Posted on 01/13/2008 1:01:46 PM PST by Haddit
“If they want to investigate them, I don’t see why they don’t just go ahead and do it. Why ask permission?”
Because ALL BIs, SBIs, etc begin with a detailed statement by the employee of who/what/when/where he’s been.
TC
30 or so years ago, I was in a band that was hired to play a gig for the employees of the Atomic Plant located in Southern Ohio.(they made fuel rods and such) Every One in the band including the roadies had to sign a document allowing the government to run a background check.
Whether they actually did so I have no idea.
Suits were strange in the town I grew up in let alone showing an FBI badge and asking questions about someone.
Sorry, but that reasoning is stupid. I have held high level security clearances and I loathed the security checks. Having FBI agents go talk to my old teachers and friends as well as myself having to undergo polygraphs and getting grilled by investigators is not my idea of a fun time. How many times to I have to respond that I'm not a member of the Nazi party or any other group that wants to violently overthrow the US government! Sheesh! And then you have to do the paperwork. I would rather be punched in the face that have to deal with all of the paperwork and associated briefings and training sessions.
Security clearances suck. If you don't realize that then it is only because you have forgotten.
“Sorry, but that reasoning is stupid. I have held high level security clearances and I loathed the security check”
So did I, but I didn’t sue over it. Employers have the right to change things. Employee theft and vandalism is the leading cause of loss in computer security incidents. Places like JPL use a lot of computers.
“How many times to I have to respond that I’m not a member of the Nazi party or any other group that wants to violently overthrow the US government! Sheesh!”
Ahh so lets just let anyone in the door and don’t do any checks.
“I would rather be punched in the face that have to deal with all of the paperwork and associated briefings and training sessions.”
Were you getting paid for that time? If not then you have a gripe otherwise find a new job or suck it up.
“Security clearances suck. If you don’t realize that then it is only because you have forgotten.”
I think they are great. They make it a little harder for people to steal our technology or our personal information. Sheesh you have to be elected President to sell classified info now.
It's the equivalent of saying that, because the University of California has secret defense contracts pertaining to nuclear weapons, all UC employees everywhere, including lefty professors teaching women's studies, undergraduate students in work-study programs, etc., must provide the government with complete information on their entire past, including every bank account they've ever had, every employer they've ever had, every health practitioner they've ever consulted, all their medical records, whether they've ever had an abortion, a sexually transmitted disease, ever seen a mental health practitioner and for what, identify all their relatives and their relative's employers, etc., as a condition of continuing to work for UC.
Since you pay taxes to the federal government, is it entitled to the same information about you?
At some point the government's demand for information goes over the line. Here I agree it went over the line. Check my pings. I'm a hawk. The government's position here is plain ridiculous.
No. It is not. There isn’t a position at JPL that doesn’t pertain to national security. End of story. And as for me being a tax payer as if that matters, please.
Accountants, housekeeping, clerical workers... lots of people see information or can come across information that is proprietary and even of an occasional national security nature.
Why can’t you understand that?
It is also possible for them to sneak in materials to do harm to personel and plant services.
Our government has every right to make sure these folks are checked out thoroughly.
I’m the last guy to call for IDs on a normal basis, but these are jobs on a very important campus.
Do you think the public should be able to walk on campus and walk around anywhere they like at JPL without being checked out? Then why would you want employees to be able to?
There are piles of cases going back 50+ years on what hoops the feds have to jump through to justify getting what information. Here they plain screwed up by over-reaching.
I never thought I'd agree with the 9th Circuit on a national security case, but there is a first time for everything and this is it for me here.
I disagree with you but it really doesn’t make any difference. If you are stupid enough to not agree with the security screening you simply will be limited in your job scope and may not have a job for long. I have interviewed at JPL and they tell you up front that a security check is required. The fact of the matter is that the 9th circuit has an agenda and it is not for us citizens.
If there is a possibility they will come into contact with sensitive information in their normal day to day job related activities then this is perfectly in order. Any that don’t agree may simply leave their job and seek employment elsewhere.
The feds argued that they didn’t have to prove this, and so lost. Airport security logic does not cut it to a judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.