March 2008
We became aware that the Education Department (ED) published a new security screening policy in January 2008. They have a new rule. Any contractor employee who performs duties "in a school or location where children are present" must authorize a security screening. Creative, isn't it? Lawful, it apparently is not. HSPD-12 certainly does not require this.
At a panel discussion March 25 in New York City, ED's director of security services, Winona Varnon, read aloud a new security screening policy, which she said is 98.5% likely to become official soon. Many fewer contractor employees would be required to authorize a security screening under the new policy. Hurray! Education Week quickly published an article based on that meeting.
January 2008
In a major victory for contractor employees, the Federal Appeals Court for the Ninth Circuit told NASA and CalTech that they were not permitted to conduct background investigations as part of HSPD-12 until a trial can be conducted. The court found that the government forms are so “open-ended and highly private” that it was "difficult to see how they could be narrowly tailored to meet any legitimate need.” More details can be found here and in a January 12 New York Times article. The Los Angeles Times also had a chilling article about JPL's prying into private information.
For U.S. Department of Education employees, the government has decided that, well, gee, you’re right, HSPD-12 is not our authority for doing the background checks; no, no, it’s a different law, the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. The American Educational Research Association wrote in Educational Researcher about the evolving situation (December), and AERA is in discussions with the government aimed at making the Department’s policy more sensible.
September and October 2007
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit issued a temporary injunction so that NASA contractor employees working at JPL / Caltech will not need to submit private information the government had insisted on having as part of compliance with HSPD-12. A website provides information about the proceedings.
A representative of the U.S. Department of Education says that the Department is changing its policies so they do not require "undue investigation standards for contractors." On the one hand, this is good news. On the other hand, the revised and supposedly reduced requirements are unknown. The date for changing the requirements is also unknown. The American Educational Research Association (AERA) continues to work with federal officials.
August 2007
Lawsuit: In August, 28 employees of the California Institute of Technology, which operates the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), brought suit against NASA for its contractor employee security clearance policies. Articles about the lawsuit appeared in the Los Angeles Times, on Yahoo news, and on Bloomberg.
June 2007
Four civilian employees at the Jet Propulsion Lab wrote to Congressional Representatives Rush Holt and Vernon Ehlers about their concerns over intrusive background checks; the Project on Government Secrecy website had a note about their letter, and Government Executive had a longer article. According to an Associated Press article, Rep. Holt believes that HSPD-12 has done "great harm" and "fostered an environment of distrust and disregard for privacy." Hurray! The NASA employees started a Web site about NASA / JPL contractor clearances.
Also, a union representing federal employees is objecting to the new background checks required of their members.
It is becoming clearer that HSPD-12 affects not just tens or hundreds of thousands of people but likely millions of contractor employees (as the Information Technology Association of America points out). For government to conduct security clearances for so many people is expensive and time consuming and it is a breath-taking infringement of millions of people’s privacy.
April 2007
Another Web site about this issue was created recently, started by a NASA contractor employee. Also, the Executive Director of the American Educational Research Association emailed 25,000 AERA members information about the Department of Education's policy and expressed concerns about the policy.
March 2007
Education Week published a letter to the editor, responding to a February article about this issue.
February 2007
The Sunday New York Times of February 11 published an article about this issue, highlighted on the front page. The article has been widely reproduced in print and online.
January 2007
Many people wondered by what criteria personal information about contractor employees would be judged. According to the Department's document 18-05-17, investigative information "regards individuals' character, conduct, and loyalty to the United States as relevant to their association with the Department."
December and November 2006
Nearly 100 people signed an Open Letter to the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, strongly objecting to the Department's contractor employee security screening policy. ED is reportedly conducting an internal review of a revised policy.
October 2006
One ED contract, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Lab based at Penn State University, learned that some requirements for contractor employees had been reduced. Fewer people will be required to authorize a credit / financial background check, and fewer still will have to authorize a health background check. Nonetheless, all contractor employees up to that point in time completed both authorizations. And all the Lab's contractor employees are still required to provide fingerprints and answer many personal questions, even if they do nothing but design a study.
September 2006
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) met with an official of OMB to discuss requirements for contractor employee clearances. The official stated that neither OMB nor the President intended government-wide policies to categorize routine education data collection or research as “sensitive departmental data.”
Spring and Summer 2006
ED applied its new requirements to a large and quickly growing number of contracts, often to the great and unhappy surprise of contractors and their employees.