Hacker News Reader

Comment by ratling | Hacker News Reader

This is a great example of why the US government can't hire and retain competent security and operations personal that haven't already drunk the Kool-Aid by coming out of the US military.

It's 2019, get over this. The only way you're going to blackmail someone over pot is because you're on about it, not because it's inherently solid blackmail material.

View on HN

I agree with you. I am just guessing, but this might have to do more with it still being a federal crime and many defense contracts that involve security requirements require a formal review if anyone on the contract is or has been convicted of a crime, or is under investigation. I could be way off though.

Yep, and until Congress decides to get with 2019 the feds will continue to have this problem.

So probably forever.

No, this is about them selectively punishing Elon Musk under the excuse of marijuana use.

The Pentagon is "selectively" punishing Elon Musk... by applying the same standards for a security clearance to him that they do to everyone else?

Oh I don't doubt someone gave them a little push, he just made it really easy for them.

You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them.

> You really think the "law" is something that is deployed equally? I can think of several other notable people with security clearances who shouldn't have them.

The solution to that isn't to normalize deviance [1].

[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Professionalism/Diane_Vaughan_...

That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable.

One could argue that pot usage is orthogonal (or perhaps even beneficial) to one's security risk profile.

> That is, unless the deviance is actually the norm. It's like enforcing dress codes against specific people when it's clear the dress code itself is questionable.

I don't think that's the right interpretation here. If you demonstrate an attitude that you feel you don't have to follow regulations you disagree with, what's to stop you from disclosing secret information that you don't think should be secret? Getting a security clearance is all about showing the authorities that you can be trusted to follow their regulations. Willfully violating federal law for recreational purposes casts doubt on that. Security clearance isn't a right.

> One could argue that pot usage is ... perhaps even beneficial ... to one's security risk profile.

How so?

I'd imagine lackluster pay and red tape eclipses this by far.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com