Contractor Who Cleared Snowden For His NSA Position Fined $30 Million By The DOJ

from the can-only-assume-Snowden-received-a-cursory-examination dept

Fri, Aug 21st 2015 1:35pm — Tim Cushing

The government seems to have lost interest in finding anyone to hang for Snowden's all-access tour of the NSA's internal servers -- access that greatly aided in his absconding with a number of documents revealing the surprising extent of the agency's surveillance programs. It certainly still wants to hang Snowden -- literally, if some legislators get their way.

It has, however, decided to nail one handy scapegoat to the wall. This would be the contractor who allowed Snowden to get in the door in the first place. The Register's Shaun Nichols reports that the DOJ is fining US Investigative Services (USIS) $30 million for generally being completely terrible at the one thing it's supposed to be doing: vetting applicants for sensitive government jobs.

The DoJ announced on Wednesday that US Investigations Services (USIS) will give up a $30m (£19.14m) payment in exchange for settling charges that it violated the US False Claims Act by failing to properly screen applicants for government security clearances.

According to the DoJ, USIS failed to properly screen federal security clearance applicants and, in some cases, submitted incomplete background check reports to the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The USIS wasn't simply mediocre. It was awful. Shortly after Snowden revealed himself as the source of the leaks, USIS was revealed to have riddled the government with security holes over most of the past decade. One contractor was caught interviewing dead people during background checks. Another singlehandedly submitted 1,600 falsified reports.

Then in January of last year, the revelations got even worse. The DOJ accused USIS of faking background checks on 665,000 federal employees -- something the DOJ understatedly called "taking shortcuts."

The USIS won't actually be paying this fine, however. It will instead work its debt off ~~doing the DOJ's dishes~~ doing the same thing it couldn't be trusted to do in the first place when it was still collecting a paycheck. Why this hasn't resulted in a permanent pink slip for the contractor is beyond me, but it does show the government's endless willingness to forgive… well, certain contractors.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: contractor, doj, ed snowden, fine, nsa, security clearance
Companies: usis

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 1:41pm

For comparison:
Leaking classified documents in order to expose government 'misconduct' = Forced to flee country, and avoid any country with an extradition treaty with the USG for the rest of your life to avoid ending up in the clutches of a highly vindictive government.

vs

Falsify, on a massive scale, background checks and other sensitive data, allowing unsuitable individuals to be hired on to positions where they have access to valuable and sensitive data = Told that you won't be getting paid for your job for a while while you 'work off' your 'fine'. Do not however lose said job, as that would be uncalled for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 1:57pm
  
  Re: For comparison:
  It pays to fail big.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2015 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re: For comparison:
  Another sign of how broken the machine is at the top. Talk about bureaucratic inertia.
  
  Our crimes and errors don't matter, because we will outlast anyone with the power to actually do anything, and the rest are our buddies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger Strong (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: For comparison:
  Aw, c'mon. The alternative was to replace USIS with the TSA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2015 @ 4:04pm
    
    Re: Re: For comparison:
    You know USIS is only one letter removed from ISIS...
    
    Hiding in plain sight?
    
    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2015 @ 3:06pm
  
  Re: For comparison:
  just another step on the ladder to outright revolt
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorrykb (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:02pm

Silver lining?
The DOJ accused USIS of faking background checks on 665,000 federal employees -- something the DOJ understatedly called "taking shortcuts."

Just wondering... Would that mean that those particular federal employees' information was safe from the recent OPM hack? (or were they part of a different system altogether?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Silver lining?
  USIS faked conducting the background checks. OPM lost, among other things, the forms submitted that told the government background information on the applicant: whom to interview as references, where the applicant had lived, what embarassing things the application had done, etc. Although the OPM breach might have been worse if USIS had been thorough, much of what OPM lost was not work product from USIS, so even if USIS had reliably sent in blank results for everyone, the OPM breach would still be very damaging.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sorrykb (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 8:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Silver lining?
    Sure... crush my hopes... which were admittedly completely unjustified.
    In other news, a rather-delayed letter from my former healthcare provider informs me that an unknown hacker accessed the parts of their system that contain "personal information, like name, address, date of birth, social security number, medical record number, Medicare or health plan ID number, and some medical information (e.g. medical condition, medications, procedures, and test results)." So, nothing important.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JoeCool (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:21pm

Surprised?
ALL penalties lately are just coupons for a low percentage off the next purchase from the company being "fined". And usually, the terms make it difficult to collect even when you do wish to take advantage of the coupon, with all uncollected coupons becoming invalid after a certain date. So in the end, the "fine" is often far short of the original figure, and merely served to make a temporary boost in sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ambrellite, 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:22pm

Same story, different day
So the USIS paid about $50 per record they falsified, and in exchange for that pittance the DOJ won't prosecute them, presumably because government prosecutors doubt they'd be able to secure a conviction. Or because prosecuting them could cause great harm to the U.S. Financial system. Or national security. Or something.

And they'll continue doing background checks for the government. Because why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Same story, different day
  Or because they ARE an investigative firm and investigated the prosecutors before settling.
  
  "That's a nice job/reputation you've got. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Aug 2015 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re: Same story, different day
  Why not? Because if they didn't have a contractor doing background checks, they'd have to do it themselves. And that's both boring and leaves them without a convenient scapegoat.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glenn, 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:36pm

Mediocre? ...perhaps,
but they did at least one thing right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 21 Aug 2015 @ 2:47pm

The Bright Side
According to the DoJ, USIS failed to properly screen federal security clearance applicants and, in some cases, submitted incomplete background check reports to the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Look on the bright side. Thanks to USIS, at least some of those security clearance forms that the Chinese stole from OPM's servers were less complete than they otherwise might have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 3:11pm

Ummm
I really have to ask some stupid questions..

1. So, a Agency that is DESIGNED to know everything about EVERYONE...cant do its OWN background checks??

2. Background checks that are so Stringent, that they cant FIND anyone, using their OWN criteria?? So they hire someone else to do it..

3. AS in #1, they are SUPPOSED to know about People and agencies.,..and they DIDNT see any of this happening BEFORE SNOWDEN?? Where is the FBI in this..

4. ALL this info on the Citizens in the USA, all this spying...and VERY little on the CORPS running this country??

5. And then they CUT the IRS by 30%?? I think the IRS has a few jobs for them..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 3:51pm

Another question to be raised:
If Snowden was given an adequate background check would he have been successfully screened out?

I don't believe Snowden was other than who he said he was, nor did he have a shady past before his NSA tenure.

Otherwise that stuff would have been broadcast all over the mainstream news.

If anything, Snowden was too ethical to be an NSA tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arthur Moore (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 5:08pm
  
  Did Snowden receive a background check?
  It would be ironic, for all the company's misconduct, if Snowden's background check was 100% genuine.
  
  I mean, they knew he believed in the EFF. He had stickers on his work laptop for crying out loud.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 24 Aug 2015 @ 4:50am
  
  Re: Another question to be raised:
  Of course Snowden would have been screened out as a security risk if he had been given a real background check. Just like anyone with a conscience would.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Oblate (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:14am
  
  Re: Another question to be raised:
  Given USIS's track record, Snowden could probably pass their background check now.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 8:43pm

Why this hasn't resulted in a permanent pink slip...

They obviously have a highly-placed friend in government.

I also doubt they'll actually "pay" that $30 million. It's much more likely the bills will simply be padded to make up the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 24 Aug 2015 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  I think they might have a highly placed fiend in government who uses them to slip agents into certain sensitive government positions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws (profile), 21 Aug 2015 @ 10:42pm

Who would have thought that vetting applicants for the US government would require mind reading skills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2015 @ 5:37am

Whats the chance that the guy investigating this ALSO received a fake background check and has some bad shit to hide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2015 @ 8:29am

This sounds like a classic case of government giving up a function to the private sector, and later being unable to take it back because they no longer have the capability to perform it. For most western governments, whether it's cleaning services or highly sensitive security checks, the only real alternative is to take the contract away from one hopelessly incompetent contractor and give it to another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2015 @ 1:29pm

Please take the weegie board away from the DOJ.
There are better ways to select cases for prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: Please take the weegie board away from the DOJ.
  Yeah. If some important official wants your land or your wife or your assets, they prosecute and put you away long enough to die in prison.
  
  If not, meh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stosh, 22 Aug 2015 @ 10:05pm

Wonder if they did the background check on Hillary Clinton also...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2015 @ 1:55am

Wow this is like watching a circus act!
Too bad the clowns are paid-for using public money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2015 @ 2:34am

Vetting for pro-government stooges using an ILLEGAL system

Oh yeah, we are so heading in a good direction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont, 24 Aug 2015 @ 2:17pm

When it comes to politics or business, never attribute to incompetence, that which can be explained by necessity.
Simple reality.

Why use a known dishonest and purposely incompetent agency to vet federal employees for sensitive positions in the surveillance agencies??

Had the CIAF BINSA used an actually honest and competent personnel agency to run their background checks before hiring people for positions in the CIAF BINSA, there would today, be exactly 6 employees in the federal Snoop and Scoop Agency roster.

And they would all be cleaning staff.

---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 6:04am

Will he pay? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont, 26 Aug 2015 @ 5:24pm

Absolute power corrupts absolutely
Actually one would expect it to be the government's duty to insure that any private business contracted to do sensitive work for the government was beyond reproach and verifiably honest and above board, and that such employees were continually rechecked by officials for security flaws and failings.

It is blatantly obvious that the USG did not do much of anything to ascertain the level of competence or honesty when hiring USIS, and it should thus be the government that is under the microscope for the failure of this business to do its job.

A company's only purpose/goal/mandate is to make as much money as it can, by any means it can get away with, for as long as it can get away with it. That is pretty much the definition of American Business.

It should be obvious to most people that National Security - the security of the nation - is not much of a real concern to the USG, according to the actions and attitudes that have been exposed over the last 2-3 years, and that the only real National Security concern of the USG is in its use as a get-out-of-jail-free card for everything from unfettered public asset forfeiture, to extraordinary rendition of citizens, to corporate mass surveillance partnerships, to reinterpreting the law and the constitution to allow all of the above.

National Security is a joke and your money and rights are the punch line.

---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]