7:30-8:30 PM, ET/7:00-8:00 PM, PT ON THE CBS TELEVISION NETWORK
INTO DANGEROUS HANDS – Scott Pelley uncovers critical lapses in the U.S. security clearance process that millions of people, including NSA leaker Edward Snowden and convicted spy Chelsea Manning, must pass to work with America’s secrets. Michael Rey and Oriana Zill de Granados are the producers
This will be very revealing interview, highlighting the mentality of military commanders who were so mission focused that they ignored blaring red flags/signals in Manning’s behavior that should have resulted in his clearance suspension.
I think it’s going to be more focused on the problems with the security clearance process.
Should be fun.
Here’s the video of the 60 Minutes program from 11/08/15 from YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9d-qlSYqm50
Anyone who has been reading SCJF would have long known about these problems from reading comments by investigators. IMO, the bureaucraticization of the process has been the number one problem. When combined with the emphasis on timeliness (i.e., rushing investigations through) it’s only been compounded. Production and timeliness are often inversely proportional to quality. The outsourcing to companies owned by private equity firms has also been a factor. The investigators, both contractor and federal, have been the one strong point, but they are severely hampered by the investigative process which is all about delimiting what can be asked or pursued. And contract investigators are much more cautious about not asking probing questions lest the Subject file a complaint and you are looking for a new job. But all this has been said before and better on SCJF so just read those posts.
Yeah, what a lame piece of journalism. It’s like they mashed a dozen different things together and missed the forest through the trees.
Nothing new, as dcinv said, what a waste of time.
That 60 minutes interview was nothing new to me. If 60 minutes really wanted to do some investigative journalism then they would have interviewed some former or current investigators about the issues with the corrupt OPM contractors (Especially those that worked for USIS) and the glaring weaknesses and intricacies of the OPM process in general. I thought they barely scratched the service on the problems with the BI process.
How about less emphasis on investigators having to worry about why the home telephone is different than the mobile phone and how someone attended college while employed full time and more emphasis on character, conduct, integrity, and the overall person as a whole. That’s the real problem with the BI process.
Problem is nothing will change…its just a rubber stamping process…to most of us we don’t feel like any real investigations into the person are being done when we spend more time on why the Subject’s home and cell phone are the same number.
If they really want to blow the lid off of this…then they need to read these forums and glassdoor.com about USIS and KGS or interview the people actually doing the investigations. That would make people perk up a little by reading those things.
Yeah…didn’t learn much…oh by the way in that 60 minute piece…something they failed to discuss was that the Seattle PD didn’t cooperate with the Alexis investigation or that police report would have been in the investigative file. The Investigator had to note out the item. Seattle PD should be to blame for that also in regards to not cooperating with the OPM BI process.
The other thing that needs to be mentioned is the ajudicative process is way too lax in determining who gets a clearance. We have all completed that horrible 65 page report of people with major issues and derogatory information with less than half of the people recommending the candidate only to find out that the person still got a clearance or was able to still retains his/her clearance…I realize it’s a futile process.
A lot of the problem in this process that doesn’t get enough discussion or is rarely ever is questioned is the lax adjudicative process. They let damn near anyone get a TS or Q clearance. The adjudicative process is a big part of the problem and the government needs to address it.
Anyways, the only thing we can control in this process is the integrity and thoroughness of the product we deliver. Timeliness is outside of our control. Quality is getting to that point also unless you have integrity to do a thorough job and tell management to pound sand about timelines.
@Joe Hackett
Good comments. And thanks for reminding me of the Seattle PD’s role in the Alexis debacle. A lot of PDs are totally uncooperative and nothing is done about it. Do you think if you walked into a PD and said you’re an investigator with the U.S. DOJ Civil Rights Division they’d blow you off? Well, actually they might, after offering you coffee and a back rub. And forget about a disciplinary file on a cop who goes onto a cushy fed job. I’d have an easier time getting cooperation from a Peshawar police department regarding the punk son of a tribal leader. And there’d be as much a chance that they’ve ever heard of “OPM”.