Re: A quick Question (Was Re: "Damn Furriners" :-)

Daniel J. Frasnelli (dfrasnel@csee.wvu.edu)
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:46:31 -0500 (EST)

• Next message: Anonymous: "the spooks have IRS buddies, who have sherriffs with guns.."
• Previous message: Robert Hettinga: "Re: the spooks have guns, dumbass; was Furriners"
• In reply to: Anonymous: "the spooks have guns, dumbass; was Furriners"
• Next in thread: Ge' Weijers: "Re: "Damn Furriners" :-)"

> I am curious about those crypto persons in those positions not *directly*
> under DoD contract. Like att research.
        Have a feeling that people at AT&T research are private industry
scientists, unless working under contract for DoD. I'm sure the
government funds at least some of their work, but that is not uncommon -
look at Lockheed-Martin for example. People whose research groups inside
Lockheed are funded directly obviously need clearance. I once was made an
informal offer to work on their "Seawasp" project, which required
several security clearances because it was funded by the DoD.

> Lots of good work coming out of those folks: is that *also* an SCI
> environment? I.e., does the nature of the work require SCI clearance,
> even if not "actively" doing DoD work?
        Something to keep in mind is that while the security clearances
have the same acronyms between agencies, it does not mean that one agency
or industry will necessarily honor a clearance from another agency. SCI
really only describes clearance to work in an environment where you or
your group works on a small part of a larger project without knowing what
the larger project is all about. That said, I'm sure AT&T has one form or
another of SCI clearance for sensitive projects.

> If so, wouldn't the mere presence of foreign nationals require (at the
> very minimum) a "contact report"?
        NSA is notorious for their paranoia of foreign nationals, and
perhaps not without reason. It's only natural that the defense
infrastructure of one nation has to assume the foreign intel agents of
another are continuously gathering information on them. The NSA
philosophy is more the exception than the rule, and even that has
limitations - if an employee goes to the local restaurant and am served
by a fellow working under a green card (how I would know this, I don't
know), there is little reason to fill out a "contact report". If,
however, the employee gets into a long, drawn out conversation with
a foreign national, a contact report is warranted. Not that I know any of
this to be true personally :-)

Daniel

• Next message: Anonymous: "the spooks have IRS buddies, who have sherriffs with guns.."
• Previous message: Robert Hettinga: "Re: the spooks have guns, dumbass; was Furriners"
• In reply to: Anonymous: "the spooks have guns, dumbass; was Furriners"
• Next in thread: Ge' Weijers: "Re: "Damn Furriners" :-)"