This discussion about talking to the FBI has me ROTFLMAO. I feel like I'm watching a John Wayne movie with its simplified moral categories of good and evil. Why not say that cooperation is dependent upon the situation? Exercise your judgement. Witness to a hit and run : "I wrote the make, model and license number down - here's a copy" Witness to a victimless crime : "What? Dunno, wasn't paying attention." Witness to a pie in the face delivery for a politician : "It was great! The pieman? Dunno, I was too busy laughing!" Questioned as part of some future anti-crypto fishing expedition : "Piss off" Our governments and its agents are not 100% an enemy - they're just very prone to bad behavior and require close watching and a vocal constituency. Mike
mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
This discussion about talking to the FBI has me ROTFLMAO. I feel like I'm watching a John Wayne movie with its simplified moral categories of good and evil. Why not say that cooperation is dependent upon the situation? Exercise your judgement.
Exactly. I was rolling my eyes rather than my ass <g>, but it works out the same. The first two examples that came to my mind were kidnaping and security clearance background checks. While one may debate whether kidnaping should be a federal crime, it _is_, and it's the Feebs' job to investigate it. Similarly with background checks for clearances. Perfectly valid reasons to talk to the Feebs. On the other hand, I can't think of a good reason to talk to DEA, ATF, or IRS without a valid warrant. I'm not sure the first two even have a valid reason for existing (the same goes for the IRS, to a lesser extent), and all three have an even more egregious history of violating the norms of decent society than does the FBI. SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 10:58 AM, Steve Furlong wrote:
mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
This discussion about talking to the FBI has me ROTFLMAO. I feel like I'm watching a John Wayne movie with its simplified moral categories of good and evil. Why not say that cooperation is dependent upon the situation? Exercise your judgement.
Exactly. I was rolling my eyes rather than my ass <g>, but it works out the same.
The first two examples that came to my mind were kidnaping and security clearance background checks. While one may debate whether kidnaping should be a federal crime, it _is_, and it's the Feebs' job to investigate it. Similarly with background checks for clearances. Perfectly valid reasons to talk to the Feebs.
Only if you know your coworker or neighbor is a spy. I've refused to answer questions about neighbors when they were being checked out by the FBI. I told the agents, this was in the mid-80s, that I had no interest in speculating to them about a person I knew only in passing. I expect a lot of background checks get idle speculation from bluehairs and busybodies. --Tim May
Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 10:58 AM, Steve Furlong wrote:
The first two examples that came to my mind were kidnaping and security clearance background checks. While one may debate whether kidnaping should be a federal crime, it _is_, and it's the Feebs' job to investigate it. Similarly with background checks for clearances. Perfectly valid reasons to talk to the Feebs.
Only if you know your coworker or neighbor is a spy.
I've refused to answer questions about neighbors when they were being checked out by the FBI. I told the agents, this was in the mid-80s, that I had no interest in speculating to them about a person I knew only in passing.
I expect a lot of background checks get idle speculation from bluehairs and busybodies.
Because of changes in US living patterns, the FBI has found neighbor interviews to be mostly useless in determining trustworthiness for purposes of security clearances. They're putting more weight on lie detectors now. As of a year ago, anyway, they'd still try to talk to neighbors, but the chance of finding one who knew enough to inform a decision on whether to entrust someone with a clearance was much worse than in decades gone by. The contaminated reports from "bluehairs and busybodies" was a problem in the 80's, and is probably worse now. That doesn't take into account the people who no longer will talk to the Feebs under any circumstances. IIRC, in the late 80's, the Feebs wouldn't tell the neighbors and coworkers why they were investigating someone. I don't know if that was official policy, or just the policy of the investigators who asked me about some of my coworkers. On reflection, I agree with you: unless the investigator told me exactly why he was investigating my neighbor, I'd refuse to give him the time of day. The questionable usefulness of lie detectors is a topic for another diatribe. SRF -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
At 02:49 PM 9/26/01 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
That doesn't take into account the people who no longer will talk to the Feebs under any circumstances. IIRC, in the late 80's, the Feebs
An interesting case is Defense Intel Agency folks. If they're investigating a candidate for having his finger on The Button, you might want to tell them if he's prone to violent impulsiveness :-)
DIA doesn't do background checks - the Defense Investigative Service does that. And yes, I would talk to them, as they ONLY perform consensual background investigations; in the language of the trade, they are exclusively "doorbell-ringers." Just ask to see the release form - they're required to show it. Marc de Piolenc David Honig wrote:
At 02:49 PM 9/26/01 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
That doesn't take into account the people who no longer will talk to the Feebs under any circumstances. IIRC, in the late 80's, the Feebs
An interesting case is Defense Intel Agency folks. If they're investigating a candidate for having his finger on The Button, you might want to tell them if he's prone to violent impulsiveness :-)
-- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
At 12:05 PM 09/27/2001 +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
DIA doesn't do background checks - the Defense Investigative Service does that. And yes, I would talk to them, as they ONLY perform consensual background investigations; in the language of the trade, they are exclusively "doorbell-ringers."
A friend of mine was in the Air Force, and one of his buddies had put down as a reference on his security clearance application the job he'd had at the corner candy store growing up in the Bronx. The D.I.S. folks freaked because the candy store owner denied knowing him, he'd seen nothing, didn't know nothing, never hearda da guy. He had to have his father go back to the store owner and say, hey, it's ok, it's just my kid in the Air Force, they're not regular cops, and they really don't care about the numbers game in the back....
Steve Furlong wrote:
The questionable usefulness of lie detectors is a topic for another diatribe.
The machine is called a polygraph, and all it does is measure physiological parameters and graph them on a stripchart. The "lie detector" is the operator, who needs to have considerable skill and discernment to do the job effectively. Unfortunately, some government agencies contract out their poly tests to outfits that, as far as I can tell, give some high-school dropout a booklet and let him loose on the box without supervision - that is the only way I can account for the results. Selection of Army polygraph operators (the only ones I know well) is extremely tight, with hundreds competing for a few training slots every year. Training is demanding, and once you pass you still have to work under the supervision of an experienced operator of (I think) a year, or until he signs you off. Whenever possible, the work of one operator is reviewed by another. Finally, the polygraph is the investigative tool of last resort; any agency that uses it routinely at the beginning of an investigation or (worse!) as a substitute for a thorough background check is systemically incompetent. If you are applying for a position and it requires that you be "boxed," take the following precautions: - check that the test is scheduled for after all other investigative results are in and have been reviewed - insist on proof of operator competence; the operator must be identified to you and proof of training and experience furnished - the polygraph test procedure must include a PRIOR review of all the questions that will be put to you. This is to eliminate the effect of surprise, which can skew results. If they refuse - RUN, don't walk - to the nearest exit. - there will be calibration questions - questions to which you will be required to give a false answer e.g. (are you three years old? - YES) and questions to be answered truthfully whose answers are already known. No problem there. Marc de Piolenc
Tim May wrote:
I've refused to answer questions about neighbors when they were being checked out by the FBI. I told the agents, this was in the mid-80s, that I had no interest in speculating to them about a person I knew only in passing.
I expect a lot of background checks get idle speculation from bluehairs and busybodies.
Of course they do - people are people, after all. And the agents running the checks know it very well. They listen to everybody, smile, thank them for their time, then make the appropriate comments in their reports. An adjudication board then examines the reports of all interviews, records checks and so forth and makes the (usually) final determination. If that determination is negative, the subject of the background check gets called in to answer the adverse information. If the result is still negative, and the subject feels he's had a raw deal, he still has recourse to the courts. You need to understand that the system is not designed to weed people OUT - it is in fact biased toward a positive result. The reason is simple: background checks and the recruitment work that precedes them is time-consuming and costly - in my day it cost 20-30,000 "dollars" to process a Special Background Investigation for the Defense Department - my guess is a DoE "Q" clearance is about the same. If the clearance has to be denied, you get to start all over again with the next candidate. Meanwhile, the position is vacant, which depending on the position could cost more than just money. I have performed background investigations, sat on an adjudication board and monitored the work of others, and over a three-year span in the field I an truthfully say that I never saw or participated in any proceeding that was anything but fair and honest at the administrative level (sources were sometimes less than honest). I wish I could say the same for the courts. Key points about background checks: - they are voluntary, performed with the full knowledge and consent in writing of the subject, who is seeking a privileged position and has been informed IN DETAIL of the criteria that will be applied to him and what will be done with the information that he provides and the information developed in the investigation - they incorporate checks based on a very thorough knowledge of human nature, and of malicious gossip in particular. Every important datum must be either corroborated or refuted, if necessary by reference to the subject himself - nobody is going to make a decision based on ONE lead or one records check. Security dossiers in even routine cases end up being quite massive, and the one blue-hair (interestingly, older folk tend to be more balanced and perceptive in their views - at least in my experience) with a petty grudge tends to stand out from a generally favorable background - and be given the degree of attention she deserves. Bottom line: if you have credible unfavorable information about the subject, you're doing the whole country a disservice by keeping it to yourself; if you have generally favorable information to impart, you're doing the subject a disservice by refusing it. If you are a person of sound and balanced judgement, your input will help keep the investigation on track. Remember: the subject ASKED for this investigation, and if there is INSUFFICIENT information on which to base a determination, that is one of the few valid grounds for denial. If you're in any doubt about whether the subject authorized the investigation, ask to see the release form that he signed. If the check is legit, the agent will have a photocopy with him. Best, Marc de Piolenc Philippines
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
F. Marc de Piolenc -
mmotyka＠lsil.com -
Steve Furlong -
Tim May