Welcome to the February 2006 edition of the Credential Check Examiner! This month we explore the security measures taken for this month's super sporting events, the largest civil penalty in FTC history, and other helpful security news for you and your family.

As always, please feel free to reply with your comments and suggestions!

Super Bowl XL in Detroit on February 5, 2006 witnessed an unprecedented security effort. Consistently one of the most watched events in the world, the Super Bowl would seemingly be an inviting target for terrorists.

This year's Super Bowl occurred closer to an international border than any previous edition of the game. More than 50 federal, state, and local government agencies along with numerous private security firms including Credential Check Corporation were involved. Upwards of 10,000 people contributed to the security preparations for the game and related events. A 30-mile radius no-fly zone around Ford Field on game day and a security zone enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard along the Detroit River during the entire week surrounded the Super Bowl festivities. Even NORAD conducted a series of five-hour practices to prepare for their planned air defense for the Super Bowl.

"The cooperation among the government agencies and private companies charged with ensuring a safe and enjoyable Super Bowl experience was phenomenal," said George M. Patak, Risk Management Consultant for Credential Check. "The people of metro Detroit really put on a spectacular show."

Patak and other Credential Check personnel attended several Super Bowl specific briefings organized by the multi jurisdictional North American International Auto Show-Super Bowl Homeland Security Task Force. At these briefings, private security individuals worked in concert with government officials to coordinate security efforts at both the private and public levels.

In 2002, Super Bowl XXXVI in New Orleans was designated a National Security Event by the United States government, and although later versions of the game have not been given the same label, the security has been just as tight.

The Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy, also drew a large security force. The United States is one of several countries helping Italy achieve the security needs of the Olympic Games. The United States also assisted Greece with the 2004 summer Games in Athens, providing training and other support for their security forces.

Nearly $1.4 billion were spent on security for the Athens Games. Italy has been on alert since recent terror attacks in Madrid and London, with the bombings in England spurring Italy to immediately add $12 million to their security budget for the Olympics. Security has been a special concern to the Olympic Games since terrorists invaded the Olympic Village in Munich, Germany in 1972, and then especially since September 11, 2001. The U.S. Department of State expresses its concern about any large-scale event being a target for terrorists and urges heightened vigilance for any U.S. citizens that will be attending the Olympics.

top

Both ChoicePoint, Inc. and the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement to the government's allegations that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the FTC Act by failing to implement reasonable measures for screening prospective customers and making misleading statements about its privacy policies. Last year, ChoicePoint disclosed that the personal financial information of more than 163,000 consumers were compromised, resulting in at least 800 reported cases of identity theft.

"The settlement sends a clear message to all consumer reporting agencies to keep the personal information of their clients secure," said Timothy D. Whiting, Director of Operations for Credential Check Corporation. "I'm sure many companies throughout the nation right now are reconsidering their operational procedures when it comes to personal information."

The $15 million settlement stipulates that ChoicePoint is not required to admit fault or liability for the 2005 data breech. Ten million dollars, the largest civil penalty in the existence of the FTC, will be paid in civil penalties while the remaining five million dollars will establish an FTC-administered fund to assist victims of the breech.

Aside from the sheer cash ChoicePoint will doll out in the aftermath of the data compromise, the order further requires the consumer data broker to implement heightened credentialing protocols for distributing consumer reports and establish a comprehensive information security program including program assessment, compliance, and auditing procedures.

ChoicePoint maintains that the program's additions and modifications will establish new industry standards which all data brokers should consider. Only time will tell if the industry embraces the lessons learned in this data breech debacle and if consumers can feel a measure of security regarding the protection of their personal information.

top

A national task force appointed by the Justice Department has concluded that national standards for background check providers are necessary. A recent slew of criminals slipping through background checks with clean records, as well as an increased incidence of negligent hiring lawsuits, have only helped to fuel the Department's intentions for developing a nationwide standard for background checks.

"Companies such as Wal-Mart, US Airways, and even Pinkerton--a provider of background checks--have been sued for negligent hiring for either not performing background checks or for not being diligent in the screening process," said Todd N. Krost, Business Development Manager for Credential Check Corporation. "A thorough credential check can save employers significant time and expense from lawsuits and on-the-job mishaps."

FedEx Corporation was recently sued after one of its employees who turned out to be a sex offender with a criminal record fondled an 8 year-old boy while on the job in Connecticut. The FedEx employee's criminal record was in the state of Maine.

The FBI maintains a nationwide criminal database, but access to it is limited to law enforcement and related organizations. State databases, when they are not sealed in the first place, are slow and time consuming. A thorough background check typically involves screeners running from courthouse to courthouse.

While it may be some time before the task force's recommendations become industry standards, it is increasingly important to trust your background-screening vendor. And while it is still not required by law to perform background checks as an employer, it remains very expensive to make poor hiring decisions in the absence of a thorough background check.

top

Despite the economically harmful consequences, the Democrat-led Maryland state legislature approved the Fair Share Health Care Fund Act. This new law, also known as "pay or play", requires private companies with more than 10,000 employees in Maryland to spend at least 8% of their payroll on employee health benefits or make a contribution to the state's insurance program for the poor.

The only employer in Maryland with more than 10,000 is Wal-Mart.

Furthermore, strict monetary penalties will be imposed for organizations who fail to make payments required by the law or fail to submit timely reports of the same to the Maryland Secretary of Labor.

Critics of this bill, including The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), denounce this unparalleled bill asserting it is a government intrusion into the benefit structures of private companies that ignores better, alternative approaches. Proponents such as Americans for Health Care assert the bill will employ guidelines to keep corporate giants in line by mandating that more health care benefits are provided to employees.

Although Maryland is the only state thus far to enact such legislation, there are at least 30 other states considering enacting similar "pay or play" legislation, which may affect employers smaller than those impacted by the Maryland law. Many argue the enactment of such ordinances will undoubtedly have negative business repercussions, up to and including organizations relocating or altogether closing site locations to avoid such legislation.

top

Quote of the Month: "Crime does not pay ... as well as politics."

- Alfred E. Newman

Have you ever clicked "Send" on an email and moments later cursed at yourself because you wanted to take it back? Perhaps you forgot to include an important attachment, made a content error, or perhaps you clicked on "reply all" unintentionally...

There is a method for retrieving some emails that you have sent. If you open up an email that you have sent (from your "Sent Items" folder), you can "Recall this message" in the Actions Menu. You must be quick, because (obviously) if the recipient sees and/or reads the message before you recall it, you are stuck with your original email.

There are more stipulations. First of all, retrieval is possible when talking about Microsoft Outlook users only, and Outlook users who are sending emails to Microsoft Exchange Server accounts. And even so, you cannot retrieve mail sent to recipients who set up their inbox to automatically move any inbound messages from you into a separate folder. Furthermore, the recall feature does not work on Web-based email accounts, such as Hotmail or Yahoo Mail.

top

top