Slashdot Log In
NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thursday August 30, @08:04PM
from the watching-the-watchmen dept.
from the watching-the-watchmen dept.
Electron Barrage writes "Longtime
JPL scientists, many of whom do not work on classified materials,
including rover drivers and Apollo veterans, sued NASA, Caltech, and
the Department of Commerce today to fight highly invasive background checks, which include financial information, any and all retail business transactions, and even sexual orientation."
Related Stories
Firehose:NASA Employees fight invasive background check by Anonymous Coward
NASA Employees Fight Invasive Background Check
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 346 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Pointless
(Score:4, Funny)Re:Pointless
(Score:5, Insightful)(I pray that I never hear anything like this. .
Re:Pointless
(Score:5, Insightful)You may call it a logical fallacy all you like, but then you're ignoring history. Give a little power, and more WILL be taken.
Re:Pointless
(Score:4, Insightful)Its much, much rarer for goverment to relinquish power on their own. There are many more examples where this doesn't happen. Local governments more and more are "cracking down" on speed enforcement and lowering limits, even when studies show this will increase the number of accidents.
Or like when Linux started using Bitkeeper, and now almost all open-source products use it!
There's no government power involved here. Try to stay on topic.
Or like how in the Netherlands they tolerate marijuana, and now the entire country is addicted to crack cocaine...
Again, stay on topic. We're talking about increasing government power, where the argument DOES apply many times. If you want an example, take the War on Drugs. We're now at the point where if you sniff glue, you're breaking federal antidrug laws.
To sum it it, the slippery slope applies to government power grabs. The very real historical trend is that government will TAKE more and more power, not give it back.
Re:Pointless
(Score:4, Insightful)Traditionally, the slippery slope arguement is used to describe restrictions to liberty as having a snowballing effect. One restriction will lead to others. On its own, this is not necessarily true. Yet simply dismissing the argument as a slippery slope fallacy without understanding the motivations of all players is foolish.
Basically, an arguement suggesting that a slippery slope exists isn't false simply because of the assertation. Of course, evidence must be presented to suggest that a slippery slope does exist.
Precedent is the principle in law of using the past in order to assist in current interpretation and decision-making. Precedent can be of two types. Binding or mandatory precedent is a precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis that a court must consider when deciding a case. Advisory precedent are cases which a court may use but is not required to use to decide its cases. In general, binding precedent involves decisions made by a higher court in a common law jurisdiction.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
One could use precedent from previous examples where 'A' led to 'B' in one situation, where in all other situations 'B' never spontaneously occured. This would suggest that 'A' makes 'B' possible, maybe not inevitable, but possible and potentially probable.
you missed one...
(Score:4, Insightful)Re:you missed one...
(Score:4, Interesting)(http://kim.biyn.com/)
Re:you missed one...
(Score:5, Interesting)It isn't.
JPL is a division of Caltech. JPL employees have a contract with Caltech and receive a paycheck that says Caltech. Much of the funding comes from NASA (but by no means all of it and the proportion has been shrinking), but the employees at JPL are not civil servants and they are not NASA employees.
Add to this that the people at JPL never signed a contract that said that there will be background checks (but now there are, suddenly, and they're a requirement for continued employment) and you might see where the uproar is coming from...
Re:you missed one...
(Score:5, Informative)Contractors are being screened first, actually. Civil Servants have already had a background check, so to resolve the glut of overdue checks, the government is hiring one of Bush's friend's companies to do all the screening. And once they do their screening - unlike any background check in the private sector - the information is available to any government agency complying with HSPD-12.
Which, I believe, despite Griffin's protestations, is only NASA at this point.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. I work at Ames.
Re:you missed one...
(Score:5, Insightful)OK. Just wanted to be sure.
How costly a priviledge?
(Score:5, Insightful)(Last Journal: Monday August 20, @06:50PM)
I recently was on a plane coming from a trade show and I got into a long conversation with the guy next to me, who worked for this company at about the same level as I was applying for, and also in engineering. I told him I had turned down a job offer and that the IP clauses in the employment were one of my main concerns. His response was "But isn't that the industry standard?"
This is a phrase I hear from most people when I tell them this story. Yes, it may be the industry standard. But it's an industry standard because no one complains about it, or protests it, or turns down jobs because of it. The thing is, it mostly affects the most talented, energetic, and entrepreneurial engineers - who might actually create something of value outside of normal business hours.
I applaud these people for pushing back. Sure, working in the federal system is a "privilege". But the employers have an obligation to run the federal system in a way that produces the best results for the country. If you treat your employees like mechanical cogs, to be inspected and tuned and replaced, your not going to get those kinds of results.
Re:Pointless
(Score:4, Informative)(Last Journal: Monday September 03, @01:49PM)
Re:Pointless
(Score:5, Funny)Oh man, stay the *%# out of the ISS men's room. Everyone knows it's a meat market in there.
Re:Pointless
(Score:5, Funny)(http://geocities.com/nelstomlinson | Last Journal: Wednesday January 22, @02:19AM)
Can't have that! Everyone knows that's for U.S. Senators [washingtonpost.com] only!
Can't have the riff-raff acting like the quality folks, no sir!
Re:Pointless
(Score:4, Informative)(http://www.p00le.net/)
If you don't work on matters of national security, where is the concern with improper influence or motives? If someone's job puts them in a position where they might pose a threat to the safety of the country, they ought to be vetted and cleared appropriately. If not, filling out a questionnaire ought to be sufficient - though some of those questions are pretty fucking nosey, IMO, given that this is simply for getting an access card to allow you into places you've been going in the past anyway.
In Soviet USSA...
(Score:1, Funny)It depends ...
(Score:1)(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 01, @09:05PM)
... they want to make sure you're not buying a box of Depends ...
Medical records? Finances? Sexual life?
(Score:4, Insightful)Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life?
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://www.ictsc.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09, @11:15PM)
So for people with access to sensitive information you do in depth and quite invasive checks, the more sensitive the information you have access to the more invasive the information required for clearance (well more comprehensive anyway)
For people with no access to sensitive information, carry out a minimal background check and ensure that there are no glaring issues and then ensure that they have support and feel that they can tell their employer about their gambling addiction/cross-dressing using some sort of sensitive mechanism (wont stop all blackmail but its a decent start and if they are blackmailed they cant give anything away anyway.)
Most important - make sure that those without clearances DO NOT have casual or informal access to information that they are not cleared to see.
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life?
(Score:4, Funny)(http://www.vastheman.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02, @02:30AM)
1. Most extremists are Muslims
2. Islam forbids homosexuality
3. Homosexuals are not likely to be Muslim extremists
Therefore, it should be safe to hire gays...
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life?
(Score:5, Funny)(http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?larshansenphoto | Last Journal: Friday June 06, @06:02PM)
Re:Medical records? Finances? Sexual life?
(Score:4, Funny)(http://www.joe.org.uk/)
For additional information...
(Score:5, Informative)Levers
(Score:5, Informative)(http://hutnick.com/ | Last Journal: Monday March 12, @10:15PM)
I held a TS with SBI once upon a time. The main reason for background checks, as I understand it, is to ferret out any levers that could be used against you by hostile agent. Too much debt? We'll get you out of trouble if you give us info. Cheating on your wife? With a man?! It would be a shame if we had to call her. Think of your kids.
It's not that they're morally judging you, its that they're making sure that you're not unduly susceptible to influence.
It's not fair, but it's not about fairness.
-Peter
Levers + bullshit = more of the same stupidity.
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 01, @09:05PM)
This is a BS excuse. Anyone wanting to blackmail someone can always either dig up a truth, or manufacture a lie, that is good enough to "get the job done."
Want to make someone look like they're on the take? Deposit 20k in their bank account in cash. Then, a week later, before they get their bank statement, meet and greet them, and tell them what you've done, and how "gee, its going to look like drug money - do this shit for us, and we'll "fix it"". Better yet, make a lump-sum payment on their mortgage for them, when they're swimming in debt over their heads.
Want to make someone look like they're cheating on their spouse? Photoshop to the rescue. Especially if you have some unshopped pictures of the victim and the "sex object" elsewhere - for example, approach them in a restaurant, sit at their table for a minute asking for directions, and getting them to make a sketch.
Want to make someone look like a pedophile? Dump pics on their computer at work. (boot off usb, copy pics to drive, mission accomplished. Worst-case scenario, you'll have to connect the drive's cable to another machine as a slave for a few minutes).
There are ALWAYS ways to blackmail someone. If NASA believes that these sorts of background checks really work, they've been breathing too much vacuum.
Re:Levers + bullshit = more of the same stupidity.
(Score:5, Interesting)(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 01, @09:05PM)
Honestly, its time for the US population to stop thinking like Miss Carolina and just grow the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit if you're gay, lesbian, bi, or straight, or you cheated on your spouse, or you have debt, or you used illegal drugs, or you have a Britney Speares collection. Nobody. And the sooner the government makes this their official position, and sends a clear signal to the rest of society, the sooner blackmail for this sort of crap will no longer be possible.
Of course, the odds of that happening with Idiot Bush in charge are nill.
The issue of access
(Score:3, Insightful)Reciprocal rights
(Score:1)Works for me when the stupids ask for a name and address (eg returning stuff).
Sexual Orientation
(Score:1)I'm sick of it as well
(Score:1, Insightful)it's a great idea!
(Score:1, Insightful)(http://team-captin.com/)
The real issue
(Score:5, Insightful)Corporates do that too
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://www.idsignet.com/)
In early 2001 (pre-9/11), the investors pulled out of our company and we went belly up. Two weeks later, I got an offer from a new startup, developing high-end IDS. I would be the second software engineer there. The offer was really good, with a good amount of stock options, and 3 weeks vacation. Except one thing: the background check.
The wording of that agreement was amazingly terrible. It is more than invasive. I kept that page until two years ago, finally threw it away with other junks. Basically, it stated that the company could do any background check, any time, on any thing, including but not just my previous and future phone logs (including personal phone), email log (including personal email), bank accounts, trading accounts, 401K, IRA, credit card expenses, credit check, newsgroup, web postings,
I didn't sign, and went to the president, had a nice and polite discussion with him. I told him that I understood their concern about security, but this agreement obviously went overboard. I don't mind "normal" background check, but not those mentioned there. He also agreed that it went a little too far. So he asked me to re-word it so that I could accept. I rewrote the agreement, using standard background check format and wordings from other companies which I could accept. The president thought it was fine with him.
But the corporate attorney, with the support of the investors, didn't want to hear about it. He said that engineers and technical people had too easy an access to implement backdoors in the system. It is this way, or the highway.
I chose the highway. The company recruiter (external hired recruiter, actually) kept calling me for two months, but I already started working at other place for almost two months by then.
Re:That is nothing
(Score:5, Funny)(http://www.chemicalwonderland.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 22, @04:19PM)
You'll be pleased to learn that the question regarding homosexuality has been softened up.
Old question: Are you now or have you ever been a homosexual?
New question: Are coffee, salmon, and moccha foods or colors?