HPS: the clearance that requires you to disclose your partner's data

Why the HPS requires you to declare your partner and ex-partners

You might have a job where you'll never open a classified file — you only see team names and IP addresses — and yet the company hands you a form asking who you live with, who you lived with in the last ten years, and what relationship you maintain today with each of those people. It's the Personal Security Clearance (HPS), the procedure that the CNI requires to handle classified information. The paradox is obvious: a complete romantic history is demanded even for jobs that don't smell the least bit like a state secret.

What the HPS is and what data the DPS-101 asks for

The HPS is used to access classified information in Defense or in the tech industry that works for it. The first step is the DPS-101 document, posted on the CNI website, and its content is shocking: jobs and assignments from the last ten years, stays longer than three months abroad, relationships with governments or international organizations, identification of previous partners with name, nationality, and period of cohabitation, residences and employment of the current partner, data of both parents, people living in the household, and two references outside the rest of the sections. On top of that, an advanced security questionnaire.

The accompanying notice leaves no doubt: everything will be investigated and not answering something is considered hiding information. Silence, here, is not neutrality.

Can I refuse to fill out the HPS?

In the thread, it's argued that there is no rule that obliges the worker to hand over all that personal data. That supposed legal vacuum is what those who stand up to it rely on: nothing forces them by law. Things get complicated when the project client makes the clearance a contractual condition. As noted, refusing could support a fair dismissal if it was a requirement of the position and, at best, an unfair dismissal with compensation if you were already in and they ask for it now. And a warning that shouldn't be skipped: as warned in the thread, falsifying the form is not a game, because a false declaration can lead to incivil liability.

The added problem, in the case that peine the debate, is that the contract did not specify these requirements when joining the company. The demand appears later, when the position has been occupied for some time. The intermediate path being considered is to request a transfer to another project: you trade comfort and remote work for a form you don't want to sign.

How long the HPS takes and what they look at to deny it

The process is slow. The timelines mentioned speak of up to a year and a half until the clearance arrives. Meanwhile, the company hands out limited user accounts: whoever is going to administer email won't have privileges until they have it; whoever programs, an account with a six-month expiration. And some report that the Guardia Civil has even been sent to validate the declared data.

The profile weighs as much as the paperwork. The rejection cases circulating are not about spies: ex-military with old rows, a cohabitation history that didn't fit on the sheet, or dual nationality. The criterion pointed out is vulnerability to blackmail, and that includes your entire environment: partner, parents, and even the people you share a flat with.

Who is actually asked for the HPS

It appears mainly in Defense profiles and in tech companies that work for the sector. The request comes from the direct manager, who collects the form and passes it to the security focal point with the client. Human Resources is not involved in this. The option of filling it out directly with CNI personnel is noted if there is something you don't want to show to colleagues at your company, although that clashes with logic: if there is data you prefer to hide from the internal filter, it's most likely that it won't convince the organization that decides either.

The bluff of someone retiring in four days

The case that started it all has its irony. The person who peine the issue claims that they don't handle confidential information, that they have four days left until retirement and that they couldn't care less about the job. So they stood up: they demanded that Human Resources be the one to ask for it and with justification. The manager choked, according to their account. Behind it is the usual doubt: as one forum user summarizes, for six figures maybe one would think about it, but Spanish subcontractors don't even pay half.

The question that no one fully closes remains open: can a company demand an employee's partner history to see some team names and IP addresses? Or is it just the whim of someone with too much zeal and too little budget?