> He then got out a blank form and handed it to me, saying ``Here, fill it out again and don't mention that. If you do, I'll make sure that you never get a security clearance.''<p>That sentence perfectly sums up my experience with the security clearance process and demonstrates clearly how broken it is.
Les Earnest's anecdotes have been a real inspiration for me over the years. His Japanese Spy story is pretty good. But if you want a real laugh, read his Mongrel Race stories: <a href="http://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html" rel="nofollow">http://yarchive.net/risks/mongrel.html</a>
I would not lie on security clearance applications. Being honest and truthful is a big factor is the security clearance process. It's OK if you have incidences like this in the past, as long as there are mitigating factors such as passage of time and circumstances in which the incident occurred. The investigators just want to make sure you cannot be blackmailed in exchange for secret information.<p>For example, say John has a drug addiction, but he failed to disclose this on his application. He is eventually granted the clearance, but now he has to keep this secret for the rest of his life. Someone could easily blackmail him for secret government information. If he is caught lying, his clearance will be revoked and he will lose his job, and more than likely he will never be hired for a position that requires a clearance ever again (many US gov't jobs require a clearance).<p>Honesty is a sign of your loyalty to the U.S. Depending on the type of clearance, you are sometimes required to take multiple polygraph tests, and you will more than likely be caught lying.<p>Author did the right thing by being truthful.<p>See <a href="http://www.rjhresearch.com/ADR/index.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.rjhresearch.com/ADR/index.htm</a> for more information.
The question of what to reveal on official documents comes up fairly often. On the on hand, telling the truth can cause unnecessary trouble, on the other hand, lying is technically illegal. I'm amazed at how often people are strongly incentivized to choose the latter.
It sounds like the security officer was just some low-level grunt who didn't want to go to the trouble of filing extra paperwork. Rather than someone with the power to "make sure that you never get a security clearance".
It's amazing how many people today don't know we once had concentration camps in the USA and what we put innocent families through.<p>We almost went there again with arabic Americans after 9/11 via census data.
This is a bit along the lines of Patrick's marvelous post <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1438472" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1438472</a>
It's amazing how much American law enforcement has changed in the last 70 years. It's the most interesting part of this article IMO. When something like this happens today they serve a no-knock warrant and shoot the kid's dog (well, after shooting the neighbor's dog because they got the wrong house). Zero-tolerance and all.