Return to Article: NASA researchers balk at background checks
-
33411
I have been watching the bi-weekly inert protests at the entry points to JPL for a couple of months now. The catalysts pursue an antiquated approach that is about as dated as their birkenstocks. The 1960's poster/handout initiative faded with with their hair color. They imply they are brilliant-but then claim to be elderly, unemployable, and in need of comprehensive medical coverage. There is a technical writer among the group who missed some obvious errors in the lawsuit's opening statement /intent/diatribe. I am simply sugguesting you bring your message into the new century. Use U-tube or Myspace as your communication & emphathy forum. A spoof of the "Leave Brittney(inset JPL) Alone" video could ellicit the mainstream recognition you badly need. A stodgy and plodding lawsuit is a little too late.
-
33013
V.H.F. states, "I have had security checks for years for USN special weapons security, law enforcement etc. ... Get over it. You're no better thay anyone else."
We don't think we are better than anyone else, and we certainly agree that anyone working with law enforcement, weapons, security, etc. should have a background check. It's just that we are not working on any of that kind of thing, or anything else that NASA or the federal government classifies as sensitive. It makes no sense for NASA to spend $112 - 160 million on background checks for people that do not work with sensitive information. We could launch a whole new mission for that much.
-
32779
Maybe its time for Congress to force NASA to put the JPL contract out for competitve bid, just like DOE had to do for its contractor run labs (Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley, etc). Why does CalTech get an exclusive right to running this federal facility?
-
32379
I have had security checks for years for USN special weapons security, law enforcement etc. for 45 or more and still have one every year by the sheriff's Office. As one of volunteers.
Get over it. You're no better thay anyone else.
-
32364
I am a USDA employee for nearly 20 years and a federal employee for 25. I work in an office doing nonsensitive applied research and product dissemination. We were hit by this same background check thing about a year ago. At first, we all were supposed to provide all of this extensive personal information (including lists of friends, credit cards, etc.), but fortunately, many of us had our positions re-declared "low risk", so we didn't have to do much. I really resent the sudden background checks on employees who have performed their jobs with integrity for many years. Why all of a sudden do we need to be checked now? Also, I would like to ask those of you who see no problem with these invasive checks, why do you trust the government with this highly personal information? My sentiments are entirely with these JPL / CalTech people. This kind of detailed personal information is none of the government's business.
-
32318
What right to privacy? People who apply for low-end jobs at some private companies go for drug tests. THAT'S ridiculous! Where exactly in the Bill of Rights and/or Constitution is the "right" to privacy addressed? Rights in America are defined in writing, laws specifically, anything else is merely opinion. Fact: there have been Chinese scientists who have compromised our national security, why are we going back to 1776?
-
32301
Unbelievable in the international field basic science in a supposedly free country. But it is a bit promising that 30 scientists now stand up. I wish them the best!
-
32299
Sure are a lot of un-American posters here. I suppose you all think, err... believe that only the guilty squirm. What's the big secret at JPL anyway, were the moon landings faked or something? Anyway, this is nothing more than another way to control people, period. Me,I like my freedom and don't understand why so many people are so willing to exchange freedom for security.
If you are that scared, get out of America as this is the land of the free and the home of the brave - you have no place here.
-
32284
Well, these people are working for the Government as Contractor for NASA (& High-Paid too). I say either get with the program....or get another program. From another Government employee....welcome to the world of working for the Government...so, if you don't like it....get another job. I'm sure we will not have much of a problem filling the high-paid position, especially with the NASA personnel down-sizing.
-
32270
While background checks and clearances are valid and necessary, what's been happening over the past five years has gone well beyond that. I'm a DoD employee for 27 years, and have been investigated for clearances a number of times over the years. And let me tell you, what's been going on recently does extend to the point of an invasion of privacy. Just to use the "newer" systems, the forms ran to up to 8 pages and covered everything from my childhood to my friends to my medical history. And some things really are NOT the government's business.
-
32269
This is crazy! These guys work on scientific programs, not secret or security programs. They design and build scientific unmanned interplanetary spacecraft. The government mandates that they publish and share all their discoveries and findings. If security is desired, run the UPS that delivery packages to JPL and construction workers at the facility through the process, not the scientists and engineers that have proven themselves since the launch of America's first satellite over 50 years ago.
Federal Computer Week estimates that up to 10 Million federal employees will be targeted by HSPD12. At the conservative cost of $350 per employee (more if the employee has be devoiced or too many traffic tickets or a member of AA) then the cost for the program will be over 3.5 Billion. Has a cost benefit analysis been performed?
Can anyone feel that this is money well spent?
-
32263
This is not "standard security stuff." None of the 28 plaintiffs in the case work on sensitive projects or in sensitive areas. They study things like Martian geology and formation of black holes. They publish all the research they do. They do not need a "security clearance" and this background investigation doesn't give them one. It's a background investigation for no reason, that is being required of all scientists, engineers, cafeteria workers, landscapers, and everyone else who is a government contractor. And NASA is paying $112 to 160 million to do it.
-
32260
My guess is that this is standard Secret security clearance stuff. Do I want a scientist working for the US Government with at least a Secret security clearance? Yes, I do. If they're involved with programs above the Secret level, let them pass the security clearance tests as I did for forty plus years.
-
32254
Trust but verify. Nothing wrong with requiring backgorund checks. In fact they should be a condition of employment for all goverment employees specially those working for DOD. Like a driving record is checked before issuing a license a background check should be conducted before granting someone a job.
-
32249
A reasonable background check is prudent and reasonable for all employees, regardless of whether they work in the private or public sector. However, background investigations without clearly defined limits are not. Let the courts decide this issue . . . and in the mean time perhaps we need to remind ourselves that if we ASSUME that American citizens are potential enemies of America until proven otherwise, we should seriously question just what it is that we are supposedly defending.
-
32248
I am with the NASA employees. I too, work for DoD (almost 30 years) and yes there needs to be some checks and inquiries...but to go as far as researching a person's entire personal life, come on...where does the Privacy act come into play here? Throw the HIPPA act out the window if my supervisor can ask for all my medical records!!! Then you find out DoD has hired felons, ex convicts, etc. so give me a break..This Homeland Security stuff is nothing more than an extension of NSPS and allows management to pick out people who have some record they don't like...there needs to be standards...go back to the 5CFR regulations...
-
32242
What scandals at JPL and Caltech? There haven't been any for a long, long time. Also, the employees at JPL do NOT work on "national security information". 95% of the work is unclassified - indeed, since we are a taxpayer-funded research organization, JPL/NASA is REQUIRED to make its research available to the public! It's also a little strange that the DoD, which really *does* work on weapons and classified material, isn't implementing this extremely invasive type of background investigation. If a local badge is good enough for DoD/DoE, why not NASA?
For the record, I used to hold a US Secret clearance, so I have no doubt that I could pass their clearance - but why should I? I don't work on classified projects anymore. And just so you know, poor health, writing a bad check, traffic tickets, and "carnal knowledge" are on the list of reasons why your clearance can be denied. This is an unreasonable violation of the Constitution, and it sure as hell won't make this country any safer.
-
32241
Caltech/JPL researchers should stop whining. ALL NASA contractors are going through the same background checks. Why do they think they should be treated differently than all the rest? ALL the civil servants are subjected to these checks and more ...
-
32231
As a long time employee of NASA who is now retired I fully understand the need for maintaining security at NASA funded sites. These sites are critical to the nation and anyone with access, scientist or janitor, has the potential ability to disrupt work critical to this nation. Those who do not want to work at these sites should either submit to background evaluations or put their badges on the table. If those who work in our airports submit to background checks, those who work in our other critical infrastructures should.
-
32219
Just because a person doesn't have anything to hide doesn't mean that they should allow their civil liberties to be torn to shreds. I do think that security investigations need to be done on employees who are in critical or sensitive positions, which include these scientists. But we as a people have to be vigilantly protect ourselves or else we end up in an Orwellian society from which we may never return.
-
32218
In this day and age I want to ensure that anyone working on government sponsored research or projects is trustworthy. If it offends you that someone may inquire into your background then maybe you should find employment where no one cares about or questions your reliability, honesty, or trustworthiness.
-
32211
When I first applied for my job as a Secretary, I had a background check done as well as fingerprinted by the AF. All Civilian's working for the DoD at this base need this to be done. I'm sure some private companies do background checks as well when they are hiring new employee's. If you know your work/job and do it that's all anyone asks of you. Some jobs as NASA may be on a Secret clearance level (mine is) and that is why they need to get checked (that's why I was).
-
32195
Require compliance or terminate these primadonnas. None are irreplaceable. Subj. background check is a routine requirement for DoD scientist and engineering civilian employees. Considering the current and projected world situation, requiring a background check of these personnel is necessary and reasonable.
-
32192
I think if they want the job and have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a problem. If they have something in their background that they need to hide maybe they shouldn't be working for the government.
-
32189
I would like to remind NASA spokesman David Mould, and particularly those he represents, that just because the NASA requirements reflect simular policies and procedures "being implemented by all other federal departments and agencies" doesn't necessarily make them right or just.
-
32184
You don't have a 'right' to your job. With all the scandals that have rocked JPL and CalTech's oversight, I as a citizen want to make sure the employees' have no incentive or risk for bribery, extortion or other means to extract national security information. I have had to pass a security clearance for a much less senstivie post. So shut up, quit whining, and do your job!
-
32165
David Mould's comment, as reported, is not correct. Many agencies have policies quite different from NASA's. JPL is NASA's only FFRDC (Google it), but DoE and NSF each have many. Workers at those research centers are similarly contractors employed by a university or other non-profit; DoE and NSF are not imposing the new ID requirements on those people. (Upon request, I'll supply links to documents giving the policies of those agencies.)
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.