←
→
purplecthulhu: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry

Seems NASA isn't for me

posted by [personal profile] purplecthulhu at 08:19am on 31/08/2007
Another reason not to work for NASA. Seems that incredibly intrusive background checks are being required, at least at JPL, even though nothing classified is involved.
Mood:: 'angry' angry
←
→
There are 6 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] major-clanger.livejournal.com at 08:28am on 31/08/2007
This sound grossly excessive. The sort of checks described are similar in scope to those the UK government requires for Developed Vetting clearance (what used to be termed Positive Vetting), and that is only mandated for people who needed frequent unsupervised access to Top Secret material.

If nothing else, such security checks are very expensive; I heard it suggested that a DV cost £10k or so to process. I wonder who is footing the bill for this?
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] purplecthulhu.livejournal.com at 09:34am on 31/08/2007
Yes - PV is what I was reminded of when I read the details. Though I didn't think PV/DV gave them carte blanche to finger through your medical and financial records...

Good point about expense. I expect the costs are being picked up by NASA - so it's another reason why space budgets are falling.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] major-clanger.livejournal.com at 10:34am on 31/08/2007
As I recall, DV meant that you had to disclose your financial records and account for any unusual cash flows or assets/debts. For medical records, the vetting agency wrote to your doctor and asked if - without disclosing details - there was anything in your history that would make it inappropriate to grant clearance. (I don't know for sure what the factors are, but I would imagine drug abuse or serious or ongoing mental health problems would be high risks.)
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] purplecthulhu.livejournal.com at 10:51am on 31/08/2007
At least they're still respecting medical confidentiality at some level, something that Homeland Security and, increasingly the Home Office, don't seem to care about.
[link] [parent] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] hopeforyou.livejournal.com at 06:23pm on 31/08/2007
I got hired after 9/11, and I had to fill out a form stating my past residences for the past decade, my employment history including company contact information, and references.

I'm wondering if this IS just JPL, for whatever reason... I don't remember having to fill anything else out -- nor was I required to update a database -- even when I came back to Ames in 2006 for meetings around a technical paper I was working on as a contractor. I had a limited-time badge that was temporary and was allowed to come in and out of buildings unescorted during regular business hours.

Reading that article, I am angry, too... They want to check people's financial and medical records -- AS WELL AS THEIR SEX LIVES??? -- for public domain, no-security-clearance-required jobs? I don't understand, and I think that's a violation of privacy.
[link] [reply]
 

(no subject)

posted by [identity profile] purplecthulhu.livejournal.com at 06:43pm on 31/08/2007
According to the article this is something that started with a federal decree in 2004, and will come into full force, with those who don't submit being terminated, at the end of october this year. So it would see you dodged this particular bullet.

And yes, it is a violation of privacy. But these people don't believe in privacy. As we're frequently told over here, in relation to ID cards, 'those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear'. Yeah right...
[link] [parent] [reply]

December

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
 2
 
 3
 
 4
 
 5
 
 6
 
7
 
 8
 
 9
 
 10
 
 11
 
 12
 
 13
 
14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
1
 19
 
 20
 
21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
28
 
 29
 
 30
 
 31