Slashdot Mirror
US Intelligence Officials To Monitor Federal Employees With Security Clearances
First time accepted submitter Trachman writes in with news about a monitoring program designed to help stop future leaks of government documents. "U.S. intelligence officials are planning a sweeping system of electronic monitoring that would tap into government, financial and other databases to scan the behavior of many of the 5 million federal employees with secret clearances, current and former officials told The Associated Press. The system is intended to identify rogue agents, corrupt officials and leakers, and draws on a Defense Department model under development for more than a decade, according to officials and documents reviewed by the AP."
I can't imagine why they wouldn't monitor people with access to secret clearances. I know they polygraph them all the time and regularly perform spot checks for law enforcement violations, etc.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
...for posting on Slashdot during work hours for many.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But who monitors the monitors?
Having a three-tiered system of government employability effectively bars countless Americans from serving in government and *ensures* it is nonrepresentative. In effect, you have cleared employees, non-cleared employees, and ex-cons, in decreasing order of government employability.
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The best way to prevent leaks like those that have happened lately is to have a REAL, RESPONSIVE, FUNCTIONAL whistle blower program so people do not have to take the law into their own hands.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
It is absurd that we have five *million* people in the country whom the government has forced to waive their right to be free from *unreasonable* search in order to qualify for their jobs.
If the government inquiries are reasonable, why would they need to make people sign the waiver?
Yo dawg! I heard you liked monitoring people so we got some monitoring people to monitor your monitoring people so you can monitor your monitoring people while you monitor people!
Yo dawg! I heard you like policing your state so we got you some police to police your police so you can police your police while you police your state!
"The Feds have a fetish for loyalty..."
Meaingfully monitoring five million people is going to be very difficult. Perhaps we should re-evaluate what is classified and what jobs need classified status. If you have less people with secrets, it's much easier to keep them.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Who is monitoring them? Without significant oversight of the monitors, then the whole thing is set up for a mess. Close the monitoring loop, Whoever is monitoring employees of another department should be monitored by a group from the department being monitored.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Have the government have no secrets.
I remain unconvinced that doing so actually results in a net benefit to the citizens, considering the costs and inevitable "intelligence arms races" with other countries, which are as predictable as an effect of our expenditures as night follows day.
What's the actual benefit to this when considering the moral hazard of having government institutions systematically pursuing actions which by definition cannot be "by the people, for the people" since "the people" don't even know what they are?
So, other countries might know where our bombs are. They probably already do, and that does not mean they have any possibility of getting to them. So, they might access our networks. That's a standard IT security competence issue, not an "intelligence" issue.
Really, outside of inflated budgets for the military, what net benefit is gained by creating and securing "secrets"?
In private enterprise, I would not be surprised if such a system fell foul of legislation protecting whistleblowers. Should the same whistleblowing protections should apply to government agencies?
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
Who watches the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers?
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
so baddies have been warned, they have plenty of time to apply corrective actions. And employees with nothing to hide will be only ones affected by this.
To encourage whistleblowers? To have a more open goverment?
- get rid of as many sysadmins as possible .. but, but.. we sort of hoped you'd cut back on the surveillance schemes! You know, mend your ways?
- screen sysadmins for libertarian tendencies and for caring too much about the constitution
- make sure information is less widely accessible
- increase monitoring of everyone who accesses information
- prepare to make a few token concessions for public consumption
Do what? Hm no, we didn't think of that. Why would we have to do that then ?
I can see a real drop off in the number of job applicants. The new monitoring may be necessary, but it will sure feel oppressive.
Only the people who see nothing wrong with such monitoring would be doing the job.
There are no false positives, comrade citizen, only people who harbor unpatriotic doubts about the accuracy of our Intelligence Community. Surely you aren't one of those?
This program is probably focused on members of the bureaucracy, but I wonder if they're going to cover another very significant group of government officials with security clearances: Members of Congress and their staffs. A lot of your leaks happen over on Capitol Hill after all. Then again, I'm going to take a guess that they will very vocally and aggressively oppose this action and play the separation of powers card to shield themselves from this new effort.
They should monitor politicians for corruption.
I'd imagine if I were an employee with security access I'd get at least a random audit once one a while. I mean, it stands to reason, no? Otherwise what is the point?
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
It doesn't matter, your clearance requirements are in force in perpetuity. i.e. you can't disclose information or anything else after you quit.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Civil rights never go out the window. As a cleared government employee I have not waived my civil rights and would never do so. I have agreed to allow some intrusive inspection of my life but I still have and will always have my civil rights.
Idiots like you who think that national security trumps all are what is wrong with today's national security infrastructure.
First: federal employees with security clearance
Next: all federal employees & all foreign nationals in the US
Next: all those working in "sensitive" industries
Next: all those working in "economically-vital" industries.
Next....
See where this is going?
Sorry, we're already there.
All healthcare workers that can access financial or 'personal' data (which means everyone north of the janitor) are now subjected to background checks that have to be redone every six years. Next up - constant monitoring to ensure we don't steal Grandma's SSN. Interestingly, the way the rules read, they're not much worried about us stealing medical information, just financial. One has to have one's priorities.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Or, you could just actually use the access controls already built into your systems and train your people to not share their credentials.
No, it's much better to go from criminally negligent and sloppy to overreacting and stomping all over everybody's freedoms.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I reported myself, too, just for good measure.
Making a report automatically gets you reported.
Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
Of course being aware enough to realize this is even more suspicious, and will get a note in your dossier as a potential troublemaker.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If you asked most people with a TS clearance if they'd rather this or face a periodic lifestyle polygraph they'd probably call this a no-brainer alternative to the latter.
Lots of federal employees means lots of chances for leaks. Therefore we need fewer federal employees.
(Also, the government shouldn't have too many secrets. They are suppose to be working for the people.)
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
That they have to announce they plan to is rather astonishing.
EXACTLY. Such information is incredibly hazardous to the system and needs more protections than the security clearance system itself!
In the hands of the wrong managers, politicians, appointees... this information could be used to target the honest and promote the corrupt. Somebody cheating on their wife could be let go while another selling out their country to a multinational gets ignored.
The trick to MODERN spying is to do it for a multinational corporation who can indirectly give it to their government. Nobody seems to care about corporate ties. Look at the CIA and Valerie Plame, she did her work thru a corporation and her contacts could just appear as doing legitimate business (which can be quite illegitimate, because it's just business as usual.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Instead of monitoring their ranks to punish people who are actually serving the public interest, maybe our Federal government could stop doing illegal stuff that needs to be covered up and swept under the rug.
Naw, let's just persecute the messengers instead.
No they don't. They don't detect lies. They detect changes in the subjects physiology, which has no connection to if the subject is lying. If the subject is nervous about the questions being asked because, say, they are worried about failing the test and losing their job
Moreover, because they are relied upon as a method to detect lies, the real professional spies know how to defeat them. There were a couple of famous cases of Russian spies a decade or so back who passed all the polygraph tests they were administered, and got into quite a bit of classified material.
Trusting them for anything is foolish. They will give you false positives and they don't catch the people who they really need to catch lying. You may as well just brun some chicken bones and read the ashes.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Actually, they may have more to lose from this policy than others. Specifically, the socially conservative ones.
With the elimination of policies like "don't ask, don't tell", people with alternative lifestyles no longer represent blackmail risks if they are not ashamed of coming out of the closet. Members of more conservative social groups who participate in such alternative lifestyle activities (and there are quite a few of them) will still be at risk from being ostracized by their community.
Security services have come to understand this. They have found that people with things to hide and pressures other than a threat to their employment to keep them hidden are ongoing risks. The tendency will be to identify such people and block them from sensitive areas of the government.
Have gnu, will travel.
Seatec Astronomy
...and not your own. Do you give to the EFF?
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
How many of these five million people with security clearances work for or are related to an elected member of Congress, a state government employee, or someone in the federal court system?
Will Congress ignore the executive branch spying on them? I suppose they will, they don't seem to be doing much of anything to keep the federal government from growing out of control.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Someone once told me it is best to avoid classified work. I've taken it a step further and try to avoid all government work. The pay isn't that great, and who wants to put up with stuff like this and government shutdowns?
I used to think it would be great to work for NASA or work on interesting classified government projects. The government has all the big expensive toys, right? Unfortunately, NASA isn't what it used to be, and now I realize classified work just a headache. I was actually a little baffled the first time I heard the phrase "good enough for government work" (as a college freshman from a professor), but now I get it.
I am actually completely astounded they don't already do this. I am highly against the excessive use of monitoring of citizens, But once you have a security clearance I would have though this would be standard practise and an accepted tradeoff in order to get your clearance. I know when I got my security clearance I had to sign off on permission for them to dig and monitor all sorts of information about me and I was actually surprised with some of the things they discovered and questioned me on.
Polygraphs do not test for nervousness. They measure baseline physiological stats and monitor for changes. Anything conclusions you draw from that data is pure conjecture. What would it mean if respiration slowed 3%, perspiration increased 2% and blood pressure held steady? Are they nervous? Starting to relax, but feeling warm? Starting to tense up? Having a mild attack of angina?
I mock your claims further:
I can burn chicken bones to detect lies. To claim that the ash patterns could never detect a lie is just flat out wrong.
Sure. That means they are imperfect. It does NOT mean their results have "no connection" to lying. Burned chicken bones are not perfect. Their accuracy is far below the "reasonable doubt" threshold needed for evidence in court. But to extrapolate from that and claim that they don't work at all is nonsense. They are "good enough" for preliminary screening.
Hey, flipping coins will get you 50% accuracy, so a polygraph is at least that good, right? Can you at least find a study that that proves that?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!