I tell people this whenever I'm asked about something I'm not supposed to reveal. "You want me to risk my _ just so you can satisfy your curiosity?"
Maybe they just feel alone, depressed, underappreciated and like nobody cares about them?
Revealing it to total strangers somewhat obscures potential negative impact, while still getting them to feel important for a day.
I only speak for myself, and I no longer have a clearance. But the idea that depression excuses disclosure of classified information... that's not how depression works. That's not how clearances work. It's anathema to me. If depression is an excuse for disclosing classified information, then depression is cause for denying a person a clearance. It is cause for revoking a clearance from a person who seeks mental health assistance. No thank you. It is much better to prosecute depressed people who violate their clearance agreements and to continue to permit depressed people to gain clearances than it is deny a clearance from every depressed person.
I support giving clearances to depressed people, and I support sending depressed people who violate their clearance agreements to prison.
I see your point, in not trying to worsen things for depressed people - but don't you think on a general base, a mentally unstable person is more liklely to disclose something? And when you are really, deeply depressed - you don't care about anything anymore, except if it makes you feel better in that moment.
First, reread everything that you wrote, and substitute "depressed person" for some racial minority. Most of what you have said is still valid and there is a possibility that it is even true. However, you must see that this would be so offensive that your post would be flagged.
Instead of fostering predjudice against people of a racial minority, you are (probably unintentionally) fostering predjudice against people with mental health problems. Do you not see why this is offensive?
Lack of caring for elemental things, including life, is a common trait of depression, not race.
But I did not say, depressed people should not have any clearance. I say, mentally not stable persons can simply not be trusted with every tasks. No generalisation. It depends on the task. So I doubt, you would offer the guarding of the red button for example, a suicidal person. And deep depression, is mostly combined with suicidal thoughts. There was a pilot some years ago, piloting a full plane to join him along his suicide. So much for extreme examples.
And as for the secret new release of the hot new game console x? I don't care about their security. But I see, that companies would want stable persons there, too.
Historically, they'd be very interested in what you'd say to your friends, family, etc. But the allure of internet fame would seem to have a more pursuasive effect.
They're not included in Standard Form 86, latest revision November 2016: https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf
That's not to say it's excluded from polygraph questions; I can imagine a world where online associations are very relevant to an agency in need of a CI or full scope poly for compartment access.
It's similar because there are lots of false negatives, but few false positives.
But more importantly... Participating in online communities, and caring about one's online presence, is statistically normal behavior for working-age people in first world countries with Internet access... Moreso the younger you get. But the point is, it's massively normal behavior.
So if you tried to use your questions to predict potential leakers, you're just playing the "Most serial killers eat bread" game.
In order for your question to be a useful predictor, it would have to have low rates of both false positives, and false negatives. That doesn't seem very likely.
Seems a more difficult question, but a more indicative one, which is why I included it.
Per my experience, you can easily find individuals who spend similar amounts of clock time in online communities, but are very different in how much the community can influence them.
F.ex. HN could offer me dang's karma count, and I wouldn't feel any compulsion to leak classified information here.
An intelligence agency get more intel per dollar spent goading active duty people into revealing military secrets on obscure forums than you do with traditional bribery.
[1] https://www.ecampusnews.com/2010/09/15/google-engineer-fired...
Option 2, he has a humiliation/degradation kink and got exactly what he wanted.
The only upside to anything more than that is to impress or feel important.