7 ms·

TS/SCI clearance is a lot more about truthfulness. The adjudicators are looking for secrets that can be used as leverage. Publicly writing reviews for cannabis

TS/SCI clearance is a lot more about truthfulness. The adjudicators are looking for secrets that can be used as leverage. Publicly writing reviews for cannabis strains is not a risk. A Mormon secretly hiding alcoholic tendencies could be. I'm also told that owning foreign property is unfriendly countries, and debt are the other big reasons for clearance denial.

throwaway2037 2y ago
> owning foreign property is unfriendly countries This is pretty darn specific. It must be tiny fraction of applicants. Hell, most Americans never leave the United States in their lifetime. The security concern about heavy debts or debts to unfriendly counterparties makes sense to me. But what is the security concern with "owning foreign property is unfriendly countries"? They can take it from you?
- adbachman 2y ago
  The concern is always leverage and conflict of interest. Is there something about you that you would do anything to keep covered up? Are you susceptible to outside influence? Can anyone, in any country, compel you to act counter to the interest of your employer? Foreign property means you are, at the very least, going to take interest if/when the foreign government threatens it.
  - error_logic 2y ago
    Or if a government funding bill threatens it.
  - guappa 2y ago
    People who don't own abroad property can be corrupted as well. The whole premise is weird.
    - klez 2y ago
      That's not the only thing that makes you a risk, it's just one factor they take into consideration.
    - saalweachter 2y ago
      They're looking for two different sets of things. "Are you an untrustworthy person?" Are you likely to take a bribe? Will you get mad at your boss and try to burn the place down, literally or metaphorically? Will you be careless in a way that brings about the same, with no malice? "Are you as trustworthy as anyone else, but subject to inhuman pressure?" Anyone would be vulnerable to having a relative threatened; you probably don't want to hire someone who would be apathetic to having their parents or child threatened. If that relative is already in unfriendly hands, that's a huge risk. In some ways, a $100k house in a (hostile) foreign country is no different than a $100k bribe; it's just stuff. If you ignore a threat to your property in a scheme to extort you, you are $100k poorer than if you give in, just like if you turn down a bribe. But humans are prone to loss aversion. Having $1 taken from you is far worse than receiving $1 is good, even ignoring any sentimental value of the property in question. Some people will still be able to ignore the threat, not allow themselves to be compromised, but a lot of people will find it hard. For a job where security is a concern and you have thousands or millions of perfectly cromulent candidates, it's not crazy to winnow the pool first by discarding everyone who's untrustworthy or has extra levers that can be used against them. You still have thousands or millions of great candidates left.
    - red-iron-pine 2y ago
      sure, but it's way easier for the FBI to request the title and deed for things in the US and track their history than an apartment building in Panama, or a plantation in Indonesia.
    - pc86 2y ago
      > The whole premise is weird. Only if you don't take 30 seconds to think about it. Of course you can be compromised without owning foreign property. But foreign property is a vector by which you can be compromised. Doesn't it make sense an intelligence agency would want to know all the possible vectors by which potential employees could be compromised? For each vector you'll have certain remediation steps, up to and including "don't hire this person."
- annzabelle 2y ago
  You have to remember that the DC area workforce has a lot of immigrants, people married to immigrants, and people who've done significant overseas stints. Plus there is a need for hiring linguists and cultural experts with fluency in unfriendly languages. I know of TS clearance holders who have significant ties to Iran, Syria, Russia, and Afghanistan, but have renounced those citizenships and are loyal to the US. The clearance process works to figure out what levers those countries could still pull on them - foreign property and close family still there are the big ones.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  > But what is the security concern with "owning foreign property is unfriendly countries"? They can take it from you? Exactly. Or rather, they can threaten to take it from you unless you do something (probably illegal) for said foreign government.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  they need to hire people who speak Arabic, or Chinese, or Hindi, and have ties they can utilize in those countries -- or at least understand well enough to build ties. overseas money and property, esp. in unfriendly countries, rapidly becomes a concern in that sense. go double agent, have a friend overseas give you some sweet improvements to your house on the cheap, then sell it later for 4x than it's worth, and repeat.
sitkack 2y ago
I have a theory that the normalization of homosexuality in the united states was a move by the security agencies to lower their exposure risk. If everything is cool, nothing is blackmail. Blackmail is what sinks orgs because you have no idea who is going to be a mole.
- eastbound 2y ago
  I have the impression that sexual harassment became the opposite. Something most successful man are blamed for, decades later when all possible proof have vanished. In terms of blackmail, the power seems much higher.
  - watwut 2y ago
    People who sexually harass are on supreme court and literally the president. For considerable amount of people, it is a positive sign that "the guy is like us".
    - vitajex 2y ago
      I don't think anyone takes it as a positive. It's just not what voters vote on. If they support one candidate's policies more than another's, they won't flip because of that issue. The example of Bill Clinton demonstrates that this happens across the political spectrum, and his feminist supporters were the ones making this argument back then. They got criticized for being hypocritical, but in politics you have to prioritize.
      - watwut 2y ago
        I do actually think they see it as a positive. It is not just that they do not care. It is that it heightens his credit in their eyes and they get to see him as victim. It makes him look more manly for some people.
        progmetaldev 2y ago
        At the least, it often makes them feel empowered to speak out in favor of forgetting all about the issue, and emboldening them to push for whatever the politician pushes that they agree with. At least in the US, you can hop on social media and take a look at your local newspaper or news channel's posts, and see some of the truly insane comments (and I use insane here as in bringing up politics to promote their voted politician, or smear the other side, when the issue is something at a local level or unaffected by politics in any way).

throwaway2037 2y ago

> owning foreign property is unfriendly countries This is pretty darn specific. It must be tiny fraction of applicants. Hell, most Americans never leave the United States in their lifetime. The security concern about heavy debts or debts to unfriendly counterparties makes sense to me. But what is the security concern with "owning foreign property is unfriendly countries"? They can take it from you?

adbachman 2y ago
The concern is always leverage and conflict of interest. Is there something about you that you would do anything to keep covered up? Are you susceptible to outside influence? Can anyone, in any country, compel you to act counter to the interest of your employer? Foreign property means you are, at the very least, going to take interest if/when the foreign government threatens it.
- error_logic 2y ago
  Or if a government funding bill threatens it.
- guappa 2y ago
  People who don't own abroad property can be corrupted as well. The whole premise is weird.
  - klez 2y ago
    That's not the only thing that makes you a risk, it's just one factor they take into consideration.
  - saalweachter 2y ago
    They're looking for two different sets of things. "Are you an untrustworthy person?" Are you likely to take a bribe? Will you get mad at your boss and try to burn the place down, literally or metaphorically? Will you be careless in a way that brings about the same, with no malice? "Are you as trustworthy as anyone else, but subject to inhuman pressure?" Anyone would be vulnerable to having a relative threatened; you probably don't want to hire someone who would be apathetic to having their parents or child threatened. If that relative is already in unfriendly hands, that's a huge risk. In some ways, a $100k house in a (hostile) foreign country is no different than a $100k bribe; it's just stuff. If you ignore a threat to your property in a scheme to extort you, you are $100k poorer than if you give in, just like if you turn down a bribe. But humans are prone to loss aversion. Having $1 taken from you is far worse than receiving $1 is good, even ignoring any sentimental value of the property in question. Some people will still be able to ignore the threat, not allow themselves to be compromised, but a lot of people will find it hard. For a job where security is a concern and you have thousands or millions of perfectly cromulent candidates, it's not crazy to winnow the pool first by discarding everyone who's untrustworthy or has extra levers that can be used against them. You still have thousands or millions of great candidates left.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    sure, but it's way easier for the FBI to request the title and deed for things in the US and track their history than an apartment building in Panama, or a plantation in Indonesia.
  - pc86 2y ago
    > The whole premise is weird. Only if you don't take 30 seconds to think about it. Of course you can be compromised without owning foreign property. But foreign property is a vector by which you can be compromised. Doesn't it make sense an intelligence agency would want to know all the possible vectors by which potential employees could be compromised? For each vector you'll have certain remediation steps, up to and including "don't hire this person."
annzabelle 2y ago
You have to remember that the DC area workforce has a lot of immigrants, people married to immigrants, and people who've done significant overseas stints. Plus there is a need for hiring linguists and cultural experts with fluency in unfriendly languages. I know of TS clearance holders who have significant ties to Iran, Syria, Russia, and Afghanistan, but have renounced those citizenships and are loyal to the US. The clearance process works to figure out what levers those countries could still pull on them - foreign property and close family still there are the big ones.
Manuel_D 2y ago
> But what is the security concern with "owning foreign property is unfriendly countries"? They can take it from you? Exactly. Or rather, they can threaten to take it from you unless you do something (probably illegal) for said foreign government.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
they need to hire people who speak Arabic, or Chinese, or Hindi, and have ties they can utilize in those countries -- or at least understand well enough to build ties. overseas money and property, esp. in unfriendly countries, rapidly becomes a concern in that sense. go double agent, have a friend overseas give you some sweet improvements to your house on the cheap, then sell it later for 4x than it's worth, and repeat.

sitkack 2y ago

I have a theory that the normalization of homosexuality in the united states was a move by the security agencies to lower their exposure risk. If everything is cool, nothing is blackmail. Blackmail is what sinks orgs because you have no idea who is going to be a mole.

eastbound 2y ago
I have the impression that sexual harassment became the opposite. Something most successful man are blamed for, decades later when all possible proof have vanished. In terms of blackmail, the power seems much higher.
- watwut 2y ago
  People who sexually harass are on supreme court and literally the president. For considerable amount of people, it is a positive sign that "the guy is like us".
  - vitajex 2y ago
    I don't think anyone takes it as a positive. It's just not what voters vote on. If they support one candidate's policies more than another's, they won't flip because of that issue. The example of Bill Clinton demonstrates that this happens across the political spectrum, and his feminist supporters were the ones making this argument back then. They got criticized for being hypocritical, but in politics you have to prioritize.
    - watwut 2y ago
      I do actually think they see it as a positive. It is not just that they do not care. It is that it heightens his credit in their eyes and they get to see him as victim. It makes him look more manly for some people.
      - progmetaldev 2y ago
        At the least, it often makes them feel empowered to speak out in favor of forgetting all about the issue, and emboldening them to push for whatever the politician pushes that they agree with. At least in the US, you can hop on social media and take a look at your local newspaper or news channel's posts, and see some of the truly insane comments (and I use insane here as in bringing up politics to promote their voted politician, or smear the other side, when the issue is something at a local level or unaffected by politics in any way).