Security Clearance Question????

[demyansk]

I was just wondering about what I heard on the TV the other day about individuals who leave the government but keep their security clearance. My question is this,

Why does this continue and why don't all individuals lose this when they leave the military, CIA, NSA, FBI etc?

It just doesn't seem right that people could still be hearing things and using that information in an illegitimate way.

If you have a website to look at for the reason of why people keep it, please link.
Thanks - I just want to know the reason - not really getting into politics even though most of you know what's going on now.

[Alfred]

You are making a huge assumption.
 
A security clearance only identifies the level of accessibility.  It does not mean classified documents are automatically provided.  Access is on a needs to know basis so if someone is no longer employed that have no need to know.  If they subsequently return to the information loop do they get access again.
 
Alfred

[Mobius]

It probably lasts for only a short time then expires. It may save money and time because if they get a civilian job that requires a level of security clearance they don't have to be vetted again. Before I was employed by a private defense company I had to get a clearance from the FBI that took 2 months. Two months waiting without a paycheck is not fun. I think the employer has to pay for the vetting so it is to the employees benefit that they can retain the security clearance and not cost the employer.

[Poopyhead]

My clearance was Cosmic Top Secret Atomal + Background Investigation, so I can tell you what a hydrogen bomb smells like. Normally, a clearance implies someone that can be trusted to do the right thing with their need to know access. Mentors and other people with experience who retire and can suddenly no longer give advice would cause a problem. However, this should of course be scrutinized on a case by case basis. Collaborators in a failed coup attempt should never retain a clearance or our trust.

Here's a FAQ:

https://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/s ... e-faq.html

Also, if some day President Chelsea Clinton revokes the clearances of all Republicans because we refuse to support our NATO ally Montenegro, then this would be rather tyrannical/paranoid.

(An H-bomb smells like extinction.)

[bayonetbrant]

Some folks hinted around at it above, but your clearance is good as long as your investigation is good, but that doesn't mean you can walk up to anyone storing classified info and demand access.

What it means is that when you do get put back into a job where you need access, they don't need to do a new investigation on you if the old one is still valid.

[loki100]

This is from a UK perspective but I think the basic principles are common.

When I was (a long time ago) a civil servant I worked in a minister's private office. So I got a certain level of security vetting appropriate to the sort of material that I'd have to handle to do that job in that part of the UK government. When I left I guess the security clearance carried on for a while but of course I no longer saw the material that I had previously handled.

Had I returned to that sort of role in a fairly limited period of time then the old clearance would have been applied again.

So crudely, the security clearance outlasted any entitlement to see the material (as that had been job related) but I only saw the material due to the job I was doing.

[operating]

Not to offend any of the posters... If an employer, be it government or private does not trust your POV, or perhaps feel you are corrupt and will/or would never rely on any of your security assessments, "Why should the employer ever let that someone keep their security clearance, be it at what level it happens to be?" Heck, If I no longer trust someone I deal with in my day to day life, either I do not talk to them at all, or never-never tell them anything personal at all, especially if I believe the person is a RAT..""

[demyansk]

I agree, I think all sides should lose clearance when they leave and then reapply. Check, they can afford it and the entire system is out of control. Except gaming!!!!!

[Aurelian]

Keeping a security clearance allows those in government to consult with their predecessors, tapping into the institutional memory. Those same predecessors do not receive classified material.

[bayonetbrant]

ORIGINAL: demyansk

I agree, I think all sides should lose clearance when they leave and then reapply. Check, they can afford it and the entire system is out of control. Except gaming!!!!!

Just wondering - have you ever held a security clearance or been responsible for tracking those who do?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Keeping a security clearance allows those in government to consult with their predecessors, tapping into the institutional memory. Those same predecessors do not receive classified material.

I believe this is the case. The media does us all a disservice by not clarifying differences between active and inactive clearances, terminations, suspensions, and revocations. Having a clearance formally revoked requires cause and notifications and reviews, and gets lawyers involved in many cases. So it's not clear what the status is for these former officials, whether thay are actively accessing classified information or not, etc. As Paul Harvey would say, there's always 'the rest of the story' that we probably haven't heard yet.

ORIGINAL: Poopyhead
My clearance was Cosmic Top Secret Atomal + Background Investigation, so I can tell you what a hydrogen bomb smells like.

Ditto. (FA52) [;)]

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Keeping a security clearance allows those in government to consult with their predecessors, tapping into the institutional memory. Those same predecessors do not receive classified material.

No. If consultation is needed the clearance should be reactivated.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/ ... sentenced/

[Poopyhead]

High ranking retired officials who have a clearance apparently get it periodically renewed automatically. So former Presidents get routine briefings to remain "in the know". Both political parties are fine with this arrangement for the same reasons. However, most officials lose their clearance when it times out. As I posted above, deliberately removing clearances from certain retired officials was immediately labeled by one political faction as tyrannical and paranoid, even treasonous. Obviously, these officials are not receiving briefings from the current administration, but they still can get classified information from former co-workers who are not violating their own security clearance by doing so. The Government cannot restrict free speech, but this does not extend to national intelligence. If you want to know something like that, then fill out a FOIA request. So, persons who soon may find themselves the subject of investigation should no longer have access to Departments that may be tasked to do the investigating.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Keeping a security clearance allows those in government to consult with their predecessors, tapping into the institutional memory. Those same predecessors do not receive classified material.

No. If consultation is needed the clearance should be reactivated.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/ ... sentenced/

Which has nothing to do with the here and now.

[operating]

The Dept. of Defense is poised to take over the entire security clearance process: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/p ... government A fairly good article about security clearance.

[CGGrognard]

This. A clearance only allows the "cleared" individual access to the level of their clearance (classified, secret, top secret) on a "need to know" basis within their position. Nothing more.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]