I think in general that if you have a clearance you should be as hard to find online as possible. In particular avoiding having your name show up with your face. I don’t think this is policy or anything like that but with recent stories of people in the military selling their units info to terrorists, I would be as hard to track down online as possible.
I definitely understand wanting to have like a linkedin or whatever. But I get hit up from recruiters multiple times a week just based off my resume and faceless profiles on Clearance Jobs, Indeed and Dice so it can be done with out that stuff.
I wonder how it is perceived from investigator point of view, when someone close social media accounts while in BI. I never gave a second thought, I just decided that I don’t need it and closed it. But now reading through the posts I should of just leave it alone… thoughts anyone?
Well personally I am tired of having this job rule my life. I like staying in touch with friends and family and also live in a country where freedom of speech should be honored.
I don’t it matters what a BI or adjudicator thinks about you closing your social media account. What you do with your social media account is your business, including closing your accounts only bc you are being investigated for a security clearance. It should not be used against you. Social media accounts are currently not part of SF86 questions. Now if they find something derogatory about you on a social media platform is another topic.
I get that. But if they ask and you truthfully tell them you recently closed your accounts because you don’t want to be exposed, then I don’t think there is anything wrong with that answer.
I heard many months ago during a “water cooler” chat that an agency had attempted to incorporate social media monitoring into the security process. In short, it was too much of a wild goose chase, and a very subjective one at that.
On the other hand, law enforcement agencies regularly use social media monitoring in police work. It’s a little easier to use in that regard and less subjective.
By and large, the issue of social media monitoring will continue to be addressed by background investigative decision makers because social media isn’t going away. It’s a blessing and a curse.
Yeah I understand that. My post was more about safety concerns then about policy. I didn’t give up my Facebook account either but I did make sure to not have it be registered under my real name, despite FB’s efforts to force that.
People get doxxed everyday. Social media is one of the biggest vectors for that.
Remember that your employer may have separate security questions or requirements for social media that are separate and distinct from your background investigation.
Speaking generally, I would not worry. We learned this week that the U.S. government did not bother to monitor the social media accounts of the Saudi trainee who murdered three Americans at NAS Pensacola last year.
From the story:
“The American vetting system operated by the State Department and the Pentagon, with access to vast U.S. intelligence and law enforcement data, failed to spot a pattern of troubling social media activity that connected him with extremist ideology.”
If security officials are not interested or competent enough to monitor a Saudi national with access to a U.S. military base, I don’t have a lot of faith that they are routinely monitoring social media activity for genpop clearance holders.
That said, I conduct myself online as if I am being scrutinized. Fears of doxxing and compromise discussed above are real. Be cautious and judicious.
There are several ways to report online interaction with suspected foreign nationals. All sections of the form offer drop down boxes to type extra notes. Include a one sentence note in the most appropriate area to report the potential info. If there is an interview it can be reviewed at that time.
No, investigators can’t help while firms are being completed.
You complete the form and submit. After the submission, an investigator might be assigned to your case if issues produce flags or the interview is otherwise required. At that time discussions take place about the info you submitted.
Contact your security officer (the person who sent you the equip email) to ask questions while completing the form.
Defer to the security manager for the foreign contacts questions. I’ve seen no recent guidance on filling out foreign contacts strictly from online gaming.
Common interest, is a yes but if you don’t know their names or what countries they are from, there is not much you can list. I think your focus should be on the ‘close and continuing’ portion of the question.
I recently had a Sub that listed a foreign contact via online gaming. Our support agreed that there was no guidance and it should be treated like a contact. Lots of disclaimers in the report (no name, no verification that they are really foreign, etc.). Online gaming seems like something to avoid (What if they say they are a US citizen but they are really a spy from a High Risk Country?) - and, of course, young military personnel are avid online gamers…
I realize that your question may be rhetorical - however, Yes, that is what most ROIs tend to be these days. Until the government figures out what it wants to do about social media contact (or requiring a home telephone number), this is what the contracting companies (CACI, Perspecta, etc.) are told to do. My guess is that the Fed BIs aren’t required to be this ridiculous.
Honestly, the Fed side can be that ridiculous, just depends on which reviewer you get. I understand we want to be thorough and Subjects’ want full disclosure but the silence on this topic from policy is unfortunate, to say the least.