Resignation, Secrecy, and Openness

Today is my last day at the job. Just over two years ago I wrote:

“I got The Job. If you know me, you know what I?m talking about. If you don?t, you don?t. And can?t.”

For two years I’ve been unable to talk to anyone but my coworkers about what I’ve been doing in anything but the most general language. When I leave my office this afternoon, what I’ve done stays there.

Around Washington, DC, people who can’t talk about their jobs are practically the norm. When asked what you do, one can politely demure and the questioner quickly gets the drift. It makes for terrible dinner party conversation, but it’s accepted.Even DC people don’t realize that not everyone who can’t talk about what they do has a security clearance. There’s “cleared” – Secret, Top Secret, the Special Access Programs we’ve been hearing about in the news – and then there’s “sensitive”: work that customers would prefer doesn’t get disclosed but is not classified, strictly speaking.

I’ve work I’ve done has been in that latter camp. I do not, and have not, had a security clearance. My clearance has been in the works for ages, subject to a series of bumbles and missed connections. It’s an abysmal process, one that barely needs further damning for all the negative attention it’s recieved over the last several years. I’d refer anyone interested in the matter to Richard Bejtlich, author of the popular TaoSecurity blog, who has written several posts on the folly of the security clearance process.

Being in this community of secret-keepers has been a strange experience for me. I came into my intellectual own at the outset of the Open Source movement. As a result, I’ve grown up believing fervently in openness as a fundamental problem-solving strategy. I strongly support corporate transparency and relish in the idea of perfect information in the marketplace. You might ask, then, how I resigned myself to the environment in which I’ve been for the last two years. The answer is that I didn’t, and couldn’t, and that this schism comprises a portion of the logic behind leaving this job.

Not days after I turned in my resignation, former President Jimmy Carter coincidentally wrote a convincing editorial on precisely this subject. Most to the point from his words:

“Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy. Whether it’s government or private companies that provide public services, access to their records increases accountability and allows citizens to participate more fully in public life. It is a critical tool in fighting corruption, and people can use it to improve their own lives in the areas of health care, education, housing and other public services. Perhaps most important, access to information advances citizens’ trust in their government, allowing people to understand policy decisions and monitor their implementation.”

I think that says it perfectly. Yet, I understand that there are exceptions. Not everything needs to be open. Not everything I worked on should have been. But as a personal decision, I would rather work in support of entities that embrace openness rather than ones that abhor it. The current US government embraces neither openness nor diplomacy. To work in support of military and intelligence interests in this political and intellectual climate is to work against processes by which I believe humankind may be bettered.

And so, I’m moving on to other endeavors. I look forward to sharing them with you.