9th Circuit Says Feds' Security Checks At JPL Go Too Far 139
coondoggie writes with an excerpt from Network World which explains that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "this week ruled against the federal government and in favor of employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in their case which centers around background investigations known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Nelson et al. vs NASA). The finding reaffirms the JPL employees claims' that
the checks threaten their constitutional rights. The stink stems from HSPD #12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are, so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected."
At issue in particular: an employee's not agreeing to "an open ended background investigation, conducted by unknown investigators, in order to receive an identification badge that was compliant with HSPD#12" was grounds for dismissal.
Expect retaliation (Score:2, Insightful)
Whistle-blowers get protection from retaliation, but you know anyone who complained about this policy probably doesn't have friends in high places. Anyone who complains can expect their career to stagnate or progress slower than it would have if they had said nothing.
Such is the way with large employers.
Re:Expect retaliation (Score:5, Insightful)
HSPD #12 (Score:4, Funny)
Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12:
You do not talk about Homeland Security Presidential Directives.
...or something like that.
Re:HSPD #12 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about private companies? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, contractors are subject to the same security standards. This is true for highly sensitive orgs like NASA as well as less sensitive orgs like departments of public welfare.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right. I work for a contractor to JPL and I was up for these same security checks to get my NASA badge (which is, I think, on hold). I've been following this case fairly closely, needless to say.
Re: (Score:2)
If they need a NASA badge, then they are subject to the same security check.
Whether they need a NASA badge depends on a bunch of factors, among them:
1) Frequency of center access -- if they work off-site 99% of the time then they probably don't need a badge). Conversely, if they work on site frequently, then they need a badge
2) Need for network access to NASA resources -- Some of the more secure ones require a NASA identity (in the NASA directory), but not necessarily a badge. At some point the badge
JPL isn't NASA (Score:2)
JPL actually isn't a NASA (federal government owned) installation. It's CalTech operating for-profit as a contractor to NASA. The only actual government jobs at "JPL" are the contract administrators and some management types.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, yes and no. JPL is NASA when it wants to be and Caltech at other times. For example, the new badges are general NASA badges. (I've technically got a contractor badge application pending with them and I'm told that the same badge would get me into other centers as well.)
It's an odd relationship and that leads to some... quirky?... interactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Of interest (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There was no rule against being a democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
In all honesty, I'm not really sure what the point of open ended background checks was. As it is, even after this ruling the government will be allowed to investigate employees suspected of espionage or other security violations, just not without reason. In the grand scheme of things, I'd be surprised if this has any negative impact on the security of the JPL.
Workers were not seeking security clerance even.. (Score:3, Informative)
The plaintiffs are scientists, engineers and administrative workers at JPL, which is operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Like the vast majority of JPL employees, they do not have or need security clearances, and have been identified by the government as holding âoenon-sensitiveâ positions.
I had to read further and deeper through the links to find this comment. So these people not needing security clearance were subjected to the expansive and open ended review permitted by the HSPD #12.
Re:Workers were not seeking security clerance even (Score:5, Interesting)
At one of hte protests I went to, one guy stood up to speak and basically said he was glad he had a top secret clearance because it meant he didn't have to have his privacy invaded like this. That's saying something.
Disclaimer: I was an intern at JPL two summers ago when this was starting to be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he was an old timer who was grandfathered in before the government got serious about screening people in sensitive positions but rest assured the procedures for vetting someone for secret or top secret clearance are pretty invasive and this was the case before HomeSec existed.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
When I got my clearance back in the dark ages (1985 or so) they were extremely interested in the organizations I belonged to. They weren't happy when all I had to tell them about was the Auto Club and, decades previous, the Book of the Month Club. It was only after I confessed to being a Campfire Girl that they removed the thumbscrews and granted my clearance. At one point the current JPL Overseer (not Bruce Murray) let it be known that those who required clearances for their jobs would be seriously lim
Re:Workers were not seeking security clearance (Score:2)
At one of the protests I went to, one guy stood up to speak and basically said he was glad he had a top secret clearance because it meant he didn't have to have his privacy invaded like this. That's saying something.
It seems strange, but as you get to the higher level clearances, like TS and SCI, as done for the 3-letter agencies, the process becomes quite intrusive, but is reasonably rational and run by competent people. Also, at the higher levels, the security clearance process is entirely independe
you would not know why you failed (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a briefing where I work about the plan. If you failed the background check, you had no way of learning the reasons. Though you could technically appeal, what would have been the good of that had you not known why. What if it had been simply that you donated money to a certain person, or that your spouse was from a certain country, or a mistaken identity? The other problem was that it took so long to do the checks. Since the program had not started they had no idea, but it was thought that the new process would likely add 6 months to the already tedious process in place. To give you an idea I have had two background checks here. Once it took 4 months the other time 2 since I had already passed an earlier one. Soon we learned about the likely challenge from NASA employees and we waited it out. It has taken years to get this far and thankfully it looks like this overstepping is going to end. The other thing is that the dept I work for and the job I do has me doing absolutely nothing secret or anything of the sort that might need this level of background check. Every employee was going to need it.
The final point I want to add is that during the briefing it became clear that not only was this a terrible new big brother style of infringement but that there were companies that were going to make a fortune doing this. As an example we were going to have to get a new set of IDs and all the doors and computers would have readers in order to use them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you failed the background check, you had no way of learning the reasons. Though you could technically appeal, what would have been the good of that had you not known why.
Kafkaesque. [wikipedia.org]
Don't breakout the champagne yet (Score:2)
As I recall, the 9th Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than any other court.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a large circuit that handles a lot of cases so this is true of the absolute number of cases but not percentage-wise.
Re:Don't breakout the champagne yet (Score:4, Informative)
"From 1992 to 2003, the lowest percentage of overturned appeals was 68 percent. The highest was a telling 95 percent. The average percentage of Ninth Circuit Court decisions overturned by the Supreme Court during this time was 73.5 percent as compared to an average of 61 percent by the all the other circuit courts of appeal combined."
http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/crime_law_judiciary/ninth_circuit.cfm [senate.gov]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That sure is carefully worded. The absolute difference between the averages is only 13%, and is only 20% of the smaller number. It also quietly ignores all the decisions that are not considered for appeals (meaning when a case from the 9th is appealed, it is somewhat more likely to be overturned than other courts, but saying nothing about what percentage of all the cases heard in the 9th are overturned upon appeal).
Re:Don't breakout the champagne yet (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny, I don't see any cited numbers there. Meanwhile, here are some real numbers from the Harvard Law Review (see the couple pages, which contain total number of cases seen by the Supreme Court from each of the circuits, along with number of cases reversed, vacated, etc) (alas, the document itself doesn't cite its sources, but I'll fall back on argument by authority and assume they've done their homework properly):
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/Nov04/Nine_Justices_Ten_YearsFTX.pdf [harvardlawreview.org]
Now, I took those numbers and I made a couple CSV files, then did a little crunching (yes, I'm bored... what can I say, I'm waiting for the oven to preheat :). So, let's compare the percentages of reversed cases for each of the courts. A little Perl magic, and we get this:
1st - 0.00, 25.00, 100.00, 40.00, 0.00, 0.00, 100.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
2nd - 66.67, 50.00, 100.00, 33.33, 50.00, 100.00, 37.50, 100.00, 100.00, 100.00
3rd - 60.00, 0.00, 33.33, 25.00, 50.00, 0.00, 60.00, 0.00, 0.00, 50.00
4th - 66.67, 50.00, 33.33, 50.00, 0.00, 55.56, 40.00, 54.55, 100.00, 0.00
5th - 62.50, 100.00, 60.00, 33.33, 60.00, 66.67, 33.33, 100.00, 100.00, 83.33
6th - 42.86, 50.00, 33.33, 33.33, 50.00, 75.00, 71.43, 0.00, 71.43, 75.00
7th - 28.57, 42.86, 100.00, 14.29, 50.00, 75.00, 50.00, 0.00, 66.67, 50.00
8th - 80.00, 50.00, 37.50, 46.15, 33.33, 20.00, 33.33, 60.00, 0.00, 75.00
9th - 70.59, 76.92, 71.43, 76.47, 55.56, 80.00, 64.71, 61.11, 56.52, 64.00
10th - 50.00, 20.00, 0.00, 0.00, 25.00, 50.00, 75.00, 75.00, 100.00, 100.00
11th - 33.33, 40.00, 33.33, 100.00, 75.00, 40.00, 100.00, 100.00, 50.00, 50.00
DC - 66.67, 40.00, 0.00, 22.22, 0.00, 0.00, 100.00, 66.67, 0.00, 33.33
Fed - 66.67, 0.00, 100.00, 50.00, 50.00, 100.00, 50.00, 20.00, 50.00, 100.00
Notice, there are plenty of years where the 9th's reversal rate is lower than other circuits, and the numbers certainly aren't wildly out of whack (I really don't see where the "95%" number comes from). But, why don't we look at the total percentage of reversals for each of the courts?
1st - 33.33
2nd - 69.23
3rd - 41.94
4th - 46.30
5th - 59.65
6th - 49.12
7th - 46.94
8th - 47.06
9th - 66.67
10th - 48.39
11th - 59.09
DC - 30.30
Fed - 46.15
As you can see, the 9th circuit, while up there, is beaten by the 2nd circuit, and it's really not that far off from the others.
Of course, it's possible there's something I don't understand in the data. Maybe I have to combine reversals with some of the other numbers... but certainly, at first glance, the 9th circuit doesn't look nearly as bad as its critics would have us believe.
Re: (Score:2)
And where is the latest SCOTUS nominee from? The 2nd Circuit. Gee, great.
The 2nd and the 9th are the wackiest circuits. Not surprisingly, they represent California and New York, respectively.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the entire point of my post is that they aren't as "wacky" as you'd like to believe. Hell, look at the 5th circuit. If it weren't for a couple low years, its turnover rate is surprisingly high. Same goes with the 6th and 10th circuits in the later years of the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, one thing that people tend to forget: There is not requirement for the higher courts to actually hear the cases. They will generally only hear the cases that they feel will result in overturning. As such it's hardly surprising that the numbers are "high".
Re: (Score:2)
In the numbers you posted above, you didn't include vacated decisions.
I tried including them, but ended up with numbers that were > 100%, which indicated to me that either vacated decisions were included in the reversals, or there was some sort of overlap. 'course, that looks like it may have been a bug in my script (or my data entry), given your spreadsheet doesn't exhibit the same issue.
BTW, I have no idea why I didn't think of a google docs spreadsheet. Great idea!
Anyway, you make some excellent poi
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, each case tends to be different, just because you have two very similar death penalty cases, doesn't mea
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it hears more cases than any other circuit, having the largest population (the entire west coast). It has almost 20% of the caseload of the US. By percentage of cases overturned it ranks slightly better than average.
Linked article isn't accurate (Score:5, Informative)
A close friend is one of the Caltech (technically, he is a contractor at JPL) employees who sued the Federal government. Caltech manages the JPL labs for the federal government. After 9/11, the Bush administration passed this directive to subject federal employees and contractors, working on sensitive and non-sensitive matters to the same invasive background checks. These background checks do not have a set standard or criteria for evaluation, are not disclosed and can affect your employment (read termination). This means that if someone who knows you, when interviewed, says he/she thinks you did pot, that's it, you can be terminated.
To subject federal employees and contractors who are working on confidential/sensitive projects is one thing although still not fair but it is completely unfair to subject employees or contractors working on non-sensitive projects to such arbitrary background checks.
As they say, devil lies in the details. The presidential directive itself does not require background checks. What is requires is that all employees and contracts, irrespective of the nature of work, have to be issued a standard identification card for entering federal facilities. Sounds fair, right? The rub is that to be issued this card, you must pass the background check. So by mandating a standard identification card, the government has mandated all employees and contractors be subjected to background checks. And this is what this group of 30 or so JPL/Caltech scientists are protesting.
On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you. Another friend who worked for PG&E waited 3 months to enter the facility he was supposed to work at because the feds could not finish his background check soon enough. Imagine if thousands of other employees or contractors are subjected to this new directive? The quality of these checks is directly proportional to the number of federal agents who do this work and we all know that the number of experienced federal agents is not going to quadruple overnight. So the end result is going to be dilution in the quality of these checks which then defeats the intent and purpose of these checks.
Phew!! My longest post on
Re: (Score:2)
So, based on these rules, the last 3 presidents can be terminated?
Re: (Score:2)
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." --US Constitution. A
Re:Linked article isn't accurate (Score:5, Informative)
On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.
Indeed, we are already seeing the results of over-investigation.
87 percent of the 3,500 initial top-secret security clearance cases Defense approved last year were missing at least one interview or important record.
Security clearances: Faked investigations mount as deadlines tighten [federaltimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I was in the Air Force, I had a security clearence and had to go through the same background checks. I told them from the beginning I had smoked pot before and had
And the point is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with security checks-- this is for all employees, not just ones with security clearance.
And, the other point is that they are lying about. They said it is required by HSPD-12. It is in fact, not required by HSPD-12.
A more accurate coverage (Score:2, Informative)
A sample of the background check (Score:5, Informative)
"As The Times noted in January of last year, the government demanded that the scientists fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and waive the privacy of their financial, medical and psychiatric records. The government also wanted permission to gather information about them by interviewing third parties. At one point, JPL's internal website posted an "issue characterization chart" -- since taken down -- that indicated the snoops would be looking for a "pattern of irresponsibility as reflected in credit history
Re: (Score:1)
It also said homosexuality could be a security issue under some circumstances."
It also mentioned marital impropriety. The idea behind it, of course, is that closet homosexuals and unfaulthful partners could be blackmailed into giving up sensitive information.
It's also convenient that the folks who fit the acceptable standards also fit in with the conservative "family values" type, lacking important life experience, and are more likely to do what they're told without question.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age. And since when is sodomy "irresponsible" ? Is Fred Phelps a federal consultant on security matters now ?
As the almighty MC Frontalot often says, "You shouldn't ought to be intolerant about who queers like to fuck"
Re: (Score:2)
It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age.
Here's the rationale: Let's say you're gay but in the closet. Now I blackmail you for national security secrets...
And yes, same thing if you're an adulterous hetero or a problem gambler or a drug user. The issue isn't being gay per se, it's the societal environment around you. "Could be" probably means that a closeted homosexual is a potential problem, while an openly gay one isn't. In other words, if you have something about yourself that you would want to hide, you're giving others leverage that coul
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a problem with homosexuality, that's a problem with American social tension.
Hint: Pretending the problem doesn't exist is not going to make it go away.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a problem with homosexuality, that's a problem with American social tension
Yes. But so what? Security agencies have to operate in the "way things are" world, not the "way we would like things to be" world.
Re: (Score:2)
That has been done throughout the world in the past for some of the very same reasons. I like the idea! I would love to see everyone in government spay or neutered.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for requiring security clearance with working at JPL, but I firmly believe credit history is no indicator for security.
I have been disqualified from being hired at several jobs due to my credit history. It has no bearing on me as a person or how I conduct myself professionally.
I am not an irresponsible person, nor to I lie, cheat, or steal. That being said, my credit history has a single default with a credit card I got when I was 19.
I find it morally objectionable for HR to have the capability of
9th Circuit (Score:1, Informative)
Is this the same 9th circuit that said the government can pass a resolution condemning a specific religious group by name and insult its members, without violating the 1st amendment? I think it is.
probing questions. (Score:1)
I know an IT worker who had to fill out a questionnaire for a law-enforcement agency ("cops" basically). One of the questions asked if they'd ever had sex with animals. I swear it's true. Personnel administrators sometimes go too far.
Re: (Score:1)
One of the questions asked if they'd ever had sex with animals.
A friend told of a coworker who, when asked that question (during a poly, no less) replied: "Do bears count?"
Apparently the investigator couldn't not laugh at that one.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope he answered "only with a pig."
HSPD 12 is waste. (Score:2)
Good. Now can we return back to having site-specific badges that are appropriate for the level of work being done at different federal facilities? Or we can use this new common ID that creates a single point of failure in the creation of badges, makes it easier to wander unescorted in facilities that you don't have access to, and adds significant cost and delay in getting people badged. Either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Or we can use this new common ID that creates a single point of failure in the creation of badges, makes it easier to wander unescorted in facilities that you don't have access to, and adds significant cost and delay in getting people badged. Either way.
ding ding ding
we have a winner!
That's one of the big holes. Another good one is that if you're going to be in the federal facility for 180 days or less, they do a quick criminal background check (check all the public databases) and hand you a badge and let you run wild.
And the process with foreign nationals makes it even more absurd-- foreign nationals are subjected to far less investigation than US citizens/permanent residents. Federal agencies that do science and research (e.g NASA, DOE) use large numbe
I guess things have changed... (Score:3, Interesting)
My investigation was in the 90's - before 9/11 and before Homeland Security. Officially, my employment was not dependent on my clearance - but everyone knew that the reality was that the position required a clearance, so without the clearance, there would not be an available job for me and I would be let go. It happened to a couple of guys who for whatever reason could not get cleared.
All ancient history now...
Re: (Score:2)
That's still true. They don't much care what you've done, it what you'd do to keep it secret.
"Porn? Yeah, it's not just me keeping a $9billion a year industry afloat." doesn't give Them anything against you.
"OH MY GOD DON'T TELL MY WIFE!" will preclude your clearance PDQ.
For the Homeland! (Score:2, Interesting)
Homeland, much like Fatherland, gives me proud images of charging in Panzer Tanks across the Ukrainian plains to stick it to the undermenschen. Long live Das Homelanden! Mein Liebe!
JPL then... and now (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked at JPL for a few years (pre 9/11). It was a congenial environment. I got my badge with no hassles; I certainly sympathize with the present plight of my former colleagues and wish them good luck, and may they win if the case goes to the US Supreme Court.
I certainly hope the Obama administration will scale back Bush-era excesses. They have harmed us much more than terrorism ever could.
Incidentally, back then I was tickled to find out that the code we were writing for NASA spacecrafts was in the public domain -- anybody could request a copy. May I assume it is no longer so?! :)
Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but no. Federal employees do have rights, as the court has ruled. If the matter were settled, it wouldn't have ruled that way, would it?
Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not clear from the link, but it appears that the situation may only apply to to existing employees.
You are happily working at your established job and some presidential directive comes down that establishes that you need a background check to get your smart card needed to access the network and do your job.
Current employees are now offered the "choice" of submitting to a background check or lose their jobs. The court ruled rightly that this is a no go, but I suspect new employees have to agree to a background check before accepting employment.
Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again. (Score:5, Informative)
The real crap was that JPL was going to "resign" employees who did not submit to or pass the new background checks, attempting to circumvent California law with regard to unemployment etc. There was never any question that would be struck down.
Can someone please tell me what things like that damn suitability matrix have to do with suitability to work? Such as sexual orientation, traffic tickets, bad checks, eviction, incest, and bestiality have to do with ability to Science?
http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Suitability_Matrix.pdf [hspd12jpl.org]
What will likely happen is JPL will be forced to follow the law ith regards to termination, and NASA will enact reasonable guidelines to keep our nation safe (most of the research at JPL isn't even that secret. It's not like we built WMDs or bioweapons. We build science satellites and probes.) that do not go above and beyond the President's directive.
Disclaimer: I was an intern at JPL when this shit started to hit the fan two summers ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just in case someone missed calmofthestorm's sarcasm, the suitability matrix he refers to (and the whole idea of background checks) has nothing to do with Science, and everything to do with trustworthiness.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What will likely happen is JPL will be forced to follow the law ith regards to termination
Wow, a federally funded organization being FORCED TO FOLLOW THE LAW! Sure sounds like socialism to me! (I'm being sarcastic, for the folks to brain-dead to know it.)
I was once offered employment at JPL--it was my dream job, working in the Advanced Propulsion Group to design and build the next generation of unlaunchable engines (unlaunchable because NASA is on such a shoe-string budget for that they don't dare deviate
Re: (Score:2)
Being an American is being a US citizen. You are talking about naturalization rights here and there is no such thing for a set of continents.
And if continental approximation is what you were intending to refer to, you fail on that too, there are the North and South American continents so you wouldn't be American, you would be North American or South American with the possibility of Central American depending on the school of though concerning the validity of geographical location being continent worthy but
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone please tell me what things like that damn suitability matrix have to do with suitability to work? Such as sexual orientation, traffic tickets, bad checks, eviction, incest, and bestiality have to do with ability to Science?
Well, when the Science is super-ultra-secret, all of those things indicate possible ways that a foreign power could exert influence over a scientist to cause them to fork over the super-ultra-secret scientific information (i.e., through blackmail or bribery).
It's fairly likely that new incoming employees still have to submit to the background checks. At this point, many many federal employees do, and the level of probulation depends on the level of access to information given (e.g., confidential, secret, o
Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again. (Score:5, Informative)
Most of what JPL does is completely completely non-sensitive. Keep in mind this crap only applies to employees /not/ working on sensitive material, there is a different system in place for those on sensitive stuff.
Re: (Score:1)
how are they supposed to keep the alien-built structures on Mars secret then?
someone's got to be sitting at the photoshopping workstation... that person needs to be above-top-secret cleared!
Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again. (Score:5, Insightful)
I read that PDF - when was it written, 1955? Carnal knowledge? Sodomy? What?
I work on Naval vessels, and that requires a NATO security clearance. That's because - surprise - they don't want just anybody looking at the weapons systems. Some of that stuff is of vital importance to the military. THey want to keep it there and not give the bad guys leverage on me. The idea is that if I participate in one of those activities and Someone From Asia finds out, they might pop over to my house for a visit.
"Hey, Beardo. It sure would be a shame if your boss found out about your DUI... or that carnal knowledge. Can you copy document 1992FITH-559G for me? It's not even Classified. Anyway, see you tomorrow."
It seems antiquated at best, but there's SOME logic to what they're going for. I'm not saying it's current, but it's the Federal Government. They move S.L.O.
(The W. is in processing and will be sent after approval from the joint committee on W approval.)
Re: (Score:2)
What now?
You need this kit. So you target the middle, someone with access. Find their house and tap the broadband. Waiting to see what "Bob' or "Sally' does to relax.
If its incest, and bestiality you might meet them on a forum chat room or in bump into them in real life over 6 months, building up a friendship with cute
Re: (Score:2)
Or they'd go to nasa.gov and download those same files without all this effort.
That's the issue you see, and one that a lot of people seem to be missing. the employees being subjected to this crap are specifically the ones who are NOT working on ANYTHING sensitive. The 5% of JPL employees who are involved in 'sensitive' work go through a different process.
The other members of my group were going to have to go through this. They did non-classified work on computer algorithms. You could download all their dat
Re: (Score:2)
That document is very reasonable. It weeds out all but the top of the bell curve of immoral or illegal behavior. I grant you that most JPL employees could not pass a TS SCI clearance. I think the full nude 3D body scan would make them a bit reticent. That was common practice in the 80s. Yes it's soooo 1980s. The full and complete dental photograph is ridiculous silly.
Am I getting all pervy if I want to see me when I was thin, young and svelt? I should try and get a copy of that 3D photog. I could map it ont
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it matters. California law shouldn't apply here.
If the JPL is on US government property and owned by the US government, the California laws applies only at the whim of Congress. The constitution gives congress the exclusive authority "To exercise exclusive legislation" over Washington DC, forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other _needful buildings_. Unless the JPL is a wasteful project and not a "needful building", then California law would only apply by extension of power granted by c
Re: (Score:2)
JPL employes are not government employees*. They are employees of the California Institute of Technology, 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125, which is not on government property.
They work a few miles away at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is government property.
* Slight lie. Some of their staff (security officers, few others) are gvmt employees. But the scientists and engineers aren't, as a rule.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. Once those employees made it to the government labs, they would be under congress's domain though. I wonder how this would play out if the requirement was places on only those with access to the labs and the sensitive information within them?
Not part of the presidential directive (Score:5, Informative)
You are happily working at your established job and some presidential directive comes down that establishes that you need a background check to get your smart card needed to access the network and do your job. Current employees are now offered the "choice" of submitting to a background check or lose their jobs.
As I pointed out when this was posted on the NASAwatch website, the actual presidential directive, HSPD-12, is a directive that says government identification cards (including NASA IDs) should have pictures and be difficult to forge. Nothing more. The presidential directive does not say anything about requiring an invasive background check including checking medical, financial, and other personal background information along with a blank authorization to check any records at all. Nothing.
The whole thing about background checks was a stealth policy change that was slid into the new ID regulations by the OPM. It has nothing to do with HSPD-12, and most particularly it was not authorized by presidential directive.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
But there is more:
(3) "Secure and reliable forms of identification" for purposes of this directive means identification that (a) is issued based on sound criteria for verifying an individual employee's identity; (b) is strongly resistant to identity fraud, tampering, counterfeiting, and terrorist exploitation; (c) can be rapidly authenticated electronically; and (d) is issued only by providers whose reliability has been established by an official accreditation process."
OPM had little to do with the requirem
Re: (Score:2)
You've misunderstood, it means the IDENTIFICATION CARD must be resistant to fraud, tampering, exploitation, etc. The government issued a federal standard for HSPD-12 compliant ID cards called FIPS 201. There are a lot of requirements but they are all specific to the card...for example, it must have a smart card chip that meets security standards for a cryptoprocessor (FIPS 140), it must use an identity applet on the card with various requirements on PIN policy, certificates, etc. The physical card has to
Re: (Score:2)
But they did also write the background check requirement into FIPS 201. IIRC, an early version didn't have it, but it got added at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
But there is more:
(3) "Secure and reliable forms of identification" for purposes of this directive means identification that (a) is issued based on sound criteria for verifying an individual employee's identity; (b) is strongly resistant to identity fraud, tampering, counterfeiting, and terrorist exploitation; (c) can be rapidly authenticated electronically;
Exactly!
There is no directive to do any background checks of employees' medical history, financial history, sexual conduct, history of posts to the private areas of Facebook, party membership, and so forth. Verify identity, yes. Blanket approval for any kind of background checks, no.
and (d) is issued only by providers whose reliability has been established by an official accreditation process."
Right. The directive allows them to investigate the reliability of the providers-- not the employees, but the business that makes the badges.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Sorry, but no. Federal employees do have rights, as the court has ruled. If the matter were settled, it wouldn't have ruled that way, would it?
I see you're unfamiliar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those loons are usually in a completely separate orbit from reason.
There are Constitutional rights here (Score:4, Insightful)
That means that it's not really about the people being harassed and forced to undergo invasive searches (See 4th Amendment) finding another job. No. It's about their job being just fine, and the Federal government having to be reasonable with its searches and seizures. (Again, 4th Am.)
That's how it is in our country. If you don't like it, watch the door doesn't hit you in the ass on your way out, and remember to wipe your feet on the "good riddance to those who don't respect civil liberties" doormat.
E
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry that's how it is in your country, but in the US the Federal Government has to abide by the Constitution and all right not specifically given to the Federal Government (by same) are reserved elsewhere. (See the 9th and 10th Amendments.)
Unless, of course, we're talking about the 2nd Amendment. That one doesn't count and needs to be whittled down, restricted, and otherwise weakened.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Perhaps you mean the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/content-detail.html)
That has nothing to do with this discussion.
Thanks for the illiterate trivia question.
E
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you pay some attention to those rights you so freely tout. They don't mean what you think they do- specifically the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Re:There are Constitutional rights here (Score:4, Informative)
From USConstitution.net [usconstitution.net]:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Or to translate:
Amendment 9: You still retain all your rights, even if we didn't mention them here.
Amendment 10: If we didn't talk about it here, the Feds can't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
From US v. Sprague: The 10th Amendment means jack shit.
From US Public Workers v. Mitchell: The 9th Amendment means jack shit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FFRDC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And? They work for the government. They obey what ever wish/wash comes out of congress.
Tell me what college will not accept any federal funds nor will it accept any student with federal funds attached?
What was the ruling on them not obeying Federal mandates (cumdates?).
They have very few rights when accepting Fed monies. What exists is a patchwork of fed laws and court rulings but in the end preserving security is the governments right regardless of how inebriated, insane and chemically altered it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, Department of Energy operates a bunch of FFRDCs and they developed a much more rational response to HSPD-12. People who have a secret or higher clearance get the PIV badge that requires the investigation, but because they have a clearance they've already had it. People who don't have or need a clearance get a site-local badge that doesn't require the whole investigation thing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
JPL employees are not Federal employees. They work for a private university, Caltech.
Re: (Score:2)
If it accepts Federal money they pwn it. What college has refused to accept such welfare and refused to accept students getting such welfare and how have the courts ruled for/against the college?
If you'uns don't wanna be slaves don't suck from the fed trough! :-D :-D
You know WORK for a living like the rest of us vorkers.
Hear hear (Score:1, Offtopic)