If gov't workers had any question before of whether or not they could get away w/viewing personal emails, checking their adultfriendfinder profile, or dicking about on DU on their work PC's before, they can rest assured that once this system is in place, they FOR SURE ... cannot.

Oh, and also the spies ... will know not to use their work computers to send their coded messages to the Russkies in exchange for an envelope stuffed w/unmarked 20's, stuck to the bottom of the bench, across from the Conservatory ...

"What we need is a system of continuous evaluation where when someone is in the system and they're cleared initially, then we have a way of monitoring their behavior, both their electronic behavior on the job as well as off the job," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress last month.

Actually the TIA project was just renamed Facebook and most people voluntarily participate.

So rather than curtail their behavior due to the revelations, they choose to escalate it to stop more of them and ensure that they can then further escalate their behavior.

superficially supervised team of hot-shot paranoids who rose into high places in the intelligence community in the same, old-fashioned "kiss-ass" way that Putin did in Russia.

Same old. Same old. Same old.

No inkling of personal responsibility.

Just think of the geniuses who will be attracted to working in (meaning living every minute of their lives under the scrutiny of ) that kind of a dictatorial, absolutist regime.

But of course, our country has a democratically elected government.

(That government isn't really in charge, but at least it looks good. And as long as people feel pretty good about it, well . . . . national security state first.)

We frogs are in the water and it is coming to a boil, but, hey, we feel no pain so who cares?

...we're only doing this for your own protection. You have no need to worry unless you have something to hide.

- Right?

K&R

,

At some points, they'll run out of recruits...

That means they are getting ready to remove the props and pull the curtain back to reveal the brick wall at the back of the stage.

More monitoring!

Awesome!

People with security clearances have explicitly waived several constitutional rights. They literally sign a document giving the government permission to spy on them. And that has been the process for decades.

All that's new here is connecting databases. They already collect the information. And they explicitly warn the people with clearances that they are collecting the information, and explicitly get permission from those people before doing so.

Is it part of an employment contract? or is it statutory?
Are the rights waived implicit or explicit?

The process is fairly well documented on Wikipedia.

It is not in the employment contract. It is on separate, federal forms. It's also agreed to again when filling out e-Qip. After all, most people with a clearance aren't government employees, they're contractors. As such their employment contract is not with the government.

The rights waived are explicit - you are agreeing to let the government conduct the investigation. You are agreeing to give them access to your records (bank, etc), and conduct a very thorough investigation. If they have any questions about a particular account (ex. past due on your credit report), you sign another document explicitly giving them permission to the records for that account.

In addition, you are agreeing to limit your First amendment rights - after all the government is forbidding you to talk about something. You also agree to limit foreign travel, and report any activities that might compromise you - such as an arrest, or bankruptcy or other financial trouble.

And it's explicitly stated again in initial training and annual training, as well as the constant reminders in the workplace. The people with clearances are well aware of what's going on.

Are there any better sources than Wikipedia? Are any of the forms available online?
When you say explicit, do the contracts/agreements say for example:"you are waiving your 4th Amendment rights to privacy"?
Or is it more an implicit 'voluntary' abridgement of an amendment?

There are a lot of questions to be answered about these programs in order for there to be an informed discussion!

Such as, "you agree to let the government conduct an investigation (details about investigation)", while not specifically saying "4th Amendment". Mostly because you are not giving up all your 4th amendment rights.

You're only giving them permission for that investigation. The government would still have to follow the 4th amendment if they were investigating you for a crime. Including crimes like espionage.

Same applies to the rest of the rights you're giving up - the overall amendment still applies, you are granting the government narrow exceptions.

But again, thanks for the info!

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

When applying for a security clearance you're giving the government the right to investigate your background and agree to "continuous evaluations".

Thanks for the info!

There is no way I would want to be a security cleared worker in the government system.
That is so invasive it's chilling.

Those with a security clearance understand what they're signing up for. The government should be very thorough when deciding who should have access to classified data.

Also there's annual refresh training for cleared personnel on adverse events, etc.

It's a voluntary process. I did not have to apply for the job I have, it said in the posting that it required a security clearance.

It is implicit that you are giving up curtain protections to several amendments.
But they are not spelled out.

That was the basis for my response.

....one can choose to work somewhere else. Period!

We are talking about the government here and the statutes involved.

If we are talking about voluntary employment then waiver of rights has a very rocky history with the courts.

Let's say you decide to take a job that requires a security clearance. Guess what they do in order to issue that clearance?

Not only that, but they interview your family, friends and neighbors. It's a massively invasive process. And it's 100% optional - you have to agree to waive a host of constitutional rights in order to get a security clearance.

Now, let's say you got your clearance, and then do something that makes the security folks suspicious - you buy a massive house that you can't seem to afford. Guess what they do?



As well as re-interview family, friends and neighbors. In fact, they do that every 10 years for a Secret clearance, every 5 years for a Top Secret or higher clearance.

Oh, and they already monitor all network traffic going in and out of government computer systems. You're warned about it, and have to agree to it, every time you log in.

What they're proposing is bringing the data they already collect together, instead of keeping it in a host of locations. And the people who are being spied on know they are being spied on, and agreed to be spied on.

But that isn't nearly exciting enough of a story, so it's time to inject Snowden in order to get more pageviews.

If I to a roommate or a significant other to move in with me - reportable. I have a Russian friend - reportable. International vacation travel - reportable. Arrested - reportable. Declare bankruptcy - reportable.

When you fill out the forms for a clearance you sign off that the government can investigate you and you know that you'd have to report "adverse" information. Not one person with a clearance would be upset that the government is looking into their activities, unless they do have something to hide.

and, the real reason for all of this, TO GET A BIGGER BUDGET FOR YOUR PROGRAM so that you can enter into a lot more contracts and make lots more friends and have more job opportunities in the private sector when you leave that underpaid government job.

Whoopee!!!!

power of the US intelligence bosses. No room at all. No one allowed to speak out of turn, to make a moral judgment of his own, to have any opportunity to criticize the authority or inform the public of the crimes, corruption or power grabs of the super-secret top-secret mega-secret, secret, secret undemocratic power of the US intelligence bosses.

Secrecy uber alles. Geheimdienst uber alles. Intelligence agencies above all.

That is now the "American way."

Since they will have all the data anyway is their any point in having to fill that thing out? Or just to see if I can forget one of the hops across the Canadian border.

At least, a new one is required for the 5-year reinvestigation for TS or higher. A new one every 10 years for Secret.

"Yes, Smith, we can turn it off. We have that privilege."

sooner or later...

....that more than 100 million employees of large and small businesses all over the country have been "monitored" for decades. I had photo identification cards for jobs as early as the 1970s.

Even supermarket , Sam's Club, BJ's, etc. shoppers all over the country are "monitored" every time they swipe their membership cards.

Malls, banks, airlines, etc. also "monitor" people every day. How do you think they found the Boston Marathon bombers a day or two after the bombing?

This is nothing new in America or dozens of other countries around the world.

So what's the big deal?