News that a special agent with the Commerce Department's Office of Export Enforcement was indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury for accessing a government database to track the travels of a former girlfriend raises the question: Just how often do federal employees misuse government computers? For sure, the case of Benjamin Robinson, a 40-year-old special agent for Commerce who had been with the department for 10 years is rather extreme. He accessed the database 163 times, lied to his supervisors and threatened his former girlfriend's life. It’s not the only one. Another extreme case of improper use of a government computer was posted in Tech Insider here. (I urge you to read the comments that accompany the item to get a complete picture.)
Discussing the former case with a source who has spent nearly 30 years working and consulting on federal IT projects here in Washington, D.C., tells me that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we hear about the more egregious, yet infrequent, abuses. But this source says less serious misuse, such as accessing private information for purely prurient interests and using powerful government applications for personal use is, if not common, widespread. In an upcoming "Managing Technology" column in Government Executive Magazine, a long-time General Services Administration employee says that the GSA has a well-publicized policy of monitoring Internet and network use, but it is widely known among employees that the logs are rarely scanned, leaving no check against misuse. I'll post a link to this story when it is published.
What's your experience at your agency or contractor's office of employees improperly using or accessing government databases or applications? Is it widespread? Let us know by clicking the comment link below.
COMMENTS
I worry about the government employees but even more so than that I worry about non government entities who have my personal information. One example is a program DOD uses called 'the work number' a private company owned by TALX who by the way was bought out by Equifax (credit reporting agency). Our payroll information is forwarded to them (to use to verify employment and payroll history when applying for a loan) and since they are owned by Equifax they also have all our credit information. Scarey!! On top of that when I called and asked to verify my own information they said they had to ask me some questions to verify who I am. I expected say my SSN, my place of work, how much I earn as questions etc. Nope, they asked the age of a brother in law I have not spoken to since I married his brother, they ask for an address of a sister I also have not seen from or heard in years, they also asked what county I am currently living in and when I gave a wrong answer they told me the correct information, including address of property. I asked where they got that information from (thinking the government gave it too them). Crazy as it sounds they get it from a company called Verid who scans billions of Public Records and compiles it to use for security verification. One company has my credit history, my payroll history and to top it off knows relatives and addresses. Talk about frightening, all with the governments blessings. How hard would it be for a very bad guy to pay someone off from that company to compile a list of say the top paid employees of a Government agency and provide addresses of relatives? I was never notified that someone accessed my information even though it was me either, so who else can access it with out me knowing? I will trust a government work anyday with my information before I trust one private company with a shred of it.
M Murphy 09/25/07 04:11 pm ET
Thomas L Friedman, in THE WORLD IS FLAT warns about the "little brothers." Industry and government have a lot of data on everyone.
If you are not linked to terrorism the president is not interested in you. Jealous neighbors, in-laws, co-workers etc are. Be careful of the llittle brothers.
Wise Old Owl 09/25/07 09:47 am ET
From other information I've read I hear theres more to this story than meets the eye. Apparently the lady was a stalker trying to get personal information to go and get a baby out of iran that she claimed was his. Major red flag. His boss did nothing to help him. Iran? Aren't we on the verge of war with them? This guy may be a hero. I suggest we wait until the full story comes out before attacking.
Air Show 09/25/07 03:49 am ET
I think government employees misuse systems all the time, especially for recreational web surfing - it's out of control!
Charles Burnett 09/24/07 04:55 pm ET
Accessing data for arguably wrong reasons is a legacy issue, but it is a minor matter. The reason I write is because I too have a strong interest in and a commitment to public service. With 31 years of federal service there is one issue that I have taken a particularly strong interest, and that is with federal hiring practices. And I believe that if a publication of your stature and influence addressed the issue trough a focused article, much needed change may well come to fruition.
I have recently read many articles in publications as of late concerning the pressing need to foster creatively and innovation in federal recruitment and hiring practices, regulations, etc. OPM has certainly taken a lead role in this area, as have many high-level officials within various cabinet-level departments. And I also have seen some recent MSPB studies on this important topic as well. And quite frankly, I agree wholeheartedly with near universal agreement that exists which declares that changes are direly needed. At the heart of the issue is the need to improve upon and streamline existing procedures to help ensure that high quality applicants are not turned away by arcane federal hiring procedures and that agencies (and by reference the US taxpayer) truly recruit for, and most important, hire only the "best and the brightest" for public service. Certainly, who would argue with that worthwhile goal?
Unfortunately, however, there is another legacy issue that is present that is rarely if ever discussed. And in some organizations this issue has reached the malignant stage due in large part to personal gain of some staff and from inattention from oversight bodies and organizations for decades. I believe (as do legions of others) that this issue underlies, and undercuts if not eviscerates the larger noteworthy goal. Moreover, the issue may very well speak to the actual organizational culture and value-system that is present in far too many (but by no means all) federal agencies. The unflattering fact of the matter is that hiring records and outcomes objectively demonstrate that far too many federal agencies maintain a near 100% internal or insider hiring rate for positions that are purportedly recruited in good faith for the search for excellence. And this inbred hiring rate represents the outcome of "external" (federal-wide and/or all sources area of consideration) hiring actions in the higher grades (e.g., GS 12-15) in the general administrative management series (e.g., GS-0300 and GS-0500 classifications). Internal hires are defined as current agency employees. Insider hires are defined as prior agency employees, including DoD hires that result in the hiring of recently retired members of the agency's active duty military staff (e.g., Dept of Air Force hiring a recently retired Dept of Air Force military member), or contract employees of the hiring agency.
As I indicated earlier, this near 100% inbred hiring practice/outcome is not present in all federal organizations, however. But it is present in far too many. At the end of the day, and despite much lip service about "searching for excellence," far too many federal hiring managers in the overly insular federal organizations routinely concoct bad faith external "competitive" recruitments that are not really competitive at all at the area of consideration in which they are announced. I could go into details about how this is (readily transparently) done, but I'll refrain from doing so at this time. Nevertheless, these outcomes speak volumes about the nature of these actions and the organizational culture that is present. Essentially every single one of these actions have had the identical outcome: Yet another internal/insider "we take care of our own (at the US taxpayer's expense)" hire.
Although I realize that the foregoing may sound as if I am a disgruntled federal employee, but in reality I am not. In fact, I am far from it. I have enjoyed an extremely successful and diverse federal career spanning several agencies across our Nation for the last near 32 years, including my tenure as Presidential Management Fellow at one of the genuinely finest federal organizations - the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. Over that time I have seen, as they say, the very good, good, bad, and the ugly.
My motivation is that I simply care. And I care enough to at least attempt to change the wrongheaded culture for the betterment of the organizations and for those that support it and us - the United States taxpayers. And to that end, if I may suggest that through your organization of national influence this matter could gain additional prominence and needed attention though an upcoming article specifically addressing this area of public import that is in so much need of cleansing sunlight.
Best regards,
/s/
Michael J. Smith
(San Diego, CA)
Mike Smith 09/24/07 12:36 pm ET
As a trusted agent for the government, you expect a higher standard for someone you put in that position. But we are hiring the lesser of the evils today in the federal government. Look around you, how many people you are working around you that cannot even do there job...
It use to be a privilege to be a civil servant. Now we politically hire people, or for the wrong reason.
Expect the higher standard!
JAJ 09/23/07 11:37 pm ET
Does reading this article at work constitute abuse of government equipment? Does asking this question?
A fed 09/21/07 12:27 pm ET
This event is an exception. Let's not say all employees do this until we have some proof.
US 09/21/07 10:50 am ET
At the Social Security Administration, Office of Hearings and Appeals, our primary responsibilit is to adjudicate disability appeals. We have a very simple and effective checks and balance system. We are, of course, allowed to access SSA information regarding those "claimants" that have cases pending before us. But if any computer in any of the dozens of offices around the country accesses data (via social security number) on an individual whose does not have a case filed with SSA for disability, that computer (assigned to only one SSA employee who can access it through password, and which is part of the SSA's national network) a report is generated to the office director who then inquires into the mismatch. The situation which is the subject of your article cannot occur within our branch of SSA. The effectiveness of this system of course requires that all computers in the office be linked by network to a central server. Stand alone computers that can access government databases via the internet (versus intranet) are a different animal.
CF Wemhoener 09/21/07 08:21 am ET