5 ms·

I'd be more curious about Top Secret - Full Scope.

by ThaDood 5y ago

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Just ask China. The US government conveniently handed them all cleared personnel records.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  “Handed them” would be inaccurate.
  - snerbles 5y ago
    "Handed them" may be an understatement, given the scope of the OPM breach. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/congressional-report-slams-opm-on-data-breach/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/congressional-report-sla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      A breach is literally the opposite of willingly giving something over, or “handing it” to them.
      - kelnos 5y ago
        I think you're being too literal. Using hyperbole here is the equivalent of saying "their security was so bad they might as well have just handed over the information".
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Yeah, you’re right. I just want to make sure people know it was a breach and not some form of leak.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  AFAIK they (or whoever) only have records for people whose clearances went through OPM
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    I think it’s fair to say that there are offensive cyber intelligence operations that are never detected or made public. It’s more than likely there are other foreign intelligence agencies that have breached similar databases at other agencies. It’s also likely that allied agencies share intelligence between themselves, and also suffer hacks. I would reason that any nation vying for superpower status has a good amount of data on the majority of folks who touch national security in every country.
imwillofficial 5y ago
TS FS isn’t a clearance level. Perhaps you’re referring to Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information clearance with a Full Scope Polygraph? That number is classified.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  AFAIK, the number of people with TS//SCI is not actually classified. It's just hard to get a complete headcount because of how broad the designation is. As of 2017, approximately 2.8 million people held TS[1]. A sizable percentage of those people are also probably TS//SCI. Edit: Uncited, from Wikipedia: > In general, military personnel and civilian employees (government and contractor) do not publish the individual compartments for which they are cleared. While this information is not classified, specific compartment listings may reveal sensitive information when correlated with an individual's résumé. Therefore, it is sufficient to declare that a candidate possesses a TS/SCI clearance with a polygraph. [1]: https://about.clearancejobs.com/hubfs/Clearancejobs_Images_Nov2015/trends/pdfs/2017-Annual_Report_on_Security_Clearance_Determinations.pdf https://about.clearancejobs.com/hubfs/Clearancejobs_Images_N...
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    “AFAIK, the number of people with TS//SCI is not actually classified.” Then you quote TS clearances. With a guess at how many have SCI access. The amount of people who have TS/SCI clearances with a Full Scope Polygraph is classified.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      The absence of public information doesn’t mean that something is classified. It just means that nobody’s requested it. Again, to the best of my knowledge, the number of people who hold TS//SCI isn’t itself classified. Feel free to submit a FOIA and refute that.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        I work with this stuff. Consider my statement a PSA for ya
tytso 5y ago
Full Scope refers to a type of polygraph examination which someone might be asked to undergo as part of the investigation process before getting a security clearance. At one point, you could either get a counter-intelligence polygraph examination, where you were asked questions basically to determine if you were a foreign agent, or approached to work on behalf of a foreign agent, and that would take half a day, or you could be given a "full scope" polygraph examine, which might take a full day, and would ask a much larger invasive set of questions about your lifestyle. For example, a decade or two ago, you might be asked questions about your sexual practices and/or identity lest that be used as blackmail leverage by a foreign agent. (For example, if you say, were into golden showers, and were trying to keep that a secret, might Russia be able to use the threat of making a video tape of that practice to get you to betray your country?) Access to some security comparments ("Sensitive Compartmented Information") might require both a need to know, and either a Counter-Intelligence or Full Scope polygraph examination. If you have a current (non-expired) TS/CI Poly or TS/FS Poly investigation, could be quite valuable to a defense contractor, because it can take a while (potentially months or years) and cost $$$ for you to get that investigation, which combined with the need to know, would be necessary to get you access to certain classified compartments which might be necessary for you to work on a particular project. Otherwise, you might have the necessary computer skills, but without having the requisite security clearance investigation having been done on you, the defense contractor might have to hire you and have you work on non-classified aspect of the projects for months and months (or if you are a new college grad, maybe even twiddling your fingers) until the security clearance investigation had been completed.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't polygraphs been thoroughly discredited?
  - phkahler 5y ago
    I think the notion of "lie detector" has been discredited. Someone who wants to learn to pass a polygraph can probably do so. Screening applicants for vulnerability doesn't have to be a perfect process as it's part of a larger security system.

I'd be more curious about Top Secret - Full Scope.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

Just ask China. The US government conveniently handed them all cleared personnel records.

imwillofficial 5y ago
“Handed them” would be inaccurate.
- snerbles 5y ago
  "Handed them" may be an understatement, given the scope of the OPM breach. https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/congressional-report-slams-opm-on-data-breach/ https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/congressional-report-sla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    A breach is literally the opposite of willingly giving something over, or “handing it” to them.
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I think you're being too literal. Using hyperbole here is the equivalent of saying "their security was so bad they might as well have just handed over the information".
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        Yeah, you’re right. I just want to make sure people know it was a breach and not some form of leak.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
AFAIK they (or whoever) only have records for people whose clearances went through OPM
- jdavis703 5y ago
  I think it’s fair to say that there are offensive cyber intelligence operations that are never detected or made public. It’s more than likely there are other foreign intelligence agencies that have breached similar databases at other agencies. It’s also likely that allied agencies share intelligence between themselves, and also suffer hacks. I would reason that any nation vying for superpower status has a good amount of data on the majority of folks who touch national security in every country.

imwillofficial 5y ago

TS FS isn’t a clearance level. Perhaps you’re referring to Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information clearance with a Full Scope Polygraph? That number is classified.

woodruffw 5y ago
AFAIK, the number of people with TS//SCI is not actually classified. It's just hard to get a complete headcount because of how broad the designation is. As of 2017, approximately 2.8 million people held TS[1]. A sizable percentage of those people are also probably TS//SCI. Edit: Uncited, from Wikipedia: > In general, military personnel and civilian employees (government and contractor) do not publish the individual compartments for which they are cleared. While this information is not classified, specific compartment listings may reveal sensitive information when correlated with an individual's résumé. Therefore, it is sufficient to declare that a candidate possesses a TS/SCI clearance with a polygraph. [1]: https://about.clearancejobs.com/hubfs/Clearancejobs_Images_Nov2015/trends/pdfs/2017-Annual_Report_on_Security_Clearance_Determinations.pdf https://about.clearancejobs.com/hubfs/Clearancejobs_Images_N...
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  “AFAIK, the number of people with TS//SCI is not actually classified.” Then you quote TS clearances. With a guess at how many have SCI access. The amount of people who have TS/SCI clearances with a Full Scope Polygraph is classified.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The absence of public information doesn’t mean that something is classified. It just means that nobody’s requested it. Again, to the best of my knowledge, the number of people who hold TS//SCI isn’t itself classified. Feel free to submit a FOIA and refute that.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      I work with this stuff. Consider my statement a PSA for ya

tytso 5y ago

Full Scope refers to a type of polygraph examination which someone might be asked to undergo as part of the investigation process before getting a security clearance. At one point, you could either get a counter-intelligence polygraph examination, where you were asked questions basically to determine if you were a foreign agent, or approached to work on behalf of a foreign agent, and that would take half a day, or you could be given a "full scope" polygraph examine, which might take a full day, and would ask a much larger invasive set of questions about your lifestyle. For example, a decade or two ago, you might be asked questions about your sexual practices and/or identity lest that be used as blackmail leverage by a foreign agent. (For example, if you say, were into golden showers, and were trying to keep that a secret, might Russia be able to use the threat of making a video tape of that practice to get you to betray your country?) Access to some security comparments ("Sensitive Compartmented Information") might require both a need to know, and either a Counter-Intelligence or Full Scope polygraph examination. If you have a current (non-expired) TS/CI Poly or TS/FS Poly investigation, could be quite valuable to a defense contractor, because it can take a while (potentially months or years) and cost $$$ for you to get that investigation, which combined with the need to know, would be necessary to get you access to certain classified compartments which might be necessary for you to work on a particular project. Otherwise, you might have the necessary computer skills, but without having the requisite security clearance investigation having been done on you, the defense contractor might have to hire you and have you work on non-classified aspect of the projects for months and months (or if you are a new college grad, maybe even twiddling your fingers) until the security clearance investigation had been completed.

formerly_proven 5y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't polygraphs been thoroughly discredited?
- phkahler 5y ago
  I think the notion of "lie detector" has been discredited. Someone who wants to learn to pass a polygraph can probably do so. Screening applicants for vulnerability doesn't have to be a perfect process as it's part of a larger security system.