2 ms·

this sounds a lot like the rationale given for denying security clearances to LGBT people up through the 90s. there were gay spy rings back in the day, but that

this sounds a lot like the rationale given for denying security clearances to LGBT people up through the 90s. there were gay spy rings back in the day, but that's precisely because being gay was blackmailable - if we're allowed to serve openly, it's not a security risk. calling a huge segment of the population "flakes" for matters outside their control, and denying them clearances, isn't just unfair, it's likely contributing to the massive brain drain going on in intelligence. I'm treated a lot better in industry, thank you.

rcurry 5y ago
I'm sorry, but no - a "huge segment the population" does not consist of people with screwy names. The reason for that is that most parents follow cultural / social norms when naming their kids, which reduces friction for their kids as they grow up, go to school, go to work, and so on. In the context of keeping secrets, people that stand out from the crowd are usually more of a liability than not. As Remo says in Goodfellas - why take a chance?