4 ms·

If you bought the book and decided to apply for a job in or related to the federal government that required a security clearance, this would be a huge red flag.

by Bahamut 13y ago

If you bought the book and decided to apply for a job in or related to the federal government that required a security clearance, this would be a huge red flag. IMO this is a non-story, since the purpose seems exclusively to potentially screen out people who cannot be trusted with the sensitive information that gets handled by people with security clearances (which includes social security numbers), which the federal government has every reason to be wary of. If anyone questions the data gathering of the government, sure, but this particular story is a non-story IMO.

gngeal 13y ago
So the dumb people who get caught looking for that information get screened out, but the smart dangerous people who happen to learn how to avoid having problems with a "lie so-called-detector" test will pass with flying colors? How does that help?
- Bahamut 13y ago
  It addresses the low hanging fruit - say they didn't do this in general, and someone doing their research on bypassing any security red flags applies & gets a job in say the State Department. That person now is in a powerful position to sabotage the government. Now what if such a person was turned by a foreign government or terrorist group beforehand? This person now has the ability to wreck havoc due to insufficient screening, and the government gets criticized for not doing enough to protect national security. You can't stop every problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    This is why you need layers of security. If passing a "lie detector" test gives you unfettered access to information that could potentially sabotage the government (to the point where foreign terrorists or governments would be interested in such information), then the system that secures said information needs to be changed. When you build a web application the cardinal rule is never trust the client, which should be the default assumption here, irrespective of the results of some pop-science "examination."
    - Bahamut 13y ago
      It's not as simple as in software development - trust has to be given that people are acting in the best interests of the country, and people have to have access to sensitive information in the government. The only way you can secure against this is to control who you hire, and control as much as possible what they can do. To that end, sharing of this data is perfectly reasonable, as long as safeguards are in place for who uses the data, which is almost always there from my experience.
      - swalkergibson 13y ago
        The fact that the list exists got out, so there are clearly not enough safeguards. Honest question coming. Do you subscribe to the "I have nothing to hide" notion?
        Bahamut 13y ago
        I happen to have nothing to hide, and am not someone too concerned about others using data about me, but I also possess a security clearance & am a Marine reservist, so as someone involved with national security to a minor degree (I'm just a junior infantry rifleman in the Corps) & living in DC, I have some familiarity with the policies set on sensitive information & some insight into why things are done a particular way in the federal government. Civilian career-wise, I don't work for the government in any capacity & wouldn't want to (I'm a mid/senior web developer).
        Zigurd 13y ago
        Can we all pitch in and buy this guy a certain book on eBay?
        swalkergibson 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
forgotAgain 13y ago
Buying a book is now a big red flag? So to be truly safe I guess the government should know all the books we each buy and those we borrow from a library. They should also track what everyone reads online.
- greenyoda 13y ago
  I seem to remember that the Patriot Act allows the government to ask libraries for patrons' records and forbids the library from disclosing that it happened. Librarians and civil rights activists made a big stink about it at the time, but I guess people have forgotten about it by now and it has become the "new normal". Shortly after 9/11, the NY Public Library implemented their own photo ID cards that you were required to show before they'd bring you any reference material (this is for material that can only be used in the library, not checked out, so there's no real reason why they'd need to track who is looking at it). And it would be very easy for the government to find out all the books I ever bought from Amazon and everything I read online. I wonder sometimes whether Amazon has some kind of PRISM-like arrangement with the NSA.
- Bahamut 13y ago
  The contents of said book is a red flag if you want a security clearance - it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    > willing to cheat Defeating a voodoo ritual is cheating? Isn't it more like protecting yourself from false accusations?
    - Bahamut 13y ago
      Regardless of your irrelevant implicit commentary on lie detectors, my point still stands. Nobody is forcing you to do a polygraph test when you're applying for a security clearance - that choice is yours alone to make.
kghose 13y ago
See how you got down voted? Groups are afraid of dissent.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Alternatively: people upvote and downvote based on how valuable, accurate, or well thought out a comment is.
swalkergibson 13y ago
You jumped to the conclusion that simply due to the fact that somebody read this book that they are not to be trusted with sensitive information. I would be curious to read the book, just because I am interested in the subject, not because I am inherently untrustworthy. Intellectual curiosity should never be stifled like this. Not to mention the fact that "lie detector" test results are not even admissible in court due to their dubious conclusions, so their effectiveness as a scientific instrument is fundamentally flawed. This is essentially thought-crime, which I thought did not exist in the US, but it sure seems like it does now.

by Bahamut 13y ago

gngeal 13y ago

So the dumb people who get caught looking for that information get screened out, but the smart dangerous people who happen to learn how to avoid having problems with a "lie so-called-detector" test will pass with flying colors? How does that help?

Bahamut 13y ago
It addresses the low hanging fruit - say they didn't do this in general, and someone doing their research on bypassing any security red flags applies & gets a job in say the State Department. That person now is in a powerful position to sabotage the government. Now what if such a person was turned by a foreign government or terrorist group beforehand? This person now has the ability to wreck havoc due to insufficient screening, and the government gets criticized for not doing enough to protect national security. You can't stop every problem, but you can minimize it as much as possible.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  This is why you need layers of security. If passing a "lie detector" test gives you unfettered access to information that could potentially sabotage the government (to the point where foreign terrorists or governments would be interested in such information), then the system that secures said information needs to be changed. When you build a web application the cardinal rule is never trust the client, which should be the default assumption here, irrespective of the results of some pop-science "examination."
  - Bahamut 13y ago
    It's not as simple as in software development - trust has to be given that people are acting in the best interests of the country, and people have to have access to sensitive information in the government. The only way you can secure against this is to control who you hire, and control as much as possible what they can do. To that end, sharing of this data is perfectly reasonable, as long as safeguards are in place for who uses the data, which is almost always there from my experience.
    - swalkergibson 13y ago
      The fact that the list exists got out, so there are clearly not enough safeguards. Honest question coming. Do you subscribe to the "I have nothing to hide" notion?
      - Bahamut 13y ago
        I happen to have nothing to hide, and am not someone too concerned about others using data about me, but I also possess a security clearance & am a Marine reservist, so as someone involved with national security to a minor degree (I'm just a junior infantry rifleman in the Corps) & living in DC, I have some familiarity with the policies set on sensitive information & some insight into why things are done a particular way in the federal government. Civilian career-wise, I don't work for the government in any capacity & wouldn't want to (I'm a mid/senior web developer).
        Zigurd 13y ago
        Can we all pitch in and buy this guy a certain book on eBay?
        swalkergibson 13y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

forgotAgain 13y ago

Buying a book is now a big red flag? So to be truly safe I guess the government should know all the books we each buy and those we borrow from a library. They should also track what everyone reads online.

greenyoda 13y ago
I seem to remember that the Patriot Act allows the government to ask libraries for patrons' records and forbids the library from disclosing that it happened. Librarians and civil rights activists made a big stink about it at the time, but I guess people have forgotten about it by now and it has become the "new normal". Shortly after 9/11, the NY Public Library implemented their own photo ID cards that you were required to show before they'd bring you any reference material (this is for material that can only be used in the library, not checked out, so there's no real reason why they'd need to track who is looking at it). And it would be very easy for the government to find out all the books I ever bought from Amazon and everything I read online. I wonder sometimes whether Amazon has some kind of PRISM-like arrangement with the NSA.
Bahamut 13y ago
The contents of said book is a red flag if you want a security clearance - it says you are willing to cheat to get a job doing governmental work.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  > willing to cheat Defeating a voodoo ritual is cheating? Isn't it more like protecting yourself from false accusations?
  - Bahamut 13y ago
    Regardless of your irrelevant implicit commentary on lie detectors, my point still stands. Nobody is forcing you to do a polygraph test when you're applying for a security clearance - that choice is yours alone to make.

kghose 13y ago

See how you got down voted? Groups are afraid of dissent.

jlgreco 13y ago
Alternatively: people upvote and downvote based on how valuable, accurate, or well thought out a comment is.

swalkergibson 13y ago

You jumped to the conclusion that simply due to the fact that somebody read this book that they are not to be trusted with sensitive information. I would be curious to read the book, just because I am interested in the subject, not because I am inherently untrustworthy. Intellectual curiosity should never be stifled like this. Not to mention the fact that "lie detector" test results are not even admissible in court due to their dubious conclusions, so their effectiveness as a scientific instrument is fundamentally flawed. This is essentially thought-crime, which I thought did not exist in the US, but it sure seems like it does now.