[rdl]

I think it has to be done, but it should be done respectfully and proportionately — a high ranking CIA case officer merits much more scrutiny than a NASA scientist, etc. I think we have seen enough serious counterintelligence failures over the past decade that something has to be done culturally and technically.

[tptacek]

It's unclear what it is you think needs to be done here, and since the preceding post seems to suggest that our government persecute the families of those suspected to be involved in espionage, some clarity would be welcome.

[rdl]

I assume he was pointing out why having family or close connections overseas and in a potentially hostile or at least adversarial nation has long been a factor in clearance investigations.

[rdl]

Er, I missed the second part of this.

I don't advocate them doing anything unconstitutional; merely that in the initial clearance process and ongoing clearance process for cleared employees that relations hostile or adversarial foreign powers continue to be a factor in investigation. It might mean putting more resources into specifically China-focused CI in the screening and review process. It might mean longer clearance processing (as a result) for people with extensive contacts with China (and since I go to China multiple times/year, I'd fall under this). It might mean borderline cases with lots of connections to China get denied whereas lots of connections to e.g. Brazil don't.

And this should be much higher for people in particularly sensitive positions (like case officers at CIA) vs. NASA scientists working on largely open source science.

[whatyoucantsay]

Interesting. Would you then see refusing top secret security clearance to a spouse or sibling of a spy to be "persecution"?

[throwwwwaway9]

Yeah but they are probably trusted little to start (as all new hires) and over the decades they gain trust. Then a light lights up in Beijing...