Hacker News Reader

Comment by noonespecial | Hacker News Reader

I'm more interested in these so called "provocative things" one can write that expedite the process.

An example of a "provocative thing" expediting the security process is given in another of Les's stories (copied from Sukotto's comment).

http://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html

"The lesson was clear: if you want a clearance in a hurry, put something on your history form that will make the investigators suspicious but that is not damning. They get so many dull backgrounds to check that they relish the possibility of actually nailing someone. By being a bit provocative, you draw priority attention and quicker service."

There was another one of these stories saying that it looks suspicious if you've never been convicted of a crime or done anything illegal, so if that's the case just say you tried weed once.

No, no. No no no.

Extremely bad idea. Cue cautionary tale; a friend of mine (here in the UK) wrote something similar on his form (that he'd been ticked off for smoking weed). They didn't refuse him but he has consistently had random drugs tests for the last 3 years (at a rate of about one every 2 months).

The fact of it is if you tick "yes" to any of those questions you're setting yourself up for a fall. The review officer is extremely happy if you ticked no - because he can just run the default checks and not have to interview you :)

Better to admit to it than get caught lying. Also any financial/credit problems in history will probably ruin your chances (more susceptible to blackmail I was told).

I was an ordinary programmer in the Air Force, however I obtained a top secret clearance. Basically ticked "no" to all the boxes, however one of my friends and probably a few of my past teachers were interviewed. Someone once told me his interviewer knew he had thrown a dead squirrel at a girl in kindergarten.

> Also any financial/credit problems in history will probably ruin your chances (more susceptible to blackmail I was told).

I don't get that. Why blackmail? I would assume that they feel people with financial issues are more susceptible to bribes to make their financial woes go away. Blackmail is just odd though. I wouldn't necessarily broadcast my financial woes to the world, but "Steal some Top Secret documents or we'll tell the world that you're in massive debt" wouldn't have any leverage with me (and I assume this is the same for most people).

The world knowing that you're in debt is probably too small of a carrot to have someone take the risk of leaking documents/information.

You just answered your own question. Someone that has had money problems is more susceptible to taking bribes, and once they've taken a bribe, they are now more susceptible to blackmail. As a question along the lines of "have you ever taken a bribe?" is unlikely to get answered honestly, debt problems are used as a proxy.

> Better to admit to it than get caught lying

Sorry; it was a lie, I was replying to the poster above who said it might be suspicious to admit to nothing, even if it is true.

My understanding is that credit problems are the #1 reason for denying clearance. In fact, as long as you check all the 'No' boxes and aren't on anything top secret, credit issues are about the only thing that will sink you.

umm don't know if I'd call that "extremely bad." I was applying for TS in the US and I had a very different experience to admitting experimenting. They understood and it didn't influence me while cleared. YMMV.

Yeh probably, but it doesn't seem worth the risk. I know people who have not been cleared for similar "additions" (this is for mundane stuff btw, nothing exciting).

I suspect the punchline of the story is a neat little provocative thing. Expediting the process can mean a quick rejection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com