The saga of government intrusion into the private lives of government workers continues. Congress is now taking up the issue of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12, a directive intended to, quite reasonably, standardize ID cards in government facilities to include contractors and students.

Today an appeals court in California handed a bunch of NASA scientists a victory that is a victory for the civil liberties of all Federal employees and contractors. At stake was the privacy of all NASA scientists and contractors and potentially all Federal employees and contractors. It all stems from a reasonable attempt by Homeland Security to standardize the procedure for obtaining ID cards that allow access to Federal facilities (Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12). The method of implementation required even low-risk employees and contractors (including my wife, a grad student studying climate) to sign a blanket waiver giving the Federal government permission to investigate all aspects of a person's private life, including finiancial and medical records, or risk losing the right to enter their place of employment with the government.

Just yesterday I delivered the bad news that a judge (a Bush appointee) denied the request of NASA scientists for protection against invasion of their personal privacy by the Federal Government. I mentioned that the case was under appeal. Those who have been following this story will know that this case directly affects my wife, who will also be required to waive her rights if she wants to work at a NASA facility even though none of the work she does is sensitive.

Well, in this case, the courts moved fast. The appeal has been successful and the Ninth Circuit Court has issued an injunction against the oppressive implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12. I received this news mere minutes ago:

PRESS RELEASE
Date: October 5, 2007

Re:
Nelson, et. al. v. National
Aeronautical and Space Agency, et. al.

NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUES INJUNCTION AGAINST NASA AND JET PROPULSION LABORATORY’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF INVASIVE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

In the ongoing case of my wife (and all other NASA employees and theoretically all Federal employees) vs. Homeland Security (see earlier entries for details: Part I (overview); Part II (the Suitability Matrix); Part III (the resignation letter)), the civil liberties of Federal employees just got dealt a setback. A judge just denied the case of 28 employees of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to get court protection from excessively intrusive personal background investigations:

Media Advisory

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 3, 2007

JPL Employees to Appeal Negative Ruling by Judge

Many of your followed my series on my wife's battle with the implementation of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Part I here).

Part of the story is a court case filed by employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to block parts of this implementation. Today there has been a media advisory in this case:

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 1, 2007

Federal Judge Indicates He May Issue Temporary Limited Injunction

Judge Otis Wright suggested he may issue some form of a limited temporary injunction in the next few days in the case of 28 employees of Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who filed suit against Caltech and NASA for over-intrusive background checks that are being conducted in association with issuing new identification badges for access to JPL.

Judge Wright set a hearing on the question of a permanent injunction for October 19, at 3:30 PM in Courtroom 11 of the United States Courthouse in Los Angeles.

In Part I of this series, I described the way that government employees are being asked, in the name of Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12, to sign away their rights in order to keep their jobs (in essence). I should note that not all the blame for the problems are due to Homeland Security. Some are due to the way individual agencies are implementing the procedure. I should also note that the precise wording of the directive is not necessarily objectionable. Nevertheless, the requirement to sign a blanket waiver allowing an intrusive government investigation applies across the board and is the way in which the directive is being implemented.

[Note: This article was co-written with my wife who helped both with the research and the writing]

In Part One of my Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 coverage I discussed the implementation of this Bush decree, how intrusive it is, and how refusal to give the government a blanket waiver to investigate your life could prevent you from receiving an ID card that will allow you to get into your place of work. In it I introduced the two possible forms that a person would have to fill out to get their ID: Form 85 (intrusive) and Form 85p (even more intrusive). In Part One I focused on statements made by Professor Robert Nelson, Senior Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL). But I also pointed out that this is not academic. It affects my wife.

“Yeah, that's it. Just relax.
Have another drink, few more pretzels, little more MSG.
Turn on those Dallas Cowboys on your TV.
Lock your doors. Close your mind.
It's time for the two-minute warning.

Welcome to 1984
Are you ready for the third world war?!?
You too will meet the secret police
They'll draft you and they'll jail your niece”

--Dead Kennedys, "We've Got a Bigger Problem Now”

Have you been PERSONALLY affected by the Bush Administration’s erosion of our Constitutional Rights? Well, now my family is coming face to face with a direct assault on the Bill of Rights, an assault on my wife’s rights. This assault comes directly from Bush with no input from Congress whatsoever.

Homeland Security Presidential Directive Number 12…

This Presidential Directive is all about choice, or so they say. One of those twisted, Orwellian “choices” that isn’t a choice. My wife’s choice is she can either sign over to the Federal Government the right to investigate every aspect of her life (including fingerprinting, credit check, medical records, character references, etc.) or she can “voluntarily” choose to not be allowed entry into the building wherein she works. The choice is hers. The rights that are being lost are those of every single American citizen.

I used to love flying. I used to love airports. Well, the cost and increasing inconvenience have taken the fun out of flying in America. Only when flying overseas does my former love of flying come out because overseas the security is more sensible, the flights more comfortable, and the personnel more friendly.

What are we getting for our inconvenience and increasing costs? Supposedly increased security, but does it really make sense to force parents to pour out their child's milk or juice or to prevent parents from taking aquafor onto planes? Does this really make us safer?

A friend of mine in California flew back from a trip to Europe recently. She flew from her European destination through Paris, to a stopover in America and then home to Los Angeles. In her carryon was an unopened jar of Nutella. For those who don't know about this, it is a hazelnut spread that some Europeans love on toast. Obviously a threat to our national security.