And let's not forget that many of them are probably browsing HN at this very moment. They could be you, they could be me!
Couldn't be me: the private sector pays me waaaaaaaay more.
Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous. Everyone I personally know in infosec leads a very... alternative west-coast lifestyle which is not conducive to career progression in an east-coast, button-down-shirt environment.
I believe it is possible to get security clearance after cessation of drugs for multiple years, even drugs like Heroin. I found the full rules[0] while reading an AMA on /r/SecurityClearance.
[0] https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-...
I entertained the idea of working in the public sector a while ago, for a brief time, until I learned that pot is fine in my past, but not in my present. "How the heck do you expect me to get the code written?"
Also, I've been told that getting a clearance is more burden than blessing. You have restrictions that an "ordinary person" doesn't have, along with criminal penalties for violating them. Whereas, without a clearance, if they really need you for something, they'll bring you in anyway.
Yes it definitely can be, but depends on your personality and stage of life. You are always cognizant of having a clearance and the need to maintain it, and so you consider that in your every day life. You also have to open your life up in uncomfortable ways, even if your only objection is in principal.
You probably don't sweat it too much later in life since you generally are a more 'boring' person, but I had mine in my mid 20's so was a lot more active in terms of social life. One time I was in downtown SF with a buddy hitting up bars etc and eventually had to cut out early because things were getting more drug oriented. I also used to play a lot of cards before getting a clearance and had contacts who were in some shady stuff. I basically excommunicated them from my life to avoid the clearance hassle.
For him it's been a minor nuisance at worst. He has strong restrictions on travel. I think he needs approval to travel abroad. He has relatives in other countries and visits them often, so it can't be too much of a nuisance.
I believe he told me that he does have to report details of where he went in each country and who he interacted with upon his return. Not sure about the details.
Official website: https://www.dm.usda.gov/ohsec/TravelResource.htm
Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy.
Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them.
That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental heads, MPs, committees, etc. A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed.
For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)
You can frame this another way: it prevents meaningful change even if the electorate demands it.
Sorry, I watched too much Yes Minister to think this is a good thing x)
I recognize I'm basically describing a utopia.
I also never said he had access to everything. Nobody has access to everything. Not arguing for a shadow government--it's already a fact. It happened when classification rules went from "what would harm national security" to "what would cause problems if American citizens found out we were doing this."
The only thing he does not have unrestricted access to is Justice department stuff (e.g. FBI), although there'd better be a damn good reason to deny it to POTUS if he asks, and legislative branch secrets which really infrequently comes into play. That's due to the whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing. But security clearances for everything in the executive branch stem FROM the president. If he wants to reveal some state secret, he can just tweet it with no consequences, or blurt it out while on the phone with foreign states. As Trump did on multiple occasions.
That said, of course there is a significant deep state bureaucracy which attempts at times to keep certain things hidden, even from the current president. But if the president were to ask about it, they have to tell him.
Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?
Calling it 'ridiculous' removes the debate concerning the pros and cons on such rule. If you consider someone can become vulnerable if they're addicted (to anything, really) then it makes sense to be wary of a drugs addiction. Especially if the resource the person is addicted to is illegal.
That being said, I'd find it reasonable if they OK'ed medical marihuana usage. I hope my gov (NL) does.
Obviously if someone is _addicted_ to either, that is a security risk. But the extent to which they reject people for recreational marijuana use is laughable.
The unofficial advice I’ve heard is to not even bother with SC if you use weed. Generally, it will be found out. I looked into this as needing an SC was a possibility with my current job.
Like caffeine ?
I'm almost sure they have coffee machines in there.