> When I handed the form in to the security officer, he scanned it quickly, looked me over slowly, then said, ``Explain this''--pointing at the FBI question. I described what had happened. He got very agitated, picked up my form, tore it in pieces, and threw it in the waste basket.

> He then got out a blank form and handed it to me, saying ``Here, fill it out again and don't mention that. If you do, I'll make sure that you never get a security clearance.''

It's important to "see like the government" when dealing with the government (pun on "seeing like a bank" by https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/seeing-like-a-bank/ if anyone didn't catch the reference).

Everything fits into bins and categories with checkmarks and such. As an entity it has no "bin" for "investigated as Japanese spy as a joke when was a child". So you have to pick the closest bin that matches. However, that doesn't mean the same government later won't turn around also punish you for not picking the right "bin". Not "realizing" that it's its own fault for not having enough categories i.e. bins for you to pick. And, some may argue, that's a feature not a bug...

The fact is that even for (NATO) top secret security clearances, there are lots of people that lie through their teeth, and receive the clearance. Obviously on things that aren't in any records. The big ones being alcohol use, drug use, personal finances, foreign partners. Some are more forgiving than others, though.

The military is unfortunately chock full of functional alcoholics. As long as they don't get caught drunk on the job, seen partying too much, DIU, or admit anything to their doctor, they keep getting renewed their clearance.

Interestingly enough, if there's even the smallest suspicious that you smoke weed, they'll put you through the wringer. I've seen more people lose their clearance for pissing hot, than those with six figure debts or drinking 5 days a week.

In case you want to read about the proactive information speeding up your security clearance: https://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/6/50

Boggles the mind that the advice from the security was to lie on the form, which is almost certainly a felony.

I ran a dial-up BBS in the late 1990s. One summer a few of my loyal users suddenly stopped calling.

About a year later I learned that one of my users hacked an airport. At the time a few of my users would set their computers to dial random numbers and find modems answering. One of the numbers was a very strange system with no password. The story I heard was that they didn't know what the system was, because it had no identifying information. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/doj-charges-...

(1988) and real cute

From an OG computer scientist [0], about antics at age 12 which might strike some of us as familiar :)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Earnest

I got distracted by how incredible owning milk.com is

It might have been 2002, can't remember, when they upgraded the e-QIP software for the security check form.

I was doing my mandatory update coincidental with the roll-out and when I got to the question, "mother a US citizen" I had to check the "no" box and the immediate pop-up was "date of first contact?" which actually got me thinking along existential lines for a moment.

This one's fun too: https://milk.com/wall-o-shame/two_dollars.html

I admire people who don't lie about past drug use on their clearance forms. Sure, it might delay their clearance, but I still admire them.

The core social problem with drug addiction and alcoholicism is this concept of telling people what you think they want to hear from you, not telling them the truth.

This story was written in another text also and discussed on HN. It was longer and the author also described how later in life he introduced a standard to wear hemlets on bicycle competitions. (Sorry, I dont have a link handy)

I once worked at a top financial firm which had regular background checks from Pinkerton (yeah, that very agency from the books and with bad US history).

They sent me a questionnaire asking to fill personal details in a Word file while their email signature said not to disclose personal details over email.

Security clearance business is rotten to the core.

This happened to my mom when being interviewed when coming over here in the 60s. During verbal questioning she said something like “of course”. The government agent turned deep red and asked her if she understood the question (English isn’t her first language and she hadn’t). She’s been here since.

I kind of get that the agent is looking out for the applicant in this story. You have no idea what’s going to happen when you do a security clearance thing and they ask about this and that. How serious is the wrong answer.

Excepting my favorite question which something like “have you ever tried to topple the government?”

The system is messed up when screening for honesty encourages people to lie.

Security clearances are probably a really good example of Goodhart's Law.

One reason for all these questions is really to determine if someone can be blackmailed, and thus a security risk. (Big reason they look at your financials and why debt can cause you to lose clearance) But the letter of the law trumps the spirit. A common lie these days is about weed usage. You may get or entirely rejected for having smoked in the past even if you don't today (e.g. you tried it once in college but didn't like it). So everyone lies and it creates a system where people are even told to and encouraged to lie, like in TFA. The irony being that this is exactly what creates the situation for blackmail! Now you can get blackmailed for having that past thing cause you to lose your job as well as lying on your clearance form.

Honestly it seems smarter to let the skeletons out of the closet. Spill your secrets to the gov. Sure, maybe the gov can blackmail you but a foreign government can't blackmail you for something that the gov already knows. You can still have filters but the dynamic really needs to change. Bureaucracy creates its own downfall. To reference another comment, I'd rather a functional alcoholic have a clearance and the gov know about it than a functional alcoholic have a security clearance and the gov not know about it (or pretend to not know). We've somehow turned clearance checks into security risks. What an idiotic thing to do

Not related to this story, but this one https://milk.com/true-stories/stupid_computer_users.txt was hilarious :)

Wonder if author name is Alice

Related. Others?

What not to write on your security clearance form (1988) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34437937 - Jan 2023 (545 comments)

What Not To Write On Your Security Clearance Form - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1444653 - June 2010 (98 comments)

"the most frequently occurring letters in typical English text are e-t-a-o-n-r-i." But "Wheel of Fortune" told me to guess R-N-S-T-L-E!

So something uncomfortable about clearance processes: they're not purely about truth, they're about interpretable truth

> On another occasion much later, I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. But that is another story.

Presumably this is the famous (?) story of him listing his race as “mongrel” whenever asked?

It's obvious the real spy was Bob.

Note the date, it's April 1 1988.

When I was 15, a couple months short of 16, I ended up working as a student intern at a research facility. They required a clearance to badge into and out of the building, but I never worked on anything that directly needed the clearance.

So I was given the form to fill in and read the question: Since you were 16, or in the last 7 seven years, have you ever smoked weed?

So I thought, I guess I better think back to when I was 8!

> On another occasion much later, I learned by chance that putting certain provocative information on a security clearance form can greatly speed up the clearance process. But that is another story.

I have to know this now...

I find it a little funny how much the government spends on these dead end investigations. We never will know precisely how much is wasted.

honestly, had he written the reason as "I devised new encryption scheme at 12" he might have gotten promoted rather than dissuaded

it's like insurance claim - precise wording matters more than facts

Just how little space was there on the form? I think I would have tried something like:

"When I was 12 years old, I exchanged encrypted messages with friends. The FBI found a code and briefly thought I was a spy."

Or, if there was even less space:

“As child, used encryption for fun. FBI found code & investigated.”

I would want to avoid lying at all costs, even if a superior instructed me to. Who knows what could happen.

I have a somewhat similar story involving the death of an extremely elderly neighbor by an accident on his farm, and the suspicion by the state police that I at 12 years old had murdered him, based solely on someone saying they thought they saw me messing with his mailbox from a car that was similar to the one parked in our driveway. The mailbox which stood directly next to ours at the end of an easily walkable driveway. So yes, Mr. SF-86, I had once been investigated for a felony. Oh, you're only supposed to tell the truth if the truth will help the government catch to a bad guy? Very impressive system, sir. Top notch.

[dead]