3 ms·
> The NSA even had to make an official exceptio The way I had it explained to me in the 90s was while drug use was disqualifying for things like the FBI, for t
by jghn 3y ago
> The NSA even had to make an official exceptio
The way I had it explained to me in the 90s was while drug use was disqualifying for things like the FBI, for the NSA it was fine-ish provided you were open about it.
- Duanemclemore 3y agoI have had personal conversations with people who went through involved security clearance processes in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Between those times I can tell you that everyone but the FBI got more lax about pot (but not cocaine) and homosexuality (even the FBI didn't care about that by the mid 2000's) but not more lax about gambling - even in states where it was already legal. They aren't on the lookout for straight arrows to hire, they're on the lookout for people who can be blackmailed to steal information. Once things like simple weed possession became nothing more than a small civil penalty, there wasn't any way to use the threat of exposure as a way of blackmailing someone. Once people knew they couldn't generally be fired / blackballed for homosexuality, that lever disappeared.
- locallost 3y agoSounds like a circular argument. The FBI fires gay people, so they had to fire them to prevent them from leaking information because of possible blackmail. But once they stopped firing them for homosexuality there was no need to fire them because of fear they might be blackmailed because of the possibility to fire them. It's probably true for gambling, but the rest sounds like whitewashing. They fired gay people because society was hostile towards them and those agencies were part of society.
- Duanemclemore 3y agoYes, it was a completely circular argument. I am 100% not defending it. But you're completely correct that all they had to do to keep someone from being blackmailed because otherwise they'd be fired was... to not fire them. I'm sure there's a lot of moral-highgrounding about everyone outside the group being untrustworthy, and looking for confirmation of this in the most paranoid ways.
- BossingAround 3y agoI think the assumption you're missing in the circular argument is that gay people could be blackmailed against other entities than the FBI. For example, "give us this FBI file or else we'll release a scandalous photo of you and this gentleman to your wife" kind of a thing. Of course, as being gay becomes more normalized and less of a secret, FBI wouldn't need to take it into consideration. How true or not that thinking is, I have no way of assessing, but it does make sense if you consider the premise of blackmail to 3rd parties true. The same could be probably considered for gambling (e.g. "we'll tell your local church group how much you gambled away in your drunken stupor on this weekend").
- Duanemclemore 3y agoGambling was verboten because of the presence of organized crime in the industry even where it was legalized.
- x3n0ph3n3 3y agoGambling is seen as a liability because gamblers often get into huge amounts of debt, which is what the FBI is really concerned about. Huge amounts of debt open people up to bribes and other corruption.
- Duanemclemore 3y agoExactly. Even in places where it was legal it was an easy way to get on the radar of organized crime, who would try to exert influence. It also could be an indicator of an affinity for risk-taking. And if there's anything they're trying to avoid in high level secret keeping... It's risk.
- pcthrowaway 3y agoWouldn't it be more relevant to determine if their potential hire has had an undiscovered affair in the past, or is currently cheating? Why aren't they doing this now if it was really about the potential for blackmail?
- throwaway3563 3y agoThis isn’t code executing in a computer. It is about prevailing societal attitudes (which are themselves self-referential and self-reinforcing) so it is necessarily kind of imprecise and circular.