This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Security

Yes, This Still Happens

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 1, 2016
Filed under

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

88 responses to “Yes, This Still Happens”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    As a long-time SW Florida resident, I’ve seen lots of Canadians down here. And it’s easy for them to infiltrate, too: they look just like us.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Seriously, getting clearances for people from other countries who need access to NASA facilities is a real problem. SpaceX, after selling US launch services to a Chinese company for the first time in history, reportedly had considerable trouble getting its Chinese customers on site for the two Asiasat launches. It doesn’t appear that the NASA clearance process consists of anything more than a name check, yet it frequently takes weeks for NASA to people who have already cleared the much more rigorous USA visa process, and some people fail to receive clearances with no specific explanation.

      It is impossible for NASA to correct this problem, first and foremost, because no one in any official capacity will admit that a problem exists.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I know of one case where some scientists and engineers from Italy were very upset by this sort of thing. They were delivering an instrument to a NASA spacecraft and were supposed to be on hand while it was mounted on the spacecraft and tested. There is usually a fair amount of fiddling around when this is done, so having people who built the subsystem on site is the normal practice.

        After getting to the company building the spacecraft, they were told that, although they had all the appropriate paperwork for the mission in question, another spacecraft was being assembled in the same high bay. They didn’t have the paperwork and authorization to get near that one. So they couldn’t go in the high bay, or even look in through a window. They were asked to support assembly and testing by sitting in a conference room with a telephone and video link. Which they could have done from home, without flying from Europe to the United States.

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      Indeed. Their only tell is how often they say sorry.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      My business partner is Canadian. Every once in a while he spells something funny or uses metric units and his true identity is revealed.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Of course, you can never be sure. Judging by past performance, scientists and engineers who are US citizens occasionally spell things funny and may slip and use metric units.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          I got yelled at for using metric when I worked at NASA. Seriously. I was publicly reprimanded for doing so at the Space Station Freedom Program Office.

          • EtOH says:
            0
            0

            Understandable. Using metric is how things like Mars Cimate Orbiter happen.

          • Todd Austin says:
            0
            0

            Actually, that’s what happens when you use traditional English measures when the rest of humanity uses the sane metric system. I suppose we can be thankful that NASA didn’t require Keith to report distances in cubits.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Yes, and I’ve heard JPL PIO people talking about if and how metric is allowed in a press release. I think the last version I heard was that metric is allowed, but only as a parenthetic. For example, 11 feet (3.4 meters).

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The original idea behind giving mesurements in both units was to give people a week or two to get used to the new system. We are still putting things in multiple units after more than a generation. This is absurd.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Early in the Space Station program various people (including me) submitted change requests proposing that it be built under the metric system. The idea was rejected. Spacelab was metric but Shuttle used the “English” system (England, of course, actually uses the metric system). So Shuttle often had to carry two sets of socket wrenches.

            There is a more serious aspect to this; the use of multiple systems of measurement creates human factors errors in aviation. Metrication of aviation has been rejected under the assertion that “in an emergency, pilots would revert to the system with which they are most familiar.” There is no proof whatever that this is the case, but even if it were, the majority of pilots in the world today grew up in countries which use primarily the metric system.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I asked my publisher if I should show equivalent metric units when specifying feet and such. “Too many parenthesis”, he replied.

            And so it goes, as someone famous once said.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            So if you suggested only using metric you could get rid of the parentheses.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I could put the conversion factors at the bottom of every page…

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Systems of measurements is a bit far from the original topic, so I’ll only make a few comments.

            I have a friend from the UK, who gets very offended when someone mentioned “English” units. But she won’t take me up on a bet I suggested: The next time we are both in the UK, we could go to a pub. If they are serving beer by the liter, I’ll buy, and if they are serving by the pint, she buys.

            Aviation has, in most of the world, gone metric, and it wasn’t painless. Look up, for example, the “Gimli Glider.”

            But that, and most of the so-called unit conversion errors, are not that. They are having multiple systems of units in use at once, and someone forgetting that a conversion is necessary. (As opposed to true conversion errors, like using 1.5 km/mile instead of 1.6.)

            Even with metric, which makes conversions just a matter of moving the decimal place, I still see problems. Most scientists have a preference for cgs versus SI metric, and going particles per cubic centimeter to per cubic meter gives a factor of 1e6 to get wrong. I don’t even want to think about other systems, like 84600 seconds per day (or is it 86400…) Unfortunately, I doubt I will every convince people to give up on those old factors of 12 and 60, which are heritage from ancient Babylonian astrology, in favor of kiloseconds and meagseconds.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Metric isn’t magic. I felt it was a significant mistake for SI to change from bar (which are intuitive, 1bar=1atm) to pascals (which are not).

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Well, a bar is 101.3 kPa. That’s close enough to kPa being equal to 1% of a bar. So I think that’s intuitive. On the other hand, I’m also the one arguing in favor of kiloseconds instead of hours and minutes. So what I consider intuitive may not work for everyone.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            One bar is defined as 10 newtons per square cm, or exactly 100kPa. 101.3kPa is not one bar, although it is one standard atmosphere. See how confusing pascals are?

            It takes four syllables just to say kilopascal, vs only one for bar. Bar are a precise metric unit while at the same time being precisely equal to the mean atmospheric pressure in Møllehøj, Denmark. What could be simpler?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I was going to drop the unit discussion as off-topic, but you just provide too good an example of why this is difficult.

            As far as I’m concerned, the bar is a fairly useless value. Many people do not live at sea level, and due to varying weather, even at sea level the pressure is almost never exactly one bar. It’s a rough average, so the difference between one bar and 101.3 kPa doesn’t seem too significant to me. In contrast, if I want to convert a pressure difference into a force, I’d like to multiply by area and be done (or relate a mass column density and gravity to a pressure.). No worrying about conversion factors. So the pascal is convenient for my applications, while a bar would not be. And, by the way, if you pronounce it by the letters, kPa is three syllables.

            But, from your comments, I assume you have different applications and concerns. For you, a bar might be a very sensible unit and anything else less convenient. That’s the real problem. One solution does not fit everyone, so someone will always be unhappy with almost any standard. It’s more a question of whether or not you need a standard (usually yes) and which one will make the fewest people unhappy.

            Personally, I’m quite comfortable with archaic units like cubits and leagues. When I move furniture, I don’t need a tape measure to tell me if the bookshelf will fit between a wall and a door. In cubits, the measuring device is built into my arm. If I know a place is two leagues away, I know it will take me about two hours to walk there, because that’s the definition of a league. But that’s for rough calculations and quick estimates. I definitely wouldn’t want to build a rocket with those units.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            And as well you should be; at some point the world will discard the clunky metric system in favor of feet and inches, all easily understandable.

            By me, at least. I’m constantly remembering conversion factors. I was totally thrilled learning that 1000 KG is about equal to a ton (uh, the factor being 2.2, more or less…).

          • Todd Austin says:
            0
            0

            It’s amazing how much information is contained in that one small statement.

  2. William Ogilvie says:
    0
    0

    Canada supports terrorism? This is news to me and I don’t believe it’s why Ms Mazrouei was denied a security clearance. It appears to me that US security clearances are only available to US citizens. Maybe Ms. Mazrouei has family members who live in a country that does have security issues or is on the ITAR list of embargoed countries. It has been routine for over 50 years to be refused admittance to a NASA facility on that basis. And I know this has happened to at least one US citizen. NASA security monitoring of foreign nationals has increased significantly in the past 16 years.

  3. Jafafa Hots says:
    0
    0

    If Canada is a country that supports terrorism, then the United States HAS to be on the list. Higher on it.
    I guess it’s time to fire everyone.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      The case that the US supports terrorism has been made, over and over. And the case that the US is the world’s leading exporter of arms is also made, over and over. Decide for yourself.

  4. Sara Mazrouei says:
    0
    0

    Yes. I’m only a Canadian citizen, my nationality, as stated in my passport is Canadian. I was born in Iran – that’s all.

    Correction – we are 9 interns, 3 US citizens, and 6 foreign nationals.

    The reason for security clearance rejection, word for word was because I’m “a foreign national of a state that supports terrorism activities”.

    My nationality is Canadian. My whole family, parents and sister, are also Canadian citizens and live in Canada.

    • William Ogilvie says:
      0
      0

      Good luck on getting badged for a NASA center. That you are a naturalized Canadian, originally from Iran is likely one factor in their decision. NASA, at the behest of the FBI, has always considered individuals originally from or with relatives still in countries unfriendly to US interests to be personna non grata. In the ’60s it was Germans who had family in East Germany. But even if you were an 8th generation Canadian it would still be a problem. I am Canadian and started working at a NASA center as a contractor in 1995. From day one badging was a hassle. On the back of my badge was a list of buildings I was allowed in unescorted. Things improved when I got my green card, but then got worse. Every 2 years I had to undergo an FBI screening and my manager had too much extra work to do on my behalf. After over 12 years I got riffed. Now all the jobs for contractors state a requirement of US citizenship. However I stuck with it as long as I could and I got the chance to do a lot of interesting things. I even met the head of Canada’s Space Agency one day when he visited on business. I’m sure his papers were in order.

      There must be lots of good internship opportunities in Canada.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Do you have any information to confirm that the current process was proposed by the FBI?

        • William Ogilvie says:
          0
          0

          Obviously no one would know that unless they were directly involved in this particular case and also worked for the FBI.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think you can do a little better than that. I know I have a copy of the Nelson ruling somewhere, but I can’t find it on my laptop and I’m too lazy to spend a long time looking.

            In that case, JPL security requirements were legally challenged, and the case got as far as the Supreme Court. In the process JPL and CalTech said quite a bit about following and Homeland Security Presidential Directive and getting input from appropriate government agencies over what to do (as opposed to making it up in-house.)

            You could certainly dig through the Supreme Court and lower court rulings and learn something about what practices the FBI has (or has not) recommended.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            NASA vs Nelson decided that an employee of a government contractor may be required to “voluntarily consent” to a government investigation of themselves to any level of detail desired by the government as a condition of employment.

            The court did not address what, if anything, should be done on the basis of the findings of such an investigation, i.e. under what circumstances a person who is investigated should be denied access to NASA facilities. Moreover, in this case there is no evidence so far that any actual investigation of Ms. Mazrouei was conducted beyond the questionnaire she submitted.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            It’s hardly ‘voluntary’ if a job is held in the balance.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s my feeling, but I’d love to have some legal citations to back it up. Has a court ever ruled that something is involuntary, when there is a threat of losing a job or other economic hardship involved? I know a threat of physical harm makes any form of consent invalid. But I’m not sure about the legal status of threats of professional or economic harm.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, the Nelson case is a bit more complicated than that. I happen to know Bob Nelson, and much as I like him, it was virtually impossible to be in the same room with him without getting updates on the status of the case.

            First, technically, it isn’t NASA v. Nelson, since Nelson et al. sued JPL and Caltech rather than NASA. That’s a time-saver for anyone trying to look up the text of the rulings.

            More importantly, the case the Supreme Court rules on was not the one lower courts heard. Specifically, the lower courts (up to the 10th circuit) heard about details of the proposed investigations. Between the 10th circuit ruling and the Supreme Court hearing, JPL and CalTech changed their story. They said the details were still undecided and the details in question were simply a hypothetical possibility they had floated on an internal web page.

            So the lower court rulings do contain a discussion of the details, while the Supreme Court ruling did not.

            As far as Ms. Mazrouei case is concerned, I was not suggesting that it was completely analogous to Nelson et al. However, Nelson et al. may provide public documentation about how a NASA center decided on its security policies (e.g. whether it is based on FBI recommendations, which was the original question.) That would, at least, provide evidence on general practices common to NASA centers. That’s not much but a bit more than the earlier comment that “no one would know that unless they were directly involved…”

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            I am not referring to this particular case, but to the policy itself. Was Ms. Mazrouei actually rejected as a result of screening by the FBI or some other agency? This seems unlikely as such screening is generally based on individual identity and there is nothing to indicate she is actually a terrorist. Or did a NASA official decide not to even submit her name for official screening based on some unspecified “criteria” such as having been born in Iran? If so, was this policy directed by the FBI or determined internally by NASA?

          • William Ogilvie says:
            0
            0

            I can’t answer those questions; you need to ask Ms. Mazrouei to clarify what happened. However it is common knowledge the FBI is responsible for NASA security procedures. I doubt the FBI was directly involved in her case. It was likely NASA’s screening procedures that resulted in her immediate rejection. It’s anyone’s guess how these procedures get formulated. There are ITAR regulations NASA has to abide by and the general tightening up of NASA’s security in the last 16 years. I don’t believe anyone at NASA has gone out of their way to discriminate against Ms Mazrouei.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      If it actually meant anything I’d apologize for my country. We have a strange way of dealing with the outside world and we are never consistent. Noted NASA Apollo scientist Farouk El-Baz was born in Egypt. Former JPL center director Charles Elachi was born in Lebanon. Former astronaut and NASA Chief Scientist Shannon Lucid was born in China. Former NASA Life Science AA Arnauld Nicogossian was born in Iran. And of course von Braun et al were german Nazis. But we gave them all security badges.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Was it an actual security clearance giving access to secret “classified” information or was it a clearance for physical access to NASA facilities? NASA has many clearances for access but almost none for classified information.

  5. Neil.Verea says:
    0
    0

    Devil’s in the details, which you nor I have. I’m just glad you don’t lead our security apparatus

  6. Neil.Verea says:
    0
    0

    Does anyone that has commented in support of Ms. Mazrouei know her or her situation independent of what she is saying?

  7. cynical_space says:
    0
    0

    While it’s true we don’t know all the details in Ms. Mazrouei’s case, I can easily believe the investigating security people just saw “Iran” and immediately rejected it without any further investigation.

    Someone I know once had their clearance not renewed because the travel reporting forms all cleared people have to submit contained an inconsistency between a couple of the forms. After appeal to a special judge who handles these types of questions, their clearance was re-instated after it was determined it was a simple clerical error. If the original security types had bothered to perform even a surface level, rudimentary investigation (i.e. a phone call), that would have been revealed. Pathetic.

    I suppose, in their defense, it’s easier for security types to just reject someone for the flimsiest of reasons, rather than to risk letting someone go who does turn out to be a bad guy. In this finger pointing, blame-happy society we have, rejecting people for the thinnest of reasons may be perceived as the least risky choice.

  8. Wendy Yang says:
    0
    0

    > I honestly don’t think she would have.

    Maybe. Remember that nationals of Axis countries were required to register and their naturalization denied. However, European ancestries were able to blend in easier than Asian Americans, so it all comes down to racism in the end.

    To bring this topic back to NASA, IANAL, but isn’t this a violation of the 14th Amendment?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      The burden of proof would be to show she was treated different than any others with the same backgrounds and connections, and to show that those issues were not relevant to being given a security clearance by the government.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        The burden of proof is on the government to show that it is legal to reject an applicant for a job as an employee of a federal contractor based on her country of birth, rather than her citizenship.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Then perhaps she should file a discrimination case or at least talk to a law firm on it. It would be interesting to see the outcome. It seems to be a clear case of bona fide occupational qualifications related to federal regulations. But then I only teach HR management on an occasional basis 🙂

          BTW you don’t know that was the reason, only inferring it from what the individual is saying they were told. There may well be other factors. Or not. It would be interesting to see and they would come out in a lawsuit.

          But if it is as you state it would be no problem finding a lawyer to take the case since they would be guaranteed their fee when they win.

          However you should recall she was just one of many applicants for this position. Why should NASA take the risk, even if its a minor one, when there are others that would not present it to the agency?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            “However you should recall she was just one of many applicants for this position. Why should NASA take the risk, even if its a minor one, when there are others that would not present it to the agency?”

            If this logic applies, how much longer will there be many applicants for the position?

            I saw what happened at JPL after the Nelson case. Some of the most talented people they had quit and got jobs elsewhere, because they would not submit to what they considered unreasonable intrusions into their personal life. If you want to attract good, talented people (especially imaginative ones), you can’t treat them poorly or trample over what they consider their rights. The best and brightest can find a different job if they aren’t happy with the way an employer treats them.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            As long as folks want to work at NASA there will be applicants.

            And yes, the “best and brightest” are free to go elsewhere if they are not happy with the work environment. But too often the “best and the brightest” assume they are irreplaceable.

            However private firms are also able to place limits and requirements on employees. Some even make political ones that are far worst than simple security requirements.

            http://www.theatlantic.com/

            Can Your Boss Threaten to Fire You If You Don’t Vote for Romney?

            David A. Graham Oct 20, 2012

            “Is that true? Can your boss really tell you who to vote for? The answer is probably yes — depending on where you live, and assuming you’re employed in the private sector. In most of the country, there’s little restriction on such communication, legal experts say.”

            “Basically, employers have freedom of speech. That means they can say what they want, including strongly suggesting that employees vote for candidates and sending sample ballots to them. Your boss can’t walk into the voting booth with you, and she can’t pay you to vote for a particular candidate, but often there’s little else he or she can’t do.”

            So even with the security checks NASA is still far better than a private workplace. Indeed if it were a private employer they probably wouldn’t have even responded to this individual as to why they were not hired.

            As a side note, a young relative of mind was turned down by the military. His father served 20 years. He was a high school graduate, clean record, no problems except he likes getting tattoos. They felt the number he had was excessive. Unfair? Yes, but their choice and their decision. Its simplistic to think the world will be fair.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I never said this would drive away irreplaceable people. I said it would drive some people away, and automatically reject others without cause. Anything that reduces the number of candidates for a job reduces the available talent. Perhaps only by a little, but by a a non-zero amount. That means the policy harms the organization. That means it is irrational to adopt such a policy unless there are demonstrable benefits to offset the harm.

  9. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    A very clear example of governmental excess, similar to removing shoes for the TSA; I’m surprised you didn’t point it out, Mr. Eagle?

  10. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    You know, Mr. Eagle, from time to time you do wax philosophical and actually make sense. There is room for broad disagreement in this great country.

    But then there’s the last two lines of your post, and I have to ask myself if this is an example of actual clear thinking, or just more crazy conclusions from the particular to the general.

    Just sayin’.

  11. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that the process of granting US security clearances always gets it right about who should and should not be granted clearance.

    A further observation – our President is the son of a foreign national. He has visited the land of his father’s birth on more than one occasion and has associated with his relatives there. Shall we deny him a security clearance?

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Difference is that Kenya is not building any rockets. Iran is. Its not just being foreign, the country involved matters as well.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        Kenya space program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Kenya is not building rockets. Its merely offering the launch platform the Italians built in the 1960’s to other nations for research flights. And its an ally of the United States. The U.S. even has a base there – Camp Simba.

          By contrast Iran has a vigorous ballistic missile program focused against the allies of the U.S. in the Gulf Region that would benefit from NASA information.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Yes, but any country’s foreign policies can change. Often many times over the course of a person’s lifetime. If Kenya suddenly initiated a foreign policy hostile to the United States and started a rocket program, why would that reflect on a US citizen with family ties there? If Iran suddenly “saw the light”, ended their nuclear and rocket programs, and became a close ally of the United States, what would that mean about all of the people who were distrusted because they were born there? Do you think a change in the country’s foreign policy would suddenly change their personal view, political views, or trustworthiness? That’s an absurd idea, and one reason the whole nation-of-birth idea is flawed.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You don’t need every individual’s views to change, only a handful is enough if they are in the right position or have the right information. So there is good reason to be careful.

            You might want to read the history of the German American
            Bund. Basically American citizens of German descent that lived in the United States that
            did support Germany when its politics changed after Hitler came into
            power. It is only one example of many that your world view is flawed.

            Also you are only assuming it was the nation of birth in this case because that is what the individual is saying. We don’t know what else may be involved, nor are we likely to know since such investigations are confidential for many reasons. Unfair? Yes, but welcome to the real world.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, this details of particular case aren’t critical. We know that NASA policy is to exclude foreign nations born in certain, listed countries. This came up last year, regarding a Hong Kong-born Canadian. We looked up the actual NASA documents on this policy; you should be able to find that by searching the NASAWatch archives.

            In any case, yes, it’s obvious that _some_ foreign national are a security threat. But I disagree that “only a handful is enough.” That logic can be used to justify any policy, so it doesn’t help decide if a particular policy is good or bad. In this case, there are negative effect (reducing the talent available to NASA) and ethical considerations (is this something US government should do, or is it in conflict with the basic principles our government is supposed to protect.) There are _some_ cases where that might be justified, but not all. It would also be better if the criteria were a good, rather than a poor, indicator of a potential problem. I’m not convinced place of birth tells us much of anything. I think there are lots of false positives and false negatives.

            We know that this policy applies to simply getting a badge to enter a NASA center, not just access to highly-classified material. We know that it does not apply to US citizens born in the listed countries. Both of those facts are directly out of the NASA document I mentioned, above.

            So it looks like a poor criteria, which is only partially applied, to protect something with very little to do with national security or other justifiable reasons for such measures. Given that, even minor harm is enough to make it a counterproductive policy.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            This only supports my point. The members of the German American Bund who were flirting with Nazism but looked American were not punished. In contrast, Japanese-Americans who had done nothing to suggest disloyalty but looked foreign were locked up.

  12. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Actually, although that sounds cruel it makes sense. Iran does want western rocket technology and if they were aware someone with that knowledge was visiting Iran they may well find an excuse to arrest them and take them in for “questioning”. Also one could see them giving her a choice, work with Iranian security or bad things, very bad things will happen to your parents. The intelligence world is not a nice place and far more spies have been created via blackmail than by ideology. They may have well saved her and her family from a lot of pain and suffering by saying no.

    In terms of the current case. We don’t know what came out in the investigation, but they may see similar leverage points.

    Yes, security officials do make mistakes, but its not a nice world out there and its better to error on the side of caution then just say Yes.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I’m not sure how well this logic holds up. I note that, during the Second World War, a large number of scientists working on the Manhattan, including most of the more senior scientists, were born in countries the United States was actually at war with. In fact, that included a country which had (or was suspected to have) an active program to develop atomic weapons. By your logic, shouldn’t those people have been denied clearances and work on the project, because of the potential security risks?

      I think the problem with erring on the side of caution is that it assumes there are no negative consequences. In fact there are, and a rational security policy would consider the harm, as well as the benefits, of erring on the side of caution. That does not seem to be the case today in the United States.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        You are skipping over some key points.

        First, those scientists you mention all accepted the travel restrictions and did not travel to their homeland. Indeed, they generally didn’t travel without permission, and if needed, supervision, due to the secrets they held. Also note it is something the individual above declined to do.

        Second, security kept a close watch on them including any communication with their homeland.

        Third, in the case of key individuals’ intelligence often worked to move their close relatives and spouses out of harm’s way into a neutral nation or the United States. Also recall it was wartime and they accepted their work may result in the harm of those left behind. It was a risk they choose to take.

        Fourth, this is what most are overlooking. The foreign individuals in projects like Manhatten
        had knowledge critical to the success of the project, so the security risks taken with them were worth the benefit even though we know now some did leak secrets to the Soviet Union despite the security. So yes, there were actually negative consequences as a result, with one individual, Klaus Fuchs, being convicted of giving secrets to the Soviets.

        By contrast the positions being discussed here are for mere interns or entry level jobs, ones for which there are multiple applicants equally qualified. Why take a risk on someone with questionable issues in their security profile when there are others that don’t have them? In short it is just another selection factor, like the perceived quality of the engineering/science program they graduated from, their publications, if any, or their grades. Yes, it seems unfair to the individual who doesn’t get the job, and thanks to social media they are able to vent their displeasure to the world, but organizations select workers, and interns, based on how well they will fit the job requirements and on the organization’s needs, not the wants of the individuals applying. In terms of NASA the potential to be a security risk is one of these variables.

        As a final note, NASA deals with technology that may well have the potential to be turned into weapons against America. It is good they take precautions to protect it especially given recent events.

        http://spacenews.com/34482n

        NASA Tightens Security in Wake of Chinese Contractor’s Arrest
        by SpaceNews Editor

        March 20, 2013

        Yes, the individual in this case was found innocent of espionage. But it highlighted the need for NASA to take security more seriously.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          The arrest of Bo Jiang was ordered, in the absence of any evidence, by Frank Wolf, a powerful US congressman well known for a series of dramatic and unsubstantiated accusations directed against China.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            And as I noted he was found innocent. But it did point out lapses in NASA security that needed to be addressed.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The real question is, why was he arrested? And what were the “lapses in NASA security that needed to be addressed”? I think it’s time we looked at these questions in an objective and unbiased manner, if we want to claim to be a nation that respects the rule of law.

            Congressman Frank Wolf publicly accused Bo of being a Chinese spy and insisted that he be arrested. The charges turned out to be both false and baseless. It appears the only “lapse” in NASA security was hiring a researcher who had earned his PhD in the US but was originally from China. Although Bo was innocent he was forced to leave NASA and the US.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I am not missing those points at all. Everything you mention (security inside the Manhattan project and efforts to relocate family to safer or more friendly nations, having knowledge critical to the project, etc.) were all things which happened _after_ they were offered a job, or at least before they were seriously consider for it.

          We are talking about a case where national origin was considered first, and before any other criteria were examined. That is completely different.

          In addition, I’ve seen no evidence that the job in question actually required any sort of clearance or involved sensitive information. NASA typically requires this sort of investigation or background check over _any_ job with on-site access. Many people consider that excessive, but that’s the current practice at most NASA centers (well, from personal knowledge, KSC, GSFC and JPL, but not ARC.)

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            We have also not seen any evidence that is the reason it was denied. We only have one side of the story. Nor do we know what the job involved, you are making assumptions there. As for the background checks, the question of if “is it excessive” is always a difficult one. You only need one case like that of Klaus Fuchs to show it may not have been sufficient.

            In any case NASA is only a single employer. And not everyone who wants to work at NASA will get hired, nor should they expect to be hired. And I have seen no evidence this is part of a systematic pattern.

  13. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Actually this brings up another more basic question, one that raises issues on how NASA manages its workforce.

    The question is why is NASA assigning interns to jobs that require a security clearance? Interns are not permanent employees. True they may become so one day, but the status of an Intern, paid or not, is temporary. And security clearance investigations are not cheap to do even in this computer age. So why is NASA spending so much money on interns?

    More importantly why are they providing classified information to what are only temporary workers?

    Is it really necessary or simply a legacy? In the past (Pre-911) did theses Interns need a clearance? Or is it only the under new rules they do. So why, instead of redefining the Intern’s job, or eliminating it, did NASA just decide to spend the money on giving them security clearances. It would be interesting to know. And also provide insight on how NASA evaluates the cost/benefits of its decisions in the workplace.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I know the process for simply getting a badge to enter JPL unescorted, while not requiring a full security clearance, requires a background investigation which isn’t too far short of that. It also involves some of the same restrictions about foreign nationals and people born in the “wrong” country. So if they want to have interns, yes, JPL is buying in to some of the expensive and dubious investigative work you are describing.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        That would be post-9/11, of course. I attended several open house events at JPL before the security craziness and stayed from open to close.

        I was younger then, attempting to visit every NASA center. Got most of them.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I can’t remember when JPL was totally open. But the first time I went there was 1994. They used to have open houses where they opened the main plaza by the gate (between the Van Karman auditorium and the main administration building) open to the public, while keeping the rest of the lab off limits. But this year, they’ve made some changes to that. Instead of general admission, they are giving out tickets (specifying the name of the person allowed in.) If memory serves, part of the stated reason was to check who was getting in (i.e. not people on watch lists.)

  14. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    The question at issue is whether a Canadian citizen should be denied access to NASA facilities because she was born in Iran. The answer is no. Moreover, if there really were evidence she is dangerous it would have to be provided to both the US and Canadian governments. NASA has not done this, so we can assume NASA has no evidence that she is a security risk.

    There are two factors I am aware of which encourage this irrational situation. First, if someone at a NASA center wants to invite a foreign visitor they may be required to pay for a national agency check, which is, absent a strong justification, unlikely to occur. Even if it is approved, it can require 30 days. The process is expensive and hard to streamline because, unlike most countries, the US has no national system for identification. SSN, which is a unique identifier, usually cannot even be used because we are told to keep it secret, since banks will often issue new loans with no verification of identity other than an SSN.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Actually, the social security number has a longer history than that. When originally introduced, there was opposition because (among other things) it _could_ allow a national system for identification. That would streamline all kinds of searches, potentially inappropriate or illegal ones, and some people didn’t like the idea of that. There was a feeling that it’s possible for the government to know too much about its citizens and what they are doing.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        I agree. However these views are irrational. The current situation creates massive inefficiencies, errors that often hurt the people least able to defend themselves, enables rampant identity theft, and does nothing to protect privacy.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I’m not sure if it (not allowing social security numbers to be used as a national identity system.) I think limiting what the government can do, as a practically matter, is as important as the legal/constitutional restrictions. But that’s not really relevant to this forum.

          I think the problems you point out are, more properly, the fact that the system was specifically designed _not_ to be a national identity system but it is now being used as one. A poor sort of one, and one with many flaws.

          We really ought to simply reach a consensus as a nation, and either adopt a real, functional system, or decide to do without. But then, I just said something about reaching a consensus as a nation…

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            It was not until the 1970s that the widespread use of credit cards led banks to set up accounts based only on an SSN. Naturally this led to widespread fraud. Rather than take the time to actually verify the identity of people before lending money to them, banks complained to the government that SSNs should be kept “confidential”. Well, except to them.

            A national identity system would prevent identity theft, make it unnecessary to kick people off airplanes based on their name, and reduce the interminable fights over who can and can’t vote.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think we’re arguing to cross purposes. There are unquestionably benefits from a functional, national identity system. You don’t have to convince me of that. I simply believe there are also disadvantages, and the issue is whether the advantages exceed the disadvantages.

            Giving the government the ability to do something efficiently is fine when the government is benevolent and all no government officials have criminal intentions. But some government officials do have criminal intentions (that’s why we bother with laws about malfeasance in office) and governments can change and become less than benevolent. I worry about those cases.

            Without entering a debate on the elections, I am confident that one of the candidates supports some domestic policy which you strongly object to. (If you are not, they you are a statistical anomaly.) If the election doesn’t go the way you would like, and the “wrong” party controls both the White House and both houses of Congress, would you object to a little grit in the machinery of government? Some limits on what the government is, as a practical matter, actually capable of doing? If so, that is an argument against making the government more efficient. An argument which should be balanced against the advantages of doing so.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Such grit will do a lot more harm than good, particularly to the people who lack the resources to defend themselves, because they cannot prove who they really are.

            It results in false entries in criminal records, loss of driver licenses, loss of money through identity theft, people getting kicked off planes because they have names similar to terrorists, people getting kicked off voter rolls because they have names similar to criminals. It results in people being treated like criminals because of what they look like instead of who they are. It resulted in Frank Wolf thinking of Bo Jiang not as a promising PhD researcher with something to contribute to aviation safety, but rather just as “Chinese”. Even if someone I do not like is elected, inefficiency will just increase the amount of suffering people will incur.

            Because we are a democracy have the right to participate in our government. Once we make the decision that government itself is the enemy we lose the desire to participate.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Executive Order 9397, issued in 1943, designated the SSN as the exclusive identification number to be used by the federal government to identify all Americans. You can’t get much closer to a national identity system than that.

            To my recollection there was no opposition to this until ~1970 when banks started using it to issue credit cards to people they had never met. This led to identity theft, and rather then add a PIN for verification they told us to just “keep our SSNs secret”, which is impossible.

            The SSN was designed to unambiguously specify a unique individual, like a username. It was not designed to verify that you are that individual, like a password. We just need a PIN for our SSN.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          We’ll part company on this; I for one value my privacy, something increasingly difficult to maintain as this computer continues to reach out. I imagine that despite my best efforts Google knows about as much about me as the USG.

          The messiness of personal identification is a feature, not a bug.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      There is a difference between a security risk and someone that is potentially dangerous. For example, an individual with large gambling debts or a gambling habit could be seen as a security risk since they could be tempted to sell secrets, but not be seen as dangerous.

  15. Sara Mazrouei says:
    0
    0

    That’s why you shouldn’t generalize and put people in boxes. Safety and security is very important for every country and I respect that completely. I would like to be treated as an individual, have them do a complete background check on me. Realize that I have lived in Canada since I was 12. That I’ve done all my schooling there. That I’m a good citizen – I pay my taxes, I vote, I recycle, I do a lot of community outreach.
    Do a background check on ME, don’t put me in a box just because I was born in a certain country. That to me is unfair. I’m a scientist, not a terrorist.

    • William Ogilvie says:
      0
      0

      Your multiple twitter missives to Chris Hadfield, Justin Trudeau, Anousheh Ansari, etc. all imply that Canada is a country that supports terrorism. This is not true. It maligns your adopted country and is an insult to all Canadians. It has been explained to you how difficult it can be to get even the minimal security clearance you required. It has never been about Canada being a country that supports terrorism. This was a canard. Maybe it’s time for you to come clean on this and apologize to all those Canadians who welcomed your family to their country.

  16. kcowing says:
    0
    0

    Those racist comments were made by someone who was approved to post. That user has been banned and all racist commentary deleted. My apologies.

  17. Just_Plain_Theo says:
    0
    0

    Those damn Canadian terrorists! The only good Canuck is a dead Canuck!

  18. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    The logical flow, as I understand it and if you want to call it that, is first to see if someone is a US citizen or a foreign national. Then, iff the person is a foreign national, additional things are checked. This includes place of birth and whether that place is in a country on a list of suspect ones. I’m not saying that’s legal, just that this is how the process apparently works.

    I am curious about children of US citizens, such as diplomats posted to a suspect country at the time of the child’s birth. I’m also curious about people born in countries which either no longer exist or which no longer have the same government. Do Lithuanians have a problem because they were born in the Soviet Union? Or, if a country were invaded and a border changed, could someone go from trustworthy to untrustworthy based on the conquering nation’s status?

  19. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    By the way, what’s with the title? “Yes, This Still Happens” That implies the situation is improving and one wouldn’t expect it to be as bad as it used to be. Perhaps I’m not feeling optimistic at the moment, but that isn’t my impression. We’re still far better off than in the days of the House Committee on Unamerican Activities, but I can’t say I’ve seen much in the way of improvement in the past decade or two.

  20. observedj5 says:
    0
    0

    the mistake here is offering someone an internship before making sure they can have access to all systems/areas needed. if the offer was contingent on security clearance, should be up front about that. no one is entitled to an internship at nasa nor is anyone entitled to access to secure nasa centers. these are controlled gov’t facilities. understandably there’s disappointment and anger here, but if someone has an internship at say DOD or a secure DOE facility i doubt it would be much different. it states clearly on a nasa website citizens of syria, nk, and iran get denied. if the person here isn’t a citizen of iran, maybe she can prove that somehow? just being a citizen of canada doesnt mean someone isn’t a dual citizen and ppl born in iran are usually dual citizens b/c the gov’t of iran doesnt recognize revocations as far as i know. i have friends who have this problem, from my understanding its a common challenge in usa for people with family in iran.