> Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous

I believe it is possible to get security clearance after cessation of drugs for multiple years, even drugs like Heroin. I found the full rules[0] while reading an AMA on /r/SecurityClearance.

[0] https://www.dni.gov/files/NCSC/documents/Regulations/SEAD-4-...

This.

I entertained the idea of working in the public sector a while ago, for a brief time, until I learned that pot is fine in my past, but not in my present. "How the heck do you expect me to get the code written?"

Also, I've been told that getting a clearance is more burden than blessing. You have restrictions that an "ordinary person" doesn't have, along with criminal penalties for violating them. Whereas, without a clearance, if they really need you for something, they'll bring you in anyway.

> I've been told that getting a clearance is more burden than blessing

Yes it definitely can be, but depends on your personality and stage of life. You are always cognizant of having a clearance and the need to maintain it, and so you consider that in your every day life. You also have to open your life up in uncomfortable ways, even if your only objection is in principal.

You probably don't sweat it too much later in life since you generally are a more 'boring' person, but I had mine in my mid 20's so was a lot more active in terms of social life. One time I was in downtown SF with a buddy hitting up bars etc and eventually had to cut out early because things were getting more drug oriented. I also used to play a lot of cards before getting a clearance and had contacts who were in some shady stuff. I basically excommunicated them from my life to avoid the clearance hassle.

Not sure I understand those last two sentences. Could you clarify?

Friend of mine is head of IT for some government agency. Not a spooky one - just a routine agency. However, given the nature of IT and the data they need to store - they are required to get security clearance.

For him it's been a minor nuisance at worst. He has strong restrictions on travel. I think he needs approval to travel abroad. He has relatives in other countries and visits them often, so it can't be too much of a nuisance.

I believe he told me that he does have to report details of where he went in each country and who he interacted with upon his return. Not sure about the details.

Official website: https://www.dm.usda.gov/ohsec/TravelResource.htm

Things may have changed, but in my prior life when I had a clearance, for example, dating (or marrying for that matter) a foreign national would result in heavy vetting, including possibly losing your clearance and/or being terminated.

I hope it would have just been your contract that would have been terminated? ;-)

These days I don't believe spying results in death, just a long vacation at club fed.

Don't do drugs (including marijuana), don't get blackout drunk, don't talk about your work, don't need psychiatric help... For the last sentence...Trump had all sorts of clearance when he clearly should not have. But he was in an important position.

Putting aside the politics of it for a second, all clearence stems from the executive branch which stems from the president. Saying the president shouldn't have clearance doesn't make a lot of sense, he's the one who authorized it. He's the one who decides who gets it.

Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy.

> Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy.

Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them.

That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental heads, MPs, committees, etc. A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)

>A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed.

You can frame this another way: it prevents meaningful change even if the electorate demands it.

Sorry, I watched too much Yes Minister to think this is a good thing x)

Yes, of course - but if a country already had a well-oiled establishment civil-service which kept its finger on the pulse of the nation then it would already be aligned with the electorates' interests and voting-intent.

I recognize I'm basically describing a utopia.

Any power structure naturally seeks permanence. Democratic elections with short office terms goes against the nature. If we are not vigilant, shadowy forces will take control of this mechanism too. Some could argue it already has happened.

I like how Putin describes his impression of the powers of the US President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xykvrGpCW6E&ab_channel=Russi...

Has a certain “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” vibe. There are pros and cons to both.

That statement wasn't about politics at all. Let me put it another way: Had he been trying to get clearance for a normal position, he would probably not have received it.

I also never said he had access to everything. Nobody has access to everything. Not arguing for a shadow government--it's already a fact. It happened when classification rules went from "what would harm national security" to "what would cause problems if American citizens found out we were doing this."

In principle the president has access to EVERYTHING. There is literally nothing he shouldn't have access to, at least within the executive branch which includes nearly all military/defense/intel secrets.

The only thing he does not have unrestricted access to is Justice department stuff (e.g. FBI), although there'd better be a damn good reason to deny it to POTUS if he asks, and legislative branch secrets which really infrequently comes into play. That's due to the whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing. But security clearances for everything in the executive branch stem FROM the president. If he wants to reveal some state secret, he can just tweet it with no consequences, or blurt it out while on the phone with foreign states. As Trump did on multiple occasions.

That said, of course there is a significant deep state bureaucracy which attempts at times to keep certain things hidden, even from the current president. But if the president were to ask about it, they have to tell him.

> don't need psychiatric help

Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?

I don't know. I haven't worked in that system for many years. That said, it was more received wisdom than a written rule, and I was aware of exceptions who were prescribed more than ADHD meds.

We’ll I mean the ADHD meds I’m prescribed happens to also be a popular street drug, so I wouldn’t trust them to differentiate.

No it does not.

How is this a constructive response?

> Also, you can't work for the feds if you ever touch the ganja, which is ridiculous.

Calling it 'ridiculous' removes the debate concerning the pros and cons on such rule. If you consider someone can become vulnerable if they're addicted (to anything, really) then it makes sense to be wary of a drugs addiction. Especially if the resource the person is addicted to is illegal.

That being said, I'd find it reasonable if they OK'ed medical marihuana usage. I hope my gov (NL) does.

Well it's a comparison. Not once on the security clearance paperwork is alcohol mentioned, while if you have smoked/eaten/etc. marijuana at ALL in the past 7 years, it's practically an instant deny unless it was under some exigent circumstance. You can even be denied if you don't partake but are close contacts with other marijuana users.

Obviously if someone is _addicted_ to either, that is a security risk. But the extent to which they reject people for recreational marijuana use is laughable.

Can't you just lie?

They contact all your close contacts listed on the paperwork. Lying also constitutes perjury in this case.

The unofficial advice I’ve heard is to not even bother with SC if you use weed. Generally, it will be found out. I looked into this as needing an SC was a possibility with my current job.

That is not wise. You do have to take a lie detector test, and they are actually good at reading the results.

So you don't think any alcoholics work for the NSA?

Not to mention, alcohol is a far more physiologically addictive substance.

So much tastier too.

> if they're addicted (to anything, really)

Like caffeine ?

I'm almost sure they have coffee machines in there.

Here’s a different picture. Put in your 20y at NSA right out of school. Get retirement benefits, and then move to the private sector, where they pay a premium for NSA experience. Or, do contract work for NSA since you already have clearance and contacts. They will pay you about 4x more as a contractor.

This is very much the truth, I used to work in infosec. Plus the moral implications of working for the feds! Too much on my conscience.

you can do the really spooky stuff without going to prison. that's why they do it