[flagged]
I mean, we already found a few skeletons
>The security clearance process is long and is a joke imo.
Don't fully agree, but it is indeed overly long. But as is the theme of this Musk adminsitration; Just because you think something is bad or inefficient doesnt'r give you safeway to skip over it entirely. These last 2 weeks are proving the importannce of clearance more than anything else has over decades.
>A lot of bad apples pass.
This isn't even an apple at this point. You're letting a skunk rummage through the entire barrel unaccounted for.
Yes, I actually heard paid professional news anchors describe that tweet that way.
Felonies shouldn't disqualify you from employment for the rest of your life, and neither should association with the seedy underbelly of society.
2. For stuff as sensitive as this it makes sense to be extremely cautious. Doesn't mean the process is perfect, but we're seeing in real time what happens if you skip it.
2) Assuming that this is what's actually going on, this is far from the first time that the State Department has been strongarmed into providing a security clearance to a buddy of a President who has been appointed to a government position. The world didn't end any of those times, and it won't end this time, either.
2. We are in unprecedented times. And honor is clearly thrown out the window. Pretty much every day of the last few weeks would make Watergate look like a slow news day. So no, I'm not reassured at all. Especially since this is software and many, many long term things can occur well past the news cycle. It could be "leaked", sold to foreign actors, simply messed with which will cause someone (which is statistically not us individually) a crisis, or simply slow down payments when they inevitably have to unmuck everything. It will cause damage, that's not really up for debate. Just because is doesn't affect me directly doesn't mean I'm not worried.
Btw, fwiw I'm pretty sure Trump already stalled one of my interviews indirectly. So it also is personal.
Nice.
> I do believe you should not have clearance to any sensitive documents if you don't have a clean record.
Thankfully, the State Department disagrees with you.
> 2. We are in unprecedented times.
a) This is always true (which is is).
and/or
b) You need to stop listening to the news, man. For this president, you're going to see 24/7 rage-bait from the major news sources. (Will this president do some absolute dogshit stuff that should be illegal? Absolutely. But so have scores of presidents before him, and (these days) each one gets a different treatment from the press.)
If I'm being frank, I feel you're not acting in good enough faith for me to delve into question that tangential. I choose to stay on topic in why I don't trust this person in this position.
If you would like knowledge, approach with curiosity and not as an interrogation.
>Thankfully, the State Department disagrees with you.
Okay, I'll give it 2 months. IANAL, I'll let them decide on this. Lawsuits are already out there.
>You need to stop listening to the news, man.
I'll stay informed, thanks. The only social media accounts I have is this HN one and a LinkedIn, begrudgingly. And I sure as hell will not comment about politics on my resume.
I don't say "we're in unprecedented times" lightly. I know you don't know me, but I'm extremely put off by hyperbole these days. But I've read about the issue to understand that this is a dangerous situation I should at least keep tabs on. If you don't feel the same, thst is fine. Everyone has their own priorities. But please respect mine if you don't have an actual conversation to engage with. I deleted reddit years ago for a reason.
> Okay, I'll give it 2 months.
I personally know of many people who have committed Federal felonies and were granted a TS/SCI clearance. [0] Where else did you think FedGov got many of its computer security folks? (Or -hell- just plain old computer programmers?) The evaluation criteria is your willingness and ability to follow the rules that matter and keep secrets both now and for the foreseeable future.
> If you would like knowledge, approach with curiosity and not as an interrogation.
Let's review. I said:
> Felonies shouldn't disqualify you from employment for the rest of your life...
You said:
> 1. depends on the "felony"
I asked:
> 1) What felonies do you believe should disqualify you from working to earn a living for the rest of your natural life once you've served your time in prison?
You replied:
> Hard question to answer.
It takes more than just saying the words that indicate you're taking the high road to take the high road.
[0] You are aware that smoking pot is a Federal felony? And that lying about smoking pot will almost certainly result in your clearance application to be rejected? Care to take a guess at what percentage of programmers with DoD security clearances have never smoked pot or illegally consumed any other Federally-controlled scheduled substance?