Yes 100%. They’re not giving them the keys to the financial systems without being certain they’re not going to abuse it. But they might pay them to find exploits in it. It’s all about being assessed for the job you’re being evaluated for.
While your sentiment is valid, the hiring practices for the sensitive information dealt with by individuals in government require intense scrutiny. The point you raise is true, but when someone finds a valid exploit, they can ignore it, report it to get fixed before someone exploits it, or they can exploit it themselves.
Regardless of how small the exploit, a person who does not choose to report it maybe doesn’t need any harsh penalties, but do you want them to have access to a database with your personal information including SSN, and the ability to freely access systems that control trillions in financial transactions?
Background checks for clearance purposes don’t simply look at your history and say no if you have anything on your record. They look at what is on your record, conduct interviews with you, your close contacts, identify where potential risks may lie. They compare those findings with the level and access you’d be granted and determine a risk level associated with granting you that access.
Bypassing those checks, for the systems in question, opens up the entire population to an unknown, unquantified risk, which has not been assessed. This means the risk must be assumed to be the highest level.
"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal.” Isn’t this premise just blatantly wrong though? A judge is to uphold the law, and aren’t there laws governing how the military operates that, if violated, could be have legal consequences?
At least, isn’t that how it’s supposed to work?
(Edit: I’m genuinely asking because I’m questioning my understanding of how these things are supposed to be balanced without giving absolute authority, as if in a dictatorship)