No Bloggers Need Apply
Well, there goes my dream of running whichever obscure Interior Department agency got involved in that hilarious scandal:
A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever. The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps. Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.
Given the quantity of young people participating in social networking and user-generated media, one assumes that a few decades from now we’re going to have to completely shift our norms about some of this stuff, since by 2040 it seems to me that it will hardly be viable to be holding everyone to account for every dumb thing that was ever on their MySpace account in their college days.
65 Responses to “No Bloggers Need Apply”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 14th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Amusing how these requirements get more and more stringent with each administration…And despite that, we continue to have scandals that are usually related to political favoritism as opposed to what someone might have written in an letter, or now an email 15 years ago.
Well, the intelligence business woke up a few years back and realized that things like this were hurting their chances of extracting the best candidates for the jobs. They’ve still got a lot of work to do. Perhaps the political class will wake up as well…
November 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
That doesn’t say people will be penalized for using social networking. They just want to know about it.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Seems a bit hypocritical given that Obama’s record is not exactly spotless. It does not say that any of these criteria are automatically disqualifying but still. Asking if anyone in the family owns a gun??
November 14th, 2008 at 8:44 am
1) A lot of this bullshit is probably associated with obtaining SCI security clearances. The security bureaucracy figures that if they get enough dirt on you, they control you.
A tradition going to the FBI Director Hoover.
2) It is a tradition which did NOT catch the Manhattan Project spies or Aldrich Ames or Robert Hannsen. A tradition which drives a lot of competent people away from the Intel World and drives the remainder to drink.
However, it does provide lots of material for giggling officials to review. Relieves the humdrum existence of government work. Especially when you can use the material to troll the neighbors for gossip. heh heh
November 14th, 2008 at 8:51 am
This is the first truly dumb thing I’ve seen out of the Obama camp. I know their mantra is “no drama” but you simply can’t expect the set of squeaky clean people and the set of people with the best ideas to be anything close to the same set.
Henry Ford was a nutjob antisemite but if you wanted to talk manufacturing, he was a good source of ideas. Ben Franklin had a thing for nude bathing and French whores. Thomas Jefferson had a thing for French whores and slaves. The US wasn’t built by the best and the brightest, it was built by wretched refuse.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:52 am
The BEST response is to give them a shitload of petty stuff –nothing serious enough to disqualify you — but which hints at DARK SECRETS.
Then let them run their ass ragged chasing leads that don’t pan out. Meanwhile, have someone pound their boss for explanations of “what’s taking so long?”
Hard to explain when you have no real dirt on someone. Suggests the security boss is incompetent. Yet he is hesitant to pass someone who may be the next John Walker. Lays awake at night worrying what to do.
heh.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
There’s also the Dick Cheney gambit. Set yourself up as transition leader, then do an indepth security review of your competitors because they are candidates to be Vice President. Then choose yourself to be Vice President and grin at Tom Ridge,et al — because you have them by the short and and curlies with all the dirt they revealed to you “in confidence so they wouldn’t embarrass the President”.
Anyone see ANY Republican leader of note challenge Dick Cheney or George Bush the last 8 years?
Well,come to think of it, Senator Larry Craig quarreled some with them over the Patriot Act.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:00 am
That doesn’t say people will be penalized for using social networking. They just want to know about it.
Exactly. Could just be a test of one’s capacity for candor and truthfulness.
Ben Franklin and nude bathing? Who could know he was supposed to keep his pantaloons on in the tub?
I’d tell ‘em everything and let them decide. If they don’t want me, so be it. Making anti-neocon weisenheimer cracks on political sites may just have to be the extent of my service to my country.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:01 am
The questionnaire includes not only social networking sites, but ANY text messages or IMing that may embarrass. Basically, if you are under 30 and have ever had an ex or a friend that enjoys toliet humor, do not apply.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Don,
I disagree with you’re first bullet. Most of these folks wouldn’t qualify for an SCI clearance (and many of them wouldn’t even make it to a TS). Moreover, to get SCI you’ve got to go through a Single Scope Background Check (SSBI)…and in some cases get a polygraph. With an SSBI you have to divulge all of this information anyway…and I believe that once you sign the forms it’s under penalty of perjury.
No, this is a bunch of politicos that think that they can play God and control every last piece of risk that they’re faced with. As I said earlier, the problem usually lies with these folks that are making the hiring decisions (for political or personal reasons) as opposed to people like you or I that are active on websites or may have a facebook page.
They never ever learn…and so they continue to repeat history.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Oh gosh, there I go again…Switching between aliases. I guess that neither Ed will be able to get a job now.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Either that, or pass some actual privacy laws for job applicants, so they’re allowed to have a personal life that isn’t submitted for the boss’s approval.
Lots of that stuff isn’t remotely job-related and family members should definitely be off-limits.
But if there’s no standards of privacy, then you can’t blame Obama for not following them.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:20 am
If you think this is invasive you should take a look at the standard security clearance questionnaire (SF86), or even better, the CIA Directorate of Operations application. This is child’s play.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Hm, I did participate in some heated comment threads in the run-up to the War in 2002/2003 under various pseudonyms. I’d not be able to find them now. There also some email exchanges that I deleted in anger that FOX News might want to see if I’m ever in the same room as Obama. I’d be stunned if my counterparties would every produced them — but who knows.
I don’t think any of this should or even would exclude me, but I would not be sure how to report them.
A friend of mine now back in the terrorism/organized crime business just got through FBI clearance in under two months, but his life is boring — just a gay lawyer in NYC with a few political connections. No blogging that I’m aware of. The FBI didn’t even interview anybody I know of. And he’d been cleared by the FBI previously.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:25 am
There are some things that an SF 86 won’t ask you though…things like whether or not you have a webpage (Facebook, etc.) and for previous copies of your resume. But as I said before, it doesn’t need to do that because there are legal penalties if you lie. If you lie to the Obama camp, there MAY be some kind of civil penalty if harm is able to be shown in a court of law, but there are no criminal penalties.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:27 am
I’ve mostly bloggers referencing this with tongue-in-cheek comments about lost job opportunities. But I have to agree with commenters above, this is truly dumb.
When applying for a State Department job, it became clear that the fact that I had traveled and lived abroad in a lot of obscure places would hurt my chances to get a security clearance and therefore the job.
Didn’t make a lot of sense for the State Department, doesn’t make a lot of sense for the Obama administration. I’d rather have “interesting” people with good ideas and experience than the type of locked down people that filter seems to be demanding.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Two months is fairly quick for the FBI. He must have an interim clearance.
To work for the Bureau, you’re looking at a TS level clearance. Eventually he’ll have friends or family interviewed.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
If blog posts could be held against you, I’d really be in trouble. Especially if I tried to get a job with a women’s razor manufacturer.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Given the quantity of young people participating in social networking and user-generated media, one assumes that a few decades from now we’re going to have to completely shift our norms about some of this stuff, since by 2040 it seems to me that it will hardly be viable to be holding everyone to account for every dumb thing that was ever on their MySpace account in their college days.
Yes, it might be similar to the phenomenon of youthful drug use, which evolved from an unmentionable and career-killing skeleton in the closet to an expected, routine and entirely survivable campaign admission.
“Yes, I did call President Cyrus a murderous, piece-of-shit imperialist fuckwad and lackey of the global Zionist cabal – but I didn’t inhale.”
November 14th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I agree Andy…Except in cases of national security (like the State Department). But we have a good process for that (albeit a very slow one).
I had to go through this process as well with a number of contacts from a variety of different countries. Provided that you’re not prepared to betray your country…and you’re not doing drugs…and you’re not a total head case. The chances that you wouldn’t make it through an SSBI are extremely remote. A polygraph is a different story…but it really depends on the agency. The CIA is notorious for rejecting people because of inconclusive polygraphs.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:48 am
That doesn’t say people will be penalized for using social networking. They just want to know about it.
Exactly. If there’s anything embarrassing/questionable/controversial, it’s better to know about it upfront and plan how to response to it. I don’t think they want another Zoe Baird on their hands.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Re “The CIA is notorious for rejecting people because of inconclusive polygraphs.”
———–
Is that overcorrection because Aldrich Ames was passed on his poly?
November 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Agree the questions are a bit over the top, but keep in mind that this is only for top administration positions – like cabinet positions and heads of independent agencies and such. Basically the people that are actually reviewed by the Senate during confirmation (as opposed to rubber stamped in bulk). Most people would have something a bit less crazy. In that light, I can understand why they want to know everything that will be before the public’s eye. But it would be totally unnecessary to extend this down to the level of Assistant to the Assistant Deputy Secretary of X.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Over time, I suspect we’ll see that people either stop caring about the minor issues of administration officials, or they stop caring about minor issues if the President has a (D) beside his name.
Either way, Barack basically scared 2/3rd of the potential supplicants into walking away. One third because they have something to hide, one third because doing all that paperwork is too onerous. Made his job easier, for sure.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:57 am
No. The CIA has always been weird when it comes to psychological profiling and some of these tests. Some people chalk it up to caution, but many others chalk it up to a case of overinflated ego.
Perhaps that will change now that the President has officially demoted them to the DNI. Although given some of the things that they’ve pulled since the election…it would appear as though they are in no mood to give up their “mystique.”
November 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Re Ed Smithe’s comment “Provided that you’re not prepared to betray your country…and you’re not doing drugs…and you’re not a total head case. The chances that you wouldn’t make it through an SSBI are extremely remote ”
————-
Obviously, there are a few other things that would disqualify someone. Past felony convictions or admitted crimes. Membership in violent, subversive organizations — although NRA Memberships are accepted for some reason. Currently Diddling a citizen of a hostile foreign power might require some explanation.
The interesting questionaires are the ad hoc ones issued in response to “emerging concerns”. Like you work five years on a program, get settled into the organization, the Clinton-Lewinski affair blows up and one morning everyone gets a questionaire from Security asking them to describe any adulterous affairs they have had. Refuse to respond and you’re trying to figure how to make that mortgage payment.
THAT certainly unsettled the chickencoop and led to some hurried whispered consultations watched with avid interest by co-workers.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
couldn’t agree more Matt about the norm shifting thing. You eventually excluded everyone because of dumb things written at 1am on a saturday.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Don,
Not necessarily. Provided that you’ve been honest with them, and the felony doesn’t get back to the three areas that I sketched out, that won’t necessarily disqualify you for a security clearance.
Membership in violent organizations probably would…because it goes back to whether or not your a head-case or prepared to betray your country (i.e. our laws). And while the NRA is particularly nutty from time to time, I wouldn’t compare them to groups like Weather Underground.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:17 am
For example, reckless driving is a felony. Trust me, they’re not going to reject an otherwise clean record if someone happened to be convicted of driving 50MPH in a 30 zone.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
I’m a Night Elf Mohawk! And Secretary of the Treasury!
November 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Right now I’m laughing my butt off at you young’uns. Ooh, your MySpace page will keep you out of government service? Let me find that tiny violin I keep for just such occasions.
Any of you ever added up how many Boomers were locked out of public service because of the War on Drugs? How many GLBT have had to forgo running for office? How many roadblocks there are for atheists who don’t hide their unbelief?
The Establishment will always have an excuse for banning the many so as to promote the insiders, most of whom have exactly the same beliefs and habits as the banned applicants.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Either that, or pass some actual privacy laws for job applicants, so they’re allowed to have a personal life that isn’t submitted for the boss’s approval.
This seems extremely unlikely, unfortunately. We’ve long since left any simple, common-sense privacy principles in the dust. Any strongly-worded legislation or amendment would literally put credit card companies out of business, just for starters. Even moderate legislation that only codifies the status quo and tries to keep things from sliding any further would be very tough because the status quo on privacy issues keeps changing.
Agree the questions are a bit over the top, but keep in mind that this is only for top administration positions – like cabinet positions and heads of independent agencies and such.
There’s been a 500-comment thread about this questionnaire over at unfogged.com, and this is one of the things people are arguing about. Basically, a lot depends on what you’re assuming here, but we don’t actually know it. The NYT article says “Cabinet and other high-level positions” or something like that, but how high-level is high-level? There are about a thousand politically appointed positions that require Senate approval. If this questionnaire is only for the Cabinet and five to 10 other positions, it seems fair, or at least understandable. If it’s for all of those thousand positions, this is fucked up, paranoid and stupid.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:51 am
And while the NRA is particularly nutty from time to time, I wouldn’t compare them to groups like Weather Underground.
I was all set to argue with this – you want to compare total body count? You want to compare politicians bought? You want to compare holding demonstrably false political beliefs? – but for the specific definition of “nutty” that matters to security clearance, I have to concede you’re probably right. Sigh…
November 14th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Any of you ever added up how many Boomers were locked out of public service because of the War on Drugs?
Not enough?
November 14th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Cyrus,
I’ve learned to expect that there’s always someone gunning for me on this forum. Sometimes its a nut, sometimes it’s the smart folks I’ve had good debates with the previous day. From what I can recall, you’re a part of the latter…but that doesn’t mean I’m going to give you the hole to pick up the first down. You’re going to have to earn it against my conservative D.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Please don’t look up my Usenet posting from 1981 either! Hopefully google will go bankrupt someday, and those old backup tapes they found will vanish again.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of the questions.
These are not necessarily disqualifications for selection, but the transition team wants to know what risks are associated with each applicant. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. You need to do a bit of oppo research before you hire anyone to a high-level govm’t position.
That doesn’t mean they won’t hire someone with a history of blogging or a drug conviction (which, as we know, are basically equivalent evils). They just need to know in advance.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Damn, “k” (#36) beat me to the Usenet reference… but I only go back to 1984.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I think the constant erosion of privacy is going to force us to just stop being ashamed of so many things. When 250 million people are on YouTube scratching their butt, scratching your butt in public will be acceptable.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I say incredible quantities of incredibly stupid bullshit on the internet (you can look it up!), which is why I’m proudly not eponymous.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
….one assumes that a few decades from now we’re going to have to completely shift our norms about some of this stuff, since by 2040 it seems to me that it will hardly be viable to be holding everyone to account for every dumb thing that was ever on their MySpace account in their college days.
Or, maybe the incoming Chelsea Clinton administration simply won’t hire people who wrote too many excessively “dumb things” and then put them on the World Wide Interweb. Nobody’s holding a gun to anybody else’s head forcing them to take leave of their senses just because they’ve got a mouse and keyboard in front of them, and I suspect plenty of young people know better. I know I’m an old fogey, but I still don’t get the appeal of putting so much about oneself out in public, potentially available for everybody to read. And I’m no privacy zealot.
November 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
All a test of whether you are a plausible enough liar to work for the government . . .
November 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I actually think this would make it easier for younger people to be hired – less history, no spouse or significant other to vet no kids doing stupid things. All you crazy kids over estimate the craziness of your on-line life.
And – as others have pointed out – there is no indication that one would be disqualified for stupid behaviour in ones personal life.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
The sex and drugs epicenter was at the Mineral Management Service. The best part is, this is the second major sex scandal they have experienced – the first involved the self-named “Royalty Rangers.” I helped negotiate a class action settlement with them several years ago, and I swear you would not want to think about them in weird sexual ways. It will cause sleepless nights.
November 15th, 2008 at 1:18 am
It doesn’t seem to me that a “bad” answer to any of these questions would be a disqualifier. The major problem Obama had during the campaign was that they weren’t prepared for the Wright issue. Axelrod has said that’s on him for not following through with his request that sermon tapes be reviewed. So they want to know as much as possible–it strikes me as just wanting to be prepared for anything. Oh wait–isn’t that the exact opposite of the last eight years?
November 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I think the questionnaire was a Screening Tool intended to being out all possible problems a person may have with confirmation or performance of their job, rather than a disqualification tool. Many of the places I worked in Security management asked for a detail history. Some items were disqualifiers but most were things we just needed to know so we could ask about and make sure that they were not likely to be repeated.
If they know what “stupid” things one has done in emails and online they can preempt their damage.
December 13th, 2008 at 3:29 am
evnq
ragf ztqw
ugxu xbtt
foqb
March 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I wanted to comment and thank the author, good stuff
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:18 am
I read your posts for a long time and should tell you that your articles are always valuable to readers.
April 9th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Incredible site! viagra