Interesting precedents

Searching around the web, I have found some very interesting information and precedents that suggest that the NASA implementation of HSPD-12 is misguided and being implemented without any common sense questions being asked.

For example, I found this site - http://employeeclearance.com - which talks about the failings of the HSPD-12 implementation in the Department of Education. The pages on that site are very interesting and informative. I found this tidbit in the discussion area from a person who worked in the Bureau of Land Management particularly interesting:

I tried for two weeks to find a way to stay employed without having to turn over such invasive information because I believed that my right to privacy was being invaded. I asked for an appeal process, for a job that didn't require an NAC. I was fired in early November as a security threat.

I was also denied my unemployment benefits with the reasoning that I was "wantonly negligent of the employer's interests" and therefore my actions equaled "misconduct" on the job. This even though that within the past year I had been promoted and had an excellent work history.

I appealed the decision and finally 2 months after I was fired, I won the appeal. It was a very strong decision by the Administrative Law Judge who said he could find nothing in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 that actually specified the turning over of the information requested of me.

I'm not sure if her victory meant she got her job back, or if she got her unemployment benefits. But, the fact of the matter is that if a lawsuit brought against the government for losing your job would be helped by such a court precedent.

Also, I found this really good website from a Goddard Space Flight Center contractor employee which outlines his concerns of HSPD-12 and the implementation at GSFC. His biggest conern, as is mine is listed as "The requirement to sign "voluntary" release forms to allow the government access to financial and medical records;". In terms of precedent, I thought this was interesting:

Upper management told us on April 3rd and 4th that individuals going through the re-badging process do not need to sign two of the four forms—the Medical and Credit History release forms—during the visit to Security for rebadging. If one chooses not to sign those two release forms, the badge will still be issued and a background investigation will still be conducted. If, as a result of the investigation, further information is deemed necessary GSFC Security will come back to the individual and request that these forms be signed. Even if the individual signs the releases at that time, it is possible that issuance of the SmartCard will be delayed since there was a delay in the investigation process.

If this is true, how is it that GSFC is finally starting to realize that "voluntary" forms can not be used as a condition of employment but JSC continues down the path? The answer is simple: we let them.