Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThaDood | Hacker News Reader

I'd be more curious about Top Secret - Full Scope.

Full Scope refers to a type of polygraph examination which someone might be asked to undergo as part of the investigation process before getting a security clearance. At one point, you could either get a counter-intelligence polygraph examination, where you were asked questions basically to determine if you were a foreign agent, or approached to work on behalf of a foreign agent, and that would take half a day, or you could be given a "full scope" polygraph examine, which might take a full day, and would ask a much larger invasive set of questions about your lifestyle. For example, a decade or two ago, you might be asked questions about your sexual practices and/or identity lest that be used as blackmail leverage by a foreign agent. (For example, if you say, were into golden showers, and were trying to keep that a secret, might Russia be able to use the threat of making a video tape of that practice to get you to betray your country?)

Access to some security comparments ("Sensitive Compartmented Information") might require both a need to know, and either a Counter-Intelligence or Full Scope polygraph examination. If you have a current (non-expired) TS/CI Poly or TS/FS Poly investigation, could be quite valuable to a defense contractor, because it can take a while (potentially months or years) and cost $$$ for you to get that investigation, which combined with the need to know, would be necessary to get you access to certain classified compartments which might be necessary for you to work on a particular project. Otherwise, you might have the necessary computer skills, but without having the requisite security clearance investigation having been done on you, the defense contractor might have to hire you and have you work on non-classified aspect of the projects for months and months (or if you are a new college grad, maybe even twiddling your fingers) until the security clearance investigation had been completed.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but haven't polygraphs been thoroughly discredited?

I think the notion of "lie detector" has been discredited. Someone who wants to learn to pass a polygraph can probably do so. Screening applicants for vulnerability doesn't have to be a perfect process as it's part of a larger security system.

Yes. They're part of the clearance process for psychological reasons.

Ironically, a layperson probably would give away their secrets easily because of the anxiety of the situation, while someone who might actually be an offensive threat is more likely to be able to beat a polygraph.

Realistically, they are probably very effective at verifying whether normal people have secrets that could be used for blackmail, as you say, because of the psychology, even if the machine isn't actually doing anything.

Anecdotally, I've heard of security interviews (for government intelligence, I can't give context) where the interviewer just says "i'll know if you lie". For the average person this is enough to make them flustered if asked an awkward question.

I think that’s the goal: the polygraph isn’t supposed to catch a pathological liar or mole. It’s supposed to fluster you into telling the truth, even the embarrassing truth, to ensure that you can’t be blackmailed or extorted. I’ve heard my fair share of funny(?) stories about polygraph admissions that basically ended in the interviewer shrugging and saying “well, at least you didn’t hide it.”

I've heard stories about the polygraphs that basically boil down to: we don't care if you smoke weed. we DO care that you tell us and don't lie about it.

I heard about one guy who couldn’t pass the poly no matter how many times he took it. He chalked it up to Catholic guilt. He ended up going to work for a different company doing rocket stuff (I think the ULA) cause he could use his clearance but they didn’t require polys. He might even still have access to JWICS in his new job

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A White House whistleblower has said the Trump administration overruled security experts to give questionable security clearances to more than two dozen people, including the president’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-clearances/whis...

I wouldn’t be surprised if, maybe you do some shitty work for free, we’ll pay you with “Q”.

not quite. they do provide meaningful information, just not good evidence to a court.

Yes, they’ve been discredited as a binary, true or false, lie detector. However a skilled investigator can still use polygraphs as one tool in a toolbox to hone in on particular areas. They can then either have the subject contradict themselves or find areas to further investigate (e.g. asking the neighbors what sorts of people the subject has over.)

Polygraphs are used for bullying adults into confessing things they normally wouldn't.

I've read that something as simple as curling your toes makes the readings unreliable.

They still ask about sexual preferences, but really it's more about anything not publicly known that could be embarrassing. No one cared that I'm bi and not out to my mom but they wanted to know that I would go to my FSO and let that get out before I passed any sensitive intel to a foreign adversary who might try to blackmail me.

And basically everyone with the SCI designation could get a call to get a poly anytime, but I've never had one and know people who've had their clearances for years without getting that call (and I know a couple people who had them before the government finished that person's background investigation, so go figure). Some agencies care quite a bit, others not at all.

I got the poly call 48 hours after getting notification of my clearance.

My boss told me, "just assume they know the answer to any question they ask and tell the truth, regardless of what it is."

Just ask China. The US government conveniently handed them all cleared personnel records.

“Handed them” would be inaccurate.

"Handed them" may be an understatement, given the scope of the OPM breach.

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/congressional-report-sla...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...

A breach is literally the opposite of willingly giving something over, or “handing it” to them.

I think you're being too literal. Using hyperbole here is the equivalent of saying "their security was so bad they might as well have just handed over the information".

Yeah, you’re right. I just want to make sure people know it was a breach and not some form of leak.

AFAIK they (or whoever) only have records for people whose clearances went through OPM

I think it’s fair to say that there are offensive cyber intelligence operations that are never detected or made public. It’s more than likely there are other foreign intelligence agencies that have breached similar databases at other agencies. It’s also likely that allied agencies share intelligence between themselves, and also suffer hacks. I would reason that any nation vying for superpower status has a good amount of data on the majority of folks who touch national security in every country.

TS FS isn’t a clearance level. Perhaps you’re referring to Top Secret/Secure Compartmented Information clearance with a Full Scope Polygraph?

That number is classified.

AFAIK, the number of people with TS//SCI is not actually classified. It's just hard to get a complete headcount because of how broad the designation is.

As of 2017, approximately 2.8 million people held TS[1]. A sizable percentage of those people are also probably TS//SCI.

Edit: Uncited, from Wikipedia:

> In general, military personnel and civilian employees (government and contractor) do not publish the individual compartments for which they are cleared. While this information is not classified, specific compartment listings may reveal sensitive information when correlated with an individual's résumé. Therefore, it is sufficient to declare that a candidate possesses a TS/SCI clearance with a polygraph.

[1]: https://about.clearancejobs.com/hubfs/Clearancejobs_Images_N...

“AFAIK, the number of people with TS//SCI is not actually classified.”

Then you quote TS clearances. With a guess at how many have SCI access.

The amount of people who have TS/SCI clearances with a Full Scope Polygraph is classified.

The absence of public information doesn’t mean that something is classified. It just means that nobody’s requested it. Again, to the best of my knowledge, the number of people who hold TS//SCI isn’t itself classified. Feel free to submit a FOIA and refute that.

I work with this stuff. Consider my statement a PSA for ya

Reply on news.ycombinator.com