<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
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:<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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-05-12 21:24, spike wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:009901d1ac83$eca75ea0$c5f61be0$@att.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<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:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
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;}
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;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" 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 class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org"><extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Security clearances<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Comic
Sans MS";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></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><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans
MS";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Comic
Sans MS";color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>…<span
style="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="color:#222222">bill w</span></span><span
style="font-family:"Comic Sans
MS";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Comic
Sans MS""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Clearly
there is a double standard. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">spike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University</pre>
</body>
</html>