For national security positions; absolutely. Those questions are due to the potential for coercion as well as character determination. As far as Europe, MI6 definitely asks those questions. Not sure about DGSE in France though. If you answer in a way that's "negative" that doesn't hurt you as much as lying. If everyone knows about your transgressions, there is less leverage for cohesion by a foreign agency. But if you're keeping a secret, that's exceptional leverage that can be used to blackmail you into betraying secrets.

You hit on a great point. The possibility to be coerced is pretty much the single biggest part of the entire security investigation. It includes being coerced because:

-Financial debt, so all of your finances are inspected

-Family connections, so all of your family is investigated

-Marital affairs, so you're asked about it during the poly

-Pirating software, again asked about it on the poly

...and all sorts of other things. The big thing you hit on is that this isn't very painful unless you try to hide it. If you try to hide something and it comes out in the investigation, you'll almost certainly be disqualified.

One thing I learned in the briefings I saw after getting my clearance was that the single biggest motivator for betrayal was a thrill-seeking narcissistic personality, followed closely by political agendas. Financial (including bribery/blackmail) and romantic blackmail concerns were so tenuously correlated as to be laughable to suggest they are meaningful as a potential exploitation.

Also, polygraphs are pseudoscientific nonsense.

The only reason that "smoking pot" has potential for coercion is that the US government makes such a doggone huge stink about it. Homosexuality and mental health issues lie in the same category - if they didn't make a stink about it, being gay or whatever wouldn't be an issue, and nobody would be able to coerce anyone about it.

The NSA, at least, is not without imagination. They will have perceived the issue with making a stink about X causes X to be a handle for coercion. Therefore, the NSA wants pot smoking to be in issue they can disqualify people with, they want other arbitrary categories of actions to be disqualification issues. Why? My guess is control: mental health issues and sexual behavior outside of vanilla are pretty darn common. Finding such problems gives the NSA itself a handle on their own people, to coerce things from them.

And as far as "character" goes, haven't we heard enough about that in the past few years to realize that "good character" is just another form of racism/elitism, like "good breeding" or a "gentleman's C" grade at an Ivy League school?

Or it could be that a cocaine addiction is a huge avenue for coercion, and pot is still grouped into the same schedule as cocaine etc.

The coercion justification is really bizarre though. The only reason anyone could coerce you because they know you smoke pot is because it's a big deal to the NSA, so the NSA asks because they know that because of their self-imposed policy it creates the possibility for coercion.

If instead they just decided that if they found out one of their employees smoked pot that they wouldn't care the coercion potential would magically disappear overnight.

But I guess that's too logical for the government to consider.

Varies by state and a lot is illegal (age, race, marital status), but in this specific case they're talking about clearance questions which are different (getting a secret/top secret clearance). For these questions basically anything goes.

At least in Sweden you can in principle ask any question you want, but you open yourself up to lawsuits if the person being interviewed feels they didn't get the job due to their answer (or refusal to answer) any question about family/politics/religion/sexuality etc. etc.

In EU, are they prohibited from asking even if it's a matter of national security?

It differs from country to country.

In Germany you can only ask about drug use if the people will work with heavy machinery. No questions about race, gender, kids, or age are allowed and can be used to file a lawsuit if asked.

The federal police and intelligence agencies will also background check your friends and family. That being said, amongst German IT professionals people working for the government have the image of being a bit slow and only there for the job security. The best graduates certainly don't go there, and because patriotism/nationalism is very low the agencies cannot even advertise with "Do it for your country, if not for the money".

I think it's funny that anyone anywhere thinks that whether you smoked pot in the last year is "a matter of national security".

It's an illegal substance; it must be bought from illegal merchants; engaging in black market commerce exposes one to the risk of blackmail, coercion &c.

It'd be weird if it weren't disqualifying.

(I think it ought to be 100% legal, but until it is, users are too great a risk)

Well, sure. In itself. But in terms of a security clearance, a use of drugs means you might be susceptible to bribery/ extortion/ blackmail over such use (or someone might helpfully keep you supplied in exchange for information).

I don't see how this is any more likely than a teetotaler taking cash bribes for information.

As a technicality, they're not asking it as part of the job interview itself, they're asking it as part of either a security clearance, or a "pre" security clearance to see if they should even bother.

> Is asking such questions (smoking pot, questions about your social life) in a job interview legal in the US?

I suppose you can ask any question you like in a job interview.

It isn't that certain questions are illegal; it's that there are certain bases on which employers may not discriminate - so called protected classes of individuals[1]. If you ask someone a question about whether they are married or pregnant, you might create the perception that you are discriminating on those bases. Not delving into those areas in interviews is merely a prudent HR policy to avoid the appearance of impropriety; actually discriminating on those grounds, however, is illegal.

Job interviews are not the same as security clearance checks (which some govt/govt contractor jobs require). I don't know what if anything is "out of bounds" in the context of those...

[1]: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/index.cfm

EDIT: For a bit more information on the types of questions you might run into during a clearance check, here's a PDF of the form you fill out, SF86[2]. I don't know how closely they hew to this in the in-person interviews but I've heard anecdotally that the investigators primarily clarify and confirm responses you gave on the clearance form. Note that it is 127 pages long. The first 60 or so pages are basic information about you, your relatives, your marital status, people who know you well, education, personal military history and employment. Here are some of the more interesting sections along with the page number they start on:

- Foreign Contacts (p62)

- Foreign Activities (p66)

- Foreign Business, Professional Activities, and Foreign Government Contacts (p75)

- Foreign Travel (p83)

- Psychological and Emotional Health (p87)

- Police Record (p89)

- Illegal Use of Drugs and Drug Activity (p96)

- Use of Alcohol (p103)

- Financial Record (p109)

- Use of Information Technology Systems (p116)

- Association Record (p119) features the question: "Are you now or have you EVER been a member of an organization dedicated to terrorism, either with an awareness of the organization's dedication to that end, or which the specific intent to further such activities?" along with a form which you can helpfully use to provide the name and street address of the organization as well as any contributions you made:

[2]: http://www.opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/SF86.pdf

> Are you now or have you EVER been a member of an organization dedicated to terrorism, either with an awareness of the organization's dedication to that end, or which the specific intent to further such activities?

At a guess that question is only there so you can be prosecuted if the answer you give is in contradiction to what is already known about you. I highly doubt they actually expect to find anything new like this.

It is very routine to require job applicants to go pee in a cup.

Yes, it's totally legal, depending on the state you live in (I think there are regulations in, e.g. California, about some questions).

There is no compulsion to answer, however.

> There is no compulsion to answer, however.

With the understanding that there's also no compulsion for them to hire you if you don't answer.