<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_0443251</id>
	<title>JPL Background Check Case Reaches Supreme Court</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268498580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Dthief writes <i>"A <a href="//science.slashdot.org/story/07/11/29/2058211/NASA-Requires-JPL-Scientists-To-Give-Up-Right-To-Privacy">long-running legal battle</a> between the United States government and a group of 29 scientists and engineers of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/scientists-case-on-background-ch.html">has now reached the US Supreme Court</a>."</i> At issue: mandatory background checks for scientists and engineers working at JPL, which they allege includes snooping into their sexual orientation, as well as their mental and physical health.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dthief writes " A long-running legal battle between the United States government and a group of 29 scientists and engineers of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL ) in Pasadena , California , has now reached the US Supreme Court .
" At issue : mandatory background checks for scientists and engineers working at JPL , which they allege includes snooping into their sexual orientation , as well as their mental and physical health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dthief writes "A long-running legal battle between the United States government and a group of 29 scientists and engineers of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, has now reached the US Supreme Court.
" At issue: mandatory background checks for scientists and engineers working at JPL, which they allege includes snooping into their sexual orientation, as well as their mental and physical health.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462784</id>
	<title>Do what now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is long so you can skip whats in italics. It's just a stupid personal story having to do with background checks.</p><p>These people are complaining about a background check for a job doing possibly classified work involving the federal government? If you are going to try to work somewhere that does work that might involve national secrets/security then expect them to go to extreme lengths to verify that you are who you say you are and that you dont have any motives for working there other than wanting to work there on those kinds of projects.</p><p> <i>Go try to apply for a job at a nuclear power plant. Any job from cleaning the floors to security or H.N.I.C (head nucleardude in charge). Not only will they ask you for information for an extensive background check and psychological profile they will dig deeper. Many require polygraph tests, drug tests, and even keep track of your credit score. If you are a good candidate for the job they will call or even visit your neighbors. They will ask your neighbors what they think about you. Are you social? Was he/she a good neighbor? Were they active in any groups you know of? Did they do anything or associate with anyone that you thought was strange? They actually ask that kind of questions. I had a gentleman in a nice suit carrying a very official badge and gun stop by my house asking these questions about a neighbor that had just moved from next door to me in Arkansas to New Mexico and was trying to get on at a nuclear facility. He asked extremely personal questions about my neighbor. Going as far as asking me if I knew if he had a lot of sexual partners (didnt ask or seem to care if the guy was gay), and if I knew any of them or how to contact them. I answered all his questions and had to sign a form saying that to the best of my knowledge I was answering them truthfully. I called my uncle who is a lawyer and read the form to him. He said it was ok to sign it there was nothing in it that could get me in trouble no matter what I actually told the guy. The man in the suit also asked me not to go out of my way to contact the person he came to see me about but that if he called and asked me it was alright to tell the truth about them doing the background questions of his neighbors. He also told me that anything I said wouldnt be shown/told to the person in question and that my answers and comments would be recorded only as "neighbor".</i> </p><p> <i>When the guy asked if I though he had a stable personality I told him no. The neighbor had a bad habit of getting drunk and shooting stuff. We were out in the country and if a dog wandered into his yard (any dog) he would shoot it and usually he was drunk. I showed him the 2 bullet holes in my bedroom wall and one in my dresser where his aim was not very good or he had been drinking more than usual. This was in 1999 so I cant imagine what its like now after 9/11 (never forget). Dont know what job he was applying for but he did construction (concrete work) so I'm guessing it was in that field. The "agent" was at my house for over 2 1/2 hours and never once acted like he was in a hurry. He did everything like his job at that moment was the most important thing in the world. Never knew who he worked for his badge didnt say but his car had U.S. Government tags.</i> </p><p>Anecdotes aside if you apply for a job that has something to do with the government, government projects, national secrets, or national security you will be checked. They will look at your life with a scanning electron microscope. If you shit your pants in 3rd grade they will know that your nickname thru highschool was shitpants. As long as they werent breaking any laws concerning equal employment then they can pretty much check whatever the hell they like. I dont mind the government or employer demanding these deep background checks. I want them to be as sure as possible that the people that are hired are extremely unlikely to ever commit treason for any reason be it financial or philosphical. There is no such thing as 100\% sure but lets try to get as close as possib</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is long so you can skip whats in italics .
It 's just a stupid personal story having to do with background checks.These people are complaining about a background check for a job doing possibly classified work involving the federal government ?
If you are going to try to work somewhere that does work that might involve national secrets/security then expect them to go to extreme lengths to verify that you are who you say you are and that you dont have any motives for working there other than wanting to work there on those kinds of projects .
Go try to apply for a job at a nuclear power plant .
Any job from cleaning the floors to security or H.N.I.C ( head nucleardude in charge ) .
Not only will they ask you for information for an extensive background check and psychological profile they will dig deeper .
Many require polygraph tests , drug tests , and even keep track of your credit score .
If you are a good candidate for the job they will call or even visit your neighbors .
They will ask your neighbors what they think about you .
Are you social ?
Was he/she a good neighbor ?
Were they active in any groups you know of ?
Did they do anything or associate with anyone that you thought was strange ?
They actually ask that kind of questions .
I had a gentleman in a nice suit carrying a very official badge and gun stop by my house asking these questions about a neighbor that had just moved from next door to me in Arkansas to New Mexico and was trying to get on at a nuclear facility .
He asked extremely personal questions about my neighbor .
Going as far as asking me if I knew if he had a lot of sexual partners ( didnt ask or seem to care if the guy was gay ) , and if I knew any of them or how to contact them .
I answered all his questions and had to sign a form saying that to the best of my knowledge I was answering them truthfully .
I called my uncle who is a lawyer and read the form to him .
He said it was ok to sign it there was nothing in it that could get me in trouble no matter what I actually told the guy .
The man in the suit also asked me not to go out of my way to contact the person he came to see me about but that if he called and asked me it was alright to tell the truth about them doing the background questions of his neighbors .
He also told me that anything I said wouldnt be shown/told to the person in question and that my answers and comments would be recorded only as " neighbor " .
When the guy asked if I though he had a stable personality I told him no .
The neighbor had a bad habit of getting drunk and shooting stuff .
We were out in the country and if a dog wandered into his yard ( any dog ) he would shoot it and usually he was drunk .
I showed him the 2 bullet holes in my bedroom wall and one in my dresser where his aim was not very good or he had been drinking more than usual .
This was in 1999 so I cant imagine what its like now after 9/11 ( never forget ) .
Dont know what job he was applying for but he did construction ( concrete work ) so I 'm guessing it was in that field .
The " agent " was at my house for over 2 1/2 hours and never once acted like he was in a hurry .
He did everything like his job at that moment was the most important thing in the world .
Never knew who he worked for his badge didnt say but his car had U.S. Government tags .
Anecdotes aside if you apply for a job that has something to do with the government , government projects , national secrets , or national security you will be checked .
They will look at your life with a scanning electron microscope .
If you shit your pants in 3rd grade they will know that your nickname thru highschool was shitpants .
As long as they werent breaking any laws concerning equal employment then they can pretty much check whatever the hell they like .
I dont mind the government or employer demanding these deep background checks .
I want them to be as sure as possible that the people that are hired are extremely unlikely to ever commit treason for any reason be it financial or philosphical .
There is no such thing as 100 \ % sure but lets try to get as close as possib</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is long so you can skip whats in italics.
It's just a stupid personal story having to do with background checks.These people are complaining about a background check for a job doing possibly classified work involving the federal government?
If you are going to try to work somewhere that does work that might involve national secrets/security then expect them to go to extreme lengths to verify that you are who you say you are and that you dont have any motives for working there other than wanting to work there on those kinds of projects.
Go try to apply for a job at a nuclear power plant.
Any job from cleaning the floors to security or H.N.I.C (head nucleardude in charge).
Not only will they ask you for information for an extensive background check and psychological profile they will dig deeper.
Many require polygraph tests, drug tests, and even keep track of your credit score.
If you are a good candidate for the job they will call or even visit your neighbors.
They will ask your neighbors what they think about you.
Are you social?
Was he/she a good neighbor?
Were they active in any groups you know of?
Did they do anything or associate with anyone that you thought was strange?
They actually ask that kind of questions.
I had a gentleman in a nice suit carrying a very official badge and gun stop by my house asking these questions about a neighbor that had just moved from next door to me in Arkansas to New Mexico and was trying to get on at a nuclear facility.
He asked extremely personal questions about my neighbor.
Going as far as asking me if I knew if he had a lot of sexual partners (didnt ask or seem to care if the guy was gay), and if I knew any of them or how to contact them.
I answered all his questions and had to sign a form saying that to the best of my knowledge I was answering them truthfully.
I called my uncle who is a lawyer and read the form to him.
He said it was ok to sign it there was nothing in it that could get me in trouble no matter what I actually told the guy.
The man in the suit also asked me not to go out of my way to contact the person he came to see me about but that if he called and asked me it was alright to tell the truth about them doing the background questions of his neighbors.
He also told me that anything I said wouldnt be shown/told to the person in question and that my answers and comments would be recorded only as "neighbor".
When the guy asked if I though he had a stable personality I told him no.
The neighbor had a bad habit of getting drunk and shooting stuff.
We were out in the country and if a dog wandered into his yard (any dog) he would shoot it and usually he was drunk.
I showed him the 2 bullet holes in my bedroom wall and one in my dresser where his aim was not very good or he had been drinking more than usual.
This was in 1999 so I cant imagine what its like now after 9/11 (never forget).
Dont know what job he was applying for but he did construction (concrete work) so I'm guessing it was in that field.
The "agent" was at my house for over 2 1/2 hours and never once acted like he was in a hurry.
He did everything like his job at that moment was the most important thing in the world.
Never knew who he worked for his badge didnt say but his car had U.S. Government tags.
Anecdotes aside if you apply for a job that has something to do with the government, government projects, national secrets, or national security you will be checked.
They will look at your life with a scanning electron microscope.
If you shit your pants in 3rd grade they will know that your nickname thru highschool was shitpants.
As long as they werent breaking any laws concerning equal employment then they can pretty much check whatever the hell they like.
I dont mind the government or employer demanding these deep background checks.
I want them to be as sure as possible that the people that are hired are extremely unlikely to ever commit treason for any reason be it financial or philosphical.
There is no such thing as 100\% sure but lets try to get as close as possib</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461712</id>
	<title>some of it i agree with</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1268417940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about you, but i'd certainly like to know my employer has looked into the mental health of the people i work with at a JET PROPULSION LAB.<p>
sexual preferences shouldn't come into it though, unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man, and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but i 'd certainly like to know my employer has looked into the mental health of the people i work with at a JET PROPULSION LAB .
sexual preferences should n't come into it though , unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man , and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but i'd certainly like to know my employer has looked into the mental health of the people i work with at a JET PROPULSION LAB.
sexual preferences shouldn't come into it though, unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man, and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31473582</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>GasparGMSwordsman</author>
	<datestamp>1268595480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a follow up to at least one story<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. covered waaaay back.  In the first article it basically has two points for why the employees objected.  1) They were already employees.  Some had been for a VERY long time prior to being asked to do the background.  2) They felt threatened.  Supervisors informed employees that they would either tell them all about there personal life, including sexual history and personal political views.  They were told if they did not comply there existing contract would not be honored and they would be fired on the spot.  Specifically they were told that if they did not sign a consent form they would be considered "voluntarily resigned".</p><p>The other item to consider is that all of these employees met all requirements when they were hired.  They passed all criteria and background checks that the government decided was appropriate to hold these position.  This background check came as part of a new requirement for all Federal employees.  This is just the most public of MANY legal complaints against the new requirement.</p><p>From the employees legal breif:<br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the court of appeals correctly concluded, based on the as-yet undeveloped factual record before it, that a preliminary injunction was warranted because "serious questions" regarding respondents' informational privacy claim were raised by NASA's decision to institute - for the first time in more than 50 years - background investigations of low-risk, long-time employees of the California Institute of Technology (which operates the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with NASA), including investigation regarding medical treatment or counseling for drug use and any "adverse" information about the employee, which could include investigation into private sexual matters.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a follow up to at least one story / .
covered waaaay back .
In the first article it basically has two points for why the employees objected .
1 ) They were already employees .
Some had been for a VERY long time prior to being asked to do the background .
2 ) They felt threatened .
Supervisors informed employees that they would either tell them all about there personal life , including sexual history and personal political views .
They were told if they did not comply there existing contract would not be honored and they would be fired on the spot .
Specifically they were told that if they did not sign a consent form they would be considered " voluntarily resigned " .The other item to consider is that all of these employees met all requirements when they were hired .
They passed all criteria and background checks that the government decided was appropriate to hold these position .
This background check came as part of a new requirement for all Federal employees .
This is just the most public of MANY legal complaints against the new requirement.From the employees legal breif :   ... the court of appeals correctly concluded , based on the as-yet undeveloped factual record before it , that a preliminary injunction was warranted because " serious questions " regarding respondents ' informational privacy claim were raised by NASA 's decision to institute - for the first time in more than 50 years - background investigations of low-risk , long-time employees of the California Institute of Technology ( which operates the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with NASA ) , including investigation regarding medical treatment or counseling for drug use and any " adverse " information about the employee , which could include investigation into private sexual matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a follow up to at least one story /.
covered waaaay back.
In the first article it basically has two points for why the employees objected.
1) They were already employees.
Some had been for a VERY long time prior to being asked to do the background.
2) They felt threatened.
Supervisors informed employees that they would either tell them all about there personal life, including sexual history and personal political views.
They were told if they did not comply there existing contract would not be honored and they would be fired on the spot.
Specifically they were told that if they did not sign a consent form they would be considered "voluntarily resigned".The other item to consider is that all of these employees met all requirements when they were hired.
They passed all criteria and background checks that the government decided was appropriate to hold these position.
This background check came as part of a new requirement for all Federal employees.
This is just the most public of MANY legal complaints against the new requirement.From the employees legal breif:
   ... the court of appeals correctly concluded, based on the as-yet undeveloped factual record before it, that a preliminary injunction was warranted because "serious questions" regarding respondents' informational privacy claim were raised by NASA's decision to institute - for the first time in more than 50 years - background investigations of low-risk, long-time employees of the California Institute of Technology (which operates the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under a contract with NASA), including investigation regarding medical treatment or counseling for drug use and any "adverse" information about the employee, which could include investigation into private sexual matters. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462588</id>
	<title>Re:If you take the man's money ...</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1268473980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... you take the man's shit. Or work someplace else.</p></div><p>
That's fine, but if Mathematicians (who have no access to classified data or classified equipment to begin with) and who's work is designed to go directly into the public domain are really forced to take this idiotic nonsensical background check (after nearly 20 years of service), then that means our NASA program has already gone down the shitter...</p><p>These guys have options, and they're already getting paid peanuts compared to what they could be making in the private sector. So if anybody should be taking those men's shit, it should be NASA's upper management. That's the way the shit flows usually, from the persons who have the most negotiating leverage to the persons who have the least (in this case, NASA's management has the least).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you take the man 's shit .
Or work someplace else .
That 's fine , but if Mathematicians ( who have no access to classified data or classified equipment to begin with ) and who 's work is designed to go directly into the public domain are really forced to take this idiotic nonsensical background check ( after nearly 20 years of service ) , then that means our NASA program has already gone down the shitter...These guys have options , and they 're already getting paid peanuts compared to what they could be making in the private sector .
So if anybody should be taking those men 's shit , it should be NASA 's upper management .
That 's the way the shit flows usually , from the persons who have the most negotiating leverage to the persons who have the least ( in this case , NASA 's management has the least ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... you take the man's shit.
Or work someplace else.
That's fine, but if Mathematicians (who have no access to classified data or classified equipment to begin with) and who's work is designed to go directly into the public domain are really forced to take this idiotic nonsensical background check (after nearly 20 years of service), then that means our NASA program has already gone down the shitter...These guys have options, and they're already getting paid peanuts compared to what they could be making in the private sector.
So if anybody should be taking those men's shit, it should be NASA's upper management.
That's the way the shit flows usually, from the persons who have the most negotiating leverage to the persons who have the least (in this case, NASA's management has the least).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461852</id>
	<title>Not Government Employees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268419620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JPL is a NASA Lab run by Caltech.  The vast majority of JPL employees work for Caltech.  Also this is NOT a security clearance issue, as again the vast majority of JPL employees don't have a security clearance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JPL is a NASA Lab run by Caltech .
The vast majority of JPL employees work for Caltech .
Also this is NOT a security clearance issue , as again the vast majority of JPL employees do n't have a security clearance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPL is a NASA Lab run by Caltech.
The vast majority of JPL employees work for Caltech.
Also this is NOT a security clearance issue, as again the vast majority of JPL employees don't have a security clearance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461622</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC (I work at JPL but haven't been following this in a long while) what was really the issue is that the federal law requiring these new badges does NOT require a background check.  It simply mandates that all federal employees have a particular type of badge that accurately identifies who they are, or something along those lines.  The background check portion was added by the government (not asked for by NASA or Caltech) and so it isn't required by law yet was being forced on the employees.</p><p>Like I said though I haven't followed this in a while...if you look at the related stories and the articles attached to those I'm sure you can find your answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC ( I work at JPL but have n't been following this in a long while ) what was really the issue is that the federal law requiring these new badges does NOT require a background check .
It simply mandates that all federal employees have a particular type of badge that accurately identifies who they are , or something along those lines .
The background check portion was added by the government ( not asked for by NASA or Caltech ) and so it is n't required by law yet was being forced on the employees.Like I said though I have n't followed this in a while...if you look at the related stories and the articles attached to those I 'm sure you can find your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC (I work at JPL but haven't been following this in a long while) what was really the issue is that the federal law requiring these new badges does NOT require a background check.
It simply mandates that all federal employees have a particular type of badge that accurately identifies who they are, or something along those lines.
The background check portion was added by the government (not asked for by NASA or Caltech) and so it isn't required by law yet was being forced on the employees.Like I said though I haven't followed this in a while...if you look at the related stories and the articles attached to those I'm sure you can find your answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461630</id>
	<title>Careful there SCOTUS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rule the wrong way on this one, and you might very well stifle the future progress of cutting edge government research groups. Of course, that won't effect private research, but how much Federal funding gets divvied out for research in the US again? Also, ruling against your public researchers may very well push ALL Federally funded research into the private sector. Hmmm. Maybe that's exactly where certain people want this to go...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rule the wrong way on this one , and you might very well stifle the future progress of cutting edge government research groups .
Of course , that wo n't effect private research , but how much Federal funding gets divvied out for research in the US again ?
Also , ruling against your public researchers may very well push ALL Federally funded research into the private sector .
Hmmm. Maybe that 's exactly where certain people want this to go.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rule the wrong way on this one, and you might very well stifle the future progress of cutting edge government research groups.
Of course, that won't effect private research, but how much Federal funding gets divvied out for research in the US again?
Also, ruling against your public researchers may very well push ALL Federally funded research into the private sector.
Hmmm. Maybe that's exactly where certain people want this to go...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463248</id>
	<title>Not to sound insensitive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268487480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to sound like an insensitive clod, but... You're (voluntarily) working for a government agency that develops, produces, and manufacturers technology used in everything from man-portable missile systems to ICBM's and Rockets to Mars....<br>Ummmm Yeah, sorry, but I'm going to side w/ big-brother on this one, no nut-jobs allowed. Period.<br>I HOPE that means the CIA gives you a rectal exam. I don't want to pay for the next Chinese rocket advancement, I don't want to fund home-grown terrorists, and if that means a few patriotic scientists have to put up w/ some inconvenience to accept a VOLUNTARY job offer, well, then, guess they should be glad it's not run by the military! Maybe they should go work for a commercial rocket development company if they're so concerned about their privacy.. but last time I checked, voluntary employment means you're free to walk away at any time. Don't sue because you didn't read the job description close enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to sound like an insensitive clod , but... You 're ( voluntarily ) working for a government agency that develops , produces , and manufacturers technology used in everything from man-portable missile systems to ICBM 's and Rockets to Mars....Ummmm Yeah , sorry , but I 'm going to side w/ big-brother on this one , no nut-jobs allowed .
Period.I HOPE that means the CIA gives you a rectal exam .
I do n't want to pay for the next Chinese rocket advancement , I do n't want to fund home-grown terrorists , and if that means a few patriotic scientists have to put up w/ some inconvenience to accept a VOLUNTARY job offer , well , then , guess they should be glad it 's not run by the military !
Maybe they should go work for a commercial rocket development company if they 're so concerned about their privacy.. but last time I checked , voluntary employment means you 're free to walk away at any time .
Do n't sue because you did n't read the job description close enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to sound like an insensitive clod, but... You're (voluntarily) working for a government agency that develops, produces, and manufacturers technology used in everything from man-portable missile systems to ICBM's and Rockets to Mars....Ummmm Yeah, sorry, but I'm going to side w/ big-brother on this one, no nut-jobs allowed.
Period.I HOPE that means the CIA gives you a rectal exam.
I don't want to pay for the next Chinese rocket advancement, I don't want to fund home-grown terrorists, and if that means a few patriotic scientists have to put up w/ some inconvenience to accept a VOLUNTARY job offer, well, then, guess they should be glad it's not run by the military!
Maybe they should go work for a commercial rocket development company if they're so concerned about their privacy.. but last time I checked, voluntary employment means you're free to walk away at any time.
Don't sue because you didn't read the job description close enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461976</id>
	<title>NOT A TROLL</title>
	<author>Thud457</author>
	<datestamp>1268420880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The gubbamint has a legitimate concern to ensure that they don't get any more <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack\_Parsons" title="wikipedia.org">damn satanists blowing the place up while practising dianetics(tm) without a license</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>The gubbamint has a legitimate concern to ensure that they do n't get any more damn satanists blowing the place up while practising dianetics ( tm ) without a license [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gubbamint has a legitimate concern to ensure that they don't get any more damn satanists blowing the place up while practising dianetics(tm) without a license [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462248</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>bware</author>
	<datestamp>1268511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JPL employees do not work for the government;  they work for Caltech.  NASA data is not classified;  just the opposite.  By law it is required to be made available to the public (subject to ITAR restrictions).  Very few projects at JPL require any kind of clearance.  5\% of JPL works on non-NASA projects, i.e., something that could be classified, so 250 people of 5000.  Of those, probably less than 100 need a clearance (most non-NASA projects at JPL are not classified, rather the money comes from NSF or industry or some other grant).  Those projects that are sensitive, are not "highly" secret, as those things go.  It just isn't that kind of lab.  On those that are sensitive, the people working on them do go through the background checks.  On the usual need-to-know basis, why does that mean that everyone else working there (4900 people of 5000) need to have a clearance or this sort of intrusive background check?  If the 100 people with clearance do their job, no one else has access to anything classified.  If they don't, having the other 4900 people have a background check won't help because security has already failed.  I've had a clearance elsewhere so I'm familiar with the drill.  If you have clearance to one thing, that doesn't mean you have clearance to anything else, whether at that level or below.  One of the reasons I took this job is <i>because</i> it had no background check.</p><p>These sorts of checks haven't been required at JPL for the last 50 years, through wars cold and hot.  Why now?</p><p>Or are you suggesting that anyone who works for the government, directly or indirectly, be subject to this sort of background check?  Teachers?  Dept. of Interior?  Fish and Wildlife?  USGS?  Highway subcontractors? After all, it's all federal funds.  No one has a right to government money.  Do your rights go out the window if you get paid by the government first, second, or third hand?</p><p>Clearly it's ridiculous to suggest that USFS employees go through a background check, as it is the guys pushing shovels on the highway.  So the question is, where is the line drawn?  For the past 50 years, it's been drawn on the other side of JPL employees with no issues.  Why so eager to toss our rights down the drain, and for what benefit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JPL employees do not work for the government ; they work for Caltech .
NASA data is not classified ; just the opposite .
By law it is required to be made available to the public ( subject to ITAR restrictions ) .
Very few projects at JPL require any kind of clearance .
5 \ % of JPL works on non-NASA projects , i.e. , something that could be classified , so 250 people of 5000 .
Of those , probably less than 100 need a clearance ( most non-NASA projects at JPL are not classified , rather the money comes from NSF or industry or some other grant ) .
Those projects that are sensitive , are not " highly " secret , as those things go .
It just is n't that kind of lab .
On those that are sensitive , the people working on them do go through the background checks .
On the usual need-to-know basis , why does that mean that everyone else working there ( 4900 people of 5000 ) need to have a clearance or this sort of intrusive background check ?
If the 100 people with clearance do their job , no one else has access to anything classified .
If they do n't , having the other 4900 people have a background check wo n't help because security has already failed .
I 've had a clearance elsewhere so I 'm familiar with the drill .
If you have clearance to one thing , that does n't mean you have clearance to anything else , whether at that level or below .
One of the reasons I took this job is because it had no background check.These sorts of checks have n't been required at JPL for the last 50 years , through wars cold and hot .
Why now ? Or are you suggesting that anyone who works for the government , directly or indirectly , be subject to this sort of background check ?
Teachers ? Dept .
of Interior ?
Fish and Wildlife ?
USGS ? Highway subcontractors ?
After all , it 's all federal funds .
No one has a right to government money .
Do your rights go out the window if you get paid by the government first , second , or third hand ? Clearly it 's ridiculous to suggest that USFS employees go through a background check , as it is the guys pushing shovels on the highway .
So the question is , where is the line drawn ?
For the past 50 years , it 's been drawn on the other side of JPL employees with no issues .
Why so eager to toss our rights down the drain , and for what benefit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPL employees do not work for the government;  they work for Caltech.
NASA data is not classified;  just the opposite.
By law it is required to be made available to the public (subject to ITAR restrictions).
Very few projects at JPL require any kind of clearance.
5\% of JPL works on non-NASA projects, i.e., something that could be classified, so 250 people of 5000.
Of those, probably less than 100 need a clearance (most non-NASA projects at JPL are not classified, rather the money comes from NSF or industry or some other grant).
Those projects that are sensitive, are not "highly" secret, as those things go.
It just isn't that kind of lab.
On those that are sensitive, the people working on them do go through the background checks.
On the usual need-to-know basis, why does that mean that everyone else working there (4900 people of 5000) need to have a clearance or this sort of intrusive background check?
If the 100 people with clearance do their job, no one else has access to anything classified.
If they don't, having the other 4900 people have a background check won't help because security has already failed.
I've had a clearance elsewhere so I'm familiar with the drill.
If you have clearance to one thing, that doesn't mean you have clearance to anything else, whether at that level or below.
One of the reasons I took this job is because it had no background check.These sorts of checks haven't been required at JPL for the last 50 years, through wars cold and hot.
Why now?Or are you suggesting that anyone who works for the government, directly or indirectly, be subject to this sort of background check?
Teachers?  Dept.
of Interior?
Fish and Wildlife?
USGS?  Highway subcontractors?
After all, it's all federal funds.
No one has a right to government money.
Do your rights go out the window if you get paid by the government first, second, or third hand?Clearly it's ridiculous to suggest that USFS employees go through a background check, as it is the guys pushing shovels on the highway.
So the question is, where is the line drawn?
For the past 50 years, it's been drawn on the other side of JPL employees with no issues.
Why so eager to toss our rights down the drain, and for what benefit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462272</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>kyrcant</author>
	<datestamp>1268511660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the point of checking the S/O is a legacy procedure that was built in to ensure that they could not be blackmailed.  The security people want to know you're not hiding anything so that a bad guy can't say, "if you don't hand over those pictures of alien spacecraft around Jupiter I'll tell your wife/parents/dog that you're gay/use drugs/watch manga."

As long as you are up front with your past drug abuse and s/o, the bad guys can't blackmail you with it, and you're okay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point of checking the S/O is a legacy procedure that was built in to ensure that they could not be blackmailed .
The security people want to know you 're not hiding anything so that a bad guy ca n't say , " if you do n't hand over those pictures of alien spacecraft around Jupiter I 'll tell your wife/parents/dog that you 're gay/use drugs/watch manga .
" As long as you are up front with your past drug abuse and s/o , the bad guys ca n't blackmail you with it , and you 're okay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point of checking the S/O is a legacy procedure that was built in to ensure that they could not be blackmailed.
The security people want to know you're not hiding anything so that a bad guy can't say, "if you don't hand over those pictures of alien spacecraft around Jupiter I'll tell your wife/parents/dog that you're gay/use drugs/watch manga.
"

As long as you are up front with your past drug abuse and s/o, the bad guys can't blackmail you with it, and you're okay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31464258</id>
	<title>Re:mental health?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want \_MAD\_ scientists to be working on their ultra top secret projects and not waste time at JPL.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want \ _MAD \ _ scientists to be working on their ultra top secret projects and not waste time at JPL .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want \_MAD\_ scientists to be working on their ultra top secret projects and not waste time at JPL.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461904</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1268420220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pooh, I could not reach an opinion, so it was late and I was bored and so I googled a bit.</p><p><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/scientists-case-on-background-ch.html" title="sciencemag.org">http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/scientists-case-on-background-ch.html</a> [sciencemag.org]</p><p>it looks like this is a new 2007 rule stemming from a 2004 homeland security thingy.  it is making long time employees upset.</p><p>and among the scientists in the case are mars rover types, for which anyone might question the need for intrusive background checks</p><p>and i notice they got an injunction, maybe easily and maybe sometime ago.  now that great defender of the technology and exploration, the narcissist-in-chief, is raising a stink.  Or at least his Holden creature.  mars is said to be red, rather than green, so being interested in mars is probably a security negative right away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pooh , I could not reach an opinion , so it was late and I was bored and so I googled a bit.http : //news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/scientists-case-on-background-ch.html [ sciencemag.org ] it looks like this is a new 2007 rule stemming from a 2004 homeland security thingy .
it is making long time employees upset.and among the scientists in the case are mars rover types , for which anyone might question the need for intrusive background checksand i notice they got an injunction , maybe easily and maybe sometime ago .
now that great defender of the technology and exploration , the narcissist-in-chief , is raising a stink .
Or at least his Holden creature .
mars is said to be red , rather than green , so being interested in mars is probably a security negative right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pooh, I could not reach an opinion, so it was late and I was bored and so I googled a bit.http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/03/scientists-case-on-background-ch.html [sciencemag.org]it looks like this is a new 2007 rule stemming from a 2004 homeland security thingy.
it is making long time employees upset.and among the scientists in the case are mars rover types, for which anyone might question the need for intrusive background checksand i notice they got an injunction, maybe easily and maybe sometime ago.
now that great defender of the technology and exploration, the narcissist-in-chief, is raising a stink.
Or at least his Holden creature.
mars is said to be red, rather than green, so being interested in mars is probably a security negative right away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31501482</id>
	<title>Re:If you take the man's money ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268734260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... you take the man's shit. Or work someplace else.<br></i> </p><p>Fuck you and the rest of the crazy shits who think that anything that can be rammed into a contract should be legally enforceable.</p><p>This bullshit about the supremacy of "the boss" over all aspects of a person's life is one of the most poisonous ideas that we've come up with in thirty years. It goes along with the attitude that all employees should be "at will" or that "Everyone is a temp". It's just a symptom of what the grasping dickeaters at the top think of anyone below them.</p><p>The second element in this issue is that they're playing goddamned games with the "Is this the government or a private company?" Just as the bankers have managed to privatize profit and socialize loss, they skate back and forth across the public/private line by insisting on the government connection, but only when it supports their nefarious purposes.</p><p>The instant that a private outfit contracts with a government entity, that operation should be governed entirely by the corresponding government entity's own rules and restrictions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you take the man 's shit .
Or work someplace else .
Fuck you and the rest of the crazy shits who think that anything that can be rammed into a contract should be legally enforceable.This bullshit about the supremacy of " the boss " over all aspects of a person 's life is one of the most poisonous ideas that we 've come up with in thirty years .
It goes along with the attitude that all employees should be " at will " or that " Everyone is a temp " .
It 's just a symptom of what the grasping dickeaters at the top think of anyone below them.The second element in this issue is that they 're playing goddamned games with the " Is this the government or a private company ?
" Just as the bankers have managed to privatize profit and socialize loss , they skate back and forth across the public/private line by insisting on the government connection , but only when it supports their nefarious purposes.The instant that a private outfit contracts with a government entity , that operation should be governed entirely by the corresponding government entity 's own rules and restrictions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you take the man's shit.
Or work someplace else.
Fuck you and the rest of the crazy shits who think that anything that can be rammed into a contract should be legally enforceable.This bullshit about the supremacy of "the boss" over all aspects of a person's life is one of the most poisonous ideas that we've come up with in thirty years.
It goes along with the attitude that all employees should be "at will" or that "Everyone is a temp".
It's just a symptom of what the grasping dickeaters at the top think of anyone below them.The second element in this issue is that they're playing goddamned games with the "Is this the government or a private company?
" Just as the bankers have managed to privatize profit and socialize loss, they skate back and forth across the public/private line by insisting on the government connection, but only when it supports their nefarious purposes.The instant that a private outfit contracts with a government entity, that operation should be governed entirely by the corresponding government entity's own rules and restrictions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462012</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268421240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, and I feel the same way about sexual favors for the boss. There's no constitutional right to any job, and you should see what prostitutes have to do to keep *their* jobs, never mind Obama staffers. So, if your boss wants sexual favors from you and you have a problem with that, then maybe you should just go to work somewhere else.</p><p>Sound about right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , and I feel the same way about sexual favors for the boss .
There 's no constitutional right to any job , and you should see what prostitutes have to do to keep * their * jobs , never mind Obama staffers .
So , if your boss wants sexual favors from you and you have a problem with that , then maybe you should just go to work somewhere else.Sound about right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, and I feel the same way about sexual favors for the boss.
There's no constitutional right to any job, and you should see what prostitutes have to do to keep *their* jobs, never mind Obama staffers.
So, if your boss wants sexual favors from you and you have a problem with that, then maybe you should just go to work somewhere else.Sound about right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31503118</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268743500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The problem is that they're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access.</i> </p><p>Exactly.</p><p>Some 20 years ago, I worked for a major railroad. After they got authorization to drug and alcohol test rail crews after an accident, they unilaterally decided to extend the authority to randomly test anyone "whose job involved safety".</p><p>Eventually one woman, a computer programmer, refused to piss for them. She was fired, contested the firing and won. She then sued for something like civil rights or privacy violations. She won.</p><p>So the railroad deployed the usual corporate shit storm -- more appeals, followed by "negotiation". In the end, I doubt the woman got anything out of it.</p><p>By the way, her programming had nothing to do with any safety issues. Unlike another employee who once made a bad update to a railcar specifications database. The file had information on the dimensions of every railcar  in the US.</p><p>The railroad had an application which contained profiles along the entire right of way. The dimensions in the database are matched against the road profiles to make sure there's clearance along the route for the largest dimension of any car on the train.</p><p>The incorrect update made a car appear to be shorter than it was. The train passed the profile test.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... until it tried to go through a tunnel which was not tall enough to pass the car whose height had been altered in the database.</p><p>He came in to no job the following morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that they 're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access .
Exactly.Some 20 years ago , I worked for a major railroad .
After they got authorization to drug and alcohol test rail crews after an accident , they unilaterally decided to extend the authority to randomly test anyone " whose job involved safety " .Eventually one woman , a computer programmer , refused to piss for them .
She was fired , contested the firing and won .
She then sued for something like civil rights or privacy violations .
She won.So the railroad deployed the usual corporate shit storm -- more appeals , followed by " negotiation " .
In the end , I doubt the woman got anything out of it.By the way , her programming had nothing to do with any safety issues .
Unlike another employee who once made a bad update to a railcar specifications database .
The file had information on the dimensions of every railcar in the US.The railroad had an application which contained profiles along the entire right of way .
The dimensions in the database are matched against the road profiles to make sure there 's clearance along the route for the largest dimension of any car on the train.The incorrect update made a car appear to be shorter than it was .
The train passed the profile test .
... until it tried to go through a tunnel which was not tall enough to pass the car whose height had been altered in the database.He came in to no job the following morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that they're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access.
Exactly.Some 20 years ago, I worked for a major railroad.
After they got authorization to drug and alcohol test rail crews after an accident, they unilaterally decided to extend the authority to randomly test anyone "whose job involved safety".Eventually one woman, a computer programmer, refused to piss for them.
She was fired, contested the firing and won.
She then sued for something like civil rights or privacy violations.
She won.So the railroad deployed the usual corporate shit storm -- more appeals, followed by "negotiation".
In the end, I doubt the woman got anything out of it.By the way, her programming had nothing to do with any safety issues.
Unlike another employee who once made a bad update to a railcar specifications database.
The file had information on the dimensions of every railcar  in the US.The railroad had an application which contained profiles along the entire right of way.
The dimensions in the database are matched against the road profiles to make sure there's clearance along the route for the largest dimension of any car on the train.The incorrect update made a car appear to be shorter than it was.
The train passed the profile test.
... until it tried to go through a tunnel which was not tall enough to pass the car whose height had been altered in the database.He came in to no job the following morning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461776</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they remember Turing.</title>
	<author>Guru2Newbie</author>
	<datestamp>1268418540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they are trying to keep their sexual orientation a secret, and someone blackmails them to provide (or sell) classified information or else their sexual orientation will be revealed, then it becomes a security issue. If they're not trying to hide anything, then it's a non-issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are trying to keep their sexual orientation a secret , and someone blackmails them to provide ( or sell ) classified information or else their sexual orientation will be revealed , then it becomes a security issue .
If they 're not trying to hide anything , then it 's a non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are trying to keep their sexual orientation a secret, and someone blackmails them to provide (or sell) classified information or else their sexual orientation will be revealed, then it becomes a security issue.
If they're not trying to hide anything, then it's a non-issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462148</id>
	<title>Re:It is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268423400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who really believes lie detectors work is unqualified to manage security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who really believes lie detectors work is unqualified to manage security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who really believes lie detectors work is unqualified to manage security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461870</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268419860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.</i> </p><p>STOP IT RIGHT NOW, YOU POMPOUS, BLOODY FUCK!!!</p><p>I am sick to goddamned death of you little shits who pretend to be Constitutional scholars and can't understand (likely due to having never read) the Ninth amendment -- a single clear statement.</p><p>"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."</p><p>IOW, asshole, rights need not be explicitly granted to the people.</p><p>Harsh language and harsh argument were had to guarantee the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It was absolutely a show-stopper. One sentence used was directly aimed at dipshits like you -- "... otherwise some fool, two hundred years from now, will try to assert that people may not have a certain right, just because we failed to enumerate it."</p><p>Write to your congress-critter, dumbass -- they pass out copies of the Constitution for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no constitutional right to work at JPL .
STOP IT RIGHT NOW , YOU POMPOUS , BLOODY FUCK ! !
! I am sick to goddamned death of you little shits who pretend to be Constitutional scholars and ca n't understand ( likely due to having never read ) the Ninth amendment -- a single clear statement .
" The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people .
" IOW , asshole , rights need not be explicitly granted to the people.Harsh language and harsh argument were had to guarantee the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights .
It was absolutely a show-stopper .
One sentence used was directly aimed at dipshits like you -- " ... otherwise some fool , two hundred years from now , will try to assert that people may not have a certain right , just because we failed to enumerate it .
" Write to your congress-critter , dumbass -- they pass out copies of the Constitution for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.
STOP IT RIGHT NOW, YOU POMPOUS, BLOODY FUCK!!
!I am sick to goddamned death of you little shits who pretend to be Constitutional scholars and can't understand (likely due to having never read) the Ninth amendment -- a single clear statement.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"IOW, asshole, rights need not be explicitly granted to the people.Harsh language and harsh argument were had to guarantee the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
It was absolutely a show-stopper.
One sentence used was directly aimed at dipshits like you -- "... otherwise some fool, two hundred years from now, will try to assert that people may not have a certain right, just because we failed to enumerate it.
"Write to your congress-critter, dumbass -- they pass out copies of the Constitution for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31467900</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they remember Turing.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1268484300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure there are plenty of people in high places who want to keep extra-marital affairs secret but I doubt they would resort to treason to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are plenty of people in high places who want to keep extra-marital affairs secret but I doubt they would resort to treason to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are plenty of people in high places who want to keep extra-marital affairs secret but I doubt they would resort to treason to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462128</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Bureaucracy gone mad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268423040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A semi-news oriented site rejected an opinion summary ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>*pitchforks &amp; torches*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A semi-news oriented site rejected an opinion summary ?
.... * pitchforks &amp; torches *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A semi-news oriented site rejected an opinion summary ?
....*pitchforks &amp; torches*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461628</id>
	<title>Re:If you take the man's money ...</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1268417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  If you take the man's money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you take the man's shit. Or work someplace else.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Why? The man's an employee of the people. He should take the people's shit, since he's already taking their money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take the man 's money ... ... you take the man 's shit .
Or work someplace else .
Why ? The man 's an employee of the people .
He should take the people 's shit , since he 's already taking their money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  If you take the man's money ... ... you take the man's shit.
Or work someplace else.
Why? The man's an employee of the people.
He should take the people's shit, since he's already taking their money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752</id>
	<title>NASA Bureaucracy gone mad</title>
	<author>wisebabo</author>
	<datestamp>1268418300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just for your reading enjoyment, here's my submission MONDAY MARCH 08, @11:44AM (http://slashdot.org/submission/1188548/Bureaucracy-at-NASA-gone-mad?art\_pos=7).</p><p>Guess the slashdot editors don't like my writing style.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Okay, if there was ever a reason to shut down, dismantle and start NASA over it is this. The Supreme Court is deciding whether invasive (to me at least) personal background checks (sex lives, medical records) will be required of all JPL employees/independent contractors. No top secret work is done there and (I suppose) nothing military or even directly industry related. (In fact I thought the work of NASA was "For All Mankind".) Anyway, 28 scientists and engineers have so far refused to comply and if they lose this case will be fired.</p><p>While NASA claims that all Federal employees must go through this kind of check, I don't think these guys fit into the "all" category. It IS rocket science and I'm sure most of them have an IQ/educational background/creativity quotient that is extremely rare. I guess there could be a reason to do this if you were afraid that some personal information could be used to blackmail someone but as I mentioned before, what they are creating is destined to be public anyway.</p><p>So what if one guy has a fetish for SCUBA gear and chicken feathers? More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war). As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.</p><p>Look, if one of them is committing a crime/becoming a public menace, let the police deal with it. Otherwise keep the Republican religious police out of our bedrooms! (drug dens?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just for your reading enjoyment , here 's my submission MONDAY MARCH 08 , @ 11 : 44AM ( http : //slashdot.org/submission/1188548/Bureaucracy-at-NASA-gone-mad ? art \ _pos = 7 ) .Guess the slashdot editors do n't like my writing style .
; ) Okay , if there was ever a reason to shut down , dismantle and start NASA over it is this .
The Supreme Court is deciding whether invasive ( to me at least ) personal background checks ( sex lives , medical records ) will be required of all JPL employees/independent contractors .
No top secret work is done there and ( I suppose ) nothing military or even directly industry related .
( In fact I thought the work of NASA was " For All Mankind " .
) Anyway , 28 scientists and engineers have so far refused to comply and if they lose this case will be fired.While NASA claims that all Federal employees must go through this kind of check , I do n't think these guys fit into the " all " category .
It IS rocket science and I 'm sure most of them have an IQ/educational background/creativity quotient that is extremely rare .
I guess there could be a reason to do this if you were afraid that some personal information could be used to blackmail someone but as I mentioned before , what they are creating is destined to be public anyway.So what if one guy has a fetish for SCUBA gear and chicken feathers ?
More seriously , look what happened to Alan Turing ( father of the computer ) ; if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort , computer technology would have set way back ( and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war ) .
As it is , they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.Look , if one of them is committing a crime/becoming a public menace , let the police deal with it .
Otherwise keep the Republican religious police out of our bedrooms !
( drug dens ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just for your reading enjoyment, here's my submission MONDAY MARCH 08, @11:44AM (http://slashdot.org/submission/1188548/Bureaucracy-at-NASA-gone-mad?art\_pos=7).Guess the slashdot editors don't like my writing style.
;)Okay, if there was ever a reason to shut down, dismantle and start NASA over it is this.
The Supreme Court is deciding whether invasive (to me at least) personal background checks (sex lives, medical records) will be required of all JPL employees/independent contractors.
No top secret work is done there and (I suppose) nothing military or even directly industry related.
(In fact I thought the work of NASA was "For All Mankind".
) Anyway, 28 scientists and engineers have so far refused to comply and if they lose this case will be fired.While NASA claims that all Federal employees must go through this kind of check, I don't think these guys fit into the "all" category.
It IS rocket science and I'm sure most of them have an IQ/educational background/creativity quotient that is extremely rare.
I guess there could be a reason to do this if you were afraid that some personal information could be used to blackmail someone but as I mentioned before, what they are creating is destined to be public anyway.So what if one guy has a fetish for SCUBA gear and chicken feathers?
More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war).
As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.Look, if one of them is committing a crime/becoming a public menace, let the police deal with it.
Otherwise keep the Republican religious police out of our bedrooms!
(drug dens?
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461528</id>
	<title>JPL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>J</b>ew <b>P</b>enis <b>L</b>atte</p><p>Try it out during your next Starbucks visit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jew Penis LatteTry it out during your next Starbucks visit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jew Penis LatteTry it out during your next Starbucks visit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463316</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1268488440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who was likely to be required to undergo a background check to get a badge (as an external contractor working on the Cassini mission), I have some knowledge of the checks they want to do.</p><p>First of all, many, perhaps most employees and contractors don't handle classified data.  We're doing scientific work with technology that's 10-20 years old by the time it's in orbit around another planet.  So it seems excessive to worry about the security risk.</p><p>Second, the form that they wanted us to fill out (the "matrix of risks") dates back several decades, to the 50s as I recall.  You can imagine how wonderfully relevant it is.  And it seems to rate sexual orientation (for example) as a more important risk than, say, having committed a murder.  Seriously.  It was comical, or would be if it weren't so serious.</p><p>Third, the checks that they seek to do aren't simple "does she have a felony on record or a similar problem in her history?"  They wanted us to sign permissions to do some pretty deep snooping: they wanted permission to contact former neighbors, friends, teachers/professors, and even doctors.  Which, for non-classified scientific research, is absurdly invasive.  Astronomical research just isn't that important to begin with.</p><p>In general, JPL seems to have developed an obsession with security theater (ask me for stories there sometime) after 9/11.  My suspicion is that it makes them feel more important to "need" extra security all over the place.  (As if any terrorist organizations are keen on blowing up JPL anyway.  It utterly lacks the profile or significance to just about anyone outside of the geek community.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who was likely to be required to undergo a background check to get a badge ( as an external contractor working on the Cassini mission ) , I have some knowledge of the checks they want to do.First of all , many , perhaps most employees and contractors do n't handle classified data .
We 're doing scientific work with technology that 's 10-20 years old by the time it 's in orbit around another planet .
So it seems excessive to worry about the security risk.Second , the form that they wanted us to fill out ( the " matrix of risks " ) dates back several decades , to the 50s as I recall .
You can imagine how wonderfully relevant it is .
And it seems to rate sexual orientation ( for example ) as a more important risk than , say , having committed a murder .
Seriously. It was comical , or would be if it were n't so serious.Third , the checks that they seek to do are n't simple " does she have a felony on record or a similar problem in her history ?
" They wanted us to sign permissions to do some pretty deep snooping : they wanted permission to contact former neighbors , friends , teachers/professors , and even doctors .
Which , for non-classified scientific research , is absurdly invasive .
Astronomical research just is n't that important to begin with.In general , JPL seems to have developed an obsession with security theater ( ask me for stories there sometime ) after 9/11 .
My suspicion is that it makes them feel more important to " need " extra security all over the place .
( As if any terrorist organizations are keen on blowing up JPL anyway .
It utterly lacks the profile or significance to just about anyone outside of the geek community .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who was likely to be required to undergo a background check to get a badge (as an external contractor working on the Cassini mission), I have some knowledge of the checks they want to do.First of all, many, perhaps most employees and contractors don't handle classified data.
We're doing scientific work with technology that's 10-20 years old by the time it's in orbit around another planet.
So it seems excessive to worry about the security risk.Second, the form that they wanted us to fill out (the "matrix of risks") dates back several decades, to the 50s as I recall.
You can imagine how wonderfully relevant it is.
And it seems to rate sexual orientation (for example) as a more important risk than, say, having committed a murder.
Seriously.  It was comical, or would be if it weren't so serious.Third, the checks that they seek to do aren't simple "does she have a felony on record or a similar problem in her history?
"  They wanted us to sign permissions to do some pretty deep snooping: they wanted permission to contact former neighbors, friends, teachers/professors, and even doctors.
Which, for non-classified scientific research, is absurdly invasive.
Astronomical research just isn't that important to begin with.In general, JPL seems to have developed an obsession with security theater (ask me for stories there sometime) after 9/11.
My suspicion is that it makes them feel more important to "need" extra security all over the place.
(As if any terrorist organizations are keen on blowing up JPL anyway.
It utterly lacks the profile or significance to just about anyone outside of the geek community.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462122</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268422920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so you're a little uninformed about the whole issue.  Well, a lot uninformed.</p><p>The deal is that people who have been working loyally FOR YEARS could suddenly find themselves unacceptable and out of a job due to a background check that is abusive enough to qualify for a security clearance even though in fact it would not be a security clearance.  Not only that, but the abusive snooping extends to everyone you've ever known.  That's a wide net.  Not to mention having to list every place you've ever lived in the past 7 years along with contact info to prove you were there.</p><p>Also, very little classified work goes on at JPL.  Very little.  Most everything they do is released to the public sooner or later; usually sooner.  They partner with universities all over to provide them with scientific data from instruments on spacecraft and those institutions get their data in minutes, not even days or weeks.</p><p>"There's no constitutional right to work at JPL."</p><p>Yeah, I love that one.  There is no constitutional right to privacy either, but it would be a mistake not to fight the government every step of the way when it comes to invasion into the personal lives of its citizens when it is not warranted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so you 're a little uninformed about the whole issue .
Well , a lot uninformed.The deal is that people who have been working loyally FOR YEARS could suddenly find themselves unacceptable and out of a job due to a background check that is abusive enough to qualify for a security clearance even though in fact it would not be a security clearance .
Not only that , but the abusive snooping extends to everyone you 've ever known .
That 's a wide net .
Not to mention having to list every place you 've ever lived in the past 7 years along with contact info to prove you were there.Also , very little classified work goes on at JPL .
Very little .
Most everything they do is released to the public sooner or later ; usually sooner .
They partner with universities all over to provide them with scientific data from instruments on spacecraft and those institutions get their data in minutes , not even days or weeks .
" There 's no constitutional right to work at JPL .
" Yeah , I love that one .
There is no constitutional right to privacy either , but it would be a mistake not to fight the government every step of the way when it comes to invasion into the personal lives of its citizens when it is not warranted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so you're a little uninformed about the whole issue.
Well, a lot uninformed.The deal is that people who have been working loyally FOR YEARS could suddenly find themselves unacceptable and out of a job due to a background check that is abusive enough to qualify for a security clearance even though in fact it would not be a security clearance.
Not only that, but the abusive snooping extends to everyone you've ever known.
That's a wide net.
Not to mention having to list every place you've ever lived in the past 7 years along with contact info to prove you were there.Also, very little classified work goes on at JPL.
Very little.
Most everything they do is released to the public sooner or later; usually sooner.
They partner with universities all over to provide them with scientific data from instruments on spacecraft and those institutions get their data in minutes, not even days or weeks.
"There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.
"Yeah, I love that one.
There is no constitutional right to privacy either, but it would be a mistake not to fight the government every step of the way when it comes to invasion into the personal lives of its citizens when it is not warranted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461846</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps they remeber Turing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268419560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are in the closet, it makes them easier to blackmail.  That matters for top-secret clearance, but since these guys aren't involved in that, the government has to make the case that these guys are a security risk anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are in the closet , it makes them easier to blackmail .
That matters for top-secret clearance , but since these guys are n't involved in that , the government has to make the case that these guys are a security risk anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are in the closet, it makes them easier to blackmail.
That matters for top-secret clearance, but since these guys aren't involved in that, the government has to make the case that these guys are a security risk anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578</id>
	<title>If you take the man's money ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... you take the man's shit. Or work someplace else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you take the man 's shit .
Or work someplace else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you take the man's shit.
Or work someplace else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461690</id>
	<title>Perhaps they remeber Turing.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1268417640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words. What has sexual orientation got to do with security?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words .
What has sexual orientation got to do with security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words.
What has sexual orientation got to do with security?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462702</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.</p></div><p>Of course most Trolls get up-Moderated on Slashdot. The point being (here) is that outside of NASA there is almost no employment opportunities for space scientists. The people who can get employment elsewhere (like as Rocket Scientists) tend to get assassinated by the Mossad.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If they think their background checks are intrusive, they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.</p></div><p>No scientist is interested in jeopardizing the security of the organization they work for. It's a matter of having RELEVANT background checks that are RELEVANT for the job at hand. So for example, knowing if scientists have a criminal record (for THEFT) may be relevant, but wanting to know their sexual habits is NOT RELEVANT, but it CAN AND WILL be used to (unfairly) discriminate against people. This is common sense. These "background checks" are also just a fishing expedition (that can easily be abused) by Human Resource departments. An intelligent and relevant background check would be to make sure that their degrees / diplomas came from relevant and real institutions and that their esteemed colleagues can give them good references. Whether they have gay sex and smoked a marijuana joint in high school is NOT RELEVANT to the security of the US of A nor the science institutions of NASA. There should be NO NEED for an AC to have to explain this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no constitutional right to work at JPL.Of course most Trolls get up-Moderated on Slashdot .
The point being ( here ) is that outside of NASA there is almost no employment opportunities for space scientists .
The people who can get employment elsewhere ( like as Rocket Scientists ) tend to get assassinated by the Mossad.If they think their background checks are intrusive , they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.No scientist is interested in jeopardizing the security of the organization they work for .
It 's a matter of having RELEVANT background checks that are RELEVANT for the job at hand .
So for example , knowing if scientists have a criminal record ( for THEFT ) may be relevant , but wanting to know their sexual habits is NOT RELEVANT , but it CAN AND WILL be used to ( unfairly ) discriminate against people .
This is common sense .
These " background checks " are also just a fishing expedition ( that can easily be abused ) by Human Resource departments .
An intelligent and relevant background check would be to make sure that their degrees / diplomas came from relevant and real institutions and that their esteemed colleagues can give them good references .
Whether they have gay sex and smoked a marijuana joint in high school is NOT RELEVANT to the security of the US of A nor the science institutions of NASA .
There should be NO NEED for an AC to have to explain this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.Of course most Trolls get up-Moderated on Slashdot.
The point being (here) is that outside of NASA there is almost no employment opportunities for space scientists.
The people who can get employment elsewhere (like as Rocket Scientists) tend to get assassinated by the Mossad.If they think their background checks are intrusive, they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.No scientist is interested in jeopardizing the security of the organization they work for.
It's a matter of having RELEVANT background checks that are RELEVANT for the job at hand.
So for example, knowing if scientists have a criminal record (for THEFT) may be relevant, but wanting to know their sexual habits is NOT RELEVANT, but it CAN AND WILL be used to (unfairly) discriminate against people.
This is common sense.
These "background checks" are also just a fishing expedition (that can easily be abused) by Human Resource departments.
An intelligent and relevant background check would be to make sure that their degrees / diplomas came from relevant and real institutions and that their esteemed colleagues can give them good references.
Whether they have gay sex and smoked a marijuana joint in high school is NOT RELEVANT to the security of the US of A nor the science institutions of NASA.
There should be NO NEED for an AC to have to explain this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31503336</id>
	<title>Re:some of it i agree with</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man, and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus.</i> </p><p>You idiot -- that IS A PICTURE OF PART OF the background check. If you can't do the same, your chance of being hired approaches zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man , and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus .
You idiot -- that IS A PICTURE OF PART OF the background check .
If you ca n't do the same , your chance of being hired approaches zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unless they are concerned one of them is the goat.cx man, and they might smuggle out a rocket in their anus.
You idiot -- that IS A PICTURE OF PART OF the background check.
If you can't do the same, your chance of being hired approaches zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461588</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>JPL employees are not federal employees.  Rather they are employees of Caltech which is contracted by NASA to run JPL.  The federal government owns all of the equipment and facilities, but Caltech is in charge of the personnel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>JPL employees are not federal employees .
Rather they are employees of Caltech which is contracted by NASA to run JPL .
The federal government owns all of the equipment and facilities , but Caltech is in charge of the personnel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPL employees are not federal employees.
Rather they are employees of Caltech which is contracted by NASA to run JPL.
The federal government owns all of the equipment and facilities, but Caltech is in charge of the personnel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461700</id>
	<title>Far less of an issue then polygraph tests I'd say.</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1268417700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least background checks are less likely to falsely implicate someone of being a spy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least background checks are less likely to falsely implicate someone of being a spy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least background checks are less likely to falsely implicate someone of being a spy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463536</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>kevinT</author>
	<datestamp>1268491320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are not sure - read the linked articles.  These are employees of a civilian contractor working on NON-classified projects funded by the government.  They are NOT government employees.</p><p>They object to having a very invasive background check, a check that would not stop even if they left their position, simply because George Bush wanted to be King!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are not sure - read the linked articles .
These are employees of a civilian contractor working on NON-classified projects funded by the government .
They are NOT government employees.They object to having a very invasive background check , a check that would not stop even if they left their position , simply because George Bush wanted to be King !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are not sure - read the linked articles.
These are employees of a civilian contractor working on NON-classified projects funded by the government.
They are NOT government employees.They object to having a very invasive background check, a check that would not stop even if they left their position, simply because George Bush wanted to be King!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461782</id>
	<title>Considerably more information</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1268418660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A much better article:</p><p><a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html" title="concurringopinions.com">http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html</a> [concurringopinions.com]</p><p>If you'd like to read their claim in detail:</p><p><a href="http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS\_Nelson\_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf" title="hspd12jpl.org">http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS\_Nelson\_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf</a> [hspd12jpl.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A much better article : http : //www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html [ concurringopinions.com ] If you 'd like to read their claim in detail : http : //hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS \ _Nelson \ _Pet.Opp.Response.pdf [ hspd12jpl.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A much better article:http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/03/nasa-v-nelson-is-there-a-constitutional-right-to-information-privacy.html [concurringopinions.com]If you'd like to read their claim in detail:http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SCOTUS\_Nelson\_Pet.Opp.Response.pdf [hspd12jpl.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462154</id>
	<title>Re:If you take the man's money ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268423460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, they could work in China, for example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , they could work in China , for example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, they could work in China, for example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461750</id>
	<title>mental health?</title>
	<author>dAzED1</author>
	<datestamp>1268418240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so...someone's mental health is not relevant to whether or not they can work on top secret projects?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so...someone 's mental health is not relevant to whether or not they can work on top secret projects ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so...someone's mental health is not relevant to whether or not they can work on top secret projects?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461562</id>
	<title>It is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They ask questions like Sex orientation but that is under Lie detector. What is REALLY going on, is they are going to find out if somebody is a liar. The issue is not that a scientist is gay. It is, is a scientist gay and trying to hide it. If so, then it is point of entry by CHinese. All they have to do is send somebody to screw that person, take pix, and then blackmail into getting information.
That is like America using illegal's to build high security buildings now. As such, it is easy for a Chinese spy to approach the illegal and tell them that they will report them elsewhere, UNLESS that person plants bugs in the building. If they do, then the spy will pay them large sums of money. SO, what does somebody that has ZERO loyality to our nation (think along the lines of a CEO style loyality), is offered a choice of going to jail or being large sums of money do? You KNOW what they will.
And yet, we prohibit checks for illegals because we are afraid of hurting their feelings, or losing votes. TOTAL BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They ask questions like Sex orientation but that is under Lie detector .
What is REALLY going on , is they are going to find out if somebody is a liar .
The issue is not that a scientist is gay .
It is , is a scientist gay and trying to hide it .
If so , then it is point of entry by CHinese .
All they have to do is send somebody to screw that person , take pix , and then blackmail into getting information .
That is like America using illegal 's to build high security buildings now .
As such , it is easy for a Chinese spy to approach the illegal and tell them that they will report them elsewhere , UNLESS that person plants bugs in the building .
If they do , then the spy will pay them large sums of money .
SO , what does somebody that has ZERO loyality to our nation ( think along the lines of a CEO style loyality ) , is offered a choice of going to jail or being large sums of money do ?
You KNOW what they will .
And yet , we prohibit checks for illegals because we are afraid of hurting their feelings , or losing votes .
TOTAL BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They ask questions like Sex orientation but that is under Lie detector.
What is REALLY going on, is they are going to find out if somebody is a liar.
The issue is not that a scientist is gay.
It is, is a scientist gay and trying to hide it.
If so, then it is point of entry by CHinese.
All they have to do is send somebody to screw that person, take pix, and then blackmail into getting information.
That is like America using illegal's to build high security buildings now.
As such, it is easy for a Chinese spy to approach the illegal and tell them that they will report them elsewhere, UNLESS that person plants bugs in the building.
If they do, then the spy will pay them large sums of money.
SO, what does somebody that has ZERO loyality to our nation (think along the lines of a CEO style loyality), is offered a choice of going to jail or being large sums of money do?
You KNOW what they will.
And yet, we prohibit checks for illegals because we are afraid of hurting their feelings, or losing votes.
TOTAL BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463950</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Bureaucracy gone mad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268496180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Republican religious police"?  Don't be fooled by the Republican vs Democrat metric.  The real metric is "Power for Government" vs "Freedom for Us".  The repubs of the last 20 years or so have been little better than the dems.  And do you really expect <b>decreased</b> government intrusion from the current administration?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Republican religious police " ?
Do n't be fooled by the Republican vs Democrat metric .
The real metric is " Power for Government " vs " Freedom for Us " .
The repubs of the last 20 years or so have been little better than the dems .
And do you really expect decreased government intrusion from the current administration ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Republican religious police"?
Don't be fooled by the Republican vs Democrat metric.
The real metric is "Power for Government" vs "Freedom for Us".
The repubs of the last 20 years or so have been little better than the dems.
And do you really expect decreased government intrusion from the current administration?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31465696</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>tom's a-cold</author>
	<datestamp>1268511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>it isn't unusual for government jobs to require background checks.</p></div></blockquote><p>

It wasn't usual for employers to refuse to hire people because of their race either.

If we really care about rights, then we're going to have to constrain the behavior of not only government, but private entities. And "don't work there if you don't like it" won't solve the problem. What do you do when all employers impose such intrusive conditions of employment? Piss testing, polygraphs, what next?

Most of the unaccountable power that we face on a daily basis comes from private business. At some point, though, enough is enough, and there's nothing wrong with passing laws to prevent them from such abusive practices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is n't unusual for government jobs to require background checks .
It was n't usual for employers to refuse to hire people because of their race either .
If we really care about rights , then we 're going to have to constrain the behavior of not only government , but private entities .
And " do n't work there if you do n't like it " wo n't solve the problem .
What do you do when all employers impose such intrusive conditions of employment ?
Piss testing , polygraphs , what next ?
Most of the unaccountable power that we face on a daily basis comes from private business .
At some point , though , enough is enough , and there 's nothing wrong with passing laws to prevent them from such abusive practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it isn't unusual for government jobs to require background checks.
It wasn't usual for employers to refuse to hire people because of their race either.
If we really care about rights, then we're going to have to constrain the behavior of not only government, but private entities.
And "don't work there if you don't like it" won't solve the problem.
What do you do when all employers impose such intrusive conditions of employment?
Piss testing, polygraphs, what next?
Most of the unaccountable power that we face on a daily basis comes from private business.
At some point, though, enough is enough, and there's nothing wrong with passing laws to prevent them from such abusive practices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463054</id>
	<title>Re:NASA Bureaucracy gone mad</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1268483820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war). As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.</p></div><p>Turing lost his security clearance because he got a criminal conviction.  Homosexuality was illegal in Britain back then.  If the authorities had known of Turing's homosexuality during the war, they would have refused him clearance because of the blackmail risk.  But that was at a time of war, and when homosexuality was a crime.  I think the JPL case is a little different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More seriously , look what happened to Alan Turing ( father of the computer ) ; if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort , computer technology would have set way back ( and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war ) .
As it is , they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.Turing lost his security clearance because he got a criminal conviction .
Homosexuality was illegal in Britain back then .
If the authorities had known of Turing 's homosexuality during the war , they would have refused him clearance because of the blackmail risk .
But that was at a time of war , and when homosexuality was a crime .
I think the JPL case is a little different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More seriously, look what happened to Alan Turing (father of the computer); if the Brits had had this policy in place and denied him any serious work in the war effort, computer technology would have set way back (and perhaps the decoding of Enigma and the winning of the war).
As it is, they only managed to get him to commit suicide AFTER he had done some incredibly important work.Turing lost his security clearance because he got a criminal conviction.
Homosexuality was illegal in Britain back then.
If the authorities had known of Turing's homosexuality during the war, they would have refused him clearance because of the blackmail risk.
But that was at a time of war, and when homosexuality was a crime.
I think the JPL case is a little different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461956</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268420760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is very, very little classified work at JPL.  The vast majority of the jobs have no need for any sort of clearance.  The few that require a clearance already have it, and there is no objection to this requirement or to the background checks for those who need the clearance.  The problem is that they're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access.  Furthermore, there were strong signs that absurd criteria based on the results of these background checks were going to be used to deny them.</p><p>I was affected by this as a graduate student who used to work at JPL.  As you suggest, I would have changed projects rather than submit to this.  Several high-profile scientists and engineers there made a similar decision, and they and others filed this suit.  You can be flippant about it, but the work they do there is important, and it's awful, awful policy to force these people out over a ridiculous show of force like this.  These people could make a lot more money working in the private sector, but they offer their talents toward projects that benefit us all.  It takes a special kind of stupid to act like anyone's doing THEM a favor by "letting" them work there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is very , very little classified work at JPL .
The vast majority of the jobs have no need for any sort of clearance .
The few that require a clearance already have it , and there is no objection to this requirement or to the background checks for those who need the clearance .
The problem is that they 're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access .
Furthermore , there were strong signs that absurd criteria based on the results of these background checks were going to be used to deny them.I was affected by this as a graduate student who used to work at JPL .
As you suggest , I would have changed projects rather than submit to this .
Several high-profile scientists and engineers there made a similar decision , and they and others filed this suit .
You can be flippant about it , but the work they do there is important , and it 's awful , awful policy to force these people out over a ridiculous show of force like this .
These people could make a lot more money working in the private sector , but they offer their talents toward projects that benefit us all .
It takes a special kind of stupid to act like anyone 's doing THEM a favor by " letting " them work there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is very, very little classified work at JPL.
The vast majority of the jobs have no need for any sort of clearance.
The few that require a clearance already have it, and there is no objection to this requirement or to the background checks for those who need the clearance.
The problem is that they're essentially asking for a carte blanche to probe the backgrounds of employees who have explicitly been categorized as not needing special access.
Furthermore, there were strong signs that absurd criteria based on the results of these background checks were going to be used to deny them.I was affected by this as a graduate student who used to work at JPL.
As you suggest, I would have changed projects rather than submit to this.
Several high-profile scientists and engineers there made a similar decision, and they and others filed this suit.
You can be flippant about it, but the work they do there is important, and it's awful, awful policy to force these people out over a ridiculous show of force like this.
These people could make a lot more money working in the private sector, but they offer their talents toward projects that benefit us all.
It takes a special kind of stupid to act like anyone's doing THEM a favor by "letting" them work there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461516</id>
	<title>FROSTY PISS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268415900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's the difference between nigger pussy and a bowling ball?  If you HAD TO, you could eat the fucking bowling ball.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the difference between nigger pussy and a bowling ball ?
If you HAD TO , you could eat the fucking bowling ball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the difference between nigger pussy and a bowling ball?
If you HAD TO, you could eat the fucking bowling ball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</id>
	<title>I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268416320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And TFA doesn't provide much enlightenment.  They claim it's a violation of their privacy, but it isn't unusual for government jobs to require background checks.  There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.  Even if the employees concerned do not handle classified data, they do work at a lab where classified information is kept and highly secret defense projects take place.  If they think their background checks are intrusive, they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.</p><p>If they're that concerned about their privacy, maybe they should work elsewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And TFA does n't provide much enlightenment .
They claim it 's a violation of their privacy , but it is n't unusual for government jobs to require background checks .
There 's no constitutional right to work at JPL .
Even if the employees concerned do not handle classified data , they do work at a lab where classified information is kept and highly secret defense projects take place .
If they think their background checks are intrusive , they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.If they 're that concerned about their privacy , maybe they should work elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And TFA doesn't provide much enlightenment.
They claim it's a violation of their privacy, but it isn't unusual for government jobs to require background checks.
There's no constitutional right to work at JPL.
Even if the employees concerned do not handle classified data, they do work at a lab where classified information is kept and highly secret defense projects take place.
If they think their background checks are intrusive, they should see what White House employees had to go through in the Obama administration.If they're that concerned about their privacy, maybe they should work elsewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462004</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not clear on what their case is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268421180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These employees had gone through a background check (NAC) when they were first hired. They have no access to classified information, nor do they have access to locations where classified projects may be developed. The requirement extends to the cafeteria workers and the groundskeepers. The plaintiffs are employees of Caltech and are not civil servants.</p><p>The investigations (and re-investigations every 5 years) would require the employees do "voluntarily" sign a waiver (<a href="http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf\_fill/sf85.pdf" title="opm.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf\_fill/sf85.pdf</a> [opm.gov]) that would authorize any investigator to "obtain any information" from  a long list of enumerated and "other" sources, and would authorize any custodians of such information to release it on request, "regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary".</p><p>The investigators then send questionnaires (<a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf" title="gpo.gov" rel="nofollow">http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf</a> [gpo.gov]) to neighbors, former employers, and references asking, in an open-ended manner, for any derogatory information.</p><p>After the investigators are done, a NASA official "adjudicates" the applicant based on criteria that include "carnal knowledge", "attitude", "sodomy", and, sometimes, "adultery" and "cohabitation". The criteria had been posted on a NASA website, (<a href="http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf</a> [nasa.gov] ), now replaced with an empty page. The plaintiffs have posted a copy at (<a href="http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf" title="hspd12jpl.org" rel="nofollow">http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf</a> [hspd12jpl.org] , see page 65 of the pdf). In their latest court filing (<a href="http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf" title="justice.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf</a> [justice.gov])  the Solicitor General denies that NASA uses this.</p><p>A lot more on this is at the plaintiff's website, <a href="http://hspd12jpl.org/" title="hspd12jpl.org" rel="nofollow">http://hspd12jpl.org/</a> [hspd12jpl.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These employees had gone through a background check ( NAC ) when they were first hired .
They have no access to classified information , nor do they have access to locations where classified projects may be developed .
The requirement extends to the cafeteria workers and the groundskeepers .
The plaintiffs are employees of Caltech and are not civil servants.The investigations ( and re-investigations every 5 years ) would require the employees do " voluntarily " sign a waiver ( http : //www.opm.gov/forms/pdf \ _fill/sf85.pdf [ opm.gov ] ) that would authorize any investigator to " obtain any information " from a long list of enumerated and " other " sources , and would authorize any custodians of such information to release it on request , " regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary " .The investigators then send questionnaires ( http : //edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf [ gpo.gov ] ) to neighbors , former employers , and references asking , in an open-ended manner , for any derogatory information.After the investigators are done , a NASA official " adjudicates " the applicant based on criteria that include " carnal knowledge " , " attitude " , " sodomy " , and , sometimes , " adultery " and " cohabitation " .
The criteria had been posted on a NASA website , ( http : //nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf [ nasa.gov ] ) , now replaced with an empty page .
The plaintiffs have posted a copy at ( http : //hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf [ hspd12jpl.org ] , see page 65 of the pdf ) .
In their latest court filing ( http : //www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf [ justice.gov ] ) the Solicitor General denies that NASA uses this.A lot more on this is at the plaintiff 's website , http : //hspd12jpl.org/ [ hspd12jpl.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These employees had gone through a background check (NAC) when they were first hired.
They have no access to classified information, nor do they have access to locations where classified projects may be developed.
The requirement extends to the cafeteria workers and the groundskeepers.
The plaintiffs are employees of Caltech and are not civil servants.The investigations (and re-investigations every 5 years) would require the employees do "voluntarily" sign a waiver (http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf\_fill/sf85.pdf [opm.gov]) that would authorize any investigator to "obtain any information" from  a long list of enumerated and "other" sources, and would authorize any custodians of such information to release it on request, "regardless of any previous agreement to the contrary".The investigators then send questionnaires (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-21051.pdf [gpo.gov]) to neighbors, former employers, and references asking, in an open-ended manner, for any derogatory information.After the investigators are done, a NASA official "adjudicates" the applicant based on criteria that include "carnal knowledge", "attitude", "sodomy", and, sometimes, "adultery" and "cohabitation".
The criteria had been posted on a NASA website, (http://nasapeople.nasa.gov/references/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf [nasa.gov] ), now replaced with an empty page.
The plaintiffs have posted a copy at (http://hspd12jpl.org/files/SuitabilitySecurityDeskGuide.pdf [hspd12jpl.org] , see page 65 of the pdf).
In their latest court filing (http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2009/2pet/7pet/2009-0530.pet.rep.pdf [justice.gov])  the Solicitor General denies that NASA uses this.A lot more on this is at the plaintiff's website, http://hspd12jpl.org/ [hspd12jpl.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31503336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31501482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31465696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31464258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31503118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31467900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_0443251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31473582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0443251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31503336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0443251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31464258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0443251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31501482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0443251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0443251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_0443251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31503118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461776
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31467900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31465696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31462004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31463316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31461588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_0443251.31473582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
