to think that if I shared an explicit picture of myself with a stranger and then they used that to blackmail to release client information, I would be sacked?

[cakeorwine]

I guess people know what we are talking about.

William Wragg: Jeremy Hunt praises MP's apology over dating app incident - BBC News

If you send an explicit picture of yourself to a stranger, you are asking for danger.

If I did that and I was blackmailed into releasing personal information on other people, I would be sacked,

But hey, it's an accident. Nothing to see here.

And as for MPs who then were contacted by a stranger and then sent their own explicit pictures, what is there to say?

Because it was a long con. William Wragg is a nobody. But he could give personal phone numbers of other people. Those people were then also targeted for nudes and two provided images. Those people could then also be blackmailed, either for better phone numbers of more important people who would then also be targeted for photos, or if the people themselves had useful positions, they could be blackmailed for national security info or similar.

Don’t be so bloody ridiculous. People have perfectly fine sex lives without sending obscene images or jumping into bed with strangers.

It's clear that you don't approve of those activities, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is correct.

My approval is irrelevant. The fact is that it’s activity that carries a risk. Particularly for a politician. As we have just seen. You may argue that it’s wrong to hold politicians to higher standards than the general population but the risk is heightened.

@Saschka I would never give someone's personal number out without checking it's OK with them and I would be very cross if anyone gave mine out without checking first. Dammed rude thing to do.

I totally agree, but lots of people do! Look at how easily stalkers get their victim’s new numbers from their friends and colleagues.

Same here.

Like it or not any position of power or where you have access to information then yes - your sex life is relevant. Anyone who has been through a DV clearance can tell you - they look at everything. That’s because the risk of blackmail (as happened here) or honeypot type scams.

This is not a new revelation. Minions in other jobs with access to details like politicians contact numbers etc with potential access to people/information of baring on national security very much face these questions.

Why are politicians not fired for stuff their staff would be on reasons of clearance. That’s a problem. It’s also basic security not to behave like this. If politicians don’t understand this. One we are screwed and two the security services need to step up and sort it out.

Minions in other jobs with access to details like politicians contact numbers etc with potential access to people/information of baring on national security very much face these questions.

Questions, yes. But prohibitions?

If shady histories or dodgy dealings, or indeed tendencies towards sexual activity you wouldn't want to be made public knowledge actually prevented people from taking high office, we'd have never had Boris Johnson.

It would prevent people working for the government though and that’s the problem. The public are held to such high standards when DV cleared. They would lose their clearance for this as they are a clear blackmail risk. For politicians that’s fine? No it’s not.

Yes there are prohibitions. If your behaviour is deemed risky or not of suitable character leaving you open to blackmail - you’ll not get clearance. Simple.

Like you said, that is not true for politicians.

And? It should be.

I wonder if the security services have agents who run "honey traps" on MPs to see how they react - and then give them advice when they do.

In the same way that IT send out phishing emails to see who is likely to fall for them and needs further training.

I think the issue is, anyone who has any brain cell knows that ‘risky behaviour’ carries a risk of blackmail. I can understand people not thinking that if they work in a normal job. However anyone with access to sensitive information would know this. It’s not about being a prude. For example, even the younger military are given warnings about who they befriend on foreign tours and such like.

Sex life and your past, your families past and that of your associates do come into question when you go for high levels of clearance. If you are deemed a risk, risky behaviour, past indiscretions etc, you won’t get clearance. That’s because you’ll be deemed a blackmail risk. Whether that’s info, access to people and such like. They look for honesty.

Someone cruising Grindr and sending nudes, then being blackmailed to give personal details of others are the exact people vetting should weed out. Dating apps, bars, train - however you meet - the honeytrap is a tale as old as time.

Should politicians who have access to more information than their staff who would be fired for this, be allowed to get away with it - no.

Out of interest, if it was discovered that someone with security clearance had started using Grindr, what would happen?

What about Tinder or other dating apps?

There's a massive difference between
"I'm trying to get in touch with Jane to talk about a gig we booked six months ago but I lost my contacts list when I changed phones, can you give me her number?"
and
"I have compromising photos of you: if you don't give Jane's phone number then I'll publish them on Twitter"

In the first case you naively think that passing on Jane's number will do her no harm, and probably be what she'd want. Foolish, but not immoral.
In the second case you know damn well that the blackmailer intends harm, and you are deliberately betraying Jane. It is very much in the same realm as "if you don't give me customers' bank details I'll release the photos", and should be an immediate sacking offence.

Using dating apps by themselves isn't risky.
People date after all.

But it's how you use them.

I am sure you understand that so it's a strange question to ask.

Nothing. That’s not the issue. It’s the risky behaviour. For example sending nudes to a random stranger that would cause an issue. They leave you open to blackmail for sensitive information. People in cleared positions would avoid nudes full stop. Generally to stop that risk. Risky behaviour can be lots of things. Uncontrolled gambling, sending random nudes out, sleeping about, affairs, etc. If these came to the attention of people responsible for vetting - it should trigger a review.

It's not a strange question to ask given that the whole thing was sparked by an MP's use of Grindr?

So using Grindr is fine.

Sending explicit pics? Is that fine or only in certain circumstances or not at all?

And a sacking?

I think that question has been repeatedly answered on here by many people.
I would suggest you read the answers.

I thought you were answering with authority about people with security clearance but now I see you're responding to a question I asked someone else again.

Yep. They would lose their clearance is deemed a risk.

I’m wondering if we are going down a rabbit hole of its Grindr and that’s why all these prudes are out. Nope. It’s the risky behaviour. Anyone in a position of a sensitivity should know this. I met my husband on a dating app and we have a gay child. So if that’s the rabbit hope they are trying to go down they can get lost in it by themselves. It’s basic personal safety and not putting yourself in a risky position if your job requires clearance.

Absolutely

@noblegiraffe doesn't seem to understand risky behaviour and the potential for it to get out - it's quite simple - if you engage in something that is likely to be used against you to blackmail you, then that will have consequences.

The best way to not get blackmailed about intimate pics is to use your common sense and not send them