Contractors Providing Background Checks For NSA Caught Falsifying Reports, Interviewing The Dead

from the the-talking-dead dept

The fallout from Ed Snowden’s leaks has taken many forms, one of which is the NSA taking a long look at its contractors’ hiring processes. Snowden claims to have taken the job solely to gathering damning info. This revelation, combined with some inconsistencies in his educational history, have placed the companies who perform background and credit checks under the microscope.

What these agencies are now discovering can’t be making them happy, including the news that one contractor’s investigative work apparently involved a seance.

Anthony J. Domico, a former contractor hired to check the backgrounds of U.S. government workers, filed a 2006 report with the results of an investigation.

There was just one snag: A person he claimed to have interviewed had been dead for more than a decade. Domico, who had worked for contractors CACI International Inc. (CACI) and Systems Application & Technologies Inc., found himself the subject of a federal probe.

It’s not as if Domico’s case is an anomaly.

Domico is among 20 investigators who have pleaded guilty or have been convicted of falsifying such reports since 2006. Half of them worked for companies such as Altegrity Inc., which performed a background check on national-security contractor Edward Snowden. The cases may represent a fraction of the fabrications in a government vetting process with little oversight, according to lawmakers and U.S. watchdog officials.

Who watches the watchers’ watchers? It appears as if that crucial link in the chain has been ignored. Give any number of people a job to do and, no matter how important that position is, a certain percentage will cut so many corners their cubicles will start resembling spheres.

These are the people entrusted to help ensure our nation’s harvested data remains in safe hands, or at least, less abusive ones. Those defending the NSA claim this data is well-protected and surrounded by safeguards against abuse. Those claims were always a tad hollow, but this information shows them to be complete artifice. The NSA, along with several other government agencies, cannot positively say that they have taken the proper steps vetting their personnel.

USIS, the contractor who vetted Ed Snowden, openly admits there were “shortcomings” in its investigation of the whistleblower. Perhaps Snowden’s background check was a little off, but overall, calling the USIS’ problems “shortcomings” is an understatement.

Among the 10 background-check workers employed by contractors who have been convicted or pleaded guilty to falsifying records since 2006, eight of them had worked for USIS, according to the inspector general for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The personnel agency is responsible for about 90 percent of the government’s background checks.

In one case, Kayla M. Smith, a former investigative specialist for USIS, submitted some 1,600 falsified credit reports, according to the inspector general’s office.

Smith spent 18 months turning in these falsified reports, which accounted for a third of her total output. One might wonder how someone like Smith ends up working for a background check contractor. The answer? This problem isn’t confined to one level.

[T]he investigator who had vetted Smith was convicted in a separate falsification case, Patrick McFarland, inspector general for the personnel office, said at a June 20 hearing held by two Senate panel.

Will it get better? USIS is already ceding market share to other contractors but it’s impossible to say whether its competitors will be more trustworthy. McFarland says his office doesn’t have enough funding to perform thorough probes, which indicates what’s been caught so far is just skimming the surface. These agencies harvesting our data (and their defenders) all expect Americans (and others around the world) to simply trust them. Meanwhile, the reasons why we shouldn’t continue to mount unabated.

A couple of senators are hoping their new piece of oversight legislation will fix the problem. It would provide McFarland’s office with more investigation funding, but simply adding more “oversight” isn’t going to make the problem go away. The NSA’s mouthpieces continue to insist that everything it does is subject to tons and tons of “oversight,” but that has done very little to improve its standing in the “trustworthy” department. There are systemic issues that need to be addressed, both in these agencies and the contractors they hire and expecting to paper over the cracks with a little legislation will only result in more revelations of wrongdoing, rather than fewer occurrences.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: altegrity, caci, usis

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Contractors Providing Background Checks For NSA Caught Falsifying Reports, Interviewing The Dead”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
41 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Sad but true. When you go from analysis of single cases to status reports on the program a huge amount of silverlining is lost. When status data on different programs are made into a state of the union report, a lot more data is cut. When the people in charge recieve a recommandation report all data are gone and only recommandations based on shortened reports, based on shortened reports, based on shortened reports remain…
That is the definition of bureaucratic overload. Since most of the tiers of workers will claim that they are essential and since the tiers around them do not want extra administrative burdens, rolling back bureaucracy takes heavy restructuring if it is possible at all.

Aerilus says:

Re: Re:

I would like to see an experiment where a bunch of people turned in a reports where only the abstract and conclusion were real and the rest was lorem ipsum and see how long they kept their jobs. Id place my money on there being a statistically significant difference between government and private sector jobs.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“So let me get this straight: they have the capabilities to spy on anyone, and they don’t use it to look into the people they are hiring?”

Yes, you see, the person who would take this opportunity is already on their side. The rest of us are suspect. Those who even question, are hostile towards the program.

Chris ODonnell (profile) says:

I’ve been interviewed many times about my neighbor when they are up for or renewing a security clearance. It’s one of the hazards of living in the DC area. The interviews are a joke. The interviewers are usually kids fresh out of college working for a government contractor. The questions are are very boilerplate – asking if if I see strange cars visiting late at night, does he throw lots of parties, have I ever heard him talk about being in debt, etc. They seem kind of pointless really.

Anonymous Coward says:

The joy of contractors...

Step 1: Get a senior position at a government agency. Preach the “efficiency” of using contractors to do what used to be in-house.
Step 2: Violate the law, abandon the principles you claim to defend, be negligent as to your responsibilities all you want.
Step 3: When it all blows up, blame it all on the contractor and duck out the side door. The contractor CEO cashes out, closes the firm and “re-brands”. You wait 3 months, take your cushy job at the “new” contract company. The poor slob who just wanted to keep his/her job gets 18 months and a Federal felony record.

‘Merica!

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: The joy of contractors...

When it all blows up, blame it all on the contractor

That’s not unique to the government, either. I spent a stretch of time doing contract work as a software engineer, and I quickly learned that a common reason to hire a contractor is specifically so you have a scapegoat for a project that is already doomed. It’s one of the reasons I charged a lot for contract work.

On the flip side, it gave me a kind of freedom that I never had as an employee: I could speak unvarnished truth without fear for impact on my career.

Anonymous Coward says:

Got to say, more than a little ad-libbing in the article where Snowden ‘claimed’ to take the position with the clear intent to leak sensitive information. From the article:

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

Now, to anyone that replies, please don’t make the mistake and assume I’m defending him, I’m merely pointing out the inconsistencies with his statements and the article from the South China Morning Post.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

I agree. Most people don’t know how the contractor game works – and this isn’t just government but all over corporate America as well. You have huge ongoing projects that have to constantly be upgraded and maintained. Firms bid on contracts to provide people to work on those projects say yearly. When a new company wins the bid, some new people may come in and some people may leave but a lot of the people that were previously working on the project for the previous contract holder simply switch “employers” and continue working the same job or at least a very similar job related to the project. He only started working for Booz Allen Hamilton 3 months prior, but he had been a system administrator working for the NSA a lot longer than that. It’s likely that the position with BAH added access to additional information which is what he was referring to. However, it is clear he didn’t just walk in of the street 3 months earlier to take this position which is how the media is making it sound.

madasahatter (profile) says:

more legislation

More legislation is not answer. The problem is two fold; excessive document classification and excessively broad (and almost certainly illegal) programs that require large numbers of vetted personnel. Both are corrosive problems ultimately destroying trust in the government. Whether true or not, it appears much of what was classified was done so to protect “staff” from criminal charges because it is very difficult to prosecute someone on suspicion.

Dan S (profile) says:

“Among the 10 background-check workers employed by contractors who have been convicted or pleaded guilty to falsifying records since 2006, eight of them had worked for USIS, according to the inspector general for the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. The personnel agency is responsible for about 90 percent of the government?s background checks. “

8/10
80/100
but
90/100 of the checks

Suggests they are actually ABOVE average, no?

Anonymous Coward says:

Remember the 2008 NSA phone sex story?

This is on a par for the level of professionalism you expect from an organization with this many people. There will always be some incompetents and pockets of unprofessional behaviour.

Remember when NSA employees got caught passing around recordings of the good phone sex calls home from the US military members in the Green Zone? Sound familiar?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/10/we-snooped-on-i/

jsf (profile) says:

Contractors? Really?

One of the problems this shows is that the government has turned too much over to outside contractors. Who really thinks it is a good idea to have a for profit company doing security checks? Not to mention allowing a company that does security checks to vet their own employees.

Almost makes you long for the cold war days when the intelligence organizations actually took this stuff seriously. Probably too seriously back then, but at least it wasn’t about profits.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Contractors? Really?

Who really thinks it is a good idea to have a for profit company doing security checks?

I do, and I think that’s a silly question. Would you rather all of public commerce was nationalized and made a gov’t monopoly? I think that would be ridiculous, and it wouldn’t solve anything.

I’d like to know what’s happening with these sluggards’ managers. Did they do anything to verify their employees were actually doing what they were expected to do? This is management failure above all else. I’ve never had a job where my boss spent all his time on the golf course and just trusted us to not goof or slack off.

DeLightFuL says:

USIS NSA USA UK

WhaTs the saYing?: The good oL boys Club!
It’s a who knows who world & the Internet has SPREDDD if like Fire!!! No one wants to put into the system, everyone expects to take out. Our country concentrates SO HIGHLY on our past mistakes & inqualities that we hv forgotten to lock the Flood gaTes:{~
These things are ok in some ways because there is opportunity for the ones who’s life has a much harder, higher & some ghetto gun fire– hill to climb, BUTT BUT WHAT COMES WHEN EVERYONE’S LISTENING, whom speaks has the power!!!!

DeLightFuL says:

Re: USIS NSA USA UK

Try that again. weirdly, it cut out the Middle & Jumped to the end oF my poinT.. kinda make a difference donT it:)

FWD:
WhaTs the saYing?: The good oL boys Club!
It’s a who knows who world & the Internet has SPREDDD if like Fire!!! No one wants to put into the system, everyone expects to take out. Our country concentrates SO HIGHLY on our past mistakes & inqualities that we hv forgotten to lock the Flood gaTes//:
These things are ok in some ways because there is opportunity for the ones who’s life has a much harder, higher & some ghetto gun fire– hill to climb, BUTT I say CUZ the eLiTe these days are very skilled, talented or even smart in the slightest. Then they bring their even dumber friend and his girlfriend who has a friend and her brother is an EviL mother-$kher!!! Next thing you know this isn’t a 007 episode, its those lazy-boys and their toys PUSH’N paperwork through for an overSeas gov. whom may still think USA so great, I mean rich.
Nope IT’S RICK JAMES BIT$#$ 😉
kidding! super serious bout being married to an Axe Murderer tho. This right here is how its done… & one day you might find that

DeLightFuL says:

USIS NSA USA UK

JASUS H. literrally!! heres the rest mY point that weirdly cut-off, so i can ShuT-up! & get OuT yo face!!!!

FWD:
…..ThaT far away problem has reached your own children & wish you could actually trust the system! OR EVEN ITS PEOPLE!!!!!
The big picture soon becomes even larger as that WiLDFiRe iZspReADInG now!!!!! not tomorrow. So with hesitation, I dare say’ there’s a Reason that THE ~all mighty.Book~ was created?!?!! It was there to give us direction, MORALSSS & standards! Give us hope, will, love, peace & understanding/::()> BUT WHAT COMES WHEN EVERYONE’S LISTENING, whom speaks has the power!!!!

irvingscott (profile) says:

Trust the Authorized Services

You have the right to challenge any inaccuracies in your background check with the background check provider or employment reporting agency that conducted it. Such as: an incorrect criminal record on a background check; outdated information that should no longer be reported on a background check; mistaken identity; a different person’s criminal record appears on your background check; and errors on background checks can result in your being denied credit, housing, or employment. Irving Scott is a reputed firm to hire domestic staff in London with accurate screening and background checks.
Interviewing the dead, however, is absurd.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »