5 ms·

Getting a security clearance comes with liability and potential downside that doesn't exist in the private sector. Some examples: * Restrictions and reporting

Getting a security clearance comes with liability and potential downside that doesn't exist in the private sector. Some examples: * Restrictions and reporting requirements around international travel and contact with foreign nationals * Restrictions on discussing work with friends and family * Prohibition on cannabis use * Prohibition on reading publicly leaked secret documents (from the Snowden days: https://web.archive.org/web/20211120154017/https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/dod/notice.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20211120154017/https://sgp.fas.o...) Interns-to-be should consider carefully whether this lasting infringement on personal liberty is worth any upside of employment at a defense contractor for 3 months.

basementcat 2y ago
Note that there are different clearances with different restrictions and obligations. Lower level clearances are not much different than standard background checks to obtain an HSPF-12 credential (US Gov ID badge) while higher level clearances may require periodic polygraph tests and other additional restrictions. https://www.commerce.gov/osy/programs/credentialing/hspd-12-credentialing https://www.commerce.gov/osy/programs/credentialing/hspd-12-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance
jonnybgood 2y ago
I believe the only lasting restriction is speaking about the work due to an NDA, which is not that different than NDA restrictions on speaking about private sector trade secrets and intellectual property. The other restrictions only last if seeking to maintain the clearance or employed in a position that requires a clearance. Clearances expire except for the NDA.
- seo-speedwagon 2y ago
  These NDAs are backed with extremely onerous jail sentences, which is IMO a meaningful distinction vs. other types of NDAs. Beyond that, all your paperwork to get that clearance is in the government’s hands now. In my case that included a full SF-86 and fingerprints, which the government would otherwise not have from me. So it’s IMO accurate to describe the consequences as “lifelong”. Truth be told, having left that line of work long ago, it bothers me these pieces of info about me are out there somewhere in Uncle Sam’s possession.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
walterbell 2y ago
> Interns-to-be should consider carefully The fictional on-off-boarding of TV series "Burn Notice" (2007-2013), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Notice & https://burn-notice.djmed.net https://burn-notice.djmed.net
spacebacon 2y ago
If pot was regulated similarly to tobacco the amount of talent that can adhere to the rest of that would be exponential imo.
- 8organicbits 2y ago
  We're waiting for a change in the posture against cannabis at the Federal level [1], but it has been possible to get a security clearance even if you have used marijuana. Looking at the public guidelines [2] there's a distinction between "ever" and "in the last 90 days". [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4711/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/471... [2] https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/03/14/marijuana-use-and-involvement-in-the-new-security-clearance-questionnaire/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/03/14/marijuana-use-and-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- mingus88 2y ago
  Yes the Feds are really hamstrung by weed being a schedule 1 substance. It’s asinine Especially, if as the article claims, they want to clear college students. When I went through this, the guidance was that pot usage was ok as long as it was in the past and not chronic usage. Just say you haven’t been near it in years, but yes you did it. They’re going to interview everyone you’ve ever known that they can find, so just don’t lie about it. How many college students can claim this? Weed is everywhere now. Fact is, it’s schedule 1. If you are willing to break this law, what other very serious crimes are you willing to commit? And if Palantir refused to hire software devs who have smoked weed, that would disqualify 80% of the talent pool in Silicon Valley.
  - spacebacon 2y ago
    The overwhelming public support for marijuana is the main marker to consider when psychoanalyzing why someone is willing to break one law but maybe/maybe-not others. The dominant perception among tech talent is the law hasn’t kept up with the times. Drawing conclusions about one’s choice to use or try marijuana is perceived as unacceptable cultural behavior that is not currently within the modern scope of what we could refer to as "Overton’s window".

basementcat 2y ago

Note that there are different clearances with different restrictions and obligations. Lower level clearances are not much different than standard background checks to obtain an HSPF-12 credential (US Gov ID badge) while higher level clearances may require periodic polygraph tests and other additional restrictions. https://www.commerce.gov/osy/programs/credentialing/hspd-12-credentialing https://www.commerce.gov/osy/programs/credentialing/hspd-12-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_clearance

jonnybgood 2y ago

I believe the only lasting restriction is speaking about the work due to an NDA, which is not that different than NDA restrictions on speaking about private sector trade secrets and intellectual property. The other restrictions only last if seeking to maintain the clearance or employed in a position that requires a clearance. Clearances expire except for the NDA.

seo-speedwagon 2y ago
These NDAs are backed with extremely onerous jail sentences, which is IMO a meaningful distinction vs. other types of NDAs. Beyond that, all your paperwork to get that clearance is in the government’s hands now. In my case that included a full SF-86 and fingerprints, which the government would otherwise not have from me. So it’s IMO accurate to describe the consequences as “lifelong”. Truth be told, having left that line of work long ago, it bothers me these pieces of info about me are out there somewhere in Uncle Sam’s possession.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

walterbell 2y ago

> Interns-to-be should consider carefully The fictional on-off-boarding of TV series "Burn Notice" (2007-2013), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_Notice & https://burn-notice.djmed.net https://burn-notice.djmed.net

spacebacon 2y ago

If pot was regulated similarly to tobacco the amount of talent that can adhere to the rest of that would be exponential imo.

8organicbits 2y ago
We're waiting for a change in the posture against cannabis at the Federal level [1], but it has been possible to get a security clearance even if you have used marijuana. Looking at the public guidelines [2] there's a distinction between "ever" and "in the last 90 days". [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4711/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/471... [2] https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/03/14/marijuana-use-and-involvement-in-the-new-security-clearance-questionnaire/ https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/03/14/marijuana-use-and-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mingus88 2y ago
Yes the Feds are really hamstrung by weed being a schedule 1 substance. It’s asinine Especially, if as the article claims, they want to clear college students. When I went through this, the guidance was that pot usage was ok as long as it was in the past and not chronic usage. Just say you haven’t been near it in years, but yes you did it. They’re going to interview everyone you’ve ever known that they can find, so just don’t lie about it. How many college students can claim this? Weed is everywhere now. Fact is, it’s schedule 1. If you are willing to break this law, what other very serious crimes are you willing to commit? And if Palantir refused to hire software devs who have smoked weed, that would disqualify 80% of the talent pool in Silicon Valley.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  The overwhelming public support for marijuana is the main marker to consider when psychoanalyzing why someone is willing to break one law but maybe/maybe-not others. The dominant perception among tech talent is the law hasn’t kept up with the times. Drawing conclusions about one’s choice to use or try marijuana is perceived as unacceptable cultural behavior that is not currently within the modern scope of what we could refer to as "Overton’s window".