In Case You Haven't Seen This

BeoBill · May 30, 2017

Inigoes said:
It's not only security clearance

It's also a location designated on an ISIS kill list, Lexington Park, MD is one of them. The MSP seems to be in denial when a known terror organization lists your town; apparently, you do not have a need to protect yourself or your family.

http://www.snopes.com/2015/11/16/isis-kill-list/

Local article: http://www.thebaynet.com/articles/0315/lexington-park-reported-on-isis-hit-list.html

The MSP will continue to deny, until an attack happens here.

That is an indication of the MSP's lack of clearance and need to know. They can get the info they need via the JTTF (a "Yes" or "No" answer with U/FOUO/LES safeguarding), but they are either too stupid or lazy to do so.

EDIT: They will NEVER get Compartment information because most are Unacknowledged and even its very existence cannot be revealed to anyone outside the Compartment. If they indicate otherwise, either someone or some facility is going to have their clearance Terminated with Prejudice for Cause (and Flagged so they will never be cleared again) or they are flat out lying. I tend toward the latter explanation, because it's part of their job description.

BeoBill · May 30, 2017

navycraig said:
I spoke to the First Sgt via email and then phone early this morning. The take-aways are these:
- They do indeed monitor these pages as he actually mentioned this thread and called me out by my handle of Navycraig. Made me chuckle.
- MSP LD states that they are receiving this requested information from many other sources who are willing to provide it. Sates that PAX folks are the only ones who won't.
- Discussed that they had a DoD agency come to MSP and provide them training and were told it's perfectly fine for the applicant to provide the requested information. He would not tell me who provided the training so that I could contact them, but said he would give them my contact information if they were willing to contact me to discuss. My guess is that they won't.
- We ended at an impasse where they state they need the information and are getting it in other cases. I state that we (PAX proper. Not speaking for NAVAIR or other tenant commands) can't and won't provide the information because we're not authorized to because they don't have the need to know. Furthermore, we have no way of knowing if and how they protect the PII associated with the information and lastly, by providing the information for them to have in their records, that makes those applicants even more vulnerable in the even of a hack.

It was an interesting discussion. Polite and professional, but nothing resolved.

--Break--

I emailed Waugh, Rey, and Morgan and have already gotten a reply from Morgan's office. He has already sent a letter to the Superintendent of MSP asking about this new requirement. We'll see what happens.

Contact ISOO; they would be the ones to decide if MSP gets training and who provided it when. And they might become VERY interested in what MSP LD is asking for. They're good, helpful people (I've dealt with them often in the past) and take their job as "final authority and arbiter of all things classified" very, very seriously.

jkeys · May 30, 2017

I am pretty sure my facility's security officer would gladly write the MSP a response on official letterhead to go F themselves.

BeoBill · May 30, 2017

jkeys said:
I am pretty sure my facility's security officer would gladly write the MSP a response on official letterhead to go F themselves.

We actually used to enjoy deflating pompous popinjays like them, if there was a followup request. Politely and professionally outlining how their career would end, and mentioning the visit by OUR LE if there was a third attempt. I can't recall a third request...

LCPIWB · May 30, 2017

I seem to be the only one who gets a laugh out of the fact a letter from the MSP is signed by someone named "Moriarty".

Inigoes · May 30, 2017

This thread has me wondering how much classified information the MSP has in it's possession that is not related to a criminal investigation?

Mere possession is a violation of 46 CFR 503.59 - Safeguarding classified information.

Rab1515 · May 30, 2017

LCPIWB said:
I seem to be the only one who gets a laugh out of the fact a letter from the MSP is signed by someone named "Moriarty".

He is just as bad as you can imagine. Refuses to "verify" evidance and withholds PIA requests.

jkasprz · May 30, 2017

Was thinking the same thing.
What if someone "hacked" this information and sold or gave it to ISIS.....

Stoveman · May 30, 2017

I'm going to rock the boat and play Devil's Advocate here, but didn't those who have applied already inform the LD that they had XYZ clearance as part of their G&S?

I'm not sure how you would request a permit with your G&S being a clearance, Clarence, without stating so on Question 23. Hell, most of the people who live in my neighborhood work for .gov and when the investigator calls to do an interview it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's not for a door to door greeting card salesman job.

Rab1515 · May 30, 2017

Stoveman said:
I'm going to rock the boat and play Devil's Advocate here, but didn't those who have applied already inform the LD that they had XYZ clearance as part of their G&S?

I'm not sure how you would request a permit with your G&S being a clearance, Clarence, without stating so on Question 23. Hell, most of the people who live in my neighborhood work for .gov and when the investigator calls to do an interview it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's not for a door to door greeting card salesman job.

Knowing someone has a clearence isn't the issue, although frowned upon by security it isn't too much of a big deal. Knowing exactly what clearence, and how often they use it, is, especially once you get the the TS/SCI or SAP level.

jkeys · May 30, 2017

Stoveman said:
I'm going to rock the boat and play Devil's Advocate here, but didn't those who have applied already inform the LD that they had XYZ clearance as part of their G&S?

I'm not sure how you would request a permit with your G&S being a clearance, Clarence, without stating so on Question 23. Hell, most of the people who live in my neighborhood work for .gov and when the investigator calls to do an interview it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it's not for a door to door greeting card salesman job.

Knowing a person has a clearance is one thing, knowing that they deal with classified information at a certain level on a regular basis makes them and the facility(s) they work in a target due to the sheer volume of information they deal with.

And by target, I don't necessarily mean in a physical threat kind of way, you can be targetted by social engineering online, targeted by foreign agents who try to join your social circles and find out more about what you do via seemingly normal interactions, etc. People with clearances go through a lot of trainning about infosec and how a little seemingly innocent information can have disasterous consenquences when pieced together with data collected from other individuals or sources.

Stoveman · May 30, 2017

jkeys said:
Knowing a person has a clearance is one thing, knowing that they deal with classified information at a certain level on a regular basis makes them and the facility(s) they work in a target due to the sheer volume of information they deal with.

And by target, I don't necessarily mean in a physical threat kind of way, you can be targetted by social engineering online, targeted by foreign agents who try to join your social circles and find out more about what you do via seemingly normal interactions, etc. People with clearances go through a lot of trainning about infosec and how a little seemingly innocent information can have disasterous consenquences when pieced together with data collected from other individuals or sources.

Totally get that. What I am wondering is how the answer to Question 23 is worded. I'm guessing "I work for .gov and have access to super secret stuff" probably isn't it.

Rab1515 · May 31, 2017

Stoveman said:
Totally get that. What I am wondering is how the answer to Question 23 is worded. I'm guessing "I work for .gov and have access to super secret stuff" probably isn't it.

Carefully. The line security recommends is "Elevated and specific access above common clearances issued". You can also say what you don't have. This lets most people with a working knowledge of clearances know to stop asking questions, unfortunately MSP thinks they are all knowing and thinks they can be told all things clearance related.

Thumper07 · May 31, 2017

Just a thought, I am also in the same boat as the rest of federal employees with a security clearance. There is nothing secret about the fact that you have some type of clearance. So stating your clearance level to the MSP is not violating any agreement. We are just programmed to not "advertise" the fact we have one. The information you are exposed is " detrimental to the national security of the nation" should that info be leaked. By proxy just having a clearance indicates you have daily access to it- reference the letter in the initial post. My security manager had no issue with this point, generated a letter for the MSP... and I now have a CCW permit.

BeoBill · May 31, 2017

I had a thought about the MSP after I turned in last night. This is THE definitive way to prove if they are lying. If anyone contact them regarding clearance info, ask them for their CAGE code. If they don't have one or don't know what it is, they have not been briefed and demonstrated required safeguarding capability and Need to Know.

<Takes off FSO hat>

teawhy · May 31, 2017

BeoBill said:
I had a thought about the MSP after I turned in last night. This is THE definitive way to prove if they are lying. If anyone contact them regarding clearance info, ask them for their CAGE code. If they don't have one or don't know what it is, they have not been briefed and demonstrated required safeguarding capability and Need to Know.

<Takes off FSO hat>

BeoBill with the mic drop :cool:

In all seriousness, that's a great point. I'm hoping to get the chance to pick the collective brain of my local security team. TBD.

navycraig · May 31, 2017

Thumper07 said:
Just a thought, I am also in the same boat as the rest of federal employees with a security clearance. There is nothing secret about the fact that you have some type of clearance. So stating your clearance level to the MSP is not violating any agreement. We are just programmed to not "advertise" the fact we have one. The information you are exposed is " detrimental to the national security of the nation" should that info be leaked. By proxy just having a clearance indicates you have daily access to it- reference the letter in the initial post. My security manager had no issue with this point, generated a letter for the MSP... and I now have a CCW permit.

It's not about you saying you have the clearance, it's about MSP demanding proof via a letter which is not authorized. How are they protecting the information?

redeemed.man · May 31, 2017

navycraig said:
It's not about you saying you have the clearance, it's about MSP demanding proof via a letter which is not authorized. How are they protecting the information?

They do a great job protecting the private information of gun owners.

https://www.ammoland.com/2013/09/la...lice-for-compromise-of-private-personal-data/

Bigfoot21075 · May 31, 2017

BeoBill said:
I had a thought about the MSP after I turned in last night. This is THE definitive way to prove if they are lying. If anyone contact them regarding clearance info, ask them for their CAGE code. If they don't have one or don't know what it is, they have not been briefed and demonstrated required safeguarding capability and Need to Know.

<Takes off FSO hat>

To be honest, I see this as a positive development. My information was leaked in the OPM leak. I have seriously considered going through the process and expense of trying to get the permit.

MSP is not asking for anything that in of itself is classified. They are not asking for Trigraphs, program information, or anything classified. The fact that I have a security clearance is not classified, in fact everyone of my neighbors and relatives knows as they have all been interviewed several times over the years during my reinvestigation.

The agency sends me notifications when my polygraph is scheduled on my unclassified system. Yes, I get nervous with the information as well, and I am HYPER sensitive to ANYTHING even related to me personally and my family but MSP already knows where I work, the bad guys know more than that!

I asked my security officer about this she agreed there is nothing inherently wrong with disseminating this information to MSP for this purpose. She was however quick to point out that it is not OK to carry a firearm in a SCIF. I appreciate the willingness of MSP to modify their stance.

THAT said, the letter does not say if you submit this information you will be approved. THAT would be a kick in the face! :sad20:

BeoBill · May 31, 2017

Bigfoot21075 said:
To be honest, I see this as a positive development. My information was leaked in the OPM leak. I have seriously considered going through the process and expense of trying to get the permit.

MSP is not asking for anything that in of itself is classified. They are not asking for Trigraphs, program information, or anything classified. The fact that I have a security clearance is not classified, in fact everyone of my neighbors and relatives knows as they have all been interviewed several times over the years during my reinvestigation.

The agency sends me notifications when my polygraph is scheduled on my unclassified system. Yes, I get nervous with the information as well, and I am HYPER sensitive to ANYTHING even related to me personally and my family but MSP already knows where I work, the bad guys know more than that!

I asked my security officer about this she agreed there is nothing inherently wrong with disseminating this information to MSP for this purpose. She was however quick to point out that it is not OK to carry a firearm in a SCIF. I appreciate the willingness of MSP to modify their stance.

THAT said, the letter does not say if you submit this information you will be approved. THAT would be a kick in the face!

No it is not classified. However, there are certain rules in place about revelaing (1) that you are cleared and (2) your level of access. In OPSEC terminology, that info is called an EEFI (Essential Element of Friendly Information), which is why there is approved boilerplate that is acceptable to use in your resume to indicate you can do work that involves NSI.

You'll notice that I bow out of certain threads and am very circumspect or cryptic in others. That's the reason.

See:
http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520502m.pdf
http://cdsetrain.dtic.mil/opsec/index.htm

In Case You Haven't Seen This

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Crank in the Third Row

Crank in the Third Row

Active Member

Crank in the Third Row

Needs an avatar

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Member

TV Personality

Ultimate Member

Active Member

TV Personality

Ultimate Member

Member

Crank in the Third Row

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Crank in the Third Row

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics