In Case You Haven't Seen This

[Thumper07]

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?

I don't really see it as demanding proof, it's more like amplifying the need to meet their requirement. People have their IDs stolen all the time. The fact that OPM lost IDs of people with clearances amplifies the necessity of "reasonable measure" of defense against targeting those individuals for nefarious purposes. The MSP is really rooting for us on this. Is it an extra step that challenges the basic intention of the 2nd Amendment....yes... but we are in Maryland so jump through that hoop if you can do you CAN protect your family, others and yourself

 

[redeemed.man]

I don't really see it as demanding proof, it's more like amplifying the need to meet their requirement. People have their IDs stolen all the time. The fact that OPM lost IDs of people with clearances amplifies the necessity of "reasonable measure" of defense against targeting those individuals for nefarious purposes. The MSP is really rooting for us on this. Is it an extra step that challenges the basic intention of the 2nd Amendment....yes... but we are in Maryland so jump through that hoop if you can do you CAN protect your family, others and yourself

MSP rooting for us??? Stretching it a bit don't you think?

 

[Bigfoot21075]

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

EXACTLY. They are not asking for anything you would not be allowed to post on your resume. I still see it as a positive development.

 

[Inigoes]

Another thing noone is thinking about, is the MSP is agregrating data.

The program or agency releasing your clearance info, mixed with other people. Even though the individual release is innocuous, putting it together in their database may raise the classification.

 

[Rab1515]

EXACTLY. They are not asking for anything you would not be allowed to post on your resume. I still see it as a positive development.

Actually, they are. Sorry to burst your bubble, but some clearances cannot be put on a resume, and most security managers cannot provide statements on letterhead.

 

[navycraig]

The MSP is really rooting for us on this.

First Sgt., is that you?

EXACTLY. They are not asking for anything you would not be allowed to post on your resume. I still see it as a positive development.

They are not asking, they are requiring. Also, as has been stated before, the systems where the information is gathered from by the Command Security Manager, expressly prohibits that the information be released for other than official purposes. Added to that, I would guess that most agencies are not resourced for this additional workload of first verifying the information and then doing the administrative work required by the document of proof. And lastly, I don't think that it's been mentioned yet that this boils down to using government resources for personal gain.

I stand by my original statement that MSP knows the burden of this and is using it to their advantage of not approving applications.

Oh, and I have yet to receive a call from whatever outfit that the First Sgt. claims to have received their "training" from.

 

[LCPIWB]

Maybe I am missing something, but if you are using the clearance as good and substantial, I don't see the problem.

The problem is getting a "Security Manager" to provide such a letter. A normal employment verification, easily provided, is insufficient.

Government security personnel will not provide such a letter. Contractor security managers are hit or miss. Also, simple verification of the clearance level is not sufficient. They ask for A statement from the Security Manager confirming that you have routine and daily access to materials classified at your current clearance level.

This is despite the verified threats and the OPM hacks.

No, the REAL problem is MSP allowing non-vetted persons review this information and providing access to it.
MD Lottery employees doing background checks for handgun purchases in 2013 anyone? Using the same password on a internet facing system...

 

[ras_oscar]

I don't understand their requirement that a person with a clearance have continuing access to classified information at the stated level. I suspect they just copied and modified the language from the processing cash transactions SOP. Once someone is exposed to classified information, the info remains in their head for life. Irrespective of whether a cleared individual has EVER actually been exposed to classified, the fact that they have a clearance increases their potential as a target. Spreading that access information from the federal Government to state records further increases the risk. Perhaps we should be reviewing the records management procedures of MSP for leaks? Do they control their trash? use burn bags? what happens to the application information once the case is concluded? is it stored securely? shredded? thrown in the trash? what about electronic copies?

 

[Rab1515]

I don't understand their requirement that a person with a clearance have continuing access to classified information at the stated level. I suspect they just copied and modified the language from the processing cash transactions SOP. Once someone is exposed to classified information, the info remains in their head for life. Irrespective of whether a cleared individual has EVER actually been exposed to classified, the fact that they have a clearance increases their potential as a target. Spreading that access information from the federal Government to state records further increases the risk. Perhaps we should be reviewing the records management procedures of MSP for leaks? Do they control their trash? use burn bags? what happens to the application information once the case is concluded? is it stored securely? shredded? thrown in the trash? what about electronic copies?

All excellent points any why most people are uncomfortable with this.

 

[Bigfoot21075]

I don't understand their requirement that a person with a clearance have continuing access to classified information at the stated level. I suspect they just copied and modified the language from the processing cash transactions SOP. Once someone is exposed to classified information, the info remains in their head for life. Irrespective of whether a cleared individual has EVER actually been exposed to classified, the fact that they have a clearance increases their potential as a target. Spreading that access information from the federal Government to state records further increases the risk. Perhaps we should be reviewing the records management procedures of MSP for leaks? Do they control their trash? use burn bags? what happens to the application information once the case is concluded? is it stored securely? shredded? thrown in the trash? what about electronic copies?

THAT is an excellent point. Once you are cleared you have an obligation to protect that classified information for LIFE. In fact, even after you are off the program, you still have to have resumes and related writings vetted for life.

I am not saying I am fully comfortable with this, ESPECIALLY the letterhead requirement but it is a step in the right direction. As I mentioned our security folks said they would provide this to MSP if I need them too.

 

[zoostation]

I have said many times in the past how hard of a job FLD has and how I feel bad for them always being caught in the middle. But this kind of stuff is hard to defend. They want a letter showing "routine and daily access to classified information." I mean I'm sorry, I read the wear carry law and I just can't seem to find that anywhere. How is that needed for "good and substantial." It's like sometimes they just make this shit up as they go along. I mean Oh My Goodness, someone with a TS-SCI who only needs access a couple of times a month (and btw has had a background investigation that dwarfs what MSP does on their own people) might get a permit. And then the whole world will just come screeching to a halt. It's absurd. Frankly it sounds like someone didn't like being told they were going to grant permits to people based on clearances and conjured up this whole thing as a way to bugger up the process. Or Hogan's office decided to play the middle-left as usual and say that MSP was issuing permits on this basis to pacify a pro-military public, and via backdoor phone calls made sure that process was as difficult as possible. I don't know of course, but having worked in a bureaucracy long enough as many of us here have, that's sure what it looks like.

 

[ShafTed]

I have said many times in the past how hard of a job FLD has and how I feel bad for them always being caught in the middle. But this kind of stuff is hard to defend. They want a letter showing "routine and daily access to classified information." I mean I'm sorry, I read the wear carry law and I just can't seem to find that anywhere. How is that needed for "good and substantial." It's like sometimes they just make this shit up as they go along. I mean Oh My Goodness, someone with a TS-SCI who only needs access a couple of times a month (and btw has had a background investigation that dwarfs what MSP does on their own people) might get a permit. And then the whole world will just come screeching to a halt. It's absurd. Frankly it sounds like someone didn't like being told they were going to grant permits to people based on clearances and conjured up this whole thing as a way to bugger up the process. Or Hogan's office decided to play the middle-left as usual and say that MSP was issuing permits on this basis to pacify a pro-military public, and via backdoor phone calls made sure that process was as difficult as possible. I don't know of course, but having worked in a bureaucracy long enough as many of us here have, that's sure what it looks like.

I detect the distinct odor of Frosh here. I (and others) think that many of the problems with LD can be traced to the fact that their "institutional memory" resides in their AAG Mark Bowen, the puppet directly controlled by Frosh. That's why changes in LD personnel don't seem to improve anything. Can someone, anyone, PLEASE convince the state GOP to actually mount a campaign for AG in 2018!!

 

[LeadSled1]

Walked this over to the security office to see the look on their faces. So "this office cannot provide any Security Clearance related documentation that will be considered by a non-DoD agency" was the reply I received in writing.

 

[Bigfoot21075]

Walked this over to the security office to see the look on their faces. So "this office cannot provide any Security Clearance related documentation that will be considered by a non-DoD agency" was the reply I received in writing.

Color me shocked we get different answers

 

[Rab1515]

Walked this over to the security office to see the look on their faces. So "this office cannot provide any Security Clearance related documentation that will be considered by a non-DoD agency" was the reply I received in writing.

Care to share what agency?

 

[Inigoes]

This is the only cage code listed for something government in the 21208 zipcode is

02DG6 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SYSTEM CENTRAL REPOSITORY

 

[BeoBill]

I don't really see it as demanding proof, it's more like amplifying the need to meet their requirement. People have their IDs stolen all the time. The fact that OPM lost IDs of people with clearances amplifies the necessity of "reasonable measure" of defense against targeting those individuals for nefarious purposes. The MSP is really rooting for us on this. Is it an extra step that challenges the basic intention of the 2nd Amendment....yes... but we are in Maryland so jump through that hoop if you can do you CAN protect your family, others and yourself

Have you lost your mind?

 

[BeoBill]

EXACTLY. They are not asking for anything you would not be allowed to post on your resume. I still see it as a positive development.

They are asking precisely for the information that you are not allowed to post on your resume. The generic statement goes something like "I am able to work on classified projects." That's about as detailed as you can get without becoming "Stupid in Public."

 

[BeoBill]

Another thing noone is thinking about, is the MSP is agregrating data.

The program or agency releasing your clearance info, mixed with other people. Even though the individual release is innocuous, putting it together in their database may raise the classification.

Thank you! This is why the info is designated EEFI. You must be familiar with OPSEC. Or you have been sh1t at and missed.

 

[BeoBill]

THAT is an excellent point. Once you are cleared you have an obligation to protect that classified information for LIFE. In fact, even after you are off the program, you still have to have resumes and related writings vetted for life.

I am not saying I am fully comfortable with this, ESPECIALLY the letterhead requirement but it is a step in the right direction. As I mentioned our security folks said they would provide this to MSP if I need them too.[/QUOTE]

Then they are idiots. Ask them about their storage and handling requirements. Ask them the questions that OPs have asked above. Are they willing to send the info to a common unsecure and unmonitored FAX number or email account?

I'm glad your outfit is not my outfit. Exceptionally glad. Your Security shop soon will be //REL WAPO.