ABOUT:
CREDENTIAL CHECK CORPORATION™
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
TOLL-FREE:
(888) 689-2000
TOLL-FREE FAX:
(877) 689-1500
WEB:
www.credentialcheck.com
E-MAIL:
info@credentialcheck.com
Contact Us
|
| Welcome | Welcome to the March 2007 edition of the Credential Check Examiner! This month we look at the issue of psychological evaluations in the workplace, spoliation of digital evidence, and tips for simplifying people management.
As always, please feel free to reply with your comments and suggestions!
|
| |
| Law Enforcement Agencies Turn to Popular Internet Site to Apprehend Criminals
|  Chances are that if you spend any significant amount of time on the internet, you have come across YouTube.com. This video-sharing web site, owned by Google Inc., is the number one site for online videos in the U.S. entertainment market, reportedly serving 2.5 billion free videos to nearly 20 million unique visitors during June of 2006 (ZDNet news, 2006). YouTube's ability to broadcast to millions of people around the world has recently caught the attention of law enforcement officials who recognize that the site has the potential to be utilized as an additional tool in the investigative process.
Police departments throughout the United States and Canada have recently begun posting surveillance videos of suspects on YouTube, in the hopes that the internet-using public will be able to either identify the suspects, or will be able to provide key information pertaining to the case. Numerous agencies cite the video-sharing website as a key tool in solving cases ranging from theft to murder, but experts caution that it is too soon to determine if this novel idea will have any staying power among continually evolving technologies. Law enforcement agencies, which choose to post on YouTube, must also be prepared to manage the possibility of an increase in false or useless tips and misidentifications. Broadcasting the faces of suspected criminals across the World Wide Web, undoubtedly, also raises questions of privacy and legality.
Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. states that, “legally, police can post surveillance video online as long as it doesn’t somehow falsely accuse or defame someone,” further, Robert Ellis Smith, a privacy expert, suggests that agencies obtain the consent of bystanders or victims who appear in the posted videos in an effort to protect their privacy and that videos be dated and removed as soon as relevant court proceedings have ended.
The ability to broadcast surveillance videos to millions of users creates a level of exposure unmatched by the local press, but this avenue of mass exposure carries with it added concerns and legal implications which law enforcement agencies must be equipped to handle. Advances in video-sharing technology have the ability to provide law enforcement agencies with an additional tool in their investigative arsenal, though as Brian Johnson, a patrolman in Massachusetts points out, “technology will never replace the feet-on-the-street.”
Information taken in part from FoxNews.com article published March 4, 2007.
top
|
| Periodic Psychological Evaluation as a Condition of Employment?
| Following the strange and tragic incident involving NASA Astronaut Lisa Nowak, the practices and standards of the organization have come under fire. Many are questioning how Ms. Nowak’s apparent instability could have gone unnoticed given the strict scrutiny we all believe individuals in such positions to be under. As a result, NASA has recently announced that it would consider implementing a plan for the periodic psychological evaluation of members of its astronaut program.
While such a program for any public service organization, intuitively, sounds like a good idea, it is not without its potential risks. Psychological evaluation certainly has the potential to provide valuable insight into the stability and psychological health of employees. In addition, the organization may more readily identify employees who may benefit from mental heath treatment and employee assistance. Such screening would certainly put the organization in a more proactive rather than reactive position.
However, organizations considering the implementation of periodic psychological evaluation should carefully weigh the benefits against the potential problems. The utility and legality of psychological screening in employment settings, today, is hotly debated. First and foremost, employers must consider whether their proposed program could potentially violate employee rights under the Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA), which allows employers to require psychological evaluation (typically referred to as a fitness-for-duty evaluation) only if such an exam is job-related and can be shown to meet a business need. In addition, periodic psychological evaluation may raise concerns regarding the potential for the invasion of employee privacy. “Legal review should proceed the implementation of a personality test that may provide information as to a candidates psychological background,” states Timothy Whiting, Director of Business Development with Credential Check Corporation.
top
|
| | Spoliation of Digital Evidence |  While it is certainly permissible for employers to gather evidence internally from computers in use by current or former employees, it is almost never advisable due to the risk of spoliation of evidence. Legally, spoliation permits the inference that the omitted or destroyed materials had some relevance or importance of which the discovering party had an awareness and therefore motivation to keep out of evidence. Negligent or destructive collection of digital evidence draws the same inference, and is compounded by the implementation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (December 1, 2006) which requires companies to proactively implement archival protocols for all digital media. The stakes are significant. When it comes to digital evidence collection, the collection of evidence almost always has the potential to alter the system in question. Utilizing the skills of a computer forensic expert increases your chances for building a successful body of evidence since their expertise allows them to weigh, and later account for, those alterations. Their documentation and expert evidence-handling can reduce the chances that a defense representative will be able to successfully challenge digital evidence. A supported claim of evidence spoliation can quickly erode the credibility of the evidence and, in many cases, adversely affect the outcome of a case. No one wants to find themselves in court over employment issues. The unfortunate reality is that it happens every day. As an employer, it pays to be thorough from the beginning of an investigation, and preventing the spoliation of evidence from the outset is vital to successful legal defensibility. top
|
| Quote of the Month: "It is no profit to have learned well, if you neglect to do well. "
-Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)
|
| | Getting to Know: Vendor Fraud | Vendor fraud can appear in many different forms; overcharging for time or services, providing kickbacks to purchasing personnel in exchange for a fixed markup over cost, or excessive expenses or entertainment. Those are but a few examples, and vendor fraud may or may not involve inside help within the victim organization. One way to detect vendor fraud is by performing vendor audits, which often include measures such as a tour of vendor locations, a review of tax filings, expense reports, and general ledger accounts, an examination of freight invoices (if applicable), and a review of any related parties, or potential dummy companies that a vendor might use to justify marking up a transaction. The ability to execute vendor audits typically stems from a right-to-audit clause contained in purchase orders and service agreements. Vendor audits are best carried out with a team approach, including members of the purchasing and user departments, and led by an experienced auditor, preferably a Certified Fraud Examiner. Fraud has always been much easier to prevent than to detect. While audits can be helpful in detecting fraud, the most common way that fraud is detected is through tips from employees, customers, and vendors. Conduct regular audits of vendors, but be sure to have a reporting mechanism in place to receive tips from your employees. You just may be surprised at what you find, and wish that you had learned it earlier.
top
|
| | Todd’s Tips: Simplifying People Management | Managing people can be one of the most challenging aspects of one’s professional career. There are many books, and just as many theories, on this topic. Often these well meaning authors tend to overwhelm the general public by making the people management subject too complicated. Recently I had the opportunity to talk with Detroit Tigers manager, and 2006 American League Champion, Jim Leyland about his people management style. Leyland said “I manage everyone the same…as different individuals. It is my job to get to know each of them (players) as individuals and manage them according to who they are”. This is an insightful, yet very simple approach that has produced 3 Manager of the Year awards for Leyland. Obviously he is doing something “right” when it comes to managing people. It has been my experience that when it comes to people management styles, clear, consistent and simple outperforms complicated. Here’s hoping all of your hires are “A” players! Todd Palmer, President, Diversified Industrial Staffing
top
|
| | President Inks Pretexting Law | The ripple effect of the Hewlett Packard spying scandal continues to resonate. In January President Bush signed the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006. The measure could result in up to 10 years in prison to anyone who pretends to be someone else, or through fraudulent tactics, to persuade telecom companies to hand over confidential data. This legislation came upon renewed calls for criminalizing the practice of pretexting subsequent to the HP saga being played out in the news media. A quick glance in many business publications or simply a Google search of Hewlett Packard results in what must surely be a troubling scenario for HP leadership and major shareholders, the connection of the phrases scandal, spying, pretexting, courtroom drama, indictments, and plea bargains with Hewlett Packard. It does not appear that this very undesirable attention will be fading anytime in the near future. In fact, recently a former HP Executive has accused the company of spying on rival companies. Karl Kamb Jr. in a countersuit filed, Kamb alleges the HP made payments to a former Dell Executive in return for information relating to Dells possible entry in to the printer business, one of HP’s most profitable product lines. Though not directly related to the boardroom saga, Kamb’s allegations include the use of pretexting well before the latest case came to light. The first conviction in the boardroom spy scandal came in January when Bryan Wagner, a data broker employed by Action Research, plead guilty to federal identity theft and conspiracy charges. Wagner admitted to using fraud and deceit to obtain personal telephone records of HP board members and journalists. Additionally he admitted to fraudulent use of social security numbers and other confidential information. Five people have been charged with felonies including Patricia Dunn, former Chairwoman. With Wagner’s case being the first to reach conclusion, the others will surely receive plenty of attention in the media, particularly Dunn’s case. HP’s bruised image will not be rehabilitated for some time. The mountain of coverage focusing on alleged wrongdoing and its staggering impact and sure dent in profits, could have been avoided all together if proper investigative techniques had been utilized. Whether conducted by internal resources, or a contractor provider, had HP began with the following steadfast commitment, they would not be in the headlines today: to conduct all investigations ethically and lawfully. top
|
| | Contact Information | If you are interested in obtaining additional information about these articles or the services offered by Credential Check Corporation, please contact one of the following individuals:
Thank you! We'll see you next month!
top
|
|
