[rdtsc]

> When I handed the form in to the security officer, he scanned it quickly, looked me over slowly, then said, ``Explain this''--pointing at the FBI question. I described what had happened. He got very agitated, picked up my form, tore it in pieces, and threw it in the waste basket.

> 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.''

It's important to "see like the government" when dealing with the government (pun on "seeing like a bank" by https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/seeing-like-a-bank/ if anyone didn't catch the reference).

Everything fits into bins and categories with checkmarks and such. As an entity it has no "bin" for "investigated as Japanese spy as a joke when was a child". So you have to pick the closest bin that matches. However, that doesn't mean the same government later won't turn around also punish you for not picking the right "bin". Not "realizing" that it's its own fault for not having enough categories i.e. bins for you to pick. And, some may argue, that's a feature not a bug...

[phreeza]

Not sure if you were maybe joking, but Seeing like a Bank is itself a pun on the famous book "Seeing like a state"! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeing_Like_a_State

So you've come almost full circle!

[rdtsc]

It is the full circle! patio11 refers to that explicitly in the blog. But most people here probably saw and remember Pat's blog more than the book.

[john01dav]

In response to the seeing like a bank article, one thing which can make this a lot better is to use asynchronous ticketing or messaging systems instead of phone trees.

At my bank, I can just send a message in the app, even when it's closed, about whatever I want. Then, when the bank opens, someone reads it, and then either handles it, or transfers it. Then, if its transferreed, that person either handles it or forwards again.

The same triaging of basic issues exists, the same tiers described in the article, but the user interfece is wildly superior. I take 1 minute to write what I need to write, and then a few business hours later, its solved. I don't need to waste my time on hold. I don't need to be instantly available for an undetermined period for a call back. I don't need to explain the same issue repeatedly. If I'm asked a question, I can answer it, and the answer is then attached to the full log that every escalation or transfer has full access to.

This is so much better that I refuse to do business with most businesses that don't offer something like this. I was extremely pissed when a data broker leaked my SSN and I was forced to deal with such institutions to clean up that mess.

[shakna]

And then, over with AGSVA, they just do interviews. Every candidate gets one, and they absolutely do bring up all the random crap that happens to various people as kids. And ask why it wasn't on your form.

[ErigmolCt]

The danger isn't just being risky, it's being anomalous

[raverbashing]

Exactly this

People of a more autistic orientation here seem to think this is a no-no when in fact it's quite the opposite

The note was investigated. Not the person.

[notatoad]

the challenge is always determining what the "bins" are.

maybe the government has no bin for "investegated by the FBI for a silly and innocuous reason". but maybe they do, and lying about it slots you into the bin for "lied on their security clearance form".

[Frost1x]

In the security space you’re encouraged to be as transparent as possible. Most modern forms have ample space to write in detailed explanations.

I have some silly not nearly as interesting infractions and I wrote them out in detail explaining, without any issue in processing background checks. It usually is something that’s asked about in an in person interview at that point.