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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
That depends of if we decide the NSA has gone far enough to be considered a domestic enemy of the people. It lies to congress, it lies to the citizens, and it may be lying to the president as well. That doesn't sound much like a legit government agency. It spies on Americans and subverts the Constitution. That sounds like something an enemy does.
That doesn't mean everyone within or associated with the organization had anything to do with that. They might not know any more than they were told.
The lives of all of those agents is deemed at risk, and their status gives them no protection. The British assess those documents as being compromised.
Of course they do, otherwise they would have detained him for no reason. Their assumption is that the agents would be at risk if the documents were released, but so far the Guardian has been very careful to redact or not publish anything that could pose danger.
Besides which, arguing that agents of a criminal organization could be at risk if their criminal activity is exposed isn't much of an argument.
You assume the agents of the organization know it's criminal?
The lives of all of those agents is deemed at risk, and their status gives them no protection.
If you work for something that has turned into criminal organizations of the worst kind (e.g., endangering infrastructure components of other countries), you deserve what's coming your way.
How would they know what they are working for? Can we apply this to tax payers as well?
And yet you start this thread by implying that even letting the people know of the extent of the abuse is treason. How well do any of your solutions to make the agencies less abusive over time work if the abuse itself is kept secret from the people that are supposed to be motivating the change?
I didn't imply, I asked a question. Where should we draw the line? Should the concept of treason even exist?
If the US wanted bitcoin gone, they could have done so.
There exists something called an "51% attack", which means that anybody having more than half the hashrate of the Network is acknowledged as the boss and can do as he wants (stuff like spending the same bitcoin multiple times, manipulate the difficulty of future block mining, etc).
Back in April, before mass ASICS, the US could have trivially gotten that far. Hell, last year anybody willing to spend 5-10 million could have done it with off-the-counter hardware.
For an agencies who have a double digit BILLION black budgets, this is totally peanuts.
Never implied they want it gone, but as a bargaining chip for regulation perhaps they have the kill switch.
If Snowden leaked this at this point he's exposing information on operations, methods, everything. At what point does it cross the line and become treason? Is there a line which gets crossed where every Snowden supporter would say "this has gone too far"?
It is really, really easy to turn a blind eye to the evil one's government perpetrates when that evil is not directed at one's self or one's loved ones, and when in fact these benefit in some way from said evil.
Does all this evil keep our economy strong (possibly at the expense of other economies)? Does it keep stuff cheap at walmart? Does it keep the movies and tv programs flowing? Does it keep most of us basically comfortable in our lives? Then maybe we just won't bother sticking our necks out for a bunch of foreigners who offer nothing to us in return.
What is it that you want people to do exactly? Do you think we have any control over what intelligence agencies do? If we try to stop them then their allies will be in the position to do to us and our loved ones exactly what the US intelligence agencies are capable of doing to people in your country.
You don't seem to understand how things work. The US citizen cannot stop the US government because your government would work with the FBI to stop that. It would be called terrorism. The penalty for terrorism is harsh and can even include death.
If someone in your country tried to take on the intelligence agency of your country, then if your country is allied with the US government then the CIA would destroy those people/terrorists.
The only realistic solutions which aren't suicide or completely insane all take time. Decades. The government agencies can be made less abusive over time, and made to follow the laws of war or at least make it clear to us what rules they follow.
If Snowden leaked this at this point he's exposing information on operations, methods, everything. At what point does it cross the line and become treason? Is there a line which gets crossed where every Snowden supporter would say "this has gone too far"?
Who believes the US government had something to do with it? Suddenly after meeting with regulators the price recovers? Conclusion: Promote regulation of the Bitcoin network as it's correlated with a rise in the price.
Trust is only established when there aren't any secrets. Espionage can uncover any secrets.
Commonly Espionage tries to find other peoples secrets so they have more secrets to keep to themselves, it doesnt increase the public knowledge, therefore doesnt increase trust within society.
Nice try, but still a fail.
Let me ask you this, would you rather a spy society or to be drafted into war? These are the only options we get as civilians because conflicts are inevitable and we only get to choose the form it takes.
Espionage is easier for people to live with (no draft).
Trust is only established when there aren't any secrets. Espionage can uncover any secrets.
Commonly Espionage tries to find other peoples secrets so they have more secrets to keep to themselves, it doesnt increase the public knowledge, therefore doesnt increase trust within society.
Nice try, but still a fail.
Espionage is how governments trust each other. The US and it's allies trust each other because they know each others secrets. The US does not trust Iran because the US does not know Iran's secrets as much as it knows about it's allies. Iran does not trust the USA because it does not know US secrets.
The general public has no reason to trust any government because they all keep secrets from us. But it is still a fact that espionage is better than war.
For real, so much of this brain research stuff it scary as heck to me. Even the so called ethical uses seem pretty creepy.
There was another research piece where they could associate negative or positive emotions with memories artificially. Some genius though it might be a way to fight PTSD, except I think he kind of overlooked the possible side effect associating positive emotions with death and carnage.
It depends on how it is developed but if its a top down government technology there are none.
Anyone who thinks the US government should be hamstringed in its spying efforts by conflating it with surveillance of its own citizens just wishes for a weakened America relative to other nations who would gladly accept a spying advantage with even less trustworthy ambitions.
Anyone who is actually involved in diplomacy and expresses outrage over this is either a total fool or is acting for personal gain.
I agree with everything you said. You should be modded up. Nations who want to be trusted should not keep secrets from each other but since they all try to, this is why every nation has to spy on every nation.
Wars are prevented when leaders of countries actually sit down and try to work out relationships with countries, without the intent of screwing them over for gain.
Agree, and its much easier to do that if there is trust between the parties/countries. Trust makes relationships (economic and social) more efficient as it enables greater teamwork between parties, it also makes people feel safe and part of a community. Trust is one the most valuable social resources we have, it takes years to nuture and grow, and these people constantly undermine it and destroy under the pretence that they are "helping" us. They fail at being human.
Trust is only established when there aren't any secrets. Espionage can uncover any secrets.
Slashdot Mirror
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
The US and it's allies trust each other because they know each others secrets.
How do they know they know each others secrets...
Or do you mean they trust each other because they trust that they know each others secrets...
Checken and egg, your statement is proven false.
Espionage is how.
That depends of if we decide the NSA has gone far enough to be considered a domestic enemy of the people. It lies to congress, it lies to the citizens, and it may be lying to the president as well. That doesn't sound much like a legit government agency. It spies on Americans and subverts the Constitution. That sounds like something an enemy does.
That doesn't mean everyone within or associated with the organization had anything to do with that. They might not know any more than they were told.
The lives of all of those agents is deemed at risk, and their status gives them no protection. The British assess those documents as being compromised.
Of course they do, otherwise they would have detained him for no reason. Their assumption is that the agents would be at risk if the documents were released, but so far the Guardian has been very careful to redact or not publish anything that could pose danger.
Besides which, arguing that agents of a criminal organization could be at risk if their criminal activity is exposed isn't much of an argument.
You assume the agents of the organization know it's criminal?
If you work for something that has turned into criminal organizations of the worst kind (e.g., endangering infrastructure components of other countries), you deserve what's coming your way.
How would they know what they are working for? Can we apply this to tax payers as well?
And yet you start this thread by implying that even letting the people know of the extent of the abuse is treason. How well do any of your solutions to make the agencies less abusive over time work if the abuse itself is kept secret from the people that are supposed to be motivating the change?
I didn't imply, I asked a question. Where should we draw the line? Should the concept of treason even exist?
If the US wanted bitcoin gone, they could have done so.
There exists something called an "51% attack", which means that anybody having more than half the hashrate of the Network is acknowledged as the boss and can do as he wants (stuff like spending the same bitcoin multiple times, manipulate the difficulty of future block mining, etc).
Back in April, before mass ASICS, the US could have trivially gotten that far. Hell, last year anybody willing to spend 5-10 million could have done it with off-the-counter hardware.
For an agencies who have a double digit BILLION black budgets, this is totally peanuts.
Never implied they want it gone, but as a bargaining chip for regulation perhaps they have the kill switch.
If Snowden leaked this at this point he's exposing information on operations, methods, everything.
At what point does it cross the line and become treason? Is there a line which gets crossed where every Snowden supporter would say "this has gone too far"?
No. Next question.
Nice dodge to the question.
I'm in the US, and thanks to the our belligerence, I can now expect to try to defend my networks from the blowback from all this. Lovely.
What blowback? This isn't something that they didn't know already. Maybe they didn't know details and scope and this confirms it.
It is really, really easy to turn a blind eye to the evil one's government perpetrates when that evil is not directed at one's self or one's loved ones, and when in fact these benefit in some way from said evil.
Does all this evil keep our economy strong (possibly at the expense of other economies)? Does it keep stuff cheap at walmart? Does it keep the movies and tv programs flowing? Does it keep most of us basically comfortable in our lives? Then maybe we just won't bother sticking our necks out for a bunch of foreigners who offer nothing to us in return.
What is it that you want people to do exactly? Do you think we have any control over what intelligence agencies do? If we try to stop them then their allies will be in the position to do to us and our loved ones exactly what the US intelligence agencies are capable of doing to people in your country.
You don't seem to understand how things work. The US citizen cannot stop the US government because your government would work with the FBI to stop that. It would be called terrorism. The penalty for terrorism is harsh and can even include death.
If someone in your country tried to take on the intelligence agency of your country, then if your country is allied with the US government then the CIA would destroy those people/terrorists.
The only realistic solutions which aren't suicide or completely insane all take time. Decades. The government agencies can be made less abusive over time, and made to follow the laws of war or at least make it clear to us what rules they follow.
Since the line for treason gets drawn by the government he is exposing, of course the answer is yes.
The question is, does he care?
I'm asking what line do Snowden supporters draw. Or should Snowden have no limit to what he can leak?
Whistleblowing on a secret US government agency that's governed (if at all) by secret laws and secret courts, and is clearly out of control?
Sorry, that would never cross the line into treason. It's the agency which is breaking the law.
So if the identities of operatives were leaked, is that treason? What would be too far even for you?
If Snowden leaked this at this point he's exposing information on operations, methods, everything.
At what point does it cross the line and become treason? Is there a line which gets crossed where every Snowden supporter would say "this has gone too far"?
Who believes the US government had something to do with it?
Suddenly after meeting with regulators the price recovers?
Conclusion: Promote regulation of the Bitcoin network as it's correlated with a rise in the price.
Trust is only established when there aren't any secrets. Espionage can uncover any secrets.
Commonly Espionage tries to find other peoples secrets so they have more secrets to keep to themselves, it doesnt increase the public knowledge, therefore doesnt increase trust within society.
Nice try, but still a fail.
Let me ask you this, would you rather a spy society or to be drafted into war? These are the only options we get as civilians because conflicts are inevitable and we only get to choose the form it takes.
Espionage is easier for people to live with (no draft).
Trust is only established when there aren't any secrets. Espionage can uncover any secrets.
Commonly Espionage tries to find other peoples secrets so they have more secrets to keep to themselves, it doesnt increase the public knowledge, therefore doesnt increase trust within society.
Nice try, but still a fail.
Espionage is how governments trust each other. The US and it's allies trust each other because they know each others secrets. The US does not trust Iran because the US does not know Iran's secrets as much as it knows about it's allies. Iran does not trust the USA because it does not know US secrets.
The general public has no reason to trust any government because they all keep secrets from us. But it is still a fact that espionage is better than war.
For real, so much of this brain research stuff it scary as heck to me. Even the so called ethical uses seem pretty creepy.
There was another research piece where they could associate negative or positive emotions with memories artificially. Some genius though it might be a way to fight PTSD, except I think he kind of overlooked the possible side effect associating positive emotions with death and carnage.
It depends on how it is developed but if its a top down government technology there are none.
Secrets create distrust. No one trusts someone who is keeping a secret from them.
Mutual spying creates trust.
Anyone who thinks the US government should be hamstringed in its spying efforts by conflating it with surveillance of its own citizens just wishes for a weakened America relative to other nations who would gladly accept a spying advantage with even less trustworthy ambitions.
Anyone who is actually involved in diplomacy and expresses outrage over this is either a total fool or is acting for personal gain.
I agree with everything you said. You should be modded up. Nations who want to be trusted should not keep secrets from each other but since they all try to, this is why every nation has to spy on every nation.
Wars are prevented when leaders of countries actually sit down and try to work out relationships with countries, without the intent of screwing them over for gain.
Agree, and its much easier to do that if there is trust between the parties/countries.
Trust makes relationships (economic and social) more efficient as it enables greater teamwork between parties, it also makes people feel safe and part of a community.
Trust is one the most valuable social resources we have, it takes years to nuture and grow, and these people constantly undermine it and destroy under the pretence that they are "helping" us.
They fail at being human.
Trust is only established when there aren't any secrets. Espionage can uncover any secrets.