I have had personal conversations with people who went through involved security clearance processes in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and 00's. Between those times I can tell you that everyone but the FBI got more lax about pot (but not cocaine) and homosexuality (even the FBI didn't care about that by the mid 2000's) but not more lax about gambling - even in states where it was already legal. They aren't on the lookout for straight arrows to hire, they're on the lookout for people who can be blackmailed to steal information. Once things like simple weed possession became nothing more than a small civil penalty, there wasn't any way to use the threat of exposure as a way of blackmailing someone. Once people knew they couldn't generally be fired / blackballed for homosexuality, that lever disappeared.
Sounds like a circular argument. The FBI fires gay people, so they had to fire them to prevent them from leaking information because of possible blackmail. But once they stopped firing them for homosexuality there was no need to fire them because of fear they might be blackmailed because of the possibility to fire them. It's probably true for gambling, but the rest sounds like whitewashing. They fired gay people because society was hostile towards them and those agencies were part of society.
I think the assumption you're missing in the circular argument is that gay people could be blackmailed against other entities than the FBI. For example, "give us this FBI file or else we'll release a scandalous photo of you and this gentleman to your wife" kind of a thing.
Of course, as being gay becomes more normalized and less of a secret, FBI wouldn't need to take it into consideration.
How true or not that thinking is, I have no way of assessing, but it does make sense if you consider the premise of blackmail to 3rd parties true. The same could be probably considered for gambling (e.g. "we'll tell your local church group how much you gambled away in your drunken stupor on this weekend").
I don't know how the federal government works but I am positive that in the private sector evidence of extramarital affairs can cause your clearance application to be rejected.
Anecdata: allegedly, confessing an extramarital affair (past or ongoing) during your Department of Defense Secret (relatively common level clearance) examination or renewal will result in an offer to speak with your spouse in a few days to ensure that you’ve told them. An unadmitted affair would set off far more alarm bells.
I was a carefree recent college grad and sheepishly admitted to smoking weed a couple of times, having been assured by older friends that admitting to some past experimentation was a lot better than hiding it. “Is there anyone you don’t want to find out about this?” was the agent’s response.
“Nah, my parents know…”
Later, a friend who had assiduously avoided even being around weed took ages to get his clearance. We theorized that the holdup was DIA being suspicious that he didn’t admit to such minor drug use, and wondered what else he might be hiding.
Habitual gambling still gets the side-eye for the same reason general financial problems do: higher susceptibility to the temptation of a few thousand dollars to let something slip or to look the other way.
They are. Political parties do something similar before putting you on a ticket: they require you to declare any dirt on yourself that could possibly be revealed at a later date, even if only one other person in the world knows about it. Then they assess the risk of each secret, and maybe decide it's okay. But if they manage to dig up anything that you didn't declare, you're out.
They are doing that now. I’ve had to be a reference for several people seeking security clearances and I believe every one of those interviews asked me if I thought the subject was faithful in their relationship.
Gambling is seen as a liability because gamblers often get into huge amounts of debt, which is what the FBI is really concerned about. Huge amounts of debt open people up to bribes and other corruption.
Exactly. Even in places where it was legal it was an easy way to get on the radar of organized crime, who would try to exert influence. It also could be an indicator of an affinity for risk-taking. And if there's anything they're trying to avoid in high level secret keeping... It's risk.
This isn’t code executing in a computer. It is about prevailing societal attitudes (which are themselves self-referential and self-reinforcing) so it is necessarily kind of imprecise and circular.
Yes, it was a completely circular argument. I am 100% not defending it. But you're completely correct that all they had to do to keep someone from being blackmailed because otherwise they'd be fired was... to not fire them.
I'm sure there's a lot of moral-highgrounding about everyone outside the group being untrustworthy, and looking for confirmation of this in the most paranoid ways.
