MARIETTA – Marietta city employees will be subject to drug and alcohol testing as part of the city’s new policy this year. Councilman Cindy Oxender, R-At large, expressed to city council Thursday that though as an elected official she is not required to also participate, as chairwoman of the Employee Relations Committee, she wanted to set the example by voluntarily participating in the urinalysis program Friday.
The Security Augmentation Force (SAF) was designed to provide protective security services to governmental agencies, businesses, educational institutions, religious organizations, and local authorities with a well vetted SAF who are licensed, credentialed, insured, and highly trained to provide these unique personal and public safety services. The SAF’s mission is to prevent, detect, and deter any acts of communicated threats, violence, and/or the potential threat of an inspired act of terrorism, whether it be foreign or domestic, from happening at these entities.
WASHINGTON — A presidential visit to Atlanta for a briefing on the Ebola crisis last year turned into a black eye for the Secret Service when it was later revealed that an armed contractor with a criminal record was in an elevator with President Barack Obama.
Following the tragedies of school massacres such as those at Columbine High School in 1999, Virginia Tech in 2007, Northern Illinois University in 2008, Tucson shooting in 2011, Newton-Connecticut in 2012, the Washington Navy Yard in 2013, the 2015 shootings of news Reporter Allison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward earlier this year in Virginia, to the tragedy school shooting at the Oregon Umpqua Community College, and most recent San Bernardino, CA shootings has reignited the intense debate about gun control and gun violence legislation and the rights movement to bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Hackers who stole security clearance data on millions of Defense Department and other U.S. government employees got away with about 5.6 million fingerprint records, some 4.5 million more than initially reported, the government said on Wednesday.
Protection Against Internal Threats Series:
“Know The Difference Between Trust and Confidence”
Not enough coverage is available on the Internet through insightful articles, blogs and discussions concerning the serious liabilities of internal or insider business threats. This series of articles will educate and heighten your individual level of consciousness by focusing on the least observed security Achilles heel for any business. Practical case scenarios with proven solutions are provided. Following the Protection Against Internal Threat Series by C U Clear positions companies and organizations to proactively protect assets and information from internal vulnerabilities and threats. Our goal is to help you minimize situations that can lead to incidents of workplace violence.
At C U CLEAR we keenly appreciate that recruitment of high caliber talent is primary. Notwithstanding, a company that adopts this practice places themselves at risk in many aspects. We know that the completion of the background checks and/or investigations, coupled with an “all clear” final report without issues signals the responsible human capital officials that the new employee may enter the companies premises and be considered worthy of special “trust and confidence”.
For a moment focus your attention on the difference between two words: trust and confidence. Trust implies just what it says. Someone trusts another person to safeguard an item of value. This trust can cover something that is esteemed or treasured such as corporate secrets, client specific data, proprietary business strategies or internal operations information.
Trust can also further extend to a point where management no longer needs to closely oversee or “micro manage” work tasks or actions of an employee. A company or an organization may have an expectation that employees will always exercise decisions that are reflective of the company’s values, but what are […]
Protection Against Internal Threats Series
Does Securing IT Systems Protect Your Most Valuable Commodity?
Not enough coverage is available on the Internet through insightful articles, blogs and discussions concerning the serious liabilities of internal or insider business threats. This series of articles will educate and heighten your individual level of consciousness by focusing on the least observed security Achilles heel for any business. Practical case scenarios with proven solutions are provided. Following the Protection Against Internal Threat Series by C U Clear positions companies and organizations to proactively protect assets and information from internal vulnerabilities. Our goal is to help you minimize situations that can harm company reputation, client / customer relationships and head off potential incidents of workplace violence.
Most companies and organizations invest large amounts of capital in the physical protection of information technology assets. This technology investment comes with consultants that maintain hardware and program software safeguards. Company executives mistakenly develop a false sense of security thinking this approach protects their most valuable commodity; employees, customers or clients. Protecting information is important. In today’s fast paced cyber world, the acquisition of the latest information technology systems capable of withstanding and recovering from external (and I would add internal) cyber threats is a ‘soup du jour’. Others spend capital on erecting complex, elaborate and technically enhanced physical security systems.
How do organizations fulfill an even more critical, often overlooked, task of protecting employees and customers? Smart CEO’s and savvy senior executives can enhance security in several areas:
Enforcing a strict policy on vetting new employees, as well as periodic background reviews of current employees.
Conducting comprehensive background checks, to include any documented criminal activities, arrest records, warrants, financial stability assessments (credit), driving records, education and employment verifications.
Developing or sustaining an effective Drug & Alcohol testing […]
Lawmakers are debating whether to strip the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) of its control over security clearances after hackers made off with nearly 20 million background check forms housed at the agency.
The Office of Personnel Management has decided to take a step back in an attempt to move forward after hackers breached files containing sensitive data on millions of current and former federal employees, but some stakeholders are not fully on board with the plan.
Persons applying for a job with the federal government or current feds requiring an upgraded security clearance will have to do things the old fashioned way for a few weeks.