7 ms·

If you are involved in a secret affair without your partner's knowledge or if you're closeted non-hetero sexually, you shouldn't apply for high level security c

If you are involved in a secret affair without your partner's knowledge or if you're closeted non-hetero sexually, you shouldn't apply for high level security clearances or run for politics. Competing states can find this information out and potentially blackmail you. U.S. is currently pressuring a Chinese company to sell Grindr, presumably because of potential security risks like these. I know of people who've gone through the clearance process and it's VERY thorough and personally invasive to minimize the risks of government employees being compromised due to their personal lives.

couldveBeenYou 8y ago
Awwww, why not? Won't get to play those reindeer games? Why? My nose glows to bright of a bright, bright red? Uh ohhhhhhhhh! Oh no! How exclusive! Important secrets! Watch out!
0xDEFC0DE 8y ago
I thought it was only TS/SCI that was that thorough?
- caymanjim 8y ago
  Those things would exclude you from a basic secret clearance as well, but the investigation isn't quite as thorough, so they might not turn up. For secret, there's a questionnaire, and they check public records, and make a few phone calls. Unless you're doing something egregiously bad, it's unlikely to surface. If something like an ongoing concealed marital affair does come up, though, it'll exclude you.
- GVIrish 8y ago
  The thoroughness just increases through the clearance levels. So in a secret clearance investigation they do a cursory check of references, dates, addresses, relatives, etc. but as you go up the ladder to TS and getting cleared for particular programs the investigations become more extensive.
- tssci 8y ago
  It doesn't really matter what the conversation is about because you've got two spooks leading the conversation, to the point that every thread in this discussion is sock puppeting and astro turf. Hey guys, can you be a little less obvious in planting your subject matter? It's kind of pathetic watching the two of you run around, trying to stamp out fires and control the conversation. Like, here you are talking to yourselves like it's a staged fireside chat about all the bugaboos of getting bribed... but this time on linkedin!!! Wuh-ohhhhhhh!!!
baybal2 8y ago
> it's VERY thorough and personally invasive to minimize the risks And yet, near completely useless as shown by cases known to wide public. If you think blackmail is the only thing that can compromise a man, you have a lot to learn about life. History: some of most baffling espionage cases were "walk ins" I think, it is the type of personality that services all around the world seek – somebody brilliant, but easy to guide, and motivateable with BS pretenses, that itself makes such people to seek to play with fire.
- caymanjim 8y ago
  This guy is the textbook case for clearance exclusion: lots of personal debt that he couldn't manage. It's the number one reason people are rejected or have their clearance revoked. While the article doesn't state it, I assume he had already stolen the information prior to losing his clearance, and that they were no longer monitoring his finances (nor could they know he had the information stashed away). It does show some premeditation, though; the fact that he saved information tells me he was always planning to use it if the opportunity arose.
  - baybal2 8y ago
    Well, that's a textbook case for sure... And it is one more reason against having intelligence activities being ran by civilians as in USA.
    - caymanjim 8y ago
      A CIA case officer isn't exactly a normal civilian. I'm also not sure why you think being in the military would make any difference here. For all we know, he was recruited out of the military. There's nothing magically special about non-civilians that makes them more or less likely to commit espionage.
      - globbledyGeau 8y ago
        Read between the lines, you twit. What he's saying is it doesn't make sense to place a schlub in command of exceptionally potent information, if they feel even remotely unfulfilled. To wit, the nuclear launch codes. Do you want someone mildly depressed in charge of them? And yet, no questionnaire on earth can adequately quantify a propensity for depression, well enough that the authority for launching the missiles might be reasonably secure an any one person's hands.
smacktoward 8y ago
It's actually even worse than that. If you're cleared highly enough, "competing states" will actively try to entangle you in these kinds of compromising scenarios, expressly for the purpose of maneuvering you into a position where you can be blackmailed. One age-old example is the classic espionage "honey trap": https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-honey-trap/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-hone...
slg 8y ago
>If you are involved in a secret affair without your partner's knowledge or if you're closeted non-hetero sexually, you shouldn't apply for high level security clearances or run for politics. Those two things are completely different. The first is an active lie to the person you are supposed to be closest with. It is a demonstration on some level of a lack of character. The second is the omission of not telling people something that it shouldn't be their business to know. LGBTQ folks are under no obligation to be out publicly and refusing to do so is not an indictment on their character.
- oldgradstudent 8y ago
  It has nothing to do with character. If you have a secret you can be extorted with the threat of revealing that secret.
- travmatt 8y ago
  It’s not a moral comparison, it’s recognizing that both could lead to situations where the person in question could prize the propriety of said facts above honest execution of their duties. People in debt aren’t morally bad either, but the same can be said of them as well.
  - slg 8y ago
    And the same would apply to a political official who refuses to disclose their financial obligations to foreign powers. Except OP didn't call out an individual like that. They didn't call out someone who has substantial debt. They didn't even leave it as "anyone with a secret shouldn't run for political office". They singled out two and only two groups of people and equated them together as both being unfit for political office. Bucketing LGBTQ individuals in with people who have a moral strike against them is one of the many reasons why some feel pressured into staying in the closet.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      You’re attempting to move the goalposts. Nobody bucketed LGBTQ people with them, OP specifically said closeted LGBTQ people, meaning those those people for whom forced disclosure of their orientation could potentially form a basis of leverage. To make it perfectly clear, the issue is not their sexuality, it is private information about them and the lengths they may be coerced into going to maintain that privacy. As another commenter said, any secret that a person values would be at issue.
thefounder 8y ago
Yeah sure, because all the politicians are "clean", right? And they don't do dirty stuff while they are in office either, right? If there is something to be learnt from politics it's that it doesn't matter what you've done or what you do but what your electorate wants to hear. Morality is luxury and as such most of the people can't afford it. Simply they don't care. As far as national security is concerned you could say that any big foreign company could be considered a national security threat if it kills its US competitiors regardless of the industry. We already had steel, telecom, social media and cars. What's the next security threat? Corn? What happened to free trade?

couldveBeenYou 8y ago

Awwww, why not? Won't get to play those reindeer games? Why? My nose glows to bright of a bright, bright red? Uh ohhhhhhhhh! Oh no! How exclusive! Important secrets! Watch out!

0xDEFC0DE 8y ago

I thought it was only TS/SCI that was that thorough?

caymanjim 8y ago
Those things would exclude you from a basic secret clearance as well, but the investigation isn't quite as thorough, so they might not turn up. For secret, there's a questionnaire, and they check public records, and make a few phone calls. Unless you're doing something egregiously bad, it's unlikely to surface. If something like an ongoing concealed marital affair does come up, though, it'll exclude you.
GVIrish 8y ago
The thoroughness just increases through the clearance levels. So in a secret clearance investigation they do a cursory check of references, dates, addresses, relatives, etc. but as you go up the ladder to TS and getting cleared for particular programs the investigations become more extensive.
tssci 8y ago
It doesn't really matter what the conversation is about because you've got two spooks leading the conversation, to the point that every thread in this discussion is sock puppeting and astro turf. Hey guys, can you be a little less obvious in planting your subject matter? It's kind of pathetic watching the two of you run around, trying to stamp out fires and control the conversation. Like, here you are talking to yourselves like it's a staged fireside chat about all the bugaboos of getting bribed... but this time on linkedin!!! Wuh-ohhhhhhh!!!

baybal2 8y ago

> it's VERY thorough and personally invasive to minimize the risks And yet, near completely useless as shown by cases known to wide public. If you think blackmail is the only thing that can compromise a man, you have a lot to learn about life. History: some of most baffling espionage cases were "walk ins" I think, it is the type of personality that services all around the world seek – somebody brilliant, but easy to guide, and motivateable with BS pretenses, that itself makes such people to seek to play with fire.

caymanjim 8y ago
This guy is the textbook case for clearance exclusion: lots of personal debt that he couldn't manage. It's the number one reason people are rejected or have their clearance revoked. While the article doesn't state it, I assume he had already stolen the information prior to losing his clearance, and that they were no longer monitoring his finances (nor could they know he had the information stashed away). It does show some premeditation, though; the fact that he saved information tells me he was always planning to use it if the opportunity arose.
- baybal2 8y ago
  Well, that's a textbook case for sure... And it is one more reason against having intelligence activities being ran by civilians as in USA.
  - caymanjim 8y ago
    A CIA case officer isn't exactly a normal civilian. I'm also not sure why you think being in the military would make any difference here. For all we know, he was recruited out of the military. There's nothing magically special about non-civilians that makes them more or less likely to commit espionage.
    - globbledyGeau 8y ago
      Read between the lines, you twit. What he's saying is it doesn't make sense to place a schlub in command of exceptionally potent information, if they feel even remotely unfulfilled. To wit, the nuclear launch codes. Do you want someone mildly depressed in charge of them? And yet, no questionnaire on earth can adequately quantify a propensity for depression, well enough that the authority for launching the missiles might be reasonably secure an any one person's hands.

smacktoward 8y ago

It's actually even worse than that. If you're cleared highly enough, "competing states" will actively try to entangle you in these kinds of compromising scenarios, expressly for the purpose of maneuvering you into a position where you can be blackmailed. One age-old example is the classic espionage "honey trap": https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-honey-trap/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-hone...

slg 8y ago

>If you are involved in a secret affair without your partner's knowledge or if you're closeted non-hetero sexually, you shouldn't apply for high level security clearances or run for politics. Those two things are completely different. The first is an active lie to the person you are supposed to be closest with. It is a demonstration on some level of a lack of character. The second is the omission of not telling people something that it shouldn't be their business to know. LGBTQ folks are under no obligation to be out publicly and refusing to do so is not an indictment on their character.

oldgradstudent 8y ago
It has nothing to do with character. If you have a secret you can be extorted with the threat of revealing that secret.
travmatt 8y ago
It’s not a moral comparison, it’s recognizing that both could lead to situations where the person in question could prize the propriety of said facts above honest execution of their duties. People in debt aren’t morally bad either, but the same can be said of them as well.
- slg 8y ago
  And the same would apply to a political official who refuses to disclose their financial obligations to foreign powers. Except OP didn't call out an individual like that. They didn't call out someone who has substantial debt. They didn't even leave it as "anyone with a secret shouldn't run for political office". They singled out two and only two groups of people and equated them together as both being unfit for political office. Bucketing LGBTQ individuals in with people who have a moral strike against them is one of the many reasons why some feel pressured into staying in the closet.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    You’re attempting to move the goalposts. Nobody bucketed LGBTQ people with them, OP specifically said closeted LGBTQ people, meaning those those people for whom forced disclosure of their orientation could potentially form a basis of leverage. To make it perfectly clear, the issue is not their sexuality, it is private information about them and the lengths they may be coerced into going to maintain that privacy. As another commenter said, any secret that a person values would be at issue.

thefounder 8y ago

Yeah sure, because all the politicians are "clean", right? And they don't do dirty stuff while they are in office either, right? If there is something to be learnt from politics it's that it doesn't matter what you've done or what you do but what your electorate wants to hear. Morality is luxury and as such most of the people can't afford it. Simply they don't care. As far as national security is concerned you could say that any big foreign company could be considered a national security threat if it kills its US competitiors regardless of the industry. We already had steel, telecom, social media and cars. What's the next security threat? Corn? What happened to free trade?