Hspd-12

[eris]

I am not sure if this is new or not, I tried to find if there was a thread that mentioned it already and failed, so sorries if its old news.

At this URL is a personal account of one man's experience and thoughts regarding the forms he has to wade thru to continue to work as an employee for a contract company to NASA, on non-secret, non-classified projects. It lists the type of information that is being collected, mandatorily, by a Homeland Security branch, and eventually will be kept on typically insecure servers.

http://wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cet...2/HSPD-12.html

The original HSPD-12 directive dates from 2004 (see it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040827-8.html)

I'm sure there are loads more places to find information about this particular Homeland Security Presidential Directive, but this gentleman's recent and personal account is really very intriguing.

[theprez98]

Re: Hspd-12

I am not sure if this is new or not, I tried to find if there was a thread that mentioned it already and failed, so sorries if its old news.

At this URL is a personal account of one man's experience and thoughts regarding the forms he has to wade thru to continue to work as an employee for a contract company to NASA, on non-secret, non-classified projects. It lists the type of information that is being collected, mandatorily, by a Homeland Security branch, and eventually will be kept on typically insecure servers.

http://wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cet...2/HSPD-12.html

The original HSPD-12 directive dates from 2004 (see it here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040827-8.html)

I'm sure there are loads more places to find information about this particular Homeland Security Presidential Directive, but this gentleman's recent and personal account is really very intriguing.

From his article:

"will be required to submit to an extensive background check and investigation called the National Agency Check..."

A NAC is hardly an extensive background check. It is the basic level of background check to hold a secret clearance. It may also be called NACLC for local records and a credit check. A Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) is where they really start to get extensive.

"It was a conscious choice on my part to work within Goddard’s non-secret, public domain environment...Nothing about my work is sensitive or secret, and that’s the way I hope to keep it."

I doubt NASA would consider their work "public domain" no matter that its unclassified. Futher, just because he doesn't work with "Secret" does not mean that his work isn't sensitive. And just because he says it isn't sensitive doesn't mean it isn't. The State Department has a whole category of information called "Sensitive But Unclassified." This is a huge OPSEC issue.

"I have examined the e-QIP form. The questions include all the standard questions one would expect on a job application (name, social security information, address and telephone numbers, education–all degrees earned, and work history), but that is just the beginning."

e-QIP is basically a computerized SF-85/86. Anyone involved with military or government contracting has probably filled one out at least once and probably many times.

"but in reality there is a 90% rejection rate for first time e-QIP submittals!"

That's not really a rejection, its a failure to verify. As users of the older program EPSQ would know, you run a verification report to find the errors (usually many, such as missing middle names, time gaps, etc.) and then you fix the errors.

His argument is that this is OK for clearances but is overly invasive for those who work in unclassified projects. I understand his point, but his work may be more sensitive (as far as the government believes) than he believes.

[Chris]

Re: Hspd-12

His argument is that this is OK for clearances but is overly invasive for those who work in unclassified projects. I understand his point, but his work may be more sensitive (as far as the government believes) than he believes.

I'll go a step further. His crap may be unclassified/non-sensitive, but he works at a facility that does have sensitive and classified info. Obtaining access to GSFC is not as simple as walking up and telling them you want in. The investigation he is bitching about is as much for his access to the facility as anything else. If he doesn't like it, don't work for the .gov. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

[theprez98]

Re: Hspd-12

I'll go a step further. His crap may be unclassified/non-sensitive, but he works at a facility that does have sensitive and classified info. Obtaining access to GSFC is not as simple as walking up and telling them you want in. The investigation he is bitching about is as much for his access to the facility as anything else. If he doesn't like it, don't work for the .gov. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

My point exactly.

[DaKahuna]

Re: Hspd-12

My point exactly.

Hell, tell him he is damn lucky he is not applying for a position that requires a clearance. It always gets an interesting reaction from friends and relatives when the FBI shows up and starts asking questions about you. Now imagine having to go through that same process every five years. DAMN - this reminds me, my five year update is due this year. Now where did I hide my copy of the EPSQ. (consistency is important)

One of these days I am going to FOIA my SSBI folder just to see what my High School Teachers had to say about me!

[eris]

Re: Hspd-12

I'll go a step further. His crap may be unclassified/non-sensitive, but he works at a facility that does have sensitive and classified info. Obtaining access to GSFC is not as simple as walking up and telling them you want in. The investigation he is bitching about is as much for his access to the facility as anything else. If he doesn't like it, don't work for the .gov. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

I absolutely agree but it was intriguing, as I said, to read a personal account of the process itself from someone why may or may not fully understand the whys.