Here is a mystery that you don't think about every day: you work in the entertainment industry for adults, but you want to go to the national security sector. Will your introduction to the X-Rating as a software engineer, accountant or other professional employees influence your ability to receive a security approval?
This may sound like a bizarre and unlikely hypothetics, except that it is a very real consideration for some employees of the tech sector who work in rapidly growing companies such as fans or other online providers of pornography. So real, indeed that The Wall Street magazine Published a fascinating article on this topic: “The risk and reward for unsexed work at a sex company.”
In order to be fair, the article did not concentrate specifically on the national security sector. I built this bridge myself. But a bridge is not exactly too far. How many of them who read this article work in a technological role? Probably many, given the distribution of technologically oriented job offers Clearance jobs And my own experience that people represent in the security approval process.
Much of this technology competence does not discriminate against the market sector. In other words, the same computer skills that sell sex and who were honored in which they were honored are also valued by companies, the combat aircraft or even uncle Sam themselves. Both sectors apparently pay good, so the career progress is quite possible, if not likely.
Or is it? Is there a barrier that enables government officials to impose a moral test for security releases?
The short answer is that there is no such barrier. Regardless of the feelings in the sex industry, the determinations of the security approval should take care of checking the ability and willingness of an applicant to protect classified information that is achieved by evaluating your character.
Here things get cloudy. The legal guidelines that regulate the approval provisions are deliberately written with flexibility. There is a reasonable necessity behind it – it is impossible to predict any behavior, background or scenario that could objectively predict a security release.
On the other hand, I criticized the jury guidelines (especially guidelines “A”, “E” and “L”) for the fact that they are so largely written and subjective that they are arbitrary and moody. In a real sense, they fail one of the most fundamental maxims of the law: that a legal standard of behavior must be written, so that observers make the prohibited behavior appropriately aware of. Standards that are missing in specificity are too open to debates and opinions that are slightly twisted in order to grasp the personal feelings of the decision -makers or the day of the day. This is repulsive of our idea of proper process, not to mention basic fundamental fairness. It is also a big problem if you believe that absolute power is absolutely corrupt.
Unfortunately, these arguments are only philosophical in view of a number of legal decisions, which in the executive department of the federal government anchor the close development of the authority in order to determine the conditions of access to classified information. Thus the only answer to the question of Can I be deleted with this employer in my resume? Is that: conceivable, yes, but maybe not either. For a federal authority, it would be difficult to justify the refusal of a security release on this basis, provided that the business was legally legal and corresponded to all applicable regulations. However, the perception of the character is largely subjective … just like the Jurs of guidelines.
This article is only intended as general information and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Although it is assumed that the information is correct at the time of the publication date, no guarantee or guarantee is offered or implied. Laws and government guidelines can change, and the information provided here may not offer a complete or current analysis of the topic or other relevant considerations. Contact a lawyer about your specific situation.