Social sites risk security clearance

Commentary: Social sites risk security clearance

By GREG RINCKEY

November 02, 2009

If you hold a security clearance or if you ever want to apply for one, be mindful of your postings
and contacts online, particularly on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. These
sites pose risks to gaining and keeping a security clearance.
Question 14 of the National Agency Questionnaire (SF-86) asks for names of your relatives and
associates. The term “associate” is defined as any foreign national that you or your spouse “are
bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact.”
Continuing contact with a foreign national used to include a clear exchange between both parties
— visits outside the country, mail, phone calls or e-mails. Social networking sites bring a gray
area into the definition of an associate and continuing contact. Your list of friends on Facebook
may include foreign nationals, or you could have foreign followers on your Twitter page. Is giving
a foreign national access to your social networking page as a “friend” considered close and
continuing contact even if you never directly message them? Is having access to your updated
information enough for a person to be considered an associate? Unfortunately, this uncharted
territory can ensnare a potential or current clearance holder.
Foreign intelligence agencies use social networking sites. They have been known to befriend
Facebook users who automatically accept their “friend” requests.
I had a client who lost her security clearance after using an online chat room. She was seeking
advice on how to beat a computer game while attending a gaming convention. The “gaming”
experts she chatted with online were foreign intelligence agents working out of China.
You may want to eliminate any foreign nationals from your social networking sites to eliminate
any potential security concerns. A clearance holder also needs to be responsible for what he or
she posts online. These sites are considered “open source intelligence,” and mining information
from them is simple. Anyone can do a Web search and bring up postings from Twitter and
Facebook. Technology companies are developing more sophisticated ways to monitor social
networking sites, offering the ability to scan millions of online social conversations at once.
Intelligence agencies around the world are taking advantage of this technology to gain valuable
information.
Social networking sites are creating new territory for many workplaces. Just this month a Staten
Island, N.Y., judge had to be transferred to a new location because of his Facebook use. The
judge reportedly used the site to update his whereabouts and post pictures of his courtroom.
Pentagon also is weighing if troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan should continue to have
social networking access.
When dealing with a security clearance, keep in mind the HAM principles: honesty, accuracy and
mitigation. Honesty and accuracy are the most important factors when filling out an SF-86
questionnaire. It is always better to report a contact that could jeopardize your clearance, than to
appear evasive or dishonest.
During an interview following your SF-86 submission, you’ll be asked more questions about your
background. Discuss any concerns with an attorney before the interview. An attorney’s advice
can give you a better chance at reversing an adverse determination. If a disqualifying condition is
found, you want to show that the issue is not as severe as it appears. If you receive a letter of
intent to deny or revoke a clearance, you could have as little as 45 days to respond. The appeal
must be a thorough brief that emphasizes mitigating factors and cites relevant legal precedents.
Greg Rinckey, a former military and federal attorney, is managing partner of Tully Rinckey PLLC,
a law firm with offices in Albany, N.Y., and Washington. E-mail your legal questions to
askthelawyer@federaltimes.com.