Elon Musk’s Security Clearance Under Review over Pot Use | Hacker News Reader

Elon Musk’s Security Clearance Under Review over Pot Use

bloomberg.com

31 pointswhatok47 comments

While it's a clear rule under the requirements of your Clearance, I think it's about time this one is relaxed. Not to mention, depending on the clearing authority and whom manages the clearance, there are waivers for everything.

Until we have a national ruling on pot, we're going to keep running up against this more and more.

I'm not standing on one side or another, just pointing out that this isn't the first and won't be the last. Do we really need to focus on pot usage or should we pay attention to far greater issues, is all.

There certainly is not a waiver for everything, despite the common saying making people think otherwise. The FBI[1] said they can't find hackers to work for them because they can't get around the "no pot" rule.

I agree absolutely that we need a national pass on this, but I think everyone who's taken a genuine look into the topic already agrees on this. The problem is the massive number of voters who already made up their minds based on decades-old propaganda.

[1]https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d737mx/the-fbi-ca...

The FBI actively hires plenty of people that have smoked pot in the past, this was relaxed 8 years ago from the hard NO POT stance they had because of the above. In fact last time I was contacted by a recruiter I specifically asked about it and he said as long as you haven't used recently and state you're not a current user, you would be fine. Their clearance process is also run by them as with most agencies so consistency isn't always a thing. The most common component is OPM, beyond that adjudication rules and requirements are at the sole discretion of the acting entity. I won't go into specific waivers within other agencies, but I know first hand they're pretty common as long as you're not active military (even then there are always exceptions).

All said, I think the only real issue for a pass is law enforcement and their it's a gateway drug perspective. I also think that states will push back due to their perceived loses in fine revenues (because everyone knows the police should generate revenues right?).

I'd imagine that it probably is the last because most CEOs don't broadcast drug use in public.

The pot use was done in the open to distract everyone from focusing on Tesla's Chief Accounting Officer quitting the company after a month on the job.

Anyway, the public pot use on Rogan's podcast is just what's being publicly acknowledged in the media for the moment, there are many rumors of more hard drug use. The Pentagon is probably also focused on Musk needing funding from Chinese banks for the Shanghai Tesla factory they've been teasing every couple of weeks.

Although practically no CEO would hide alcohol use, which is - scientifically speaking - far more harmful than cannabis use.

Edit: I mistakenly wrote "less" instead of "more". Now corrected.

There is no harm in doing donuts in a parking lot with no shirt on either, but it isn't an image that Tesla needs in the current cultural climate.

Debatable. It's hard to predict the public. I think they could possibly turn that one into a PR win. Odds would be against them though.

Right, that is what is cool about Elon. He could probably get away with it. Still, it would not be a conservative move on his part.

Did you mean more harmful?

Just off the top of my head, there is doubt whether cannabis is actually physically addictive.

Ethanol withdrawal, on the other hand, can kill you.

There is no measurable LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of subjects) for THC.

Lethal overdoses of ethanol are quite common.

Yes but you originally said alcohol is far less harmful than THC

Oops - you're right. I meant the opposite.

I don't personally disagree with that but CEOs are the public face of a company and he's running an American company where there is still stigma against marijuana. It does not show good judgment on his part.

I question whether there's actually a stigma. I mean, it's legal in ten states.

Anything illegal in 40 states likely has an actual stigma.

Obviously its not stigmatized enough to dissuade Elon from publicizing his use of weed. I'd say partaking in marijuana is more acceptable in those 40 states than being non-straight based my own experience.

is it hard to say what "good" judgement is?

one person might think it's bad judgement to be on a podcast that talks about psychedelics, conspiracy, and weed...

another might think it's bad judgement to do business with folks who don't practice sharia law.

from my perspective, I'm super glad that Elon's out there sticking both his middle fingers up at the establishment. Even if it's just for the sake of perception control or stock market philandering, i am grateful somebody is doing it so publicly.

Integrity :is: good judgment.

Few CEOs would be willing to get sloshed on camera for a podcast, I suspect.

you mean _more_ harmful than cannabis or?

https://www.businessinsider.com/alcohol-marijuana-which-wors...

That seems ... confused. AIUI, the "dark past" stuff comes up in SC review because of the possibility of being blackmailed. If it's not something that you're defensive and evasive and embarrassed about, it's not an issue. And I can't see why Musk would feel that way about his pot use.

That's not to say he's a shining example of someone you'd trust with secrets though. His impulsive tweets, where he can be easily provoked into saying very reckless things ... that seems like a much bigger strike against keeping a clearance.

I think the main issue is he smoked pot while he already had a security clearance, so it comes off as him acting like federal laws don't apply to him. You're right about the past history stuff, I worked in cleared environments for years, and one of my co-workers who partied a ton in high school and college answered "all of them" when the federal investigator asked which illegal drugs he'd used prior to employment. They told him that as long as he understood that he couldn't use them after he had a clearance, his past drug use wasn't an issue.

your friend is lucky. I accepted an offer from AWS with top-level security right out of college.

They asked if I smoked in the last year. Dumbass young me says yes but it was ~6 months prior.

Offer revoked

Sounds like you dodged a bullet.

Haha the guy took one small hit of a blunt and some higher-ups in the U.S. government want to characterize him as a national security threat.

Just goes to show how out of touch with reality the people who lead this country are.

TBH his erratic behaviour and his "disregard" of federal agencies regardless of what you think of the SEC does show that the guy isn't exactly SCI clearance material.

What's next the NRO cancels a contract because of what he might think is some silly reason and then Elon takes to twitter to diss the new spy satellite that SpaceX didn't get a chance to launch?

There is nothing erratic about smoking pot. Millions of Americans do it daily with no negative consequence. If there are other legitimate issues that preclude Musk from holding SCI clearance, take him on those issues.

The guy holds three citizenship, and pot across the majority of the US is a patchwork of laws being either legalized, decriminalized or allowed for medicinal use. It was legal in California where Joe Rogan's podcast was filmed.

It's time for the DOD and Intelligence to evolve beyond their current draconian policies.

I’m not talking about the pot I’m talking about the fact that he disobeys orders from federal agencies after agreeing to behave and then goes ranting on Twitter.

Having three citizenships would normally disqualify him from a security clearance. He probably got rid of all but one.

> There is nothing erratic about smoking pot.

It is erratic to do so publicly when you have a security clearance you want to keep. Musk also did several other erratic things around the same time (the funding secured tweet being one of the more notable ones).

Cancel the contract and go with... who?

Monopoly positions change the rules, like it or hate it.

Clearly this is a 'higher security concern' than granting your next of kin security clearance because daddy's president of the United States.

The president of the United States has the authority to clear anyone he wants to clear. That's settled law and has been for decades. The vast majority of the Obama staff could never have qualified for clearances otherwise, but were given them anyway -- where's the outrage there?

I'm wondering/guessing if this was something they had been trying to get "under review" for awhile now, and him smoking Pot with Joe Rogan was finally their way in with a "real" reason to try to jam him up. Even though for all practical purposes this is completely dumb, and shouldn't warrant any review at all. It's 2019, pot should not be an issue anymore, but sadly it still is for some. If only we had bigger fish to fry.

But it was done in the open. How can it be used as leverage?

This is a great example of why the US government can't hire and retain competent security and operations personal that haven't already drunk the Kool-Aid by coming out of the US military.

It's 2019, get over this. The only way you're going to blackmail someone over pot is because you're on about it, not because it's inherently solid blackmail material.

I agree with you. I am just guessing, but this might have to do more with it still being a federal crime and many defense contracts that involve security requirements require a formal review if anyone on the contract is or has been convicted of a crime, or is under investigation. I could be way off though.

Yep, and until Congress decides to get with 2019 the feds will continue to have this problem.

So probably forever.

No, this is about them selectively punishing Elon Musk under the excuse of marijuana use.

The Pentagon is "selectively" punishing Elon Musk... by applying the same standards for a security clearance to him that they do to everyone else?

You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them.

> You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them.

The solution to that isn't to normalize deviance [1].

[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_...

That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable.

One could argue that pot usage is orthogonal (or perhaps even beneficial) to one's security risk profile.

> That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable.

I don't think that's the right interpretation here. If you demonstrate an attitude that you feel you don't have to follow regulations you disagree with, what's to stop you from disclosing secret information that you don't think should be secret? Getting a security clearance is all about showing the authorities that you can be trusted to follow their regulations. Willfully violating federal law for recreational purposes casts doubt on that. Security clearance isn't a right.

> One could argue that pot usage is ... perhaps even beneficial ... to one's security risk profile.

How so?

Oh I don't doubt someone gave them a little push, he just made it really easy for them.

I'd imagine lackluster pay and red tape eclipses this by far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com