Inquisition at JPL

[n2doc]

By TIM RUTTEN
January 16, 2008
In all the years since Jules Verne first conjoined science and fiction to create a literary genre, nobody ever imagined that mankind's first real exploration of another world would be carried out by a couple of robotic dune buggies controlled from an arroyo northwest of Pasadena.

That's exactly how things have turned out, though. For the last four years, two robot rovers operated from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada Flintridge have been moving across the surface of Mars, taking photographs and collecting information. It's an epic event in the history of exploration, one of many for which JPL's 7,000 civilian scientists and engineers are responsible -- when they're not fending off the U.S. government's attempts to conduct an intimidating and probably illegal inquisition into the intimate details of their lives.

Talk about the thanks of a grateful nation.

The problem began -- as so many have -- in the security mania that gripped the Bush administration after 9/11. Presidential Directive No. 12, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, directed federal agencies to adopt a uniform badge that could be used by employees and contractors to gain access to government facilities. Most agencies let the directive become a dead letter, too complex and expensive to implement.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, however, is one of the Bush administration's true believers, and his first reflex always is a crisp salute. He directed Caltech, which has a contract to run JPL for NASA, to make sure all of the lab's employees complied. The university initially resisted, then caved when NASA threatened to withdraw its contract. Worse, the government demanded that the scientists, in order to get the badges, fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and waive the privacy of their financial, medical and psychiatric records. The government also wanted permission to gather information about them by interviewing third parties.

In other words, as the price of keeping their jobs, many of America's finest space scientists were being asked to give the feds virtually blanket permission to snoop and spy and collect even malicious gossip about them from God knows who.
\
more:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rutten16jan16,0,2608869.story

[electron_blue]

1. I was wondering what was the latest on this. I looked, but couldn't find info online.

Thanks for the update. This is really awful.

[lynnertic]

2. it's called a background check for a security clearance.

I guess their jobs suddenly became classified.

Is there life on Mars?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueUOTImKp0k#

[caraher]

3. Never mind life on Mars...

Is there intelligent life in the Bush administration?

[electron_blue]

6. Their jobs didn't become classified. That's the point. They are regular scientists

doing regular science. Nothing they can't publish. Their personal history will be examined and their neighbors questioned for insights into their behavior. Gossip, in other words. We're not talking about finding out who's had DUI's or other drug offenses. That's public knowledge, anyway. Also - this is not only for the full-timers, but scientists who are just visiting will also be subject to this. I'm glad they're fighting this.

[CGowen]

4. I first thought it was DUI or something n/t

[bananas]

5. Would they let Jack Parsons in?

Jack Parsons on the cover of his book "Freedom is a two-edged sword"

John Whiteside Parsons (born Marvel Whiteside Parsons on October 2, 1914 – died June 17, 1952), was an American rocket propulsion researcher at the California Institute of Technology and co-founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Aerojet Corporation. He was also an enthusiastic occultist, and one of the earliest American devotees of Aleister Crowley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons

[PhD]

7. There's a reason this story is in the op-ed section

It's extremely incendiary, one-sided, blown out of proportion, and bears little resemblance to actual events. As a NASA employee, I can attest to the poor security at most NASA facilities. Remember the contractor who killed a fellow employee and himself at JSC last year? The purpose of the common ID is to improve security by making it more difficult for unauthorized personnel to enter restricted areas and insure the identities of employees. This technology is nothing new. I've had a Common Access Card (CAC) for nearly a decade.

[caraher]

8. Quick question:

Would the ID requirement have prevented the killing at JSC? (Not a rhetorical question; as a contractor would the murderer still have had access?)

[PhD]

9. Depends on the security clearance

Possession of the card in and of itself most likely wouldn't have prevented the incident. However, the goal of the program is to conduct security clearance investigations comparable to those DOD employees already go through to provide some insurance the owner of the card can be trusted to have access in the first place. It's not a perfect system and someone could easily pass the clearance and snap under stress some time later like the JSC shooter did. Even so, it at least provides a basic level of investigation that will likely screen out some of the most likely security threats.

Contrary to the assertions of the article, the security investigation NASA employees will be subjected to is pretty cursory. It's roughly equivalent to the investigation DOD employees go through for a secret clearance. This requires filling out a form listing past addresses and people who can verify the individual actually lived there. The form also includes questions about friends or family members living overseas who may provide a motive in some way for foreign espionage and questions about past legal or financial troubles a foreign power could use to intimidate the individual. An investigator may call some of the contacts the applicant provides to verify he or she is who he/she says. DOD employees and contractors with higher levels of clearance are subject to a much more thorough investigation including personal interviews, but the average NASA employee would not be subject to anything this detailed.