5 ms·

This is a great example of why the US government can't hire and retain competent security and operations personal that haven't already drunk the Kool-Aid by com

This is a great example of why the US government can't hire and retain competent security and operations personal that haven't already drunk the Kool-Aid by coming out of the US military. It's 2019, get over this. The only way you're going to blackmail someone over pot is because you're on about it, not because it's inherently solid blackmail material.

throwaway5752 8y ago
No, this is about them selectively punishing Elon Musk under the excuse of marijuana use.
- krapp 8y ago
  The Pentagon is "selectively" punishing Elon Musk... by applying the same standards for a security clearance to him that they do to everyone else?
  - ratling 8y ago
    Oh I don't doubt someone gave them a little push, he just made it really easy for them.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them.
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them. The solution to that isn't to normalize deviance [1]. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_and_the_normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_...
      - r00fus 8y ago
        That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable. One could argue that pot usage is orthogonal (or perhaps even beneficial) to one's security risk profile.
        CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable. I don't think that's the right interpretation here. If you demonstrate an attitude that you feel you don't have to follow regulations you disagree with, what's to stop you from disclosing secret information that you don't think should be secret? Getting a security clearance is all about showing the authorities that you can be trusted to follow their regulations. Willfully violating federal law for recreational purposes casts doubt on that. Security clearance isn't a right. > One could argue that pot usage is ... perhaps even beneficial ... to one's security risk profile. How so?
LinuxBender 8y ago
I agree with you. I am just guessing, but this might have to do more with it still being a federal crime and many defense contracts that involve security requirements require a formal review if anyone on the contract is or has been convicted of a crime, or is under investigation. I could be way off though.
- ratling 8y ago
  Yep, and until Congress decides to get with 2019 the feds will continue to have this problem. So probably forever.
whatok 8y ago
I'd imagine lackluster pay and red tape eclipses this by far.

throwaway5752 8y ago

No, this is about them selectively punishing Elon Musk under the excuse of marijuana use.

krapp 8y ago
The Pentagon is "selectively" punishing Elon Musk... by applying the same standards for a security clearance to him that they do to everyone else?
- ratling 8y ago
  Oh I don't doubt someone gave them a little push, he just made it really easy for them.
- r00fus 8y ago
  You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them. The solution to that isn't to normalize deviance [1]. [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_and_the_normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_...
    - r00fus 8y ago
      That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable. One could argue that pot usage is orthogonal (or perhaps even beneficial) to one's security risk profile.
      - CharlesColeman 8y ago
        > That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable. I don't think that's the right interpretation here. If you demonstrate an attitude that you feel you don't have to follow regulations you disagree with, what's to stop you from disclosing secret information that you don't think should be secret? Getting a security clearance is all about showing the authorities that you can be trusted to follow their regulations. Willfully violating federal law for recreational purposes casts doubt on that. Security clearance isn't a right. > One could argue that pot usage is ... perhaps even beneficial ... to one's security risk profile. How so?

LinuxBender 8y ago

I agree with you. I am just guessing, but this might have to do more with it still being a federal crime and many defense contracts that involve security requirements require a formal review if anyone on the contract is or has been convicted of a crime, or is under investigation. I could be way off though.

ratling 8y ago
Yep, and until Congress decides to get with 2019 the feds will continue to have this problem. So probably forever.

whatok 8y ago

I'd imagine lackluster pay and red tape eclipses this by far.