot company executive, the founder of a chain of successful convenience stores. You need to hire a regional manager, and if you hire the wrong person, he or she might rob you blind and ruin you. You need to get this right.

So you pay some expensive "executive recruiting" company to find the right person. They have a big sales pitch: we're smart, we've been doing this for years, and best of all, we're scientific. We have "scientific personality tests" we'll administer to make sure you're getting the right person. And before you hire that person, we'll wire her up to our lie detector and ask her some important questions, like "Are you planning on robbing the company?" and "Are you a secret drug user?" and so on.

Science is awesome, right? A scientific recruiting company's going to be totally bad-ass at finding you the right person, using the science of hiring-ology, and their science lab must have a bunch of Ph.D. hire-ologists. But you've heard that the polygraph is, you know, kind of sketchy. Does it really work?

"Oh, sure," the consultants tell you. "Not perfectly, of course. But nothing's perfect. Polygraphs, though, sometimes tell you when someone is lying, and isn't that better than nothing?"

(The correct answer is "probably not." Flipping a coin or sacrificing a goat would "sometimes" tell you if someone was lying, if you had enough lies and enough goats and you did it for long enough.)

Now, imagine you're a section chief at the FBI. You got your job by passing a lie detector test. You'd been wired up, you'd been asked if you were a secret communist islamofascist terrorist dope-fiend. You'd said "no," and the machine agreed. It works! Now, some people out there say that the machine's a piece of crap, but what do they know? After all, it not only worked on you, it worked on everyone you work with!

(Of course, everyone it didn't work on wasn't hired, or was hired even though they're snorting lines of meth through rolled up pages of The Communist Manifesto while they strap on their suicide bombs.)

The world is full of science-y crap. You probably know someone who wears a copper bracelet to "help with arthritis." They might as well burn a witch or cover themselves in blue mud and dance widdershins under a full moon. There's a chance either of those things will make them feel better, because of the placebo effect (when your brain convinces itself to stop feeling bad), but there are an alarming number of people who insist that because something "works" it must not be a placebo, it must be "real."

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

You mean not having the government document your life for the last 20 years is not invasive?

The government has a file on people whether they have a clearance or not. They probably just open the files of all the data they already have.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

that's nothing compared what is involved in getting a TS clearance if you don't know

people i've known said they investigate you at least 15 years back. find all your friends, find lost friends, interview them. people in their 20's said the government talked to all their teachers, neighbors, everyone they ever knew in their life

How do you know the FBI doesn't already have a file on each of us going back 15 years? How do you know they don't just have it sitting in databases and decide to simply look it up when they are authorized?

Going for a security clearance authorizes them to look at all the data they collected over the past 15-20 years but they probably have been collecting it whether you went for a security clearance or not. You think the FBI only keeps files on people who go for a security clearance?

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

Your friends have been bullshitting you. The investigation for TS is not nearly that invasive. It would be prohibitively expensive if it was. There about 4 million people who hold a TS.

Mostly they are looking for evidence that you are unreliable, prone to criminal behavior or are subject to blackmail.

For a Secret investigation they don't even interview. Just check your records.

It's only when they go to SCI etc. that they get picky.

At this point they can already look anyone up for any reason so why fear a security clearance?
The main problem with a security clearance is that it's a pain in the ass to keep it and its more responsibility.

Why would anyone want to choose a job which requires more of you for the same or even for less pay?

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

You are speculating incorrectly. I held a special clearance and they went back and talked to elementary school teachers, old friends, etc... If they come up with concerns, they dig further than they did with me.

The 4 million number includes people that have held a clearance for decades. Renewals do not take much investigation.

In other words, if it was 4million new investigations it would be cost prohibitive. It's not, so don't make up stories.

What difference does it make if they look at your files and interview people? It's just a job. Either you want the job or you don't. If they want to look into your life they can do that whether its a security clearance investigation or not, so I don't see the big deal. I suppose the only big deal would be what do you tell your friends and family when they go to you telling you the government questioned them about you.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

Yes if the gov did not interview your extended family and friends... teachers, neighbours - your clearance was done (post 911) by a contractor, mostly state/federal searches on a computer, ie if its not networked it was never really uncovered. The US gov has really created huge security mess long term.

People the gov will not really know are moving up in the cleared systems and networks with totally unknown pasts eg the really basic stuff of state sealed youth court issues, school, personality...

What the US missed in its hast, the Russians will find over time.- offering cash or exposure or understanding.

I'm guessing you don't know what you're talking about. Everything is on computer networks now. The computer network knows more about you than your friends, your family, it knows more about you than you know about yourself thanks to the capabilities of big data. There is less reason to do intrusive interviews with friends and family.

Also people don't have friends who are in their neighborhood anymore. People have friends all around the world via the Internet so it makes a lot more sense in that case to look into the internet history and Facebook than to try to physically interview every person that any individual knows. It would probably be thousands of Facebook friends who would have to be physically visited which is just unrealistic.

But nothing stops them from going to the NSA, FBI and other agencies and digging up files. I'm pretty sure Google knows everything about a person and Facebook knows every friend the person has, and all of that combined is a pretty clear picture of who they are. Immediate family would have to be physically interviewed but this idea that the Russians will be able to corrupt people so easily is silly. No amount of background check will tell you with 100% certainty who will be corrupt.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

Of all of the things involved in securing top-secret clearance, I'm willing to be the polygraph is the least invasive. Interesting that it would be the only one called out by name.

It's not that. It depends on the type of investigation you initially undergo to get said clearance in the first place. The big one for anyone holding a TS is a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). That goes through pretty much everything for (to start) the previous ten years. The next piece of the SSBI is the periodic review (PR), which should occur no later than five years after the previous investigation. Having been on the job market for almost 5 months, it was at least a relief to have the PR taken care of prior to my layoff.

Next step up is clearing for Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). Having the TS-SSBI (and PR) makes you ELIGIBLE to gain compartmented access, but that all falls under the umbrella of need to know. From what I recall back when I first became eligible, I was asked a few questions by the OPM investigator assigned to my case (really heavy on foreign interactions, etc.). Based on that info, along with the info in the SSBI, is what gets you into SCI.

The poly only comes into play whenever a specific SCI program requires it, and even then, it's a little more involved. The big one that we're all familiar with is the Full Scope/Lifestyle, which is what most of the three letter agencies require for the really involved work. Some programs are only interested in counterintelligence (CI), while other programs don't need a poly at all. The main difference between a FS/LS and a CI poly is pretty simple: FS/LS look at anything you can possibly fess up to in your entire lifestyle (money habits, sexual inclinations, drug experiences, etc.), while CI looks at whether or not you'd be the type of guy (like Snowden) who'd sell US secrets to someone that wasn't an American.

Having personally gone through the CI poly process, it's more tedious than anything else.

The real question is why would anyone want a Top Secret clearance? Is the pay really so great to be worth the trouble?

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

while CI looks at whether or not you'd be the type of guy (like Snowden) who'd sell US secrets to someone that wasn't an American.

Pretty sure Snowden could have honestly replied to any questions that made him sound like a spy.

Or is a standard question... "If you found out your the entire apparatus of your employer up to the very top was corrupt and conducting illegal acts, and then lying to Congress about it. Would you keep quiet and participate in those criminal acts in violation of the law and the constitution?

Lol... reminds me of those ethics tests they make people take for retail jobs. Where the "right" answers are to be a sociopath freak.

"Suppose there is a coworker you were friends with, lived through a kidnapping with, and who is the god parent to your children and the best man at your wedding, and is in your opinion an excellent employee. Now if they were in a car accident, and he's running a touch late. He calls you from the parking lot as he's rushing in and asks you to punch them in so they would not appear to be late... would you:
a) clock him in early
b) stay out of it
c) promptly report that he asked you to clock him in on time to your manager, and testify for the company against him when we sue him for the attempt to commit fraud?

Company Answer sheet:
a = wrong answer, automatic fail, and you are a worthless criminal
b = wrong answer
c = correct, this is the exactly the kind of people we want as employees. Just think, your new boss passed this test!! We bet you are looking to work with such ethical people!

My understanding of it is that Security Clearances are about war. There is a chain of command, and ethics usually come in second to winning the war because being dead and ethical isn't as good as being alive and unethical in the context of a war.

The other problem is the fog of war, if everything is compartmentalized then how can you know what is or isn't ethical in a situation when the information you have is incomplete and "need to know".

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

Agreeing to take the polygraph is like agreeing to be tortured and to be subjected to the falsifciations of results by the "test" givers. Anyone who demands a polygraph as a requirement of employment is not a fit person to breathe, much less work for.

So just don't apply for the job?

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[darkstar949]

You are speculating incorrectly. I held a special clearance and they went back and talked to elementary school teachers, old friends, etc... If they come up with concerns, they dig further than they did with me.

What do you mean by "special clearance" though? For an SSBI they aren't going to go back and talk to elementary school teachers because there would be no point in doing that unless you knew those same teachers when you were older. When they do an SSBI for military personnel that are fresh out of high school they don't go back and talk to elementary school teachers unless they knew the subject in the recent past since someones opinion of a child is unlikely to give any indication as to their trustworthiness as an adult.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[DoctorChestburster79]

Was laid off, but starting a new position on Monday. As with the main article on this thread, Amazon is looking for anybody with at least a TS that is SCI Eligible. Problem is one of two things:

1) Dealing with an uber-techie out in Seattle that doesn't quite understand the nuances of dealing with a government contract, or

2) Not wanting to deal with the backlog of getting the SCI and/or polygraph (I've heard that unless you can get fast tracked, it's back up to 18 mos on any polygraph).

Much of what I've fallen into has been the latter. I even put on the resume that I needed to redo my CI, and that it had been 5 years since I was read off of anything SCI (meaning I'd have to redo the process all over again). If you can get into something that doesn't require a poly, go for it. I'd just like a shot to get back into that realm because there is some actual, relevant work that goes on that isn't involved in tradecraft or any moral gray areas.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC as I have active clearances and don't want to spew all that info along with my account name

A few corrections to this post:

  - An SSBI is the baseline investigation for anything Top Secret or higher.

  - A PR is not a prereq for any clearance. An PR is simply a 5 year update to your background. How recent your last investigation was is what matters. (Informally referred to as "having a good date")

  - Just having an SSBI (or SSBI-PR) does NOT mean you are eligible for SCI. The adjudication for SCI is more stringent and can have additional restrictions placed on it than a normal SSBI. SCI (and other SAP/SAR activities) can institute additional security measures above Top Secret. For example there are certain programs I have worked where individuals who already have SCI access to other programs were denied access due to issues (such as foriegn contacts). Some programs are just more picky or more sensitive

  - Which brings me to: There are only 3 levels of clearance, Top Secret being the highest. These are also referred to as "collateral" clearances. SCI and other compartmented data is given in "accesses", these are different from clearances and can have any number of additional investigative requirements.

  - A polygraph is not automatically required for Top Secret or even some SCI activities. It depends on the customer and the program. I've worked SCI programs that dont require it and others that do.

  As for the poly, its not as invasive as the SSBI... its just not a comfortable afternoon....

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[AHuxley]

Re: Everything is on computer networks that a person wanted to type/search for. Chatrooms may give some insight but people can be trolling/trying/sucking up to become a mod or really just like the topic and hold back from anything too personal.
Images and comments on web 2.0 can be selected or rejected to build a brand or project quality or fun or prove a connection to some short term fad.
The internet allows a person to relax, think and search before committing anything down or to be very creative..
As for older family or even other family of the same age opening up online about the complexities of another family member....
Some are not online, may only use google or web 2.0 for hobbies and networking with community groups/shopping/hobbies/looking for fiction.
That pretty clear picture presented in the digital world can all be a front/joke/friend building/a collaborative fantasy.
As for friends who are not in their neighbourhood anymore - thats why the US gov did work nation wide to find real people. Cities, small country towns, dusty roads.
The insights and huge gaps in a persons past can be slowly worked out.
As for the Russians, once they have a list of people on a project/team of interest to them- they too will look. The bars/club/gym/book shop/cafe/hobby until a real person falls into place.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[DoctorChestburster79]

Thanks for the clarifications there, especially with respect to the differences between "collateral" and "access". Also, good points on how certain programs and sponsors vary with respect to their poly requirements.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who with any self-respect would?

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is so great to be worth the pay.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[schnell]

How do you know the FBI doesn't already have a file on each of us going back 15 years? How do you know they don't just have it sitting in databases and decide to simply look it up when they are authorized?

Take the tinfoil hat off. This is the same US government that loses hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually because they don't even have a system to track your W-2 statements automatically for tax purposes. But you think they have a 15 year file with everything online about 300 million citizens? Why bother with that if you can't even make people pay taxes?

Yes, we all think modern government surveillance is creepy and illegal, but let's not give the government more credit for intelligence or reach than it is actually due. The government has neither unlimited money or unlimited access, despite what Slashthink tells you.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

How do you know the FBI doesn't already have a file on each of us going back 15 years? How do you know they don't just have it sitting in databases and decide to simply look it up when they are authorized?

Take the tinfoil hat off. This is the same US government that loses hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually because they don't even have a system to track your W-2 statements automatically for tax purposes. But you think they have a 15 year file with everything online about 300 million citizens? Why bother with that if you can't even make people pay taxes?

Yes, we all think modern government surveillance is creepy and illegal, but let's not give the government more credit for intelligence or reach than it is actually due. The government has neither unlimited money or unlimited access, despite what Slashthink tells you.

The FBI had a file on Martin Luther King and others involved with the civil rights movement going back for almost a decade in the 60s. They probably have files on anyone involved with any sort of movement today just as they did in the 60s.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[vux984]

There is a chain of command, and ethics usually come in second to winning the war because being dead and ethical isn't as good as being alive and unethical in the context of a war.

"Just following orders" is long established as not a good enough reason to be complicit in war crimes.

The other problem is the fog of war, if everything is compartmentalized then how can you know what is or isn't ethical in a situation when the information you have is incomplete and "need to know".

If you are being asked to commit something that could be considered a war crime, then you probably "need to know" ... either that it just is a war crime and you probably shouldn't do it.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that lifestyle part of the poly is what got me. Sexual orientation. I have always tried to appear hetero to the world in order to be accepted - but my inner system is gay. Baptist and gay. All I hear is gay=bad, I am going to hell, and I feel like I am a cat born with a spot on it, and the owner wanted a pure white cat. So kill the spotted cat. Amen. May the ones who killed it go to heaven, crank those amps up, and get those guitars going to muff out the sound of that awful dying cat. Halleluyah!

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[drinkypoo]

The real question is why would anyone want a Top Secret clearance? Is the pay really so great to be worth the trouble?

People will take a drug test and answer a bunch of personal questions to get a fast food job. Is it a wonder that people will go through security clearance to get a cushy government [contractor] job where pay is not dependent upon performance?

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[drinkypoo]

I suppose the only big deal would be what do you tell your friends and family when they go to you telling you the government questioned them about you.

It's a big deal when we spend all this money to keep secrets from our own citizenry.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[NJRoadfan]

I've seen federal contractors job postings for some positions that say, "Security Clearance Required, no experience necessary" with a giant starting salary because they really don't want to pay for clearances.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's nothing compared what is involved in getting a TS clearance if you don't know

people i've known said they investigate you at least 15 years back. find all your friends, find lost friends, interview them. people in their 20's said the government talked to all their teachers, neighbors, everyone they ever knew in their life

If you are going after a Collateral TS the scope is roughly 7 years and even with the higher TS//SCI they only go back 10 unless you're getting one with a lifestyle poly, which covers your entire life. Otherwise you can get a TS//SCI with a CI poly, which only covers 10 years. I'm not sure why people think it's hard to get or keep. I've had one for almost 20 years, since I was 19. Don't break the law, pay your taxes and bills.......and you'll be fine.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[s.petry]

Special clearance is a type of Top Secret. There is really no such thing as "Top Secret" like there is with "Secret". TS has had qualifiers for decades. Since my clearance was in the Army, you are wrong in speculating that they don't go back to elementary school teachers. How much they dig is related to what the clearance is for.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[s.petry]

If you have financial problems, it would be easier for you to succumb to bribery. If you have sexual deviancy it would be easy to compromise you through blackmail. If you have drug dealing friends, you may not care very much about law. All of these things are relevant to the job and your clearance.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[dcw3]

I suppose the only big deal would be what do you tell your friends and family when they go to you telling you the government questioned them about you.

It's a big deal when we spend all this money to keep secrets from our own citizenry.

And how do you suppose you keep secrets from your enemies? If you have a secret, should you just let all your citizens know? Surely, it would be safe with them. Maybe right before the D-Day invasion, they should have broadcast the plan across the US and Britain.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[dcw3]

The real question is why would anyone want a Top Secret clearance? Is the pay really so great to be worth the trouble?

... Is it a wonder that people will go through security clearance to get a cushy government [contractor] job where pay is not dependent upon performance?

Ah, now you're just being a jackass because you're either lying, or you've never been in the environment to know anything about government contract work. If you believe contract work isn't competitive, you're a complete idiot.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[DoctorChestburster79]

The real question is why would anyone want a Top Secret clearance? Is the pay really so great to be worth the trouble?

... Is it a wonder that people will go through security clearance to get a cushy government [contractor] job where pay is not dependent upon performance?

Ah, now you're just being a jackass because you're either lying, or you've never been in the environment to know anything about government contract work. If you believe contract work isn't competitive, you're a complete idiot.

And you've hit the nail on the head. It's constantly what I was running into when I was out this time around. I did have a really good gig lined up (w/ salary to boot), but they rescinded the offer precisely because I only had the clearance, and not accesses or polys (those needed to be in place, and they weren't willing to wait). Part of that I believe was due to the HR guy not really comprehending that those parts weren't active, and it really sucked.

They were looking for skills, clearances/accesses, or a preferred combination of the two. That's the nature of this whole thing. I'm just curious as to how Amazon is going to successfully navigate this whole thing for those still at the collateral level or fresh into the SCI realm. Boy, are they going to be in for some surprises should some of their candidates get caught in an administrative limbo.

Ultimately, you're right on the performance part. It would be nice for the sponsors to get with the program and acknowledge accomplishments and attention by their contractor staff, since having that type of performance supporting the government folks helps boost their performance, as well. Sadly, once you've got that GS/GG position, that's never really the case.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[n7ytd]

There is a chain of command, and ethics usually come in second to winning the war because being dead and ethical isn't as good as being alive and unethical in the context of a war.

"Just following orders" is long established as not a good enough reason to be complicit in war crimes.

The other problem is the fog of war, if everything is compartmentalized then how can you know what is or isn't ethical in a situation when the information you have is incomplete and "need to know".

If you are being asked to commit something that could be considered a war crime, then you probably "need to know" ... either that it just is a war crime and you probably shouldn't do it.

Right or wrong, "War Crime" is always defined by the winning side.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[vux984]

Right or wrong, "War Crime" is always defined by the winning side.

Getting away with it doesn't excuse doing it.

Further, there has been no serious existential threat to the west since World War II.

The wars we've engaged in since then are for "fun and profits". We are not defending our very existence and way of life, so any rationale for committing desperate acts of extreme horror falls completely flat on its face. Even when al quaeda was at its peak, and 9-11 was fresh... it was but a broken fingernail in terms of a real existential threat. We've so thoroughly forgotten the ravages of war that we have no perspective on appropriate levels of action or reaction at all.

We aren't at war. War is hell. WW2 was an existential threat to our way of life. Syria is having a small war. But the US? One fairly bad day 10 years ago.

There is no excuse for any actions that violate international law, treaties, and conventions, these are not desperate times.

If we find ourselves in a real war, where the stakes are freedom and our way of life, and the casualty count is ticking up into the millions then I'll be with you in the camp that says: the ends justify the means, and we must win at at all costs, because losing is not an option.

So, yeah, I'll stand behind any soldier that acts in accordance with his conscience in today's conflicts. We can well afford the luxury of prosecuting our so-called "wars" with a very light touch right now.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[n7ytd]

If we find ourselves in a real war, where the stakes are freedom and our way of life, and the casualty count is ticking up into the millions then I'll be with you in the camp that says: the ends justify the means, and we must win at at all costs, because losing is not an option.

So, yeah, I'll stand behind any soldier that acts in accordance with his conscience in today's conflicts. We can well afford the luxury of prosecuting our so-called "wars" with a very light touch right now.

You're right, getting away with it doesn't excuse doing it, but if you're on the losing side who's going to do anything about it?

I didn't say I agree with "the ends justify the means". All I'm saying is that if our country were singing "God Save the Queen" before each game of the National Rugby League, we probably would have been taught in elementary school how George Washington and John Hancock were some of those insurgents that The Crown hung after that unpleasant row in the 1780s.

The GP said:

My understanding of it is that Security Clearances are about war. There is a chain of command, and ethics usually come in second to winning the war because being dead and ethical isn't as good as being alive and unethical in the context of a war.

The other problem is the fog of war, if everything is compartmentalized then how can you know what is or isn't ethical in a situation when the information you have is incomplete and "need to know".

When talking in this vein, the textbook example of "just following orders" is the guards of the Nazi prison camps who committed heinous acts because they were told to. The Jews that were starving to death before being experimented on could hardly be considered a serious threat to the German way of life. But it must be considered that this isn't an accurate reflection of the attitude of most Germans. These were not run of the mill, average German citizens, these were a carefully selected group who had shown their willingness or eagerness to go along and be SOBs. And even they had their Schindler.

Soldiers who do not blindly follow orders are a real pain to their commanders and damage morale, but the fact that they can do that in our country is the very essence of liberty. As soon as we squash the give and take, the ability to publicly question what our government is up to, we are lost. George Washington and the rest of those hooligans believed in their countrymen more than they believed in their government, and to lose that spirit by unilaterally vilifying anyone who would do the same would be a damn shame.

I think Snowden believed he was a true patriot, and went against his government thinking he had the moral high ground. I hope nothing he leaked costs anyone their life, and since it's out there I hope the information is put to good use to help keep our government honest.

But I also think he was wrong.

It wasn't up to him to make that decision on behalf of our country. Our intelligence has been damaged, and it has put people in harm's way. As you say, we aren't at war and these are not desperate times, so I do not believe he was justified in his desperate measures.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[vux984]

It wasn't up to him to make that decision on behalf of our country. Our intelligence has been damaged, and it has put people in harm's way. As you say, we aren't at war and these are not desperate times, so I do not believe he was justified in his desperate measures

Except that I believe you are on the completely wrong the wrong side of the argument, because its our own NSA that was not engaged in "desperate measures". It was violating our own citizens privacy, doing an end run around the law, undermining checks and balances with secret courts that rubberstamped everything, secret warrants, gag orders, while spying on our closest allies, and then lying about all of it to our elected representatives. And for what?! What grave existential threat to the USA are we up against that necessitated all this?

There simply isn't one. Snowden was right to reveal it, because they shouldn't have been doing it or anything like it. We aren't at war, we aren't even really threatened, and they did not need that level of disregard for morality or the law to preserve our way of life.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[vux984]

because its our own NSA that was not engaged in "desperate measures".

I meant to say our own NSA **WAS** engaged in "desperate measures".

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[darkstar949]

Except that nobody in this day and age actually calls it "special clearance" or if they do then it was outside of the community that I was in. If they are going back and talking to elementry school teachers then it is not an SSBI that is being conducted since that only goes back 10 years or until the age of 18 which ever is less and that is the usual standard for SCI materials. Of course, this is not to say that a SAP might require above and beyond but then my point still stands about talking to elementray school teachers about what you were like at that age still stands: it is completely meaningless unless they knew you as an older teenager or adult.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[s.petry]

Most people I know in the field never use the term Top Secret, or SSBI. As mentioned previously TS became rather meaningless in the 80s. If you get your initial clearance at 18-22, then they do talk to elementary school teachers for a SSBI (obviously within 10 years). Higher levels of clearance require further investigation, polygraph, and more.

Renewals do not require any investigation as long as you stay out of trouble.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[n7ytd]

If all that was leaked was information about NSA-related snooping into our fellow citizens' lives, I would agree with you. There was more than that, information that could endanger people's lives.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[darkstar949]

It's entirely possible that the rules have changed since you had your first SSBI, but unless they changed things (again) the only reason that they would talk to elementary school teachers is if you actually given them as one of your references. The last time I looked at DCID 6/4 it basically said something along the lines of verify education and interview sources if education was your primary activity during the past three years. There's always the possibility that an investigation would be expanded, but I like I said a couple posts back, I don't see OPM going and talking to someone's elementary school teachers and asking for a character reference.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[s.petry]

I never had a SSBI, I had a special clearance. I don't consider my clearance to be "normal", nor was it civilian. I don't discount that changes have been made since my initial clearance. That said, working in defense I have not seen that much change.

Re:Who cares about the polygraph?

[vux984]

Such as? I haven't seen anything of the sort.

There are assertions (made by the oh-so-trustworthy government) that the files compromise national security and could put lives at risk. But that has low specificity, and given the source very low credibility.

Re: Who cares about the polygraph?

[elucido]

I've seen federal contractors job postings for some positions that say, "Security Clearance Required, no experience necessary" with a giant starting salary because they really don't want to pay for clearances.

Yeah but that is for desperate out of work people who happen to have a clearance. In this economy there will always be people who are desperate for work.

My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been through the full scope polygraph process, and it sucked. I had to do it twice. It has been 1 year and I am still waiting for adjudication even though I passed the poly in April. However, my friend was hired by Amazon for the CIA work and he is getting a fast-tracked Full Scope Polygraph clearance apparently in only a few months. Considering how Amazon is staffing up and pushing people through for clearances, it would be very detrimental if IBM ended up winning the contract.

I was also interviewed by Amazon for one of these positions. It was a phone call with a shared coding session. The guy was not friendly and he asked a lot of academic questions that do not directly apply to the job or anything I have done since college. I was turned off by the experience and didn't care that they did not want to proceed with a 2nd interview. However, my friend had a much more positive experience so it really depends on who you interview with I guess.

I have worked in defense contracting for 10 years. I am now working for a startup company now and getting a lot more satisfaction out of my job. My friend received an outstanding job offer from Amazon, but he will likely end up hating his job and have the "golden handcuffs" put on.

One interesting thing is that Amazon is hiring for both Seattle and D.C. area for these jobs. I don't like either city but it's interesting they are wanting to have people with clearances work in Seattle. At least there is an option for people that want one of these positions.

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[DoctorChestburster79]

I, too, interviewed with Amazon back in June. Probably had the same guy you did, because he sure as hell didn't seem all that interested in any of the softer skills you'd need to do certain aspects of the job, especially with your spook counterparts. And this was for a systems engineer position.

My feeling on any poly is meh. As long as you're up front with your security folks and asking questions about certain things (remember, the onus is also on you to keep things up and make the investigator and security team's lives easier), you shouldn't have any problems.

Fortunately, I'm starting with a smaller defense contracting firm on Monday. Commute's not bad, and I can get into a position closer to home should some opportunities show up. At least it's not a big firm like what I've worked for previously.

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were you, I would apply with them again. The job with Amazon would pay very, very well if you can get to the offer. That is my advise if you are already in defense contracting in Northern Virginia. At least do it to try to get the clearance upgrade.

The guy I interviewed with was a jerk and had no clue about anything related to defense contracting. They have driven away at least one (me) quality engineer by asking obscure algorithm and math questions for a software engineering interview and in general being out of touch with their applicant.

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[DoctorChestburster79]

I've already got the TS, and have had an SCI w/ CI poly in the past (my previous employer was trying to get me in on a YW, but my previous PR hadn't been completed when they submitted the paperwork). I had a MD-based company contact me out of the blue for some work at the Fort, but they couldn't do the upgrade. From the talk with one of the heads of the firm I start with next week, there could be an opportunity to upgrade (they'll at least keep the TS in place), but I'm just happy that I don't have to rely on UI or draining any more savings for the foreseeable future.

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading some of the interview experiences on Glassdoor for Amazon, that seems par for the course - ask a bunch of obscure dry academic questions that might be good for a CS student going into grad school or postdoc but totally irrelevant and needlessly obscure for industry work.

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[AHuxley]

Twice or more is the real mind game. Watch for the pre interview and they will watch you in the waiting area. What you read (on the net before and on the day), how you act, how you sit.
Then the interview, then the questions, finally the hardware is hooked up... after the hardware ... more cute questions and offers to 'help', been on your side... if you are truthful NOW .... its all in the "other" questions and the build up over 2-3 tests.
The UK looked at the tests the US offered in the 1980's and found them to be total junk. Good staff would be lost/never hired, bad people would get to advance unnoticed.

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already got the TS

I thought part of having TS clearance was not telling everyone about it?

Re:My Interview and Polygraph Experience

[DoctorChestburster79]

It's the content of what I've seen that matters, not that I can access it. I've listed it on my resume, so various sites have it out there. It's easier to generate interest from potential employers because it's just one less thing they have to do on their on-boarding list, and it's halfway to the SCI arena, as well.

No big secret in that. The details on when, where, and who adjudicated it is probably the bigger secret, and to be honest, I really don't know all of that particular information.

Re: Amz was the only good gov't RFP result I've se

[alen]

After having to use cognos and some other IBM products, I don't want anything to do with them

Over priced
Crappy documentation
Crappy install and config process that seems to break for no reason
Mysterious config changes you need to make to get it running that aren't documented anywhere

Ill take me SQL server over cognos any day

Don't do it.

[jcr]

DC is my home town, and I have several friends who have had jobs that required clearances with polygraphs. They've all told me that the job isn't worth the abuse.

-jcr

Re:Don't do it.

[oldhack]

Beltway bandit jobs. Chances are, the ones with the clearance are the least competent in terms of technical prowess. Political prowess, that's a different thing altogether.

Re:Don't do it.

[DoctorChestburster79]

Even then, it amazes me how certain people got into their positions in the first place, regardless of what prowess (or lack thereof) they leveraged to get there.

Re:Don't do it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, there are always at least a few hundred open IT positions requiring TS/poly around the DC beltway area. Amazon wanting 100 is not news for people familiar with working and contracting in this area.

Conflict of interest much ?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bezos owns the Washington Post.

And now Amazon wants to get in bed with the CIA ?

What a crock of shit.

Re:Conflict of interest much ?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you believed in the Washington Post.

Today it's Amazon

[fustakrakich]

Tomorrow it's McDonalds and Coca Cola. The old timers are dying off. They have to find somebody that can keep their recipes secret. It's like Willy Wonka finding his successor.

IBM's curse...

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM buys tons of companies and thus IBM has a very uneven experience. Cognos, for example, is a company that IBM bought and really didn't do to much to. IBM's thoroughness in 'bluewashing' acquisitions varies greatly, from barely slapping their brand on it to completely redoing the product.

Re:IBM's curse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another "business model" I am seeing a heckuva lot of these days is when a company has competition, they do not improve their customer service nor lower their price.

Instead, they run to Congress and lawyers to have their competition either sued into the ground or delayed using legal maneuvering until their competition dies of starvation.

While we may say competition is the hallmark of a free enterprise system, in the real world a business pays off a protection racket ( Al Capone, Congress, whatever ) to have any competition wiped out. Artificial monopolies must be maintained in systems like this so as to guarantee the privileged class a high profit. While it is illegal to kill off your competitors with a gun, it is quite legal to stave them off with patent - copyright - business method lawsuits.

It takes two things for this thing to work:
1) A lobbyable Congress that makes law on the fly to either make doing something legal for one entity but illegal for another entity - or use their ability to coin tax law to economically penalize competition through tax penalties / credits.
2) A public which sees it going on and does not vote those bastards out of office. And I do not mean voting for either tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum; both are bought and paid for. I mean voting for the third guy who suddenly came out of nowhere who has an axe to grind about this.

In the Good Ole USA, we have both,

Hire me!

[NetNinja]

I can pass the TOP SECRECT clearance exam! whats the job pay? it would have to be in the $250K range to be worth my while.

Not hard to get actually

[Anonymous Coward]

TS clearances are pretty easy to get as long as:

1) No criminal history
2) No heavy debt or credit issues
3) No skeletons in the closet to feed blackmail
4) No drug and only light alcohol use
5) No relationships with foreign nationals
6) US citizen goes without saying, foreign born may disqualify you.

Polygraph likely dependent on how the rest of your background check goes. If the neighbors / coworkers statements are all positive, they may not even bother.

So, if you lead a very boring life, you're a shoe in for Government jobs :)

Re:Not hard to get actually

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Have they added 'Patriotic; but not , y'know, that patriotic' since they got Snowdened?

Re:Not hard to get actually

[Anonymous Coward]

That is better rendered: Patriotic, not "patriotic."

Re:Not hard to get actually

[AHuxley]

1) No criminal history - if your from a good family...the computer says your ok...
2) No heavy debt or credit issues - some seem to be very over extended...
3) No skeletons in the closet to feed blackmail - you would really think that one would be vital...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/pentagon-declined-investigate-hundreds-purchases-child-pornography.html
4) No drug and only light alcohol use - always good to test for.
5) No relationships with foreign nationals - but you sooooo need that regional dialect, language, cultural insight.
6) US citizen goes without saying, foreign born may disqualify you. - some nations are more equal than others and the US really has risked/lost so much on the dual citizen aspect.

Polygraph Tests

[Anonymous Coward]

They always accuse you of using drugs. Always. They also try to beat you into a confession. Always.

I got up and walked out of my polygraph at the CIA when I interviewed. I didn't want to come close to finding out how an organization treated its employees when it treated its prospects like that.

Re:Polygraph Tests

[darkstar949]

They always accuse you of using drugs. Always. They also try to beat you into a confession. Always.

Generally speaking the odds of a random American having tried drugs was about 42% back in 2008 and I'm sure that on a generational basis that number is likely higher or lower. Plus if you know where someone grew up or is currently living that affects the odds as well. So from that perspective it kind of makes sense to push someone on the issue - if they will not admit to doing something once or twice (that they really don't care about) then what else are they likely to keep close lipped that can actually be used against them?

Re:Polygraph Tests

[DoctorChestburster79]

They always accuse you of using drugs. Always. They also try to beat you into a confession. Always.

I got up and walked out of my polygraph at the CIA when I interviewed. I didn't want to come close to finding out how an organization treated its employees when it treated its prospects like that.

My uncle worked for a major defense contractor in the '80s (he left that position right before one of the major mergers occurred in the '90s), and had to take a poly as part of his program's requirements. When asked about drugs, he said no, to which the examiner accused him of lying on the spot. The excuse the examiner gave was EVERYBODY my uncle's age had tried something, to which my uncle replied that he was probably the first person that HADN'T tried anything, willingly or otherwise.

At the end of the exam, the examiner said this to my uncle: "Well, you passed, but I question your integrity."

My uncle's internal response: he wanted to deck the SOB. I don't blame him for thinking that.

Re:Polygraph Tests

[OdinOdin_]

> At the end of the exam, the examiner said this to my uncle: "Well, you passed, but I question your integrity."

"That is your job, suck it up!"

Fuck a polygraph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows reading tea leaves is just as accurate. Or throwing bones in the dirt and analyzing the shape.

OMG what if they hire people who are not numerologically compatible for high security positions?

THE SKY MIGHT FALL!

captcha: doubting

Re:Fuck a polygraph.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blame that Hoover had a major boner for them.

Well in my case

[kilodelta]

I did a short stint with a military contractor. Had to be fingerprinted, urine tested, background checked and get secret clearance. Problem was the clearance process takes SO long that by the time I had completed the project and left the company I get a call about my clearance interview. Told em' it was a moot point.

Quid pro quo

[Anonymous Coward]

And the quid pro quo of these deals is Amazon handing over the purchasers data to NSA.

So whether you buy a political book and can be flagged as politically active and worth monitoring, or you buy an environment book and can be flagged as 'eco terrorist potential candidate', all of that goes into the Stasibase.

I was told by a contractor working for Sammy, Samsung is going to cancel their EC2 cloud contract to avoid legal liability in some countries, their phones connect to Amazon and their backend is done on Amazon. So Amazon must be getting hit by this NSA fallout and that will grow worse over time as the existing contracts run out and aren't renewed. So NSA gave them a sweetener I think in return.

US trade deficit turned around in July and widened. Anyone wonder why? I know I contributed $700 of it at least simply by ditching US hosting.

So companies will get more dependant on the NSA subsidies.

IBM is one of the last that should get it.

[WindBourne]

They will simply outsource it India and China. Time to remove IBM from the fed and state payrolls.

Washington Post

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a coincidence that this came so close to purchase of Washington Post.

Buying a 'private cloud' from someone else

[BitZtream]

is utterly fucking retarded.

If its large enough to warrant Amazon hiring people for a 'private' cloud, its damn sure large enough to do it yourself and cut out the half assed middle man better known as Amazon.

Their 'cloud' is by far the most expensive, poorest performing, highest downtime 'cloud' I've ever seen. You have to be a rather large moron to buy compute from Amazon. You want to serve files with S3, okay, its not 'the worst' so I can understand that choice, but as far as compute is concerned, they are the worst of the worst.

Re:Buying a 'private cloud' from someone else

[elucido]

is utterly fucking retarded.

If its large enough to warrant Amazon hiring people for a 'private' cloud, its damn sure large enough to do it yourself and cut out the half assed middle man better known as Amazon.

Their 'cloud' is by far the most expensive, poorest performing, highest downtime 'cloud' I've ever seen. You have to be a rather large moron to buy compute from Amazon. You want to serve files with S3, okay, its not 'the worst' so I can understand that choice, but as far as compute is concerned, they are the worst of the worst.

Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.

Re:Buying a 'private cloud' from someone else

[CodeBuster]

Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.

Does not have the money? Are you daft? The US Government controls the supply of the world's reserve currency. You know, the stuff that everyone on the planet wants. If they want to create more money to pay for something they can simply promise the Fed that they will pay them back and the Fed will credit their bank account with however much they want to spend. For now at least, there's hardly a bank on Earth that wouldn't accept electronic wire from the Fed or through a US bank that will for payment or transfer.

Re:Buying a 'private cloud' from someone else

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when there's a culture of not paying enough for your own techs, and paying really well to external contractors---usually on a term basis, so nobody has to live with the screw up beyond the life of the project.

Re:Buying a 'private cloud' from someone else

[elucido]

Government does not have the money or expertise to do it themselves.

Does not have the money? Are you daft? The US Government controls the supply of the world's reserve currency. You know, the stuff that everyone on the planet wants. If they want to create more money to pay for something they can simply promise the Fed that they will pay them back and the Fed will credit their bank account with however much they want to spend. For now at least, there's hardly a bank on Earth that wouldn't accept electronic wire from the Fed or through a US bank that will for payment or transfer.

What I mean is no one wants to be a government employee. People will accept contracting out to them but no one wants to be them.

So they have to hire contractors because it's the cheapest way. If they had to hire people they'd have to pay a lot more than if they pay a contractor and develop everything in house.

Re:Buying a 'private cloud' from someone else

[elucido]

This is what happens when there's a culture of not paying enough for your own techs, and paying really well to external contractors---usually on a term basis, so nobody has to live with the screw up beyond the life of the project.

Exactly. No one wants to be in bed with the government, it's just project by project and contract by contract because anything else would be too expensive. They don't have enough money to develop everything in house.

Headhunters

[mbone]

They don't want people who can get clearances, they want people who have clearances, and that means Amazon needs to go to headhunters.

If they are really desperate, they should start running audio ads on WTOP.

(I live in the DC area, and that's how it is done.)

Re:Headhunters

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet there are a lot of people who have clearance, but no current job due to the sequester

Re:Headhunters

[lxs]

I wouldn't want to have a headhunter from the Amazon coming after me. Don't they shoot their victims with curare tipped blowdarts?

Top secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for the clearance being "top secret", if everyone who every knew you finds out you are trying to get one.

Obviously never worked with IBM and Government

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM dealing with the government is pretty much 100% US employee driven. It's one of the things IBM can do really well.

IBM is a strange company. In some areas the poster child for rabid off shoring even when it doesn't make financial sense due to a religious belief that India and China are *always* cheaper no matter how the reality works. In other areas, they actually show signs of sanity, making appropriate personnel decisions that involve the most appropriate and/or cost effective choice including US hiring.

However, while IBM has some of the best and worst, as a corporate culture I think there is a significant challenge. The great bits of IBM seem to move forward in spite of, not because of, the leadership climate.

As evidenced...

[Anonymous Coward]

By the need to hire 100 employees, basically Amazon has nothing to contribute here except skim off the top. They aren't providing ready-to-use talent, they aren't providing facilities. They are basically promising that they can find 100 employees with no prior amazon experience to recreate EC2 inside a Federal datacenter.

This is one of the cases where I think if *anyone* was a good fit, it might actually be IBM (given they actually do have tons of people already trained up with the requisite clearances good to go and a lot more experience with federal government processes, which 99% of the time they do competently, though the 1% of failures are pretty spectacular). The biggest problem is they have a huge library of inappropriate software they have a habit of trying to shovel in. However, they do actually have the talent and in fact good software to do it well when they have the will to do so.

Well the NSA Sys Admin layoffs...

[jftitan]

All them Sys Admins now have a private job waiting.

late entrant to the cloud computing market.

[Khyber]

My ass, Amazon. Cloud computing isn't anything new. Distributed servers running software for thin-client has been around since IBM and WYSE and many other companies. You just gave something existing a new name and act like you were one of the first.

Quit lying, Amazon. You do know lying in filed sworn court documents is a crime, yes?

Good luck with that !

[Anonymous Coward]

First that have to find a few US engineers who are willing to work in their H1 B infested sweatshop.

Re:Good luck with that !

[Anonymous Coward]

First that have to find a few US engineers who are willing to work in their H1 B infested sweatshop.

Well played! You got to blast Amazon for exploiting H1-B employees AND denigrate the exploited employees at the same time. Bravo!

I hear Al-Qaeda candidates are available...

[Kazoo the Clown]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4425238,00.html

Proof

[elucido]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/j-edgar-hoover-war-martin-luther-king

And that was the 1960s. How do you know you don't have a file? If you have skills and an education its a near certainty that they have a file on you. If you're politically active they definitely do.

true story:

[Type44Q]

True story: I briefly worked in the Bid Dept of a large computers & parts catalogue company during the mid 90's and I remember a bid request from the CIA for something like this:

340 PC workstations each including the following:

15" Trinitron monitors

16MB ram

320MB hard drive

1.44MB 3.5" floppy drive

MS-DOS 6.22

Windows for Workgroups 3.11

Spectre VR

Re:true story:

[NJRoadfan]

I guess someone saw an opportunity for a slammin' LAN party.

Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[Trax3001BBS]

Do you smoke marijuana...

Interesting question and such a dilemma; one really doesn't know how to answer that question anymore.

Amazon is out of Washington state, one of two that have legalized marijuana when sold through the state itself (taxed).

Re:Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, "No". The words "discrimination" and "prejudice" have no meaning here.

Re:Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[drinkypoo]

That's a dumb thing to say. It's not a hard question. You say no, because it's still federally illegal and the security clearance is a federal matter. Then a man with a camera looks in through your window and finds out you're lying. Then they decide based on the position and how badly they need you whether you grant your clearance or not.

Re:Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[Trax3001BBS]

That's a dumb thing to say. It's not a hard question. You say no, because it's still federally illegal and the security clearance is a federal matter.

Ah but the feds have blinked and said what is planned is good with them. The local paper said there will be 25 stores within
23 miles of me by next June. http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2013/09/04/2555938/state-sets-max-of-334-marijuana.html

It's something I wouldn't want asked, I've worked for the DOE before and didn't smoke as I could of lost my job, which payed well and enjoyable work.
I haven't smoked marijuana for a long time for that reason, I smoke the evil weed now, I eat the evil weed in cookies, I can enjoy marijuana once again.

Re:Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[drinkypoo]

Ah but the feds have blinked and said what is planned is good with them.

No, no they haven't, and if you think they have, you are only fooling yourself. Until the law is actually changed, or the drug rescheduled, it continues to be a violation of federal law to put THC into your body by any means. That means that you're confessing to a federal crime on the internet. Good plan!

Re:Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[Trax3001BBS]

Ah but the feds have blinked and said what is planned is good with them.

No, no they haven't, and if you think they have, you are only fooling yourself. Until the law is actually changed, or the drug rescheduled, it continues to be a violation of federal law to put THC into your body by any means. That means that you're confessing to a federal crime on the internet. Good plan!

Nothing they could do to me would come close, anywhere near what could of happened to me 40 years ago over marijuana in Texas.
After that anything is better.

I've been able admit it once before, I lived in Fairbanks Alaska when marijuana was legalized, nothing changed just an an option to alcohol for many.
Then to the lower 48 where it was illegal again.

So I've gone through the U.S legal swing on this marijuana thing,

Re:Do you admit to smoking marijuana?

[drinkypoo]

Nothing they could do to me would come close, anywhere near what could of happened to me 40 years ago over marijuana in Texas.
After that anything is better.

Yeah well, when it comes to the USA, anyplace is better than Texas. Except maybe Oklahoma, which is very fucking much not OK.

Polygraph not necessary.

[Raven42rac]

Top Secret clearances don't necessarily mean you'll have a polygraph test administered.

invitation-only recruiting event

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon's invitation-only recruiting events are outsourced to a third party recruiting service. This service trolls LinkedIn for people who match the bingo card of skills Amazon wants, and are within a certain radius of miles from where the event will be held. So the way you get an invitation is to be trolled from LinkedIn. It's happened to me three times in the past year or so.

I am unimpressed by the outsourcer Amazon uses. The outsourcer did not even look at my LinkedIn page, and ignored my personal web site. And they asked for a resume. (I facetiously asked them if I should type it on a manual typewriter, but got not response.)

Wouldn't you think Amazon would be looking for people who code their own web sites for fun? Their hiring process is so dysfunctional that a candidate who would rather be coding a mobile version of his web site rather than doing a resume is kicked out of the process and not considered. Amazon can't get out of its own way.

So the "invitation-only recruiting event" is not a chance to pay your own way to a location of Amazon's choosing to beg Amazon for a job. No, it's a chance to pay your own way to beg an outsourcing firm to allow you the chance to beg Amazon for a job.

I do not agree with the aims and philosophy of Amazon, nor would I relocate to anywhere they're located, so it's a moot point.

Riddle me this

[TheRealCodeRed]

Q: What do you get when you require a Top Secret Clearance?
A: A poorly skilled employee that can pee clean and has never had a life.

Process changed over time

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the Carter and, I think, Reagan era the investigations were that comprehensive and did go back that far. One of Clinton's cost reduction moves was to place a limit on the time depth of the investigation.

And to stop disqualifying people just because of light drug use during high school.

Amazon Contacted me through LinkedIn About This

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon contacted me through LinkedIn about this because I have Federal contracting experience.

I was less than impressed. They want me to leave my current 9 to 5 job and commute an extra 45 minutes one-way.

The position? Rotating shift work performing database and Linux maintenance and troubleshooting.

The funny thing is, I'm a cyber security consultant, and my profile clearly reflects this. But the position had noting to do with cyber security.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't matter if troops were matching on Washington DC - would NEVER accept such a job.

I guess this is a good indication as to why

[ToddInSF]

buying anything from Amazon is probably a very bad idea, if you value your privacy, that is; which most people seem to not.

Re:Amz was the only good gov't RFP result I've see

[tnk1]

There may well be a better cloud provider than AWS... maybe... but it sure the fuck isn't IBM. As much as AWS getting in the door might have been BS, I don't think anything good is going to come of letting IBM get their crappy product in the door. If they actually win that, I'll be looking for the trail of bribe money and kickbacks they used to "persuade" people. Having spent time working to determine a good IaaS partner, nothing even came close to AWS for what I would expect from a decent cloud provider.

Now lest I seem like I am an AWS fanboy, I need to point out that even if AWS was the best, being the best of a bad bunch doesn't make you good. I personally have no major complaints about AWS, although there are some headscratchers. For instance, it would make me feel a lot better if they could figure out how to not lose power in a datacenter. It shouldn't be all that hard, datacenters with UPSes and gen sets aren't exactly bleeding edge technology. So, as you might expect, I am a nervous reader of when there are AWS outages, but generally they manage to only take out one AZ at a time, so they're technically still delivering.

Dinosaurs

[starshinecruzer]

If you can't be the best at something, screw over everyone who's better! That's the American Way!!

Boycott.

[Druegan]

Damn.. looks like I have to boycott Amazon.com now... which is a shame, as I actually liked ordering things from them from time to time..

However, I still have my principles, and one of those is that I refuse to do business with companies that are involved with known Terrorist organizations..

Victim of False Positive

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a victim of a false positive polygraph result. I was denied a clearance, and denied a great job opportunity, even though I am completely innocent. The government denied themselves a great human resource.

Then the Snowden relevations occurred, and I don't consider it such a great loss, not working for such a corrupt and immoral agency.