Comments on: JPL employees sue NASA, Caltech

By: Ray Moore

Ray Moore — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:32:48 +0000

Like it or not, security checks are part of working for the government. And given the poor track record of scientists with security, I think it is in order. I worked for the US gov. for 22 years, and while it is a pain, it is part of the fun of working for Uncle Sam!

By: anonymous_inEurope

anonymous_inEurope — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:09:29 +0000

Thank goodness that rationality is prevailing on this issue:
http://hspd12jpl.org/press.html

Congratulations to Bob Nelson and those other valiant JPL employees fighting this Homeland Security nonsense!

By: Marc

Marc — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:09:16 +0000

Scientists are creative people, and they have choices. The US has been the scientific center of gravity since the end of the Second World War, but there is nothing that requires this to be so indefinitely in the future. I would not accept a job that requires this level of intrusive invasion of my personal space. I’m not alone; people will leave or refuse to work at places with this sort of security theater nonsense. I’d bet the Republican apologists at work on this thread would also defend drug testing, etc.

These policies will succeed only in driving talent out of federal scientific research institutions. Astrophysics is only related to “security” threats through rampant paranoia.

By: anonymous_inEurope

anonymous_inEurope — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:26:40 +0000

I was hoping to see outrage in more of the responses, instead of the general acceptance that I’m seeing here. As a person working in the same space business as the JPL plaintiffs, but in Europe, I can say that no such invasive background checks (or any) exist here to work in space-related work, for example to work at ESA, Max-Planck, ASI, CNRS, …. And why should they? The scientists’ record is enough; their work it is not considered to involve national security. A camera or spectrometer collecting data about a planet’s atmosphere or moon’s surface is exactly that: a scientific instrument collecting data to validate or not scientific ideas and to promote our knowledge about space. That’s all. I was shocked to read what my colleagues at JPL are experiencing and required to do to keep their jobs. I am very sorry for them. The security business and how it’s being amplified to paranoia levels in the US is wacky and out-of-control, in my opinion.

By: Escuerd

Escuerd — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:06:30 +0000

I’m a Caltech student who did a Summer Internship at JPL. The security procedures there are ridiculously cumbersome and still a joke. They constantly ID anyone going in and out through the gates, but somehow animals as large as deer and even occasionally mountain lions get onto the lab’s campus all the time (there are deer there every day, at least in Summer).

They make getting an ID badge ridiculously hard, but then make mistakes like forgetting to label it with the date it’s supposed to expire.

When I left at the end of the Summer I didn’t realize how many people had to sign a form required for me to turn my badge back in. I sent the form to the right people and left for a month. When I came back, and brought the list of signatures to the lady in the badge office, she looked over them, whited out one or two and signed over them. As Hermes Conrad said: “Ah, the cycle of bureaucracy.”

By: MichaelS

MichaelS — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:41:45 +0000

KaiYeves: Troy said “4 years later“. The 9/11 attacks took place in 2001, +4 years is 2005 which is 2 years ago.

To everybody: “security” doesn’t mean “we have classified information”. It means “we want to be safe”. Maybe I’m signing off critical systems on the shuttle as safe even though I didn’t even look at them (I’m lazy, procrastinated, and now I don’t have time to meet the deadline and don’t want to get fired). You find out, but I know about your drug and gambling problems, so you keep your mouth shut.

Classified information is, almost by definition, very sensitive and potentially hazardous to our nation’s well-being, so there tends to be a great emphasis put on the reliability of people working with it, but that doesn’t mean you can’t put emphasis on anything else. And I think any type of institution that puts things into space is worthy of emphasis.

By: JackC

JackC — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:20:23 +0000

Irishman

You seem to have had a lot of time on your hands!

I find it interesting that this has arroused so much interest and occasional angst for something that really is pretty basic – trying to develop a reasonable way to determine an individual is whom they say they are. I think of the scene in M.A.S.H once where a Korean is asked to identify himself – and he points to his face and says “This is me.”

My father continuously complains about “security at airports and how silly it is. Though I essentially agree with him – it is for different reasons. His position is he “in no way” resembles any kind of “terrorist” and therefore, should not be subject to such intensive seraches. My position is – they can’t tell anyway and are playing a loose form of odds in hope of either discouraging – or maybe actually detecting – someone that is.

And that is of course the concept of the Identification badge. Of course, even with the badge, without biometrics or some other linkage to the wearer, as well as an alert, effective and attentive guard force, it really is nothing but another process to go through to give an illusion of security.