5 ms·

> discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective However, discriminating based on exposure to coercive pressure from aggr

> discriminating based on notational origin is a big no no from an ethical perspective However, discriminating based on exposure to coercive pressure from aggressive and hostile foreign powers is probably OK, even if such exposure is heavily correlated with national origin. The key is that the discrimination must be based on an individual analysis of the applicant and his/her life circumstances. It's not OK to blanket deny any person of Chinese ancestry. Denying such a person access to sensitive data or positions might be OK, however, if that person is exposed to coercive threats by, e.g. having family located in a jurisdiction known to use its power over expatriates' families as leverage to recruit sources and agents. So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest in protecting against security threats and the vetting policy is as narrowly tailored as possible to minimizing insider risk from applicants with vulnerability to certain threat actors, I think such a policy could pass ethical and (IANAL) maybe legal muster.

adamsea 7y ago
> So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest "Your honor, of course my intent was genuine ..." Therein lies the rub ;)
seanmcdirmid 7y ago
I disagree completely. By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified, and that is nowhere justified by the constitution. A private company likewise shouldn’t be able to discriminate on speculative threats alone. What if they had a relative in prison, a hostile coercive environment by any measure? I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions).
- ethbro 7y ago
  The Title of Nobility / Emoluments Clause [1] and the natural born (and age) qualifier are fairly specific as to what the framers thought were overly corrupting influences for the office of president. They notably did not include "or family". The expectation presumably being that foreign powers were clearly enough signalled to tread carefully with regards to exerting pressure on government officials. At high levels, that seems reasonable. At lower levels, where there's less scrutiny and less opportunity for diplomatic redress? "Reasonable" measures seem murkier. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
- kyboren 7y ago
  > By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified Not so. The Constitution is very clear on eligibility requirements for the President. A natural born American citizen of Chinese descent who otherwise satisfies the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is perfectly eligible to run for the office. If there is concern about potential leverage foreign states have over that candidate--as there rightly would be if our natural born American had close family in PRC--voters might vote for someone else. My position is that such a motivation on the part of the voters is ethical. > I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions). First, I agree that your or your son's relationship to a Chinese national should not be sufficient grounds to deny you or your son any given job. My position is that a narrowly tailored policy to reject candidates with high risk of coercion from sensitive positions, or to limit such employees' access to sensitive data, is probably OK. Having close family residing in PRC unfortunately does raise the risk of coercive pressure being applied. If your wife has no surviving close relatives in PRC and she never goes to visit, you and your son should be assessed to have no greater vulnerability to coercion than any other citizen with otherwise similar circumstances (debts, addictions, etc.). Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. That means you accept that the government has an interest in protecting classified information from foreign powers, and that your relationship raises your risk profile. Do you not accept that private companies have an interest in protecting their IP and customer data from theft or sabotage? Or do you not accept that your relationship also raises your risk profile for these positions? Just because a position may not require a clearance does not mean that position is not highly sensitive to a potential insider threat. And unfortunately the PLA's targets are not restricted to intelligence agencies; they target virtually every sector of our economy.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    > Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. Security clearances are actually defined by law, I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities.
- skissane 7y ago
  Constitutionally speaking, the President does not require a security clearance; the President ex officio has unlimited access to classified information. If there are concerns the President may be vulnerable to foreign influence, the constitutional processes to address those concerns are election and impeachment not security clearances.
  - sjy 7y ago
    Is it a constitutional principle that no secrets may be kept from the President? Or is it just that the “security clearance” system is currently based on executive orders that the President issues, rather than Congress exercising its power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces"?
    - skissane 7y ago
      According to the Congressional Research Service, "By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community" Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110113190609/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110113190609/http://feinstein.... I think if Congress tried to pass a law limiting the President's access to classified information, the Supreme Court would likely find it to be unconstitutional.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    True. Trump wouldn’t have qualified for high security access anyways just given his public relationship history, not even considering what an FBI clearances check would dig up.
- cabalamat 7y ago
  > By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified If large numbers of voters felt that, then they would never get elected. > nowhere justified by the constitution The voters are entitled to vote however they like; that's implied by the constitution. > I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national Then you essentially agree with me. > I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances I agree. The question is, which jobs should require such clearances?
- teknologist 7y ago
  Here's a very clear restriction you're faced with: You could never become a Chinese citizen. Why must be pretend that it's ok for this to be entirely one-sided? We should give what we get, imo.
- burfog 7y ago
  The situation with presidential qualifications is one-of-a-kind special. Hiring at tech companies isn't spelled out in the constitution. Constitutional requirements can also be changed, and it is long past time that we do so. The country has been around for 2.5 centuries, and now has hundreds of millions of people. We wouldn't suffer a shortage of presidential candidates if we required that all 4 grandparents (determined all possible ways) and all descendants and spouses have been born in the USA, along with all living ancestors and descendants of all of those. The job is simply too important to allow otherwise. (this would disqualify the most recent two, along with failed candidates like Romney and Cruz) For tech companies we shouldn't be quite so extreme, but it also isn't good to ignore the problems.
simonh 7y ago
You can't assume what ethical choices a person will make, before they make them. A Chinese citizen in that situation might find a way to get their family out of China, or otherwise find a way to avoid the issue, or just flat out refuse. You can't just take it for granted that you can't trust someone without much more specific evidence. That's a very greasy slippery slope towards justifying highly constructed justifications for discrimination.

adamsea 7y ago

> So long as the intent is genuinely to serve a compelling interest "Your honor, of course my intent was genuine ..." Therein lies the rub ;)

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

I disagree completely. By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified, and that is nowhere justified by the constitution. A private company likewise shouldn’t be able to discriminate on speculative threats alone. What if they had a relative in prison, a hostile coercive environment by any measure? I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions).

ethbro 7y ago
The Title of Nobility / Emoluments Clause [1] and the natural born (and age) qualifier are fairly specific as to what the framers thought were overly corrupting influences for the office of president. They notably did not include "or family". The expectation presumably being that foreign powers were clearly enough signalled to tread carefully with regards to exerting pressure on government officials. At high levels, that seems reasonable. At lower levels, where there's less scrutiny and less opportunity for diplomatic redress? "Reasonable" measures seem murkier. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/sec...
kyboren 7y ago
> By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified Not so. The Constitution is very clear on eligibility requirements for the President. A natural born American citizen of Chinese descent who otherwise satisfies the requirements in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is perfectly eligible to run for the office. If there is concern about potential leverage foreign states have over that candidate--as there rightly would be if our natural born American had close family in PRC--voters might vote for someone else. My position is that such a motivation on the part of the voters is ethical. > I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national. I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances (nor my wife nor my son should be subject to such restrictions). First, I agree that your or your son's relationship to a Chinese national should not be sufficient grounds to deny you or your son any given job. My position is that a narrowly tailored policy to reject candidates with high risk of coercion from sensitive positions, or to limit such employees' access to sensitive data, is probably OK. Having close family residing in PRC unfortunately does raise the risk of coercive pressure being applied. If your wife has no surviving close relatives in PRC and she never goes to visit, you and your son should be assessed to have no greater vulnerability to coercion than any other citizen with otherwise similar circumstances (debts, addictions, etc.). Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. That means you accept that the government has an interest in protecting classified information from foreign powers, and that your relationship raises your risk profile. Do you not accept that private companies have an interest in protecting their IP and customer data from theft or sabotage? Or do you not accept that your relationship also raises your risk profile for these positions? Just because a position may not require a clearance does not mean that position is not highly sensitive to a potential insider threat. And unfortunately the PLA's targets are not restricted to intelligence agencies; they target virtually every sector of our economy.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  > Second, I am curious why you disagree completely, yet accept that your relationship with your wife may disqualify you from holding a government security clearance. This has to do with companies making their own rules about what is right or wrong without any checks, balances, or voter feedback. Security clearances are actually defined by law, I’m against corporations becoming their own extra judicial entities.
skissane 7y ago
Constitutionally speaking, the President does not require a security clearance; the President ex officio has unlimited access to classified information. If there are concerns the President may be vulnerable to foreign influence, the constitutional processes to address those concerns are election and impeachment not security clearances.
- sjy 7y ago
  Is it a constitutional principle that no secrets may be kept from the President? Or is it just that the “security clearance” system is currently based on executive orders that the President issues, rather than Congress exercising its power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces"?
  - skissane 7y ago
    According to the Congressional Research Service, "By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community" Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110113190609/http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110113190609/http://feinstein.... I think if Congress tried to pass a law limiting the President's access to classified information, the Supreme Court would likely find it to be unconstitutional.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  True. Trump wouldn’t have qualified for high security access anyways just given his public relationship history, not even considering what an FBI clearances check would dig up.
cabalamat 7y ago
> By that reasoning, a presidential candidate of Chinese descent who was a natural born American citizen but had relatives back in china would be disqualified If large numbers of voters felt that, then they would never get elected. > nowhere justified by the constitution The voters are entitled to vote however they like; that's implied by the constitution. > I accept that I do not qualify for a high security clearance because I’m married to a Chinese national Then you essentially agree with me. > I don’t think that should have any bearing on any other jobs that don’t require such clearances I agree. The question is, which jobs should require such clearances?
teknologist 7y ago
Here's a very clear restriction you're faced with: You could never become a Chinese citizen. Why must be pretend that it's ok for this to be entirely one-sided? We should give what we get, imo.
burfog 7y ago
The situation with presidential qualifications is one-of-a-kind special. Hiring at tech companies isn't spelled out in the constitution. Constitutional requirements can also be changed, and it is long past time that we do so. The country has been around for 2.5 centuries, and now has hundreds of millions of people. We wouldn't suffer a shortage of presidential candidates if we required that all 4 grandparents (determined all possible ways) and all descendants and spouses have been born in the USA, along with all living ancestors and descendants of all of those. The job is simply too important to allow otherwise. (this would disqualify the most recent two, along with failed candidates like Romney and Cruz) For tech companies we shouldn't be quite so extreme, but it also isn't good to ignore the problems.

simonh 7y ago

You can't assume what ethical choices a person will make, before they make them. A Chinese citizen in that situation might find a way to get their family out of China, or otherwise find a way to avoid the issue, or just flat out refuse. You can't just take it for granted that you can't trust someone without much more specific evidence. That's a very greasy slippery slope towards justifying highly constructed justifications for discrimination.