Background Investigation Methods Spark Concern
Jun 18th, 2004 by Alex
Cleared personnel — those individuals with a security clearance — give up quite a bit of privacy in exchange for their security clearances. Recent events have sparked concern among some contractors concerning their security investigations.
Every individual applying for a security clearance has to complete the Electronic Personnel Security Questionnaire (EPSQ), an antiquated piece of software dating back to the days of Windows 3.1. This is more or less the electronic version of the Questionnaire for National Security Positions, commonly referred to as the SF-86 form. EPSQ is such a royal pain that a lot of people still prefer the 15-page SF-86 form. Completion of the EPSQ involves remembering, researching, and reporting where you lived for the past 7-10 years (as well as the name, address, and contact information of someone who knew you at each address), the dates and circumstances of all non-domestic travel (even to Mexico and Canada), several personal references, and a barrage of other information.
Skipping the rant about how long it takes to process an application, an investigator (or perhaps a team of investigators) will interview most (if not all) of the references supplied by the applicant as part of a background investigation (BI). The BI is generally attempting to determine whether the information the applicant provides is valid and correct, as well as adding confirmation from personal references to the applicant’s file. Flashing back to the past…
Years ago, an investigator knocked on Tom’s door. Tom was a childhood friend of William’s, and William was currently attempting to land a job within the intelligence community. As Tom remembered, the unexpected and unannounced investigator flashed an FBI badge and began asking a series of questions concerning William’s life. It seemed legit, and it probably was. Tom answered the questions to the best of his ability.
The Privacy Act of 1974 more or less informs us — the people — that the government can inquire about every aspect of their lives in order to determine whether they are fit to hold that clearance. Personal finances, divorces, drug and alcohol use, you name it; it’s all fair game. Finally, they’ll ask for a handful of people that they know you associate with, and then they’ll start the process over again with these new references. So even if an applicant pads their application with “good” references, chances are the investigators will find others.
Currently there’s quite a backlog of clearance applications that’s been highlighted by the media and abhorred by most contractors. This year — presumably due to this backlog — no one dropped by Tom’s door. An investigator called Tom on the phone and asked the same batch of questions that he remembered from years ago, regarding his friend William. It seemed legit, and it probably was. Tom answered the questions again…
Herein lies room for abuse. While phone interviews are certainly more efficient than those of the face-to-face variety, what guarantees do we have that we’re talking to who we think we are? With little or no confirmation, friends of to-be-cleared personnel divulge personal details about their friends over the phone, assured by the agent on the other end of the line that the questioning is legit. With face-to-face interviews, most agents are required to display official identification. Over the phone, what confirmation is there?
Who would benefit from this sort of information, you ask? What about an insurance company? What is to prevent health insurance companies from doing the same thing, while checking up on your drinking/smoking habits? Either before your first premium, or just before your annual adjustments? How many of your friends might disclose personal information about you if they thought it was a valid/important request?
Is the concern of contractors a valid one? or must we depend on people/corporations being honest about their identities and goals?
