Hacker News Reader

Comment by TrackerFF | Hacker News Reader

Maybe the US 3-letter agencies are a bit more forgiving, but when I worked in intelligence there were three deadly sins that would make you untouchable as a candidate:

- Drug use

- Financial crimes

- Close ties to hostile countries (China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, North-Korea, etc.)

And at least in my country, it's not the intelligence agencies themselves that handle the security clearance, but rather a dedicated agency/authority that processes all the security clearances in the country.

Now, if you've never been arrested / charged / convicted on the two first points - who would know? I'm 100% some candidates would simply lie.

View on HN

America has recently waved the security clearance process entirely for certain roles, so currently there isn't anything that is disqualifying right now.

Prior to that change, lying in the clearance process was the one thing that was absolutely disqualifying. As you noted candidates are incentivized to lie, and so "did you lie here, where it is likely to benefit you?" becomes an effective screening mechanism for people who are willing to compromise their ethics for personal gain.

US intelligence agencies really only care about your third point directly, everything else they care about only insofar as it can blackmail you or make you beholden to criminal interests.

They don't care if you're gay, but they care if you're closeted. They don't care if you do drugs, but they do care if it's such a problem you could become financially beholden to someone over it.

>They don't care if you do drugs

More accurately, they don’t necessarily care if you did drugs in the past. Current drug use, or very recent drug use is a risk, as addiction is a huge risk for both judgement and susceptibility to blackmail, and even controlled drug use is illegal. Also, being a previous drug addict extremely risky drug use can speak to your current judgement.

Yes you're absolutely right if anything in your past indicates poor judgment or otherwise increases risk you might run into issues.

Making a judgement against someone based on where they randomly happened to be born is self-defeating as talented people who are security- and defense-oriented will just work for another place that you maybe don’t want them to work. Interestingly, most of the news I’ve come across of someone betraying national secrets has almost always concerned a white man, but maybe that’s just what I know.

It's a tricky situation.

If you have connections to a hostile country - family, friends, business, spouse, etc. they can (will) become targets of intel ops.

So your wife is from Russia? GRU or FSB will start to pressure family and friends of your spouse.

Anything that is worth anything to the enemies of your country, they will find a way. Which is why agencies that require top secret security clearance will rather just set the threshold extra high, and lose out on potentially good talent. Better to be safe than sorry.

That's a fair assessment. I will just point out that it's a bit simplistic to believe that ally or friendly countries don't have ideological opponents which could potentially do the same and target people based on ideology. Ideological grievances exist in any society regardless of similarities in country, race or religion. So I agree, that it's a tricky situation.

People often lie yeah. The polygraph has been proven to be pseudoscience and the tactic of we know you're lying about x to get you to spill the beans is common knowledge now.

Heres the DCSA clearance appeals page showing people getting or keeping their clearance from drugs and other issues: https://doha.ogc.osd.mil/Industrial-Security-Program/Industr...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com