Return to Article: Judge rejects request to halt NASA background checks
-
52499
What kind of a"abuse" can come from a security and background check? The only form of abuse I can think of would be to bring to light activities that the person is trying to hide. I don't think the government will see a scientist's purchase of ladies underwear and a riding crop as a security risk.An embarrassment to the objector maybe? I believe anyone that has a problem with this is definately hiding something they don't want anyone else to know about. Be it a bonified security risk or just plain "extraordinary" behaviour. The choice is plain and simple. Either buck up and sign or move on. No one is asking for your permission to do the checks. It's required to remain employed at your lucrative, tax payer funded cake walk. I as a tax payer am requiring it from you as part of your further employment in MY agency.
-
34633
The real issue here is to ID why their existing government background checks are now deemed insufficient. The goal should be to fix the problem at the source; not to add another layer of steps, time, expense, and work.
-
34607
To jplr: Are you one of the people who failed American History? The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was written to prohibit the continual violation of property rights by British administrators and soldiers! Correct me if necessary, but I don't think that privacy was a much debated topic at the Constitutional Convention, over 231 years ago! No arrogant scientists should be exempt from a sensible, well structured security check. Misuse can be corrected, sensitive info. flying out of the USA must be stopped.
-
34542
No one would object to background checks for basic security. The problem is the way they are being implemented and the lack of an assurance against abuse. The "one size fits all" scheme will fail to achieve its presumed security objectives for many reasons, one being that the cards allow a user to access any federal building, whereas currently employees have little need to access buildings other than their own. One of the contractors hired at Johnson Space Center, Choicepoint, was already previously caught selling the personal data it collected. The FBI criminal database has been wrongly used to curtail freedoms and implicate innocent people. Also, a previous JPL head was once targeted by McCarthyism and had to take a job in Paris, which is why JPL employees are especially vigilant. So, what is objectionable is not the idea of enhanced security but rather that the mistrust that this implementation of HSPD-12 has been poorly devised, will not achieve its security objectives, is being conducted by people of questionable character themselves, and balloons government costs and bureaucracy, collecting an unnecessary amount of private data on law-abiding citizens, when that money could be used much more constructively elsewhere. By the way, anyone currently working on projects with relevance to national security already has to have an extra security clearance; it's silly to add that scrutiny to someone who is looking at planetary formation or fish counts. It would not be objectionable to add extra security to access to federal employees' social security numbers. The system of security checks COMMENSURATE WITH THE LEVEL NEEDED makes much more sense and is more cost-effective. Multiply 4 million federal employees plus contractors times $75 per SmartCard reader plus database maintenance, helpdesk personnel, a minimum of $300 for entry door technology, etc., and you realize this is a rather poor use of resources to combat terrorism in the wrong place.
-
34540
No one would object to background checks for basic security. The problem is the way they are being implemented and the lack of an assurance against abuse. The "one size fits all" scheme will fail to achieve its presumed security objectives for many reasons, one being that the cards allow a user to access any federal building, whereas currently employees have little need to access buildings other than their own. One of the contractors hired at Johnson Space Center, Choicepoint, was already previously caught selling the personal data it collected. The FBI criminal database has been wrongly used to curtail freedoms and implicate innocent people. Also, a previous JPL head was once targeted by McCarthyism and had to take a job in Paris, which is why JPL employees are especially vigilant. So, what is objectionable is not the idea of enhanced security but rather that the mistrust that this implementation of HSPD-12 has been poorly devised, will not achieve its security objectives, is being conducted by people of questionable character themsevles, and balloons government costs bureaucracy collecting an unnecessary amount of private data on law-abiding citizens, when that money could used much more constructively elsewhere. By the way, anyone currently working on projects with relevance to national security already has to have an extra security clearance; it's silly to add that scrutiny to someone who is looking at planetary formation or fish counts. The system of security checks COMMENSURATE WITH THE LEVEL NEEDED makes much more sense and is more cost-effective. Multiply 4 million federal employees plus contractors times $75 per SmartCard reader plus database maintenance, helpdesk personnel, entry door technology, etc., and you realize this is a rather poor use of resources to combat terrorism in the wrong place.
-
34526
For those Prima Donnas who say 40 years of employment is enough to verify their character I have one name for you to remember: Robert Hansen. Almost retired after 20+ years; never took a Polygraph with the FBI; etc, etc, etc. I say give'em Poly's and then watch them cry to the ACLU !
-
34522
Over 97% of us work in non-sensitive positions. We do not object to them for employees in sensitive and public trust positions. The background checks are over-reaching for what the majority of us do and a huge waste of taxpayer money. They target long-standing employees and ignore temporary workers, visitors and foreign nationals. It's stunning that you all are so willing to sacrifice freedom for "security". This country is no longer "free" when you have to give up your 4th amendment rights in order to keep your job. Remind me who it is who "hates our freedoms"?
-
34520
I've been working for the AF for 15 yrs now and when I first was hired, I was fingerprinted and background checked before they could give me a clearance of any kind. Also, the background checks are done from time to time as long as you are working for the DoD. Ret Col Moorhouse is right, it makes me wonder what the individuals are hiding (if anything). Also, if I were working with the folks complaining and they were on narcotics they are not only endangering themselves, but fellow workers and customers. If the items they are working on made it to their customer and then fell apart for some reason while in use the customer would be asking why it happened. Safety is a top issue around here whether you are a office worker or mechanic and our mechanics are checked (Civ and Mil alike) for drugs all the time.
-
34519
What I don't understand is what category these scientists fall into. A full background investigation is quite expensive, and is reserved for those whose job duties are the most sensitive. NASA engineers do not regularly do classified work, though the do some, and those who now do the classified work are already subject to BIs (Background Investigations). Run-of-the-mill scientist types should, I think, get at most LBIs (limited BIs), or NACIs (National Agency Checks with Inquiries), which it sounds like they already get. What it sounds to me like is that NASA management was too slothful to carefully categorize their employees, and intends to spend a big bag of our money running checks that are not needed for the mid-sensitive types described here.
I understand that the original order included janitors and maintenance employees as well, which is an even more egregious waste of taxpayer money.
So, from the press reports, it looks like NASA has decided that every employee is a high-sensitivity employee, and they're ready to spend something like $12-15K dollars on each one. What the court has ruled is that NASA, if they want, can do this. What the scientists wanted was someone to say, "It's a lousy idea," but the law can't really determine that, alas.
PS: And the part about the 1950s language in the justification is the truth. The whole legal framework for all the security investigation apparatus is to keep the Reds from under our beds. 'Struth!
-
34513
Almost every month you can read about a Scientist selling secrets to another less than friendly foregin government. Are these same scienmtists now complaining that they are beyond questionable character? Liberalism shold not have a place with National Security and character fortitude & stability.
-
34502
What took them so long? Why do these self-important scientists/technicians feel that they are more important than other federal employees? Privacy is not an absolute concept, and, it's been about 231 years since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written. Use a computer at home or work, forget privacy. How about a cellphone, PDA, etc. You can't have technotoys and expect the same level of privacy enjoyed by our techno-challenged ancestors, get use to it.
-
34489
All Feds and contractors are subject to inital and recurring security checks of varying complexity. These prima donnas are another embarrassing example of the pampered Federal workforce.
-
34484
They are no more special than the rest of us feds. If they are, then they definitely need background checks, maybe more extensive ones!!
-
34476
When you work in a sesitive position, your employer has the right to check your bacground. It makes me suspicious when someone complains as loudly as this group is complaining.
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.