That's what would make sense for a nation with due process, but it does lead to increased risk of leaks from people with no obvious red flags that come up during the background check or in-person interviews.
Generally IMO the security clearance process is not up to the task in a world with more than one threat. It worked ok against USSR when we largely could use full spectrum of information AND could assume most people without black marks were anti-USSR (due to existential threat from nuclear weapons and essentially an undeclared state of war).
Doesn't work so well now when 1) IC really had no mission in the 1990s and 2) IC today is grossly oversized and overresourced for the anti-Islamism mission. The "anti-China, anti-Russia" stuff is much more like a real peacetime intelligence service, i.e. the <<500 people we had before WW2.
(Obviously USG does a better job in certain areas; generally I'd say most military facilities do a decent job on most physical security.)
I still think the article makes a good point though, you just don't know who the hell has access to your data unless you keep it on your own servers or host the data in a country with extremely transparent privacy and law enforcement governance.