Hacker News Reader

Comment by marshray | Hacker News Reader

Mudge held a significant position within the Department of Defense.

That doesn't happen without having any skeletons in your closet identified and investigated.

Mudge was a DARPA PM; that's a significant position in the sense that he led DARPA-funded research programs, but I don't think it's one that actually requires a clearance.

Source: currently do DARPA-funded research. No PM has ever mentioned having a clearance to me, and the work itself is entirely uncleared.

To be fair, marshray did not mention clearance, just that some skeletons would be looked for. Getting cleared is not the only time or the only way the federal government does that sort of thing.

Sure. I actually wouldn’t doubt that Mudge was already a known entity to USG. I just wanted to dispel some of the clearance voodoo that comes along with “significant position within the Department of Defense.”

In his most recent testimony, Mudge mentioned that he was in the leaked OPM database with his details and clearance level leaked which implies he had clearance.

Did he mention a clearance level, or just being in the OPM breach? My understanding is that the OPM breach included plenty of uncleared employeesas well.

(I’m not trying to be stubborn! If he really did hold a clearance as a DARPA PM, then I’m wrong in his case.)

You could have been in the OPM database being a janitor at the VA.

Although that wording about "Clearance level" does seem to suggest more than just the baseline government employee background check.

Yeah, that’s the part I’m curious about: there are plenty of “public trust” or SBU roles that I’d expect to have been leaked with the OPM breach that are “cleared” in the pop sense of the word, but are not actual clearances in the US Government’s sense.

That doesn't necessarily mean Mudge had a Secret clearance or something. For all we know, he could have had a Public Trust position, which meant he handled sensitive but unclassified information. Anybody in IT or infosec would have that kind of clearance.

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

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/09/01/what-is-a-public-t...

> but I don't think it's one that actually requires a clearance.

In general, it doesn't. For some project areas it sometimes does. It really depends.

Right. The context in question is I2O, since that’s the office that Mudge was a PM in. I’d expect other offices to have different expectations around clearances, particularly the ones that do ballistic or aerospace research.

You kidding? You ever visit the office? It’s no joke, you need clearance to take a piss.

I’ve been inside of the DARPA building a handful of times, without a clearance. I did have to sign in and show ID, however.

It's maybe possible I2O didn't require clearances when Mudge was a PM. Certainly at least since they moved to their current location everyone who works in the building or for the organization is cleared*.

Most programs themselves are unclass, and there are lots of collaborations in fundamental research where it's completely open, not even controlled unclass (CUI). That doesn't imply anything about the PM's clearance status. Not sure why a PM would go out of their way to talk about clearance status unless they were specifically planning for classified discussions. Your point about having a clearance not being some huge deal is certainly true though.

*Some support service people like janitorial may not be - I don't know, but then those people are escorted by people who are.

I have had several friends go through the interviews to get TS-level clearance. The point of getting a clearance is to get the dirt out on the table, not to find dirt. You can get one with many skeletons, and if you are honest about their presence, nobody minds.

What kind of clearance do you actually need to be a DARPA PI?

None that I'm aware of (or can find on DARPA's site). DARPA might help a PM maintain their clearance if they already have one, but I don't think they require one for new PMs (unless the project directly requires classified information, which of course some do).

@throwawaylol_ is correct. I'm afraid you're mistaken.

I saw your other comment as well, thanks.

(I don’t know why ‘throwawaylol_ is flagged; I vouched for their comment.)

In talks, Mudge has referenced participation in various Pentagon projects that would definitely require a nontrivial clearance.

I'm not doubting so much as asking curiously: I've participated in what I'd guess are fairly sensitive Pentagon projects (commercially, over about a year and a half†) and I've never been cleared for anything.

† None of it involved vulnerability research; this was back in my anti-DDOS days.

Same, except I was directly involved in vulnerability research and mitigation and didn't need clearance. You only need a clearance if you are directly privy to information requiring said clearance.

That would depend on the project, and what aspects of it you might be involved in.

> That doesn't happen without having any skeletons in your closet identified and investigated.

Yup. They would have gone in with a proctoscope, and would not have tossed him an ID card, unless he could completely convince them that he's good for it.

If they are looking for dirt, they won't get it. I assume they are intelligent people, and know that, so maybe they are actually doing what has been suggested; looking for as much accurate information as possible -either way.

NPD is a multibillion-dollar company, because they sell accurate information; not information that people want to hear (how they get that information, well, that's another matter).

> They would have gone in with a proctoscope, and would not have tossed him an ID card, unless he could completely convince them that he's good for it.

Astronauts undergo detailed psyche exams, personality evaluations, and usually have some level of security clearance. And yet..

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak

11 years after getting clearance she committed assault as a jilted/cheated lover and that somehow means they missed something?

How is that relevant to whether someone has a skeleton in the closet when they are getting a background check?

Not only that, but we know fabrications happen and take years to dispel. If a powerful entity wants to ruin your reputation, they can and do not need truth behind them.

It's courageous for him to speak the truth (at least his observations) when they were unwilling to and actively try to undermine it.

> Yup. They would have gone in with a proctoscope, and would not have tossed him an ID card, unless he could completely convince them that he's good for it.

This is a mild overstatement. DARPA doesn't necessarily require clearances for PMs; even if a particular project does, it's not necessarily one that requires the "full-scope" process (meaning polygraph and the rest of the works).

I wound't be surprised if Mudge had to fill out an SF-86, but that's not that invasive as far as background investigations go. It's nearly identical to the process used for Global Entry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com