[rdl]

Even "better", there are things which are highly correlated with "likely to be a security problem" which are NOT allowed to be included, or which get adjudicated away.

Generally IMO the security clearance process is not up to the task in a world with more than one threat. It worked ok against USSR when we largely could use full spectrum of information AND could assume most people without black marks were anti-USSR (due to existential threat from nuclear weapons and essentially an undeclared state of war).

Doesn't work so well now when 1) IC really had no mission in the 1990s and 2) IC today is grossly oversized and overresourced for the anti-Islamism mission. The "anti-China, anti-Russia" stuff is much more like a real peacetime intelligence service, i.e. the <<500 people we had before WW2.

[mpyne]

Yeah, though I can't give specifics we had an admin issue where I worked that got briefed to the level of a "Presidental appointee confirmed by the Senate" that was related to screening requirements (or rather, the lack thereof).

[rdl]

I'm assuming both criminal/terrorist organizations (well, and hacker groups, etc.) and tech startups actually surpass USG for a lot of personnel screening, mainly because they're small. If you only hire people you've personally known for a long time, that goes a long way. Hiring 20 trusted people is a lot easier than hiring 20k.

(Obviously USG does a better job in certain areas; generally I'd say most military facilities do a decent job on most physical security.)