7 ms·
(Caveat: I've never worked on anything that required a clearance, so I know nothing at all about how they work. This might be a stupid question.) It seems to m
by kylecordes 16y ago
(Caveat: I've never worked on anything that required a clearance, so I know nothing at all about how they work. This might be a stupid question.)
It seems to me that asking such a person what they remember about some work years ago, would require only that the person hearing the information have the right clearance. As long as no information was provided to the person telling the story, why would that require that retiree to get a new clearance?
- lallysingh 16y agoProbably a blanket clause that says that you can't disclose classified information at all after you've lost clearance. It's pretty plausible that in an attempt to keep security tight, they're not allowed to discuss it at all to anyone --- situations like FOGBANK are probably the exception.
- tedunangst 16y agoThis is a substance that apparently costs millions of dollars to make. It's probably complicated enough that someone is unlikely to remember every detail about it without some hints and prompting. I can tell you all about code fixes I made years ago if you describe the code and problem, but asking me "what code did you write 3 years ago?" gets less certain results.
- krschultz 16y agoThere is a cost to maintaining the clearance. For Top Secret, I believe every 3 years it needs to be reauthorized. Though I agree with the point that it would have been cheaper to bring back the people who knew the first time - if they remembered. I'm sure a lot of people involved with the project know in general what it is, but the details are the missing problem. If there are no official files, the retirees don't know any better. Who remembers chemical formulations of 1 thing you designed out of hundreds, a couple decades ago?