Background Screens Only Protect You at the Front Door

Pre-employment background screening is an excellent way to determine of the applicant in front of you is the right fit for the position you are offering. You can determine all sorts of facts of their life down to what their credit report looks like and rest assured that you have made a good hiring decision. But really, background screening is only the first line of defense against criminal behavior in the work place. Background screening only detects known criminals, it cannot reveal the intentions of a criminal mind that has yet to reveal itself.

It is imperative for any size company to keep a watchful eye on their employees and on their bottom lines, especially with today's financial woes, one can not be too careful. Running random drug testing programs is an excellent way to ensure the new hires are taking their jobs seriously and aren't trying to dupe the system, as are post- employment criminal background searches that can check up on your what your new employees have been up to - and if they've gotten into any trouble - since you put them on payroll.

But a company can go further, and keep itself ahead of the technology curve by creating tough company policies about legal, ethical, security, and productivity uses of the technology available to their employees. Companies are encouraged to develop policies regarding privacy, appropriate use, intellectual property protection, and they are encouraged to issue statements detailing the practices behind said technologies. The policies and statements should be reviewed once a year, at minimum, to keep up with the every changing plane of technology.

Today, it's almost a given that there needs to be policy regarding email and instant messaging. Less well thought-out arenas for policy include blogs and social networking sites. Both are wildly popular and useful knowledge sharing platforms, however, there are hundreds of blogs about companies with employees, workers and former employees hashing it out in a community centered environment that is prone to leaking confidential information that the company would not want released. As well with information, however inadvertently it may be, that is posted on Myspace.com.

Employers need to realize that with the great leaps forward we have taken, the holes of vulnerability have gotten larger and harder to maintain. One may not be able to stop someone from posting private information, but it would be nice to feel comfortable taking action against that person.

Read more...

Insider Posts Personally Identifiable Information and Threatens Lives

Hired in August of 2001, Mr. Steven William Sutcliffe refused to provide the HR Department of Global Crossing Development Company with his Social Security Number. A criminal background search later revealed he failed to disclose his criminal records as well. Mr. Sutcliffe was terminated immediately.

Upon termination, Mr. Sutcliffe began picketing Global Crossing carrying a sign bearing the address of a website he launched against the company. “On this website, Defendant displayed Global Crossing employees’ personal information, including payroll information, social security numbers, birth dates, and residential addresses, with some of this information hyperlinked to an article about identity theft.”

On that website, Sutcliffe posted over 1000 of his former co-workers Personally Identifiable Information (PII) including payroll information, home residences, and social security numbers with links to identify theft information sites. When served with a restraining order, Sutcliffe posted threats against the agent who served him, “Our paths are now crossed and we are forever joined . . . to deal with that I am going to make you a one time offer. If I never see or hear from or of you again, I will forget you . . . . However, if I do ever hear your name mentioned against me ever again I will personally add you to my domain list. I think you understand the issues now enough to understand what this means. If I ever see you near my family again, and I know how to stalk too, I will kill you. That’s my offer.”

Sutcliffe was found to be subject to federal subject-matter jurisdiction for the interstate transfer of PII, a serious federal charge. The case is in appeal, but Global Crossing could have avoided the situation all together had they completed proper background examination prior to employment. Further protections, such as information documentation and security to protect employees, effective controls and exit procedures, as well as technology controls to limit accessibility would have gone a long way to prevent Sutcliffe from inflicting the damage he did.

Read more...