A recent Washington Post item "reveals" that government security clearances (which are actually mostly done by private firms) are often rushed. One firm reportedly lost its contract to perform such clearances because it was cutting corners to approve clearances more quickly; yet successor firms doing the same work appear to be following similar practices.
Does it matter? The Post doesn't really say what damage is being done - just implies that hurrying may lead to slips and omissions. That's possible, but having had various levels of government security clearance for 30 + years, from my early days in the army to my retirement from civilian government, I always felt that security clearances are a necessary evil, but are unlikely to uncover the people who really want to do us harm.
That's because in most cases, a "clearance" consists mainly of a background check. A job candidate fills out a lengthy personal history, his name is run past all key law enforcement agencies for negative information, from the FBI to the local police where he lives; and his bona fides are checked out by interviews of his associates, neighbors, and friends.
Therefore the system itself has a few flaws. For example, how many of us really know our neighbors or colleagues at work very well these days? The typical response is going to be "Gee he seems like a nice guy when I see him out cutting the grass on Saturdays", far more often than it will be "Wow, we just had a beer together a few days ago and he confided to me that he murdered two people last week." More to the point, the reality is that someone seeking entrée to the government or military for the purpose of subverting us is probably going to make sure her/his background does not raise any flags.
Yet further, a lot of the real spy stories that I'm familiar with suggest that it's often only after a person gets into government, and perhaps attains a degree of responsibility, that foreign spy networks might seek to recruit him; and in those cases, immediate circumstances (a need for money, a missed promotion, an unhappy love life, a compromising circumstance in her private life) are the turning point.
None of this suggests that we shouldn't have a security clearance system (nor that the Justice Department shouldn't be trying to ensure we get what we pay for when we contact private companies to conduct these clearances). Of course we need to try to detect those who could represent a real danger. But because of the numbers who need to be screened, it's a fairly cut-and-dried check-the-boxes process.
Another thing the Post didn't mention was how long a security check may typically take. Back in the 1960s, an entry-level check might take several months, and I doubt that has changed much. When you need someone to fill a job but ask them to wait a half a year for an answer, you're likely to find that your best candidates have gone elsewhere. It's little wonder that the companies that do this necessary but time-consuming work are under constant pressure to move some people, or all people, through the pipeline more quickly.
Comments