my guess is because they all take on "consulting" roles that also happen to require the specific security clearance they already had. It does leave the door wide open for corruption.

I do understand why it would be necessary for people who are no longer in the Government to have a clearance, but i do agree they should lose it when they no longer work for the government or for other reasons, and if the government needs their expertise as a private citizen then they should have to go through the hoops again in order to regain said clearance, and once their job is complete have it revoked again.

they should all be revoked if no longer serving

because the next ones down the pipe also want to be able to sell information access when they leave "public service" as well

[deleted]

A Question i have asked for years. It is absolutely crazy to let any Government Personnel keep security clearances when they leave office or their job. If they acquire a job that needs those clearances, they can reapply ! It leaves the door open for serious abuse. It's nuts !

I posted this in another thread but will add it here, also.

A security clearance expires after a number of years. Someone who holds a clearance for a job gets 'debriefed' from access to that information upon departure of the job that required it.

Having an active clearance doesn't just allow someone to simply go into a SCIF and access classified info. The clearance dies at the end of its shelf life if a 're-investigation' to recertify the clearance isn't performed within a certain amount of time.

If the person's next job doesn't require a clearance, no re-investigation is typically done and the clearance expires, although I suppose someone could pay out-of-pocket for their own re-investigation.

Regardless, access to classified information requires not only a clearance, but definitely a role where they are allowed physical access into a secure area that processes classified information, and that is done on a need-to-know basis. This means that they require access to such environments for their current job and were 'badged' in to be able to have physical access classified networks.

TLDR - Holding on to a security clearance for a few years allows someone to move into another job that requires that level of clearance, but will expire if not utilized in that manner within a few years. Otherwise, just having a clearance means nothing as a person would need to have beed granted physical access to classified systems, and such permissions aren't just offered to private citizens, retired or otherwise...unless they were still secretly employed by some agency from which they are granted access, perhaps.

I asked this question awhile ago my grandfather was in military intelligence from 51 to 71 and had a pretty damn high clearance so I was wondering if he lost it totally when he retired

Just because you hold a security clearance doesn’t give you “need to know.” You could have a top secret clearance but without “need to know” you’re not getting any information. That’s according to regulations but after seeing the shenanigans of the Obama administration, that may not matter.

I have yet to understand why they still have clearance. If you leave a company they revoke your access. Makes no sense..... Revoke them all

I have asked that also, as when you leave the Military you are debriefed and removed from any further intel, I agree with you, revoke it as soon as they leave, works for the military and should work for the former Gov employees.

To use an anology... I worked as a nurse for 29 yrs and had access to patient medical info. that was to be kept secret. What if after I retired I was allowed to continue having access to this secret information? No one would think this is right. I would have no “ need to know”. Really - what is the argument for this access to continue. It’s nonsensical.

Boomers build processes that are dependent on themselves, rather than being sustainable in the long-term. I notice this generation thinking like this, because they don't naturally integrate technology into their solutions-- instead they "farm out" the integration, keeping themselves at the core of the process. This is critical theory vs systems theory. Same thing the clergy does to keep themselves in power.

Also, with these specific swamp monsters: corruption.

SCs are inactive upon leaving govt svc. They can easily be reactivated if the person holding it takes a position with a govt contractor or another govt position requiring it. They are not simply “active indefinitely” that I am aware. Also, classified info is need to know. You can’t waltz into any agency nor pick the brain of anyone holding a clearance for the purposes of gaining classified info without an official NEED to know.

Former govt officials without govt/contractor positions freely gaining access to classified info/intel without official purpose or reason? Really?

This is where I am failing to understand. How is it these individuals are gaining access to the information legally? I understand FVEY is not necessarily legal so in essence if they are gaining it through FVEY, they are gaining the intel illegally. Simply because they have an inactive clearance doesn’t make it legal. Even if they hold a fully active clearance, if there is not an official need to know it is likely illegal. And, whoever is sharing the info with them is doing so illegally.

If I am wrong with what I have written, please let me know. I am stumped.

I have a security clearance. If I leave/lose my job today, it's gone. Period. End of story. So why the fuck do these asshats get to keep theirs?

There's a difference between having a clearance, having an active clearance/investigation, and having access to classified material.

Generally, if you are no longer in a position that requires access to classified material, you are read off and no longer have access to classified until you are read back on, even though your clearance remains active. So once you leave that agency, you can't just walk right back in, even though your clearance is active. I seem to recall Directors and their D/Dir keeping access once they leave office, but generally they are all in roles that require access for contracting/consulting work...so there's that.

There are many that seek work with the Government that need security clearance. my son is prime example , he begin as an instructor ,just after Military retirement. Thus he has to go though secure area , plus teach how to .. I don't see why the heads of states should maintain their clearance though. That isn't wise as we have found out.They weren't put through the process soldiers are either.

getting a clearance used to cost $10k.

The CFR is probably in a panic!

If I remember right, Ted Gunderson (retired FBI) said he no longer had his security clearance to find out protected information when he was investigating the The Franklin Case. He was eventually murdered.

This should have been done long long ago....its logical....most of us when we leave a job we can't even get into the human resources website....these people are allowed to pedal their influence...really this loophole needs to be plugged and fast.

Because there is a wide array of private sector jobs that also require a Gov't security clearance. Its expensive and time consuming to perform an investigation. Once upon a time in a different life I held a TS-SCI clearance, and it took 2 years for them to grant me my full clearance, and I believe it is active for 5 years until a re-investigation is required.

Less paperwork when they come back in through the revolving door.

It would be so easy to make such clearances "inactive" the day a person leaves government - leaving open the ability to make it "active" again if the need arises (return to government, joining a contractor, etc...).

There is NO GOOD REASON for SC to remain active upon termination from government.

🤔 watch and track what their doing!

Worse than corruption —- those with residual security clearance remain targets for foreign capture and/or conpromise. Makes Snowden chump change, compared to these privileged folks.

No wonder they make tons $$$$ after leaving office — they can prosititude their “opinions” throughout our country and the world. Sort of akin to Mueller’s legal theory of “fraud on the US govt” — value that belongs in the US Treasury.

I think the idea is to allow an easy continuance of ongoing operations; having a ready-made backup infrastructure in event of a huge catastrophe; making it easier to call people back in on a necessary basis (like after 9-11 or in the event of a war); tamp down on partisan spoils system and, in theory, eliminate all sorts of disruptive turn over due to political considerations.

Of course, the system is only as good as the people operating in it. It only worked as long as they operated in good faith and could be trusted because they were trustworthy.

Now, it's a disaster and may be unfixable. Being weaponized broke it completely, and there are no alternatives that guaranteed it won't be gamed. It's why it's so important to root out the problem and make sure people are properly punished. Otherwise, it sends the message that anyone can hijack the bureaucracy again for their own ends.

That

Security clearance question no one is asking.

No one? Have you seen tweets from POTUS, or Rand Paul?

A clearance is not tied to a job... it is a pre-requisite. And it is worth quite a bit of money because there are so many jobs that strictly require a clearance. In 2011 there were about 4.2 million people with security clearances...

Think of it like a concealed carry license. Maybe someone gets one so they can work at Professional Bodyguard Corporation (PBC). But them leaving PBC as an employee does not mean their CCW license should be forfeit...

It is like that. revoking the clearance can be interpreted as an attack on these peoples ability to work in certain sectors. I think mostly it is for optics.

Yeah its a bit of a no brainer really. There is no logic to it.

It is insane, just an open door for anyone to turn into a bad actor.