RE: Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances

Subject: RE: Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances
From: "Lippincott, Rick" <Rick -dot- Lippincott -at- flir -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:05:51 -0400

Lisa Roth said:

>I agree with Bonnie's line of thinking. It seems that there ought to be
>least some sort of preliminary application process that entails a
>background check and can be used to rate a person on his/her likelihood
>being cleared, even if the actual clearance is not issued.


>Oh well -- I'm sure it'll never happen because it's too logical.

The argument against this type of system may go something like this...

First problem, who does this preliminary investigation? The government?
If so, consider the expense of instituting a program that in theory
-anybody- could apply for. It would, like many government programs, get
very expensive very quickly because in all likelihood a -lot- of people
would sign up for it, even if they had no immediate intention of
applying for a government related job.

(Also, adding to the numbers, if the government is paying for it, then
there is an incentive for private companies to use the system so that
they don't have to pay for their own employee background checks. I'm
talking about companies that have no connection to government related
work. Y'know, Wal-Mart and the like. Sound crazy? It's already
happening. I have heard of one or two small companies that require
employees to apply for a firearms permit, on the theory that the state
runs its own background check. Producing the license for the company
proves that you passed the check, but saves the company the expense of
running the check on their own. I know it sounds crazy, but it has
actually happened.)

So then, if we rule out a government agency doing the check, does a
private company do it? Sounds good so far. But then how do we assure the
government (who ultimately regulates security clearances) that the work
of the private company is accurate? Lisa used the analogy of credit
reports, but then we've all heard stories about messed up credit
reports. And this doesn't even raise the specter of (not to sound
paranoid) manipulating the system by creating deliberately false
information about people for nefarious ends (i.e. "intentionally working
to get a bad guy into the system").

What really is going to happen is more like this: if the demand for
classified jobs remains less than the supply of cleared writers, then
we'll continue to see ads requiring active clearances.

If the demand for classified jobs exceeds the number of writers with
clearances, then companies will start to hire people that don't have
clearances, and put those people to work on non-classified project
elements while the clearance process takes place. There really won't be
any other choice.

--Rick Lippincott
FLIR Systems
Billerica, MA

Previous by Author: Re: blue background, white text
Next by Author: RE: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances
Previous by Thread: Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances
Next by Thread: Re: So many jobs want CURRENT security clearances

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads