Exclusive: Hundreds of U.S. security clearances seen falsified

[Baitball Blogger]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal prosecutors have documented at least 350 instances of faulty background investigations done by private contractors and special agents for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management in recent years, illustrating what some lawmakers call systemic weaknesses in the granting of federal security clearances.

Reuters calculated the total by reviewing court documents and press releases from prosecutors for 21 cases resulting in convictions that involved the making of false statements from December 2004 to March 2012.


These are the cases government officials have cited to assert that action is taken against investigators who falsely claim to have reviewed records or done interviews for background checks submitted to OPM. Not all the cases identified a specific number of fabrications.

The 350 falsified reports represent only a small percentage of the number of background investigations conducted each year, either by OPM's own investigators or a handful of private contractors it uses for most of the work.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-us-usa-security-clearances-20130924,0,1393552.story

[Baitball Blogger]

1. Is anyone surprised to discover that private screening companies failed to do thorough jobs?

You can't curtail a private corporations' extra-curricular motivations. They will make money where they can, cutting corners that usually end up with someone harmed or dead.

[tammywammy]

4. OPM's personnel are also mentioned.

Seems to me that while this is a very small number of clearances, 350, the issue is bigger than just private contractors since OPM also has issues.

[NightWatcher]

2. I used to work for USIS and I keep chuckling

I left there a decade ago because I saw that they were not interested in doing quality work, but instead all the cared about was turning out reports on time. The number of security clearance background checks exploded when gwb came into office and grew exponentially after 9/11. It became all about numbers and less about quality investigating.

I knew this was going to happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I keep chucking since I did not work for these guys

but the profit motive trumps all.

Thanks for your insight by the way. Of course the some of our people work at Starbucks (unsecured WiFI) made me really chuckle. I work at Starbucks, I do not manage or handle classified info.

[NightWatcher]

5. last year I was at the continental breakfast area of a hotel in Virginia

and was surprised by the number of people who not only wore their govt name badges clipped to their shirts, but the large number who put their badges into the slot on their computers and proceeded to work in the very public area. I even saw a couple people walk back to the buffet with their computers still running. It was so hard for me to not get up grab their machines and take them straight to the IT department for the nearby facility they were working at.

Many people are not aware of computer security and do stupid things every day

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. You can count on human stupidity every day

[seabeckind]

8. In this case

the customer is supposed to be paying extra for an extremely competent person to NOT be stupid.

Added: We're not talking a minimum wage barely high school graduate here. These guys are supposed to have met some stringent engineered standards.

[seabeckind]

7. Not surprising

Having a 3rd party doing the security check is a lot like having a home inspection prior to buying a property. If the inspector does a good job, oftentimes it will kill the sale. So the inspector tries to walk a fine line between losing subsequent business (being indentified as a deal killer is not a good thing in real estate) and doing an adequate job for the buyer.

And in a percentage of the cases the buyer will be screwed because the inspector will ignore a potentially serious issue.

In the case of a contractor trying to get their man on the job, oftentimes the guy is the cheapest they can find, barely competent to do the job, marginally responsible, and willing to be paid accordingly. Afterall, the contractor is going to bill that guy out at least 25% on top of what they pay him. And if any question arises as to his competence, the contractor will just use that as an excuse to get 3 more just like him on the job. (ref the new VA benefits computer system).

Once again we're stuck with that acceptable quality business, just like for anything we buy these days. The cheapest possible article that is workable. And it doesn't matter if it quits later. Cheaper for the provider to throw out a return...

or in this case for the customer to bear the burden. What's a few dead people when we're talkin bottom line here?

[randome]

9. But...but private enterprise is so much more efficient and reliable.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]