<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS \;color\:black";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext'> extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Anders Sandberg<br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, May 14, 2016 1:45 AM<br><b>To:</b> extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Security clearances<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>>…</span>I think this touches on something interesting. Initially I was dismayed to get Clinton into this thread, since I was thinking of it as a place to discuss security epistemology, but these posts have actually shown something nontrivial. Let me see if I got this right<span style='color:windowtext'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>Anders, this might be the only time this ever happens: I disagree with much or most of what you posted (I left it in, below.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>I need to run soon, but let me explain in few words.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>4-something million security clearances: there are different levels of clearances. The high-up ones where the person handles really damaging materials, are rare, usually temporary, and super specialized. 4-something million security clearances, most of those are probably to military ossifers, others who never see a secret document and don’t know what a SAR looks like.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>Little evidence they work: very much on the contrary sir. I might not say anything more on that topic other than I disagree.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>The Clinton email scandal and why it is important: we realize we have a special case where otherwise unclearable people can be elected to the highest and second highest office in the land, and we recognize they need to be cleared anyway, regardless of who are their friends, their past, any of that. But we had a weird novel oddball case here where a person who was not elected was assigned to a post where a clearance was required, and she was not clearable, by ordinary standards. So… what then? Always before, the pool of those eligible for Secretary of State had to be clearable, and were in every known case. But Mrs. Clinton was not, for she had that Whitewater business behind her (note that security clearances can be and routinely are denied if people have been tried and acquitted (OJ Simpson would be unclearable, even after 3 October 1995 (and none of the attorneys, defense or prosecution, plus at least one witness would have been clearable after the trial.)) The Clinton family has unresolved connections, mysterious family “charities” all that stuff. Anything that even looks suspicious can be grounds for denial, and the security people are not required to tell why the clearance was denied. Her investigation would have taken minutes, then stamped with a big red NO, and then over-stamped with a bigger, redder HELL. Way too many untraceable transactions, too much secrecy, etc. The level she was shooting for requires openness, a verifiable everything since forever. Mrs. Clinton isn’t even close to that standard. Donald Trump is nowhere close to that standard, so is not clearable to be SecState.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>OK suppose we recognize and accept that a president and VP must have top level clearances, and that being elected is a voter-level acceptance of the person, warts and all. That standard does not apply to a SecState, for the voters do not give that dispensation or defacto pardon. We now have a case where the president takes responsibility for a post he filled with an otherwise unclearable person.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>Gotta scoot,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:windowtext'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br>Security clearances are important to people in many careers: not just for getting a good job, but in terms of self-identification and culture. They have to be regarded as important to work well, and cognitive dissonance (if it was tough to get, it must be a good thing) and cultural practices boosts the feeling of importance. <br><br>[ Note that so far I have not seen any evidence that they actually work well! It might be hard to test, but my suspicion is that they are a rather soft protection and a lot of practices actually are signalling/security theatre rather than actual security. I even meta-suspect that the few studies that have been done on the topic are classified, shunned and ignored because they likely undermine the narrative that clearances are important. A bit like how the federal government defends the polygraph narrative tooth and nails, despite overwhelming evidence that it is broken. Note that I am not saying we could do without clearances either: that soft protection can be pretty powerful if it is security-in-depth. ]<br><br>The Clinton email scandal is minor if you are outside the world of clearances: a politician was sloppy with important stuff again. But from the inside perspective this is a horrific break of trust: (1) she was ignoring the important rules, (2) she is getting away with it. From the inside perspective (1) is glaring since clearances are important, should be viewed as important, and the breach was not anything minor like bubblegum in the secure room. (2) is even more glaring, since it exposes not just an injustice (lesser people, who you would identify with, would be fired or prosecuted), but that the whole narrative may be broken: if you think clearance practices actually work well, then letting unsuitable people through on the high level undermines security anyway, and if you start to doubt the actual efficacy and narrative of the system, then you get a kick to your sense of identity and culture. <br><br>Note that this is all psychology and sociology rather than any real security or legal assessment. But it is worth recognizing that 4.2 million people hold security clearances in the US. <br><a href="https://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-have-security-clearances/">https://news.clearancejobs.com/2011/09/26/how-many-people-have-security-clearances/</a><br>That is a lot of people to deeply annoy. There is also an intriguing sociological question what effects there is on a society when 1.3% are incorporating a culture of secrecy - I wouldn't be surprised if there was fascinating selection effects, overrepresentation of people with high conscientiousness scores, etc. <br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 2016-05-12 21:24, spike wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> extropy-chat [<a href="mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org">mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>William Flynn Wallace<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:35 AM<br><b>To:</b> ExI chat list <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"><extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org></a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Security clearances</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Comic Sans MS ;color:black",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'>Bill said he smoked weed a couple of times, didn’t inhale. spike</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Comic Sans MS ;color:black",serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>>…</span><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'> The country is moving towards legalizing pot (while it is increasing the penalties for opioids). It is legal in Colorado and I hope the domino effect holds for these laws which have cost billions to enforce to little avail except to put minor offenders in jail for lengthy terms</span><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>…</span><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#222222'>bill w</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>BillW, this is another case of the incident itself is irrelevant, but lying about it is critical. In a security clearance investigation, they come out and tell you they won’t disqualify you for having an affair, for smoking weed, for minor stuff, but they need to know what they need to know about it in order to do their jobs, because their asses are on the line too. They make clear: if you did something, tell it. Who was with you? When did you do it? Where did you do it? How many times did you do it? etc. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Then what happens is the security people take your list, go try to find those people. They ask them what happened. If the stories match, they don’t disqualify the candidate.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Case in point: we had guy in the icebox, which is where you work before a clearance investigation is complete. Those usually take about a year, less if you have had a really squeaky clean life, lived in one place the whole time and they can find everybody on your list, and everybody’s story matches. Longer if they find discrepancies. We had this guy in the icebox for less than a year but almost; so he had already made a career sacrifice to even be there, and we had been paying him mostly on overhead this whole time and trying to keep him busy on stuff that we knew didn’t matter.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>On his application was the question: have you ever been arrested. Now that is an easy one. It doesn’t include being pulled over for speeding, it means have you had directed at you the words “…right to remain silent…” and he wrote no. The investigators learned of a fight that had occurred after a football game at San Jose State and the campus cops arrested these two, but being an internal affair hadn’t given them Miranda rights (these kinds of incidents are settled by student council usually.) The two brawlers hadn’t done any serious damage to each other, no broken noses, no blood on the ground, just your usual shit that happens kind of incident, so… They took them over to the guard station, both guys were sorry it happened, won’t happen again, and please please don’t let this go on our academic record etc. The campus chief decided it was a no-harm no-foul, the two were about the same size, so it wasn’t one guy bullying the other, and our guy was second in his class, so… they let them go an hour later, but gave him a written reprimand.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>The security officers talked to people, learned of the incident, found the letter in his file, decided this constituted an arrest, and technically it was (because they had both guys in those plastic zip-tie cuffs) even though they kept it as an on-campus matter with no local constables involved. The investigators looked at the way the arrest question was posed and that “no” answer. After he sat in the icebox for almost a year, they said no tickets for you. He left the company a week later.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>This whole thing takes on a new meaning in our times. We know the security clearance investigations must make special accommodations for at least two elected positions, president and VP. But the Secretary of State is an appointed position (as is the CEO of a defense company is appointed by the board of directors.) The security team does not answer to the company, to the directors, to the outgoing CEO, to anyone other than their boss in Washington, so they do what they do, regardless of rank.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>What we are seeing now is a Secretary of State claiming or trying to claim a right that the position does not have. She wants to tell the government what information she will give them and what she will not. I dropped my jaw when she said of a private server under subpoena that it would stay private. This astonishment was compounded when we learned that she was erasing evidence on that server. Secretaries of State, current or former, do not have the authority to tell the FBI what evidence they may have. If you or I am under subpoena, we are not allowed to tell the FBI this potential evidence is private property or that their investigation is improper or that the whole thing is a conspiracy. Mrs. Clinton and I do not have the legal authority to do that. Yet she did it, and didn’t get frog-marched to San Quentin in chains. You or I would.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Clearly there is a double standard. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>OK then, I propose we admit it and define it, just as we do in law. Let us continue to claim that all animals on the farm are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Let us define which laws the more-equal animals no longer need to follow, but that the Jeffery Sterlings of the world still do. Who are these more-equal people? Does it include just those three, president, VP and SecState? What about the SecState’s staff? Which ones are immune from law? Which laws? All of them? Or just those which shouldn’t have been asked? Those having to do with lifestyle? Such as… hmmm… sex, drugs and say… murder? And while we are asking, what precisely is the limit to the notion of a presidential pardon? Where does the constitution say a sitting president may not self-pardon? If we admit that this is theoretically possible and that Nixon could have just pardoned himself and held his office, I see no limitations on grabbing arbitrary power and self-pardoning all the way up.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>I can’t trust either major party nominee to not see this logical fallacy in the whole notion of executive pardon. I don’t trust either of them to not abuse it. We have one of those candidates who is already almost doing that, and she isn’t even entitled to legal immunity. Yet. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Without strict definition, the presidential pardon is a ticket to totalitarianism far worse than Germany’s bitter experience.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>spike</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> </span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>extropy-chat mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Anders Sandberg<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Future of Humanity Institute<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Oxford Martin School<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Oxford University<o:p></o:p></pre></div></body></html>