

Next week 28 NASA Jet Propulsion Lab scientists (including William Banerdt, a project scientist on the Mars rover program) will fight for their right to privacy in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California. They are fighting against Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (HSPD-12) that President Bush issued in August 2004. Policies resulting from the directive requires all federal employees and contractors to "voluntarily" (JPL employees would be terminated immediately for non-compliance) sign a form allowing the government the right to investigate them "without limit" for two years- even if they leave government work during that time. The directive is meant to confirm the identity of all government employees and give them new high-tech badges, the JPL scientists say they have gone too far.

The Union for Concerned Scientists have submitted briefs of amicus curiae in support of the plaintiffs:

UCS [Union of Concerned Scientists] is concerned that the background investigations proposed by NASA are wide-ranging, highly personal, and unwarranted in light of the unclassified and non-sensitive nature of the Plaintiffs' work. While the investigations purportedly are intended to verify the Plaintiffs' identities...in fact the subjects covered by the investigations include a host of irrelevant and personal issues, including credit history, "personality conflict," physical and mental health and sexual orientation.

The process involves supplying the government names of people who can verify where an employee has lived for each address they have lived at in the last five years. The government asks these people to fill in a bubble form about the employees psychological stability, financial integrity, drug and alcohol consumption and character. All of this is done in the name of "protect[ing] personal privacy." But the 1984-esc "Newspeak" doesn't stop there.

UPDATE: NASA says that Shana Dale did not write the alleged memo (after the jump) and that the word "badge" is used throughout the official NASA website.

The JPL group has created a non-official website that offers people more information on the issue. It includes more of the double-speak. This example is allegedly from NASA Deputy Administer Shana Dale, a lawyer and government appointee.

Refer to the new badge only as a "new ID card" Do not use these references: PIV, PIV-I, PIV-II, smart card, badge or credential; Do not refer to any area of this program as "rigorous"; Refer to the program as "in response to HSPD-12"; and The badging process may be referred as "badging process";.

The website goes to point out that, "Only a lawyer could devise a 'badging process' that results in no badges being issued."

The other example is the "mandatory" JPL Rideshare Survey which has no consequence of non-compliance, while the "voluntary" HSPD-12 carries a consequence of dismissal for non-compliance. The unofficial website states:

Doug Sanders of the JPL Ethics office states that it is voluntary because the definition of "voluntary" involves a choice, and here there is a choice between terminating employment and complying with HSPD-12. By this reasoning, handing over your wallet to a mugger also would be voluntary when he offers the choice of "your money or your life.

NASA is not the only agency to miss issuing the new cards to its employees by the original October 27th, 2007 deadline. According to a New York Times piece on the cards, no agency met the deadline- or even came close. JPL employees faced losing their job if they did not complete the re-badging process by October 27th, yet the Department of Energy has issued only five of the cards to their over 100,000 employees and contractors by that date. The other agencies had similarly missed the deadline by a large margin, with some, like the Department for Homeland Security itself, which got an extension from the Office of Management and Budget to 2010.

The Federal Computer Weekly's October 31, 2007 story adds:

Dan Stormer of Hadsell and Stormer, which represents the NASA scientists, said in a statement. “This is another egregious example of the Bush administration's assault on the constitution. Our clients are exemplary employees who have spent their work lives bettering this country. This shows the court will not stand by and let this attack on the right to privacy take place. This unlawful requirement allows unknown government officials to ask all manner of questions about people's personal lives, including their personal

and mental state. It is exceptionally broad and completely unnecessary.

Court grants injunction on HSPD-12 background checks for NASA plaintiffs [Federal Computer Weekly]

Appeals court stops some NASA HSPD-12 background checks [Federal Computer Weekly]

Little Progress on Government-Wide Smart Card Initiative [New York Times]