US Intelligence Officials To Monitor Federal Employees With Security Clearances 186
First time accepted submitter Trachman writes in with news about a monitoring program designed to help stop future leaks of government documents. "U.S. intelligence officials are planning a sweeping system of electronic monitoring that would tap into government, financial and other databases to scan the behavior of many of the 5 million federal employees with secret clearances, current and former officials told The Associated Press. The system is intended to identify rogue agents, corrupt officials and leakers, and draws on a Defense Department model under development for more than a decade, according to officials and documents reviewed by the AP."
One would hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine why they wouldn't monitor people with access to secret clearances. I know they polygraph them all the time and regularly perform spot checks for law enforcement violations, etc.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
1984 Cascade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"But who monitors the monitors?"
Precisely.
Besides: we already know that polygraphs don't work worth a shit except as tools of intimidation.
Looks to me like they're trying to keep secrets from their bosses (us) by spying on themselves. Yeah, that's the ticket. I'm sure they'll get a lot of new recruits now.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides: we already know that polygraphs don't work worth a shit except as tools of intimidation.
No, we don't "know" that. Polygraphs are not perfect. They can be fooled by a well trained subject. Their accuracy does not meet the standards of a court of law. But they are still a useful tool that can catch most liars most of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I've long held a theory that polygraphs are near-useless as scientific lie-detection devices, but are used primarily as a sort of psychological "truth serum". In other words, the fact that someone is connected to something that they *think* can detect a lie encourages them to tell the truth. That's just my personal theory though - I have no science to back that up.
Re: (Score:2)
"But they are still a useful tool that can catch most liars most of the time."
No, they are not. There is a boatload of studies to show it, too.
Generally speaking, polygraphs have been shown to be less good at detecting lies than a friend is. And that's not very good.
The government uses polygraphs as an effective tool of interrogation, attempting to get information that is given away due to intimidation. Not as actual lie detectors. There is a very big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
"But they are still a useful tool that can catch most liars most of the time."
There is a boatload of studies to show it, too.
Could you provide any references to this "boatload" of studies? I agree that there are plenty of studies that show polygraphs are not perfect, or even 90% effective (a rough threshold for use in court), but I am aware of NO studies that show they are less than 60-70% effective (where 50% = random).
Generally speaking, polygraphs have been shown to be less good at detecting lies than a friend is.
There you go. So a polygraph enables a stranger to tell if you lying as well as your friends can. Since I can tell if my friends are lying FAR better than I can tell if a stranger is lying, that is pretty damn
Re: (Score:2)
You could also find a lot of information on it yourself with a couple of minutes on Google.
HES LYING! POLYGRAPHS DON'T WORK! (Score:2)
Moreover, because they are relied upon as a method to detect lies, the real professional spies know how to defeat them. There were a couple of famous cases of Russian spies a decade or so back who passed all the polygraph tests they were
Re: (Score:2)
They detect changes in the subjects physiology, which has no connection to if the subject is lying.
Nonsense. Polygraphs test for nervousness. This nervousness produces detectable physiological changes. To claim that nervousness has "no connection" to lying is just flat out wrong. Most people get nervous when lying, especially when they are lying about serious matters, and hooked up to a machine that they know can detect that nervousness.
They will give you false positives and they don't catch the people who they really need to catch lying.
Sure. That means they are imperfect. It does NOT mean their results have "no connection" to lying. Polygraphs are not perfect. Their accuracy is far below the "rea
Re: (Score:2)
The only winner with the testing system is the cash flow/wage from having tests in place.
Good people have bad days, bad people never have to worry.
The UK looked at this tech in depth in the early 1980's and correctly found it to be an easy way in for the wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Has there been sufficient scholarly research to establish that claim?
If person A claims that we "know" X, and person B claims that we actually don't know X, it is not valid to ask person B to provide proof of the absence of evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making an affirmative claim.
Anyway, there is evidence that they work significantly better than chance on untrained people that believe they work. In other words, most of the time for most people.
Given how easy they are to beat ...
Except they are NOT that easy to beat. To beat them, you have to have access to a polygraph, a coach, and time t
Re: (Score:3)
"Anyway, there is evidence that they work significantly better than chance on untrained people that believe they work. In other words, most of the time for most people."
There is also [apa.org] a lot of evidence [skepdic.com] that they don't [fas.org]. Or rather: it may be "significantly more than chance", but not enough more to be really useful.
Quote from the first sentence of that first link:
"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies."
And from the second:
"For federal agencies, the polygraph is a way to get around discrimination laws. There is virtually no appeal you can make if you are failed by a federal polygrapher. The polygraph is a license to abuse power."
And from the conclusion of the third:
"The instrument cannot itself detect deception... false positive rate (innocent persons found deceptive) ranged from 0 to 75 percent and averaged 19.1 percent;"
An average of over 19% false positive rate (government's own figures), and as high as 75%, means the polygraph is effectively useless as a lie detector for any serious purposes. That's a HUGE false positive rate. It simply isn't a basis for punishing someone
Re: (Score:3)
There is also [apa.org] a lot of evidence [skepdic.com] that they don't [fas.org].
Except that NONE of these studies say polygraphs "don't work". Instead they say they are imperfect, and often used incorrectly or even maliciously. Which is a different thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"Except that NONE of these studies say polygraphs "don't work". Instead they say they are imperfect, and often used incorrectly or even maliciously. Which is a different thing."
I concede this. So I will amend my original comment. Here is my revised version:
"Polygraphs do not work well enough to be taken seriously as indicators of truth. The government knows this, so instead it uses them as instruments of intimidation."
I agree that is a more accurate statement. Satisfied?
Those were only a few sources. You can find a great many studies if you spend a few minutes with a search engine. The upshot is: there is very little evidence that it is actually the polygraph, and not the
Re: (Score:2)
They have real government agencies doing real background work on all staff.
Up and down the family tree, all school years, friends, family, lovers, if/when married, hobbies, reading material of grandparents, teachers views, extended family, local court system, local law enforcement for sealed paper work not on any digital systems - real people who can fill out details of that perfect CV.
A digital se
Re: (Score:2)
Whether polygraphs work or not depends on what you want them to do. You may not be able to say for sure that a person is lying or not, but if you're using it as one tool in a suite to decide if someone is worthy of trust it can be effective. You may rule out some people that you could have trusted, but if you're ruling out people you shouldn't trust it's a good tool. You may trust some people you shouldn't still, but that's why it's not the only tool you use.
And I think they'll still get plenty of recrui
Re: (Score:2)
But who monitors the monitors?
The Hawtch Hawtch Who Monitor?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Anti-Monitor!
Re: (Score:2)
But if the Monitor monitors the Monitor, does the other Monitor monitoring the Monitor monitoring the first Monitor also monitor the first Monitor? Ugh. This could go on forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The SS did a great job of this. They just have to make you think everyone is a snitch.
You have been reported.
I reported myself, too, just for good measure.
please proceed to the nearest termination booth (Score:2)
I reported myself, too, just for good measure.
Making a report automatically gets you reported.
Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
Of course being aware enough to realize this is even more suspicious, and will get a note in your dossier as a potential troublemaker.
Re: (Score:2)
I reported myself, too, just for good measure.
Making a report automatically gets you reported.
Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
Of course being aware enough to realize this is even more suspicious, and will get a note in your dossier as a potential troublemaker.
You are far too alert and informed. This has been noted.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a report automatically gets you reported. Self-reporting in such a situation is viewed as suspicious. At the very least, you will be logged as a brown-noser.
That is classified information, you have just revealed, Troubleshooter! Please report to an Internal Security self incrimination station as soon as possible.
Clone 5 just died.
Fourth Amendment (Score:3)
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
It is absurd that we have five *million* people in the country whom the government has forced to waive their right to be free from *unreasonable* search in order to qualify for their jobs.
If the government inquiries are reasonable, why would they need to make people sign the waiver?
Re:Fourth Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
br> I'm less interested in crying for the poor, poor, clearanceholders and more interested in why a touch over three percent of the US labor force spends its time pushing classified paper.
Re:Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Because Government is a Big Business (about 40% of the GDP [usgovernmentspending.com]) and,
2. The Military Industrial Complex is a large portion of that (particulars unimportant for now) and
3. The MIC arguably does deal in quite a bit of classified paper ("We have top men looking into that....") and, most important
4. When you have the only tool you know how to use is a Top Secret stamp, everything looks like a Classified Document.
Re: (Score:3)
The five million number doesn't make sense.
According to official reports the federal government only employ's 4.3 million [opm.gov] including 1.5 million military personnel.
Re:Fourth Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence officials are planning a sweeping system of electronic monitoring that would tap into government, financial and other databases to scan the behavior of many of the 5 million federal employees with secret clearances, current and former officials told The Associated Press.
That's from TFA. According to the quote, "federal employees with secret clearances" are NOT contractors unless you are calling those contractors as "federal" employees (which is incorrect).
Re: (Score:2)
According to the quote, "federal employees with secret clearances" are NOT contractors unless you are calling those contractors as "federal" employees (which is incorrect).
You may have just detected the very first time the news media used imprecise language when referring to something where most people could not care less about the specific number of something involved (only that it is "large"). I sense an award of some kind is headed your way.
Re: (Score:3)
Some of them also do independent work; but others (in terms of customer base and income) are basically federal employees in all but name and price.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of people with clearances (most?) who are not direct government employees, but are contractors to the government.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just the number of people who have clearances, not the number of people who have access to anything. Sometimes you need a clearance just to work in a certain building.
Re: (Score:2)
It's absurd to have five million people working for the federal government, who need security clearance, and aren't in the military.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
'unreasonable' is meaningless when national security is involved. I don't particularly like it, but civil rights go out the window when there's actual national security concerns. Now, whether there really are any justifying this is another question entirely
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil rights never go out the window. As a cleared government employee I have not waived my civil rights and would never do so. I have agreed to allow some intrusive inspection of my life but I still have and will always have my civil rights.
Idiots like you who think that national security trumps all are what is wrong with today's national security infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have agreed to allow some intrusive inspection of my life but I still have and will always have my civil rights
So you've waived them 'a little'? Protection from unreasonable searches is a civil right, but you've admitted you've waived them somewhat...
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
I have not waived my right against unreasonable search and seizure, even with my clearance the US Government has the same warrant requirements to come into my home as they have for the general public. The intrusiveness that I have agreed to is the following: periodic re-investigations where they may or may not interview my associates and family members as to my trustworthiness, the possibility of submitting to a non-lifestyle polygraph because of clearance type, having to report contact with foreign nationals (depending on the type of contact), and informing the security manager if I plan on traveling out of the country.
Not unreasonable search and seizure and a fairly well defined set of requirements for reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
In a sense, yes.
Regardless of clearance, it would be unreasonable to demand a search every time you enter or exit your house. It's probably not so unreasonable to demand a search when you enter or exit a classified lab, though. The probability of working with secrets greatly increases the scope of what's "reasonable". The Fourth Amendment, after all, doesn't protect you from all searches.
Working with classified material doesn't really waive one's civil rights, but the applicable meaning of those rights does
Re: (Score:2)
Working with classified material doesn't really waive one's civil rights
Yes it does. If you're working for the President or some such highly classified post, they are most definitely going to be looking at much of what you do outside of work. That's clearly giving up you're rights. They wouldn't be able to do so otherwise without a warrant. Or at least weren't able too prior to 'but Terrorism!' being justification for everything under the sun.
Re: (Score:3)
It is absurd that we have five *million* people in the country whom the government has forced to waive their right to be free from *unreasonable* search in order to qualify for their jobs.
What's unreasonable is that 5 million people need a security clearance!!
Re: (Score:2)
What's unreasonable is that 5 million people need a security clearance!!
Not really, under government regulations it requires a security clearance for a government employee to legally know that Edward Snowden even exists. You have to understand the lunacy of the feds, anyone can read the NYT articles that Snowden leaked. But if a federal employee reads that same article without a "clearance" he can be subject to arrest for reading classified documents.
You're a little confused. The act of making classified information public does not automatically declassify that information. Because of that, it is illegal for a person with clearance to reveal that information even though it has been made public. However, it is not illegal for anyone, with or without clearance, to read information in a newspaper or other public publication, regardless of its security classification.
Re:One would hope (Score:4, Insightful)
TOP SECRET might, but there is TOP SECRET w/Poly as a separate clearance so me thinks that might be the only one that gets it sometimes. This isn't '24'.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the only standard practice for TS over S clearance is that they will very likely send people to talk to your references and vaildate work and habitation history in so far as it is possible. I've worked with a lot of TS people and never heard of any of them being subjected to a polygraph, though it is allowed for in the clearance agreement. What I do see happening on a semi regular basis is drug testing. They also pull a random sampling on a fairly constant basis for periodic review of stuff like cre
Re: (Score:2)
TS/SCI frequently requires a polygraph. It's also pretty common for it to take a couple of tries before passing.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and TS doesn't always get you a polygraph, either. Even SCI doesn't automatically mean a polygraph.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't imagine why they wouldn't monitor people with access to secret clearances. I know they polygraph them all the time and regularly perform spot checks for law enforcement violations, etc.
Don't want the government knowing everything about you? Don't request secret clearance from it.
I have held a secret clearance for 36 years and have been polygraphed exactly zero times. But then, I work for a defense contractor, not the Federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are about the only positions not at risk of being outsourced to Timbuktu because the Timbukese can't get US clearances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree that they should be watching, as in this case its a choice you made. it wasn't forced down your throat.
So much... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to post on Slashdot just transfer to the JTRIG unit for Slashdot posting.
Well... (Score:3)
Having a three-tiered system of government employability effectively bars countless Americans from serving in government and *ensures* it is nonrepresentative. In effect, you have cleared employees, non-cleared employees, and ex-cons, in decreasing order of government employability.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It's 4 tier.
Completey corrupt criminals are the 4th tier, and they are exclusive to the Senate, House, Executive, and legislative branches.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually worse
You have super-cleared individuals, cleared individuals, or non-cleared individuals.
And who becomes cleared depends on how much paperwork your willing to push to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Non representative how? I've known people with high clearances of all ages, sexes, creeds, physical ability, etc... etc... Never knew anyone *openly* gay with a high clearance, but that was a product of the era in which I held my clearance as anything else - being openly gay was extraordinarily rare, in government service or out.
Wait, they're just starting this?!? (Score:2)
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
Re: (Score:2)
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
Dude - this is the same government that just had to get rid of something like half the people in the Air Force with nuclear clearance, because it turned out they cheated on the tests.
I find it hard to believe that people find the US government's regularly scheduled ineptitude hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Whistle blowers (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to prevent leaks like those that have happened lately is to have a REAL, RESPONSIVE, FUNCTIONAL whistle blower program so people do not have to take the law into their own hands.
Re: (Score:2)
"The best way to prevent leaks like those that have happened lately is to have a REAL, RESPONSIVE, FUNCTIONAL whistle blower program so people do not have to take the law into their own hands."
It would be really great if our ostensible "leaders" would get this straight. Unfortunately, they were caught with their balls out and they have been too busy trying to hide them behind something to see straight.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree.
Government corruption is best measured on how bad whistleblower laws are in that country.
Re: (Score:2)
At best the gov whistleblower is moved to a new section, the unconstitutional work is stopped after all the files are backed up to another site with new staff and a new mission.
Yo dawg! (Score:5, Funny)
Yo dawg! I heard you liked monitoring people so we got some monitoring people to monitor your monitoring people so you can monitor your monitoring people while you monitor people!
Yo dawg! I heard you like policing your state so we got you some police to police your police so you can police your police while you police your state!
An alternative solution. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You were doing good until you started off with 'meaningful'. That really doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
It already is. This clearance is just to have a stick when some employee does something public her superiors don't like.
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
EXACTLY. Such information is incredibly hazardous to the system and needs more protections than the security clearance system itself!
In the hands of the wrong managers, politicians, appointees... this information could be used to target the honest and promote the corrupt. Somebody cheating on their wife could be let go while another selling out their country to a multinational gets ignored.
The trick to MODERN spying is to do it for a multinational corporation who can indirectly give it to their government
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people with skills and few details about their pasts are getting deeper into gov work and getting nice wages while working on varied projects.
A few other countries are happy at the prospects of their people been able to get so far without been stopped.
Sounds like a great plan..... (Score:2)
Who is monitoring them? Without significant oversight of the monitors, then the whole thing is set up for a mess. Close the monitoring loop, Whoever is monitoring employees of another department should be monitored by a group from the department being monitored.
Re: (Score:3)
And it's polygraphs all the way down.
Anti-traitor, or anti-whistleblower? (Score:2)
In private enterprise, I would not be surprised if such a system fell foul of legislation protecting whistleblowers. Should the same whistleblowing protections should apply to government agencies?
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it would fall afoul of the existing laws. In the Whistle Blower training we take anually there is a quiz question that has always bothered me. It seems to indicate that if someone hasn't blown the whistle yet, but you believe they might, then you are free to take action against them which is prohibited once they actually do.
It's turtles all the way down (Score:3)
Who watches the watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers?
Re: (Score:3)
That isn't a hard problem to solve because of the proportionality. If say one person can look into a different person every couple weeks. That means for every say 25 people we need a watcher. So @ 3.5million cleared people we'd need 140,000 watchers, 5,600 watchers of those watchers (or level 2 watchers), 224 level 3s, 9 level 4s, and 1 level 5.
this logarithmically increasing overhead seems manageable.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK tried a post ww2 military feel - low wages, poor conditions, mil feel and global locations. The Soviet Union found the staff to be happy just to talk about life, conditions and found a few agents that way.
The UK had rushed to improve conditions, wages and advancement options.
The US went for wages, tech, universities and quality - perfection and it worked well into the late 1980's as in keeping staff cleared happy and in good conditions.
The last 20 years seemed to
just like DRM (Score:3)
so baddies have been warned, they have plenty of time to apply corrective actions. And employees with nothing to hide will be only ones affected by this.
The NSA has learnt its lesson! (Score:3)
- get rid of as many sysadmins as possible .. but, but.. we sort of hoped you'd cut back on the surveillance schemes! You know, mend your ways?
- screen sysadmins for libertarian tendencies and for caring too much about the constitution
- make sure information is less widely accessible
- increase monitoring of everyone who accesses information
- prepare to make a few token concessions for public consumption
Do what? Hm no, we didn't think of that. Why would we have to do that then ?
how about a dose of common sense? (Score:2)
No, it's much better to go from criminally negligent and sloppy to overreacting and stomping all over everybody's freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
I mention that because it fits Snowdens description of himself (if I remember correctly). Hence the reflex reaction to get rid anyone who shares some attributes with Snowden.
That much is a serious speculation. As for a discussion on the gap between libertarians and more 'core' conservatives, I would be opiniated and possibly boring.
And the obvious result is... (Score:3)
Only the people who see nothing wrong with such monitoring would be doing the job.
Re: (Score:2)
The more you seek to eliminate the people of whom you might be suspicious, the greater becomes the proportion of the people left who are either disaffected or "not suspicious" as a result of knowing how your "suspicions" are aroused.
Will They Monitor Congress & Their Staff? (Score:2)
Politicians? (Score:2)
Umm.. you mean they haven't done this? (Score:2)
I'd imagine if I were an employee with security access I'd get at least a random audit once one a while. I mean, it stands to reason, no? Otherwise what is the point?
Re: (Score:2)
You already get random audits.
Re: (Score:2)
Reduce government (Score:2)
Lots of federal employees means lots of chances for leaks. Therefore we need fewer federal employees.
(Also, the government shouldn't have too many secrets. They are suppose to be working for the people.)
"the government shouldn't have too many secrets" (Score:2)
Seatec Astronomy
Better Idea (Score:2)
Instead of monitoring their ranks to punish people who are actually serving the public interest, maybe our Federal government could stop doing illegal stuff that needs to be covered up and swept under the rug.
Naw, let's just persecute the messengers instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The Feds have a fetish for loyalty..."
That's actually one of their tamer fetishes. The more, shall we say, involved ones, would make any /b/ denizen puke.
Re: (Score:2)
First: federal employees with security clearance
Next: all federal employees & all foreign nationals in the US
Next: all those working in "sensitive" industries
Next: all those working in "economically-vital" industries.
Next....
See where this is going?
Sorry, we're already there.
All healthcare workers that can access financial or 'personal' data (which means everyone north of the janitor) are now subjected to background checks that have to be redone every six years. Next up - constant monitoring to ensure we don't steal Grandma's SSN. Interestingly, the way the rules read, they're not much worried about us stealing medical information, just financial. One has to have one's priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Passwords to computer systems are secrets. Once you agree there is a valid security reason for them to exist, then we are only discussing what types of secrets a government should keep.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they may have more to lose from this policy than others. Specifically, the socially conservative ones.
With the elimination of policies like "don't ask, don't tell", people with alternative lifestyles no longer represent blackmail risks if they are not ashamed of coming out of the closet. Members of more conservative social groups who participate in such alternative lifestyle activities (and there are quite a few of them) will still be at risk from being ostracized by their community.
Security ser