[THIN] ARTICLE: IT Pros May Face Background Checks

From: Jim Kenzig <jimkenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: thinnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:21:03 -0400
Holy crap I though this was America....starting to feel like Russia isn't
it? Somebody call the ACLU.
JK


http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,73074,00.
html
IT Pros May Face Background Checks
The Bush administration plans to convene a panel of government and
private-sector labor and legal experts to develop guidelines for subjecting
tens of thousands of corporate IT and other employees to background
investigations.
The panel, as described in the president's "National Strategy for Homeland
Security" report, released July 16, would be convened jointly by the
secretary of Homeland Security and the attorney general following the
establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. It would
examine whether current employer liability statutes and privacy concerns
would hinder "necessary background checks for personnel with access to
critical infrastructure facilities or systems."
That means employees in industries that include banking, chemicals, energy,
transportation, telecommunications, shipping and public health would be
subject to background investigations as a condition of employment.
"Personnel with privileged access to critical infrastructure, particularly
[IT-based] control systems, may serve as terrorist surrogates by providing
information on vulnerabilities, operating characteristics and protective
measures," the Bush report states.
Some IT professionals see the plan as both an infringement on civil
liberties and a recipe for destroying innovation and economic prosperity.
Jonathan Blitt, president of ITT Industries Inc.'s Network Systems &
Services division in New York, said expanding background investigations
would do more harm than good.
"I [have] great concern with any effort to expand the size of government
intervention in commercial operations. The people you most want on your side
are the people that may seem least desirable to a panel of so-called
experts," Blitt said, referring to the community of programmers and ethical
hackers who often live on what he referred to as the "fringe" of society.
"This pandering to the masses should stop, and professional reason should
start. This plan could put shackles on an industry that is critical to the
growth of our country."
Others see no problem with the requirement for background investigations.
Eric Johansen, a systems analyst at ReliaStar Life Insurance Co. in
Minneapolis, is one of those.
"Yes, there is added cost, but companies should be doing this anyway as part
of standard hiring procedures," Johansen said. "A position like systems
analyst [or] network administrator requires access to extremely sensitive
data and control of many business-critical tasks. It would be ridiculous not
to screen employees. Companies should not need President Bush's push in
order for this to happen."
Indeed, background investigations are already conducted by many companies
that have sensitive or critical positions that are vulnerable to terrorist
infiltration, such as airport baggage screeners and air marshals, said Ed
Badolato, president of Washington-based Contingency Management Services Inc.
Investigations are necessary because they "provide a baseline for preventing
known criminals and potential terrorists from working in vulnerable areas,"
said Badolato, who oversaw some of the government's most stringent and
expensive background investigations when he served as deputy assistant
secretary for energy emergencies at the Department of Energy.
The main challenges facing companies that don't currently conduct detailed
background investigations on employees include determining how much of the
workforce needs to obtain a security clearance, who will pay for the
government-level security investigation and how those clearances will be
administered and maintained, said Badolato.
Vinton Cerf, senior vice president for Internet architecture and technology
at WorldCom Inc., said that while there are benefits to such background
checks, they are not a panacea for homeland security.
"Given the technical nature of much of the critical infrastructure it seems
likely that these investigations will uncover some number of risks that
employers were not aware of," said Cerf. However, "I am ambivalent about the
ultimate utility of these measures, since compromise of trusted individuals
is not something an investigation can prevent."
The administration's desire to ensure that employees at critical facilities
don't pose a threat could also provide incentive for Bush to establish a
chief privacy officer post at the proposed Homeland Security Department. "I
think that we are very open to having that discussion," said Steven Cooper,
Bush's CIO for homeland security. "I suspect the American public is also
interested."
Meanwhile, Bush has threatened to veto current legislation that would create
the cabinet-level post if Congress doesn't grant him the ability to limit
the workplace rights of the 177,000 federal employees who would make up the
new department. Bush has argued that current labor laws would limit his
ability to manage the department. Critics fear that the administration is
seeking a way to deny employees collective bargaining and civil service
protections.



===================================
This weeks Sponsor:
triCerat, Inc
ScrewDrivers fxp: Self Configuring Printer Driver with Bandwidth Control
Learn more at:
http://www.tricerat.com/?page=products&product=sdfxp

===================================
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or 
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link.

http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
[THIN] ARTICLE: IT Pros May Face Background Checks

Other related posts:
