Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-26

JPL rebadging

This request has been declined. Please do not modify it.

Overview The Jet Propulsion Laboratory has initiated a new JPL rebadging process for its employees, contractors, and affiliates. After negotiating with NASA Headquarters, JPL Director Charles Elachi agreed to the new process, which will produce new ID cards in conformance with FIPS 201 (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 201), a United States federal government standard that specifies Personal Identity Verification (PIV) requirements for Federal employees and contractors. FIPS 201 is a response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12). The new JPL badging process is controversial, for a variety of reasons (see Controversy section below). One of the concerns voiced is the lack of respect for privacy of employees, because the badging procedure requires each employee to answer a personal questionnaire, sign a waiver permitting a background investigation at any level of detail, have fingerprints taken, and carry a new ID card with the fingerprints readable by RFID technology. This level of personal intrusion has led to questions that the JPL Honor Code of treating employees with dignity and respect is being violated. JPL Badges are identification cards issued to employees, contractors, affiliates, and retirees of JPL for the purpose of permitting unescorted access to the JPL facility. They are also used for access to controlled areas within the laboratory, and a bar code on it is scanned for a variety of routine uses such as receiving packages and recording attendance at training sessions. JPL management contends that no privacy related information will be stored on the new ID card. Some employees wonder how JPL management defines "privacy related information", because there is agreement that the new ID card will utilize passive RFID technology to store the following attributes: JPL User Name Electronic IT Certificate Citizenship Personal Identification Number (PIN) Unique to Issuer Two Biometric Fingerprints Facial photo An electromagnetic shield would need to cover the new ID card in order to prevent a remote RFID reader from accessing the data stored on the new ID card. Information and a description of the existing JPL badge and NASA One badge is also available. Rebadging process JPL management has outlined the following steps in order to obtain a new JPL ID card: Employee supplies name, birthday, SSN, and city of birth to JPL, if they have not previously done so The Office of Protective Servicees sends out email requesting employee to fill out online form Employee fills out form 85 or 85P, as directed, using the online e-QIP system, within 10 days. This process takes 1-3 hours. Employee prints out release forms, brings them to the security office, and signs in presence of officer JPL Security scans release form, encrypts it, and sends it to the U.S. government. A fresh set of fingerprints are taken (even if they were taken for One NASA badge) A picture is taken (possibly two pictures, one with One NASA Camera, one with new ID card camera) U.S. Office of Personnel Management performs background investigation If OPM permits it, a badge is issued If adverse information is reported, employee is notified directly by OPM, and has 30 days to adjudicate. After 30 days, the employee will be barred from accessing the laboratory, and employment will be terminated. The process is repeated every 5 years. Those who have a security clearance are exempt from the process and can immediately acquire their badge. Background Investigations Risk Assessment Prior to rebadging, each JPL employee will be classified as low, moderate, or high risk. The low risk personnel will fill out form 85, while moderate and high risk personnel will fill out the more detailed form 85P. According to Jerry Suitor, tThe classification is based on the job performed, not the individual. Approximately 97% of the JPL workforce is expected to be classified as low risk, and 3% as high risk. The classification will be unrelated to the two tiers of sensitivity used in classifying personnel for drug testing. According to Jerry Suitor, a high risk assessment will be made for personnel with access to ATLO, access to spacecraft software without going through a review, or for any position in which damage can be done to a NASA asset. Section managers are being told of the classification list and can give feedback. 4 individuals known to you in last few years Questions: adverse health, mental, use of alcohol, drugs, behavior Classification not related to drug risk classification Form 85 and 85P Standard Form 85 or 85P is used as the basis for a background investigation. The official instructions on these do not agree with how JPL management is directing JPL employees and contractors to use them. The following table is a summary of these differences. What the Form 85 Instructions say What JPL management says The information you give us is for the purpose of determining your suitability for federal employment Actually, we're not going to use it for that at all. The information you give us is for the purpose of determining access to the laboratory. The form is to be used "only when a conditional offer of employment has been made" Employees and contractors already employed will use this form. "[F]inal determination on your eligibility for a position will be made by the Office of Personnel Management or the federal agency that requested your investigation." Determination on job eligibility was made at the time of employment. For some employees, this decision was made years or decades ago. Giving us the information we ask for is voluntary Your employment, regardless of its previous duration, will be terminated if you do not provide the information we ask. Standard Form 85 requests the following information: Name, Date of Birth, Place of Birth, Social Security Number, Other Names Used, Gender, Citizenship, Where have you lived (past 5 years), Degrees you have & Where you went to school, Employment History (past 5 years), People who know you well (not relatives), Military History, Selective Service Record (if male born after December 31, 1959), Used, possessed, supplied, or manufactured illegal drugs (1 year). Authorization for release of information (from schools, residences, employers, and other sources, without limitation to the type of information gathered) Standard Form 85P requests the following information: Police Record (arrests, charges, convictions great than $150), Illegal Drugs, Alcohol Use, Background investigations conducted in the past, Financial Record (bankruptcy, debt in arrears more than 180 days), Release for information gathering in support of information provided (academic history, employment, criminal history, financial), Release for Medical Information Followup Investigation Describe graduation verification, employment verification. Describe medical question, "any reason judgement impaired by a medical reason?" Correcting Adverse Information Describe similarities to "no fly" list, and difficulty of getting corrections. Describe similarity of fixing credit information after identity theft. Describe difficulty of fixing errors within prescribed 30 day window. FIPS 201 and HSPD 12 Description of new ID card FIPS 201 (Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 201) is a United States federal government standard that specifies Personal Identity Verification (PIV) requirements for Federal employees and contractors. In response to HSPD-12, the NIST Computer Security Division initiated a new program for improving the identification and authentication of Federal employees and contractors for access to Federal facilities and information systems. FIPS 201 was developed to satisfy the technical requirements of HSPD 12, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and issued on February 25, 2005. FIPS 201 together with [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|NIST]] SP 800-78 (Cryptographic Algorithms and Key Sizes for PIV) are required for U.S. Federal Agencies but do not apply to US national security systems. The SmartCard Interagency Advisory Board has indicated that to comply with FIPS 201 PIV II US government agencies should use Smart card technology. Controversy The rebadging process is not popular with employees and contractors. There are numerous complaints about it, which are summarized below. Violation of JPL Honor Code Need description of "dignity and respect" provision here, and relationship to badging process. Violation of Federal Law From Privacy Act 1974 ( Why JPL wants you to sign a waiver ) (b) Conditions of disclosure No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be-- (1) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties; (2) required under section 552 of this title; (3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section; (4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of Title 13; (5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable; (6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value; (7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought; (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual; (9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of any such joint committee; (10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the General Accounting Office; (11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 3711(e) of Title 31. Unlimited Waivers Need a description of the waiver and the concerns about it. Need a discussion of alternate user-defined waivers. Fingerprints Need a discussion of fingerprinting, storage by FBI, intermingling with criminal database, etc. Drug Prosecution Need a description of the dangers of answering the drug question. Investigations to independently confirm information first given here, and then prosecute it. Identity Theft Need a description of previously mishandled sensitive information Abuse of Information Some excerpts from the NAC check handbook that you may find usefull. Clean Criminal Record Does Not Mean Absence of Criminal Behavior Checks of criminal records identify only the tip of the iceberg of criminal activity. A clean record indicates only that there are no records of criminal conduct in the places checked. The absence of information in criminal record files should not be viewed as positive evidence of reliability or trustworthiness. Most crimes are not reported to the police. Most reported crimes do not lead to arrest, and many arrested persons are not prosecuted and convicted. Even for those who are prosecuted and convicted, the criminal records are often incomplete or missing. As a result, the chances are very small that an individual who has committed a single crime, even a serious crime, will have a criminal record. The more crimes a person has committed, the greater the odds of that person having a record. See Prevalence of Crime for a discussion of the percentage of the population that has a criminal record. Much past criminal behavior is likely to be discovered only by self-admission, interviews with references or developed sources, or polygraph examination. This behavior should be evaluated under the adjudication guidelines even though there may be no criminal record. Many Arrested Persons Are Not Prosecuted or Convicted For each 100 persons arrested by the police on felony charges, about 45 are typically released due to insufficient evidence or legal technicalities unrelated to guilt or innocence. About 55 are prosecuted, with one acquitted and 54 convicted. To avoid the cost and uncertainties of a trial, more than half the prosecuted cases are plea-bargained down to conviction for a misdemeanor rather than a felony, which generally involves far less serious consequences for the defendant. Only about 32 of every 100 persons arrested on felony charges actually spend any time in a correctional institution. Ref 13 Records of cases that are dismissed without prosecution or that are plea-bargained may be incomplete or misleading. When evaluating criminal conduct, the individual's behavior is the primary consideration, not whether the individual was prosecuted or convicted. If there is good reason to believe the person committed a felony but plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, it counts as a felony. Conditions that call into question a persons reliability, trustworthiness or judgment include: A single serious crime, regardless of whether the person was arrested or convicted for that crime. A "serious" crime is often defined as a felony, as distinct from a misdemeanor or ordinance violation. Conviction, admission, or strong evidence of a felony will usually support a recommendation for disapproval unless there are unusual mitigating circumstances. If there is good reason to believe the person committed a felony, but the crime was plea-bargained down to a misdemeanor, it counts as a felony. Which crimes are considered felonies varies from one state to another and changes over time. The following actions may be considered a serious crime or breach of trust even if they are not categorized as a felony: (1) Any crime punishable by confinement for one year or more. (2) Any crime involving the use of force, coercion or intimidation; violence against persons; or the use of firearms or explosives; (3) A violation of parole or probation. (4) Any criminal or civil offense involving breach of trust or fiduciary duty, including embezzlement, bribery, insurance fraud, or falsification of documents or statements for personal gain of more than $500. (5) Obstruction or corruption of government functions or deprivation of civil rights. Two or more lesser crimes or civil offenses that indicate a pattern of illegal or irresponsible behavior, regardless of whether the person was arrested or convicted for any of these offenses. A violation of parole or probation suggests a possible pattern of criminal behavior. Multiple offenses indicate intentional, continuing behavior that raises serious questions about the person’s trustworthiness, reliability, and judgment. A pattern of disregard for the law is more significant than the monetary value or penalty ascribed to a given crime. See Pattern of Dishonest, Unreliable, or Rule-Breaking Behavior under the Personal Conduct guideline. A close and continuing voluntary association with persons known to be involved in criminal activities. Association with family members is generally considered non-voluntary in this context. Sources of Additional Information The Department of Justice maintains the Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, which is a central location for ordering a wide variety of studies and reports dealing with the criminal justice system. Reports are sent free of charge. The address is P.O. Box 179, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701-0179. Phone: 800-732-3277. Fax: 410-792-4358. The Internet address, which has lists of publications, is http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. For data on drugs and crime, information is available from the Drugs & Crime Data Center & Clearinghouse, 1600 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850. Phone: 800-666-3332. Most reports are free. The FBI's annual Uniform Crime Reports may be purchased from the Government Printing Office. Coercion Describe loss of job in relation to "voluntary" procedure. We will need to let JPL help to understand the meaning of the word "voluntary" vol·un·tar·y /ˈvɒlənˌtɛri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vol-uhn-ter-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -tar·ies. –adjective 1. done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution. 2. of, pertaining to, or acting in accord with the will: voluntary cooperation. 3. of, pertaining to, or depending on voluntary action: voluntary hospitals. 4. Law. a. acting or done without compulsion or obligation. b. done by intention, and not by accident: voluntary manslaughter. c. made without valuable consideration: a voluntary settlement. 5. Physiology. subject to or controlled by the will. 6. having the power of willing or choosing: a voluntary agent. 7. proceeding from a natural impulse; spontaneous: voluntary laughter. –noun 8. something done voluntarily. 9. a piece of music, frequently spontaneous and improvised, performed as a prelude to a larger work, esp. a piece of organ music performed before, during, or after an office of the church. [Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L voluntārius, equiv. to volunt(ās) willingness, inclination (ult. repr. a formation with -tās -ty2 on the prp. of velle to want, wish; see will1, -ent) + -ārius -ary] Relationship to California Law This the current law 1050. Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who, after having discharged an employee from the service of such person or after an employee has voluntarily left such service, by any misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 1051. Except as provided in Section 1057, any person or agent or officer thereof, who requires, as a condition precedent to securing or retaining employment, that an employee or applicant for employment be photographed or fingerprinted by any person who desires his or her photograph or fingerprints for the purpose of furnishing the same or information concerning the same or concerning the employee or applicant for employment to any other employer or third person, and these photographs and fingerprints could be used to the detriment of the employee or applicant for employment is guilty of a misdemeanor. 1052. Any person who knowingly causes, suffers, or permits an agent, superintendent, manager, or employee in his employ to commit a violation of sections 1050 and 1051, or who fails to take all reasonable steps within his power to prevent such violation is guilty of a misdemeanor. 1053. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent an employer or an agent, employee, superintendent or manager thereof from furnishing, upon special request therefor, a truthful statement concerning the reason for the discharge of an employee or why an employee voluntarily left the service of the employer. If such statement furnishes any mark, sign, or other means conveying information different from that expressed by words therein, such fact, or the fact that such statement or other means of furnishing information was given without a special request therefor is prima facie evidence of a violation of sections 1050 to 1053. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=lab&codebody= Loss of Talent Describe potential loss of personnel. Give examples from the press. Required Verbiage Insert direction from Homeland Security about the required language to describe the process. Political Action Insert text of Nelson letter, other letters, Holt's letter to Commerce Secretary. List relevant congressional representatives and local officials. Provide sample letter and/or link to a stand-alone document. Link to online petition calling for a moratorium on the rebadging process until it can be investigated and changed to align with the privacy laws, California law, JPL honor code. (e.g., petitiononline.com) JPL Rebadging in the News JPL has not officially responded to the complaints on the new process. It has posted a [public website] to describe the process and provide employees and the public with official information on the new ID card. The controversy is not reported on this site. Need to reference/link to other stories here. Pasadena Free Press, Boston Globe, NASAwatch, etc. Sources PIV Information PIV News [http://govtsecurity.com/mag/plan_ahead_maximize/index.html Plan ahead to maximize benefits to HSPD-12 investment] [http://www.smartcard.gov/information/FSCPMmarch2005/TonyCieri.pdf PIV Supporting Documents ] [http://www.smartcard.gov/information/FSCPMmarch2005/JohnMoore.pdf Federal Identity Management and Smart Cards ] Shared Service Providers [http://www.fips201.com FIPS201.com, a source of comparative information for GSA-approved FIPS 201 products] The Privacy Act of 1974 http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/privstat.htm 71.103.192.180 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Declined. The proposed article is not suitable for Wikipedia. This article would, perhaps, be better suited for Wikinews. As an encyclopedia article, it seems far too temporal in nature. This controversy just doesn't seem significant enough to be worth coverage in an encyclopedia; 10 years from now, it's likely this issue will be long forgotten. Powers T 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC) |- | style="text-align:center;" | This is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it. |} Captain Joe Hazzlewood Benfield Software Solutions Limited THE MOUNTAIN GOATS/BLEATING WILDLY: A VERSION OF FRANKIE VALLI AND THE FOUR SEASONS Michael Taylor (film producer) Daniel Whitworth Michael Colling Regan Campbell Ward McCann Lick-out Jacob Ulrik Holfeldt Tostrup Nullity_math June Mr Riciardson Steve Duncan Gary Abdallah Arvin High School Dalian Xpat Charmeuse Billy Davis Jr. European Research centre for Excellence Willie Marx Chris Cox Mind Reader Night of the Guitar 1988 Shni Bobos- Subject/headline Untitiled John Blake 5th Ohio Volunteer Milita(featuring Company H) GURPS Shapeshifters