National Security Clearance is hyperbole. Security clearance is more accurate.
A security clearance is somewhat difficult to get and not especially hard to keep (Snowden). However, having a clearance then opens you up to an entire industry. During tough times (2008) that means jobs will be available:
The background checks are thorough. We've had many in the family (definitely not me), my dad, two of my brothers, two uncles, my ex-girlfriend, brother in law, .... And then we get listed as personal references which is a real pain. A drug conviction will not blackball you but then you have to be completely honest as they will find out and that will blackball you. Debt is a biggie.
As for the article, I think the inferences people are making are reasonable. Also, given Facebook's scope that they need people with clearances seems reasonable.
Depending on the level of clearance, the difficulty is mostly in the cost. TS can be $50K+ in direct costs and take a year+ where you have to pay that salary (so maybe $125k that a sponsor/company has to front before work begins). In Right to Work states, this is really crazy, as that clearance goes with the person not the employer, and they can leave for better pay the second they get it.
Also, if you get one, you'll work with a lot of Mormons. They are squeaky clean, have great language skills, and know their way around 3-rd world countries.
What do you need a clearance for? Ideally, you are trying to get higher systems level information about security threats, balance points, environmental factors, groups that have been identified... If you have no use for the higher level information in your field then why even go for one? It's a stressful thing to keep, it's a really heavy responsibility, the consequences of betraying the clearance are devastating, and the whole point is that precious information is compartmentalized.
Being a libertarian will not disqualify you. There are specific questions about advocating for the violent overthrow of the US government, though. If you have done that, or have been associated with or are known to be sympathetic to people that have done that, that's grounds for disqualification for sure. But the acts that you or they did or were planning to do have to be illegal; just expressing a general political view is not disqualifying, at least for civilian jobs.
That said: getting a clearance is hugely expensive. It's not a thing you apply for. You apply for a job that requires one, and if you don't have one already, your employer gets you cleared on your behalf (if they're willing to foot the bill; if not, they only be looking to hire people who are already cleared). It's not something you can really do for fun, and in general you'd have to have accepted the kind of job that I would imagine someone with your views might not actually want.
My understanding is that there are a lot of cranks who argue with interviewers and then get declined for a clearance, which is pretty much what you'd expect.
You don't want to apply - all you will accomplish is drawing attention to yourself from an organization that you seemingly want nothing to do with. If you're not on "a list" now - you will be afterwards.
Out of curiosity, is past drug use considered an automatic disqualification? I've never been convicted of literally anything, my record is 100% clean. But let's just say college was a very experimental period of time. I'm interested in getting a security clearance but that's the only major red flag I see that could count against me.
Selling is an automatic disqualifier (as you showed you are willing to commit a crime for money).
Past usage is not an automatic disqualifier, and shouldn't be a problem if it was years ago. Lying is an automatic disqualifier, if you get caught (and perjury if they decide to pursue).
However, it is of my opinion that you should only selectively share information, and only the information that they are likely to learn in background checks.
I had a security clearance about a decade ago, and know many others who received them and other who were denied. The ones who were completely honest were denied. However, this was also immediately after college, so there wasn't ten years of clean living in between. (This circle of friends also experimented with pretty much every substance available during college.)
Getting cleared to CONFIDENTIAL is easy. SECRET involves a background check and filling out the SF-86 form [2].
In some ways, the higher clearances (TOP SECRET, SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION) are easier. It's not a checklist thing at the higher levels. You get to discuss problems. There are long interviews, lie detector tests, checks of original records, and interviews of people in your past. The FBI used to do this work, but I think it's outsourced now. The current processing time for a TS clearance is about a year.
(It's been decades since I was in that world, but I've held clearances.)
Any suggestions for looking for jobs that one can use to obtain a TS clearance (with a tech background)? Always looking to stay as marketable as possible for lean times.
They care about leverage. Does it matter to you that nobody knows you did/do drugs? Then you are at risk of someone using that as leverage against you.
Yup. Increased potential for addictions like gambling, spending, sex, ideology, drugs or gossip makes someone a liability. A health-nut, teetotaler, nerdy dude (or dudette) uninterested in sex, doesn’t talk much and able to resist and report manipulation or pressure would be ideal. (“Boring is beautiful.”)
They look for patterns of behavior. Specifically how recent your negative behavior patterns are. Drug user 5 years ago but have been clean (without any indication otherwise) so long as there are no other negatives (debt beyond your means, domestic violence, etc) you’ll be fine. The more negative behaviors you’ve maintained, the more in the past it has to be.
No, it is not an automatically disqualifying factor. However if you do not disclose in full, or they find something that doesn't match what you've disclosed, _that_ will disqualify you.
Exactly. You must be 100% honest and forthright with your experimenting, and then it will be no problem. I was cautioned once "you'd better report it in the beginning, because they/we will find out" but it did not seem like a disqualifying factor at all, just something to know about. Maybe someone who went that direction in life and does recruiting or screening can helpfully chime in with a throwaway account.
Admitting to some drug use is almost an asset. I don't drink. It's been more than 10 years since I even had a glass of wine. But such answers on a background check make you look like a recovering addict, which I am not. During my recent checks my references weren't asked about my reliability, only my "alcohol use". The investigators were obviously trying to see if I had lied about my not drinking. I would have been screwed had one of my references made a mistake, for example if they saw me carrying a glass at a party and erroneously assumed it was mine. Luckily that didn't happen. But had I instead lied and said that I drank a sixpack every weekend the investigators wouldn't have even bothered to check.
Nah... Just disclose it. I've done all the drugs. Well, many. Some of them in large quantities. Just be honest about it. They are going to find out and DQ you if you lie.
There are few things that automatically DQ you, for which you can't get a waiver - I guess, I never needed a waiver. Just admit all your drugs, whoring, improprieties, and deviant thoughts. They've seen worse.
Of course, admitting that means they leave you in a DB for years, keep the DB online, let it get breached, and then give you credit monitoring and a form letter.
It's all about leverage. If your drug use could leave the possibility of someone have leverage they can use against you - yes you will be disqualified. IMO, security clearance investigations are not about finding out naughty things from your past simply to find them, they are just a search of "how vulnerable will this person be to being blackmailed?".
They want the list of people who can pressure you to be non-existant or incredibly small.
One thing that I find amusing is that a lot of people are never drug tested as part of the process. I spent ~5 years working for the DoD with a secret security clearance and never had to take one.
The immense power centered in a company like Facebook is a security threat, particular to foreigners given that it is an American company. It would make sense to regulate Facebook like an utility company and regionalize or nationalize the scope of its operations.
What? No. That is a very very bad idea. That would end up legitimizing Facebooks power and open the door for absolute government control. It is very simple, if you do not like Facebook then don't use Facebook. Tell your friends and family not to use Facebook. They currently only have any power because we give them power.
It think it is an illusion to think we as individuals can just boycott Facebook. Facebook have become such an integral part of social life for many, that you not only exclude yourself from an web site by leaving it, but an important social institution not to mention years memories in text, pictures and film. Change must come from political action.
I suppose Facebook is picking it's government allies. This puts it at risk of being banned in countries that have strained relationships with said allies, something FB has been able to avoid till now
This isn't what is going on, at least in my opinion. This type of job posting means the government wants facebook to do something. To do "something", facebook needs employeees to perform that work. Whatever work this entails, the government would only like people with XYZ clearance to work on it.
As an example, imagine Uncle Sam calls you(the CEO at facebook), and requests a list of dissidents based on ABC criteria, and would like that list and the research that produces it to be handled by people with security clearances. Your next step is to hire people with that security clearance, so they can do the work and you can start sending Uncle Sam invoices.
It is no mystery that FB is a company founded in the US. Why try and pander to everyone when the cultural outflow is so clearly originating from the stateside?
Does that mean if you spend enough money with Facebook they'll send a Facebook rep to work in your office that also has security clearance? New feature! even better than 2016's version.
No, Facebook offered their services to the Clinton campaign and they Clinton campaign rejected the offer. It's actually in the 60 minutes piece referenced in the link which is viewable online.
It's also possible that FB, finding itself the victim of continual PSYOPs, is hiring people with backgrounds in that to help defend the company or needs security cleared people to liase with government security teams on that issue.
I'm getting sick of the cheap cynicism that fancies simplistic, dramatic interpretations over nuanced, realistic ones.
(This isn't to say that FB doesnt collaborate with the government in any number of ways -- just that the parent is a lazy, cheap shot.)
It does nothing to help us decide between the two cases -- they could be selling data to the CIA or sharing cyberdefense strategies, both would require employees with clearance.
What are you talking about? A company needs a facility clearance in order to work on classified contracts. It will also need some employees cleared at the level of the contract in order to do the work, and a Facility Security Officer cleared at the level of the facility.
I don't know what the hell "the government employee" means, but the clearance levels of government personnel are irrelevant with respect to classified contracts. The clearance requirements for the contractor are spelled out in the DD254 (for DOD-classified programs).
It wasn't that ambiguous. A government employee can have anything from a civilian clearance to a top secret clearance with whatever additional riders necessary to get them access to the information on that project.
Useful information, a red herring to determining how unique or nefarious facebook is here.
Any random full stack engineer off the street could apply to any government contract, reply to RFPs, and bid on anything.
Everyone is already doing it. You can make $200,000+ a few years out of college as a software engineer if you go the TS-SCI clearance route, from any third tier state school. Oh look and now you can also apply to Facebook with that skillset and clearance.
A company with thousands upon thousand of full stack engineers getting work for full stack engineers? Wow sound the alarms lets speculate on what the contract is!
And yes, they probably also are trying to leverage their broad infrastructure for department of defense applications.
FYI the average defense contractor engineer isn't paid nearly that much (as compared to true private industry) and puts in quite a bit of free OT. Senior/PM salaries may get that high in DC but I don't think that is anywhere near the norm. There can be a lot of money made in defense, but it's almost always in the marketing/sales/guys winning the contracts. Most of those guys are ex-government.
Along with a disappointing salary, you also get industry leading job instability. Enjoy job cuts every two years -- sign up to be a defense contractor today!
A security clearance is somewhat difficult to get and not especially hard to keep (Snowden). However, having a clearance then opens you up to an entire industry. During tough times (2008) that means jobs will be available:
https://www.clearancejobs.com/
The background checks are thorough. We've had many in the family (definitely not me), my dad, two of my brothers, two uncles, my ex-girlfriend, brother in law, .... And then we get listed as personal references which is a real pain. A drug conviction will not blackball you but then you have to be completely honest as they will find out and that will blackball you. Debt is a biggie.
https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm
As for the article, I think the inferences people are making are reasonable. Also, given Facebook's scope that they need people with clearances seems reasonable.