"It's true that you must be a U.S. citizen, and you'll need a security clearance that requires a background investigation and polygraph. But ... If you have a few, shall we say, indiscretions in your past, don't be alarmed. You shouldn't automatically assume you won't be hired. If you're really interested, you owe it to yourself to give it a shot."
What that means is that if you've been convicted of something you should point that out. If it's serious, like assault, you're out. If it's not serious, like exceeding the speed limit, and you didn't mention it, you're out.
Current circumstances are about trying to uncover anything that might be used as leverage against you. So having excessive debt means you're out. Being gay is absolutely ok, but keeping it a secret from your parents is not.
All techniques, from completing the application form to polygraph and interviews are about finding the chinks.
i've seen some examples that suggest it might not be as cut-and-dry as that. i don't have the url handy, but some time ago someone in one of this discussions linked to a publicly-accessible record of clearance decisions. the one that jumped out at me had a guy who'd been a drug addict and involved in dealing in the past--he was clean now and fully informed them about it during the screening, and was approved.
You know, they are only referring to smoking pot once or twice, right? Admit to running a small botnet or monitoring GSM calls and I'm sure your 2nd interview will be with the FBI .. not for a job.
This whole NSA/DEFCON relationship smells funny. I've lost a lot of respect for DEFCON.
I just assumed that they're trying to lure blackhats into submitting incriminating resumes.
I bet it'll work too.
I can confirm this. Though, to be realistic, I haven't encountered any conference or local 2600-type meeting that hadn't been pwned by government representatives. What I haven't seen is the active promotion of the very agencies that are working hard to put meeting attendees in jail.
Are they still serious about doing the polygraph dance? Even after all these years with questionable results and even the Supreme Court rejecting it as neutral evidence. I guess they are starting pretty early in making employees believe into made-up Security Theater mechanisms.
If you're easily rattled, even if telling the truth, the poly weeds that out.
You tout that as a "good thing" -- you've proven you can tell lies, come join our team.
What kind of people do you end up with in the end then? -- yes people who are tough, but also psychopaths, people who can lie well and can then easily turn on you and sell that $150M spying project to someone else for $50k.
Transparency and trust is the most important thing here, not your history (in the non-extreme cases).
So willing applicants, don't let your history prevent you from trying.
EDIT: to clarify, the main reason it's being done is because one of the main actual real-life-no-movies-plot threat for such agencies is that someone will find something in your past they don't know about and will blackmail you for confidential information. It's ALL in their interest not to disclose your past shady activities as that will deter recruits from being frank with them, supplying blackmail potential to adversaries. Judge on your own, but if you were my friend I would advice you not to be afraid to fully comply with the screenings as you'll just do harm to you and your country.
For example, weed. If they want to prevent enemies from blackmailing their employees for past weed use. They should come out and say we don't care how much weed you smoke, we're not going to drug test you now or ever, we just don't care what you do in your free time.
The fact that they polygraph & question you to find the exact # of times you have done drugs in the past opens the door to blackmail situations.
Polygraphs are not perfect, I'm sure some people that work for the NSA claimed no drug use on the application when that was not the case or claimed to have done it a handful of times when they really did it a lot more. Now an enemy could blackmail those people because they would be afraid of losing their jobs if the truth came out.
As I said, I don't know the specifics of the NSA (maybe they do or do not care about future light drug use) but I would expect them not wanting you to continue any illegal activities, to a reasonable degree (continue stealing the office toilet paper if it gives you kicks).
Unless you're some sort of a world-level genius they would probably also shy away from evident extreme sociopathic behavior. From a reasonable human resources angle, not just security. Most of us wouldn't want to work with someone who released a worm that specifically targets thesis drafts for example.
ANOTHER EDIT: I really think the #1 concern for applicable defcon recruits is "computer crimes", not drug use. Found/tested exploits? Use bittorrent? Cracked WinRAR (and hopefully something else that is more than simply changing a je to jne)? don't be afraid to send a CV and be honest. That is all.
The threat is that a foreign nation will take over a DEA field office and blackmail you. "We can overlook the pot this time if you cooperate and wear this wire. Don't cooperate and we'll do an asset forfeiture on your house and report your kids to CPS for being homeless." In a few months you'll be doing dead drops for a Chinese handler and thinking you are doing the right thing for family and country.
It is not about drugs but the abject corruption of the War on Drugs.
Polygraph interviews are not anout ferreting out all secrets, they are about finding how hard it is to get secrets out of you.
Discovery of a "Potential to coercion" is the main objective of a poly. If it's all on the table, there'd not much that can be used against you.
WTF?
What security expert would want to work at a place that takes seriously crackpot bullshit like polygraphs?