zlacker

>>public+(OP)
Thank you all for your perspective, and suggestions.

I was on a bad psychedelic trip, accompanied with some other issues at the time and ending up making threatening statements to a very high level official, but no battery occurred whatsoever. Thank goodness, or I would probably not be writing this message

>>public+l6
The challenge here is your choice of specialism. Security is fundamentally a trust-based business and the industry is pretty wary of anyone with a perceived black mark against them. The reasons for this are mainly liability ("if this guy does something wrong and he already has a record, how will we look?") and reputation ("what will our government customers think about us if we hire this person?").

Could/would you consider a sideways step to something less directly security based? For instance there might be data engineering roles that might suit.

>>gnfarg+us
The point of security is to remove trust as a requirement.

Poster could say, “you don’t need to trust me, that’s the point of {insert product or service}”.