Who should do security clearance checks? Did you say 'chat-bot'? This military slinger hopes so A study linked to a military IT contractor has backed the use of chat-bots for screening US government security clearance applicants. The fresh research, conducted by Uncle Sam's National Center for Credibility Assessment and military contractor Mantech International, found that subjects were more forthcoming when speaking to …
It's bad enough that Office of Personnel Management (OPM) won't leave enough time for any contactor to delve deeply into clients backgrounds (According to them you should be doing 3 background checks a day, including travel time don't you know). Now there is a possible IT solution that doesn't take breaks, lunch or vacations but can't tell the difference between a lie and a misstatement because it's not human.
They would be deliberately trying to get bad candidates if OPM uses this severely flawed, LAZY methodology.
Anyone you really have to worry ( Ed Snowden) about is NOT going to be "forthcoming" about anything.
But the current system is perfect.
Candidate 1 - no knowledge of the system, field, language or any noticable skills - but has clearance. Has sat in the same job for 20years having clearance automatically renewed.
Candidate 2 - has skills but no clearance. Hire them and have them sit in the breakroom for 9 months while waiting for clearance.
Guess who gets hired. Now guess how good government IT systems are.
This post has been deleted by its author
I was reading this as automating the SF-86, which could absolutely be a good thing. I'm wondering, tho, if the chat-bot would give time for research? (Like I seriously remember the address for Corporate HQ for a position 4 companies back, when I never stepped foot in Corporate).
. . . or mayhap, zombies:
On a serious note, it is hard to draw conclusions from this one isolated test scenario. Findings like this make interesting headlines and newsbytes, but rarely go beyond that. The report suggests some interesting lines of research. If only we had the attention span and capability to pursue it systematically.
It would be interesting to have data on several points:
How having gone through the process with pencil and paper affected the second pass through; and what would have happened if the sequence had been reversed.
There is clearly a technological dimension--an observation is that people are often post things that they would never say or do in person.
But variability in the user's facility with the mode of entry may also play a role. In the US at least, there are school districts where cursive writing is no longer taught. We have an 17 year old grandson, who cannot read our letters. (He gets A's in his courses). On the other hand I had a colleague whose technophobia was so intense that she literally could not force herself to press a key on the keyboard. Facility with the mode will directly affect the subjects "productivity."
An overarching problem (IMHO a direct cause of the IT failures that were the subject of another post) is that there are serious gaps in our understanding of how the human system interface works, and rarely, in my experience take time to think it through.
This is getting worse rather than better.
Talking to a "non-person" is a process. The mentioned process indicated that people were more likely to "open up" when a non-person was the other party. Sure it sounds stupid, but it actually does work. This non-person is a (very) disinterested entity much like a psychiatrist is in normal like. Kinda like "Dear Abby" for security, but a two-way conversation.
The other fact is that if the responses are "stress tested" one can tell the suckers subjects state of mind and the truthfulness of the answers.
Caveat: HR Droids are almost as devoid of smarts as well. Use with caution.
Note to self: Relax!
""Earlier you said you were banging your mother?""
"Tell me about your sister!"
I like the program that functioned as a Rogerian Psychotherapist. Rogerian eyy, nudge nudge, wink wink.
I think a program such as this would Doolittle <sic> to help.
How does a machine detect body language, subtle nuances in speech etc. This could possibly filter out some but certainly not the clever ones.
-Thank you for you applying. What is your name?
/ You may address me as Don Jefe.
- Hello You may address me as Don Jefe. Let's get started with your security screening.
- Do you have tangible assets of $10,000 or more held by financial institutions outside the United States?
/ Yes
- Your security assessment is complete and your clearance been approved. Please contact registration@federalbackgroundchecks.ng with your bank account details, SSN, a copy of your drivers license and a copy of your passport and your preferred mailing address. Upon receipt of those things your Security Clearance Card will be mailed to you.
16 years ago, I had a back pain. After a referral to my local orthopaedic hospital, I went for an assessment. I was asked if I would be happy to take part in a new initiative they were trialling. Which was to ask the patient to complete a computer based survey. Apparently they had known for some time that patients are way more honest filling in a computer questionnaire than they would ever be in conversation with a doctor.
<snip>
" Apparently they had known for some time that patients are way more honest filling in a computer questionnaire than they would ever be in conversation with a doctor."
I once wrote a program in POP 11 that identified what poison / poisonous plant etc. someone had ingested and it was a similar setup. There was less scope for the ambiguities of common parlance and argot this achieveing a more accurate result (1.).
1. 'Twas deadly nightshade wot did it guv.
It's all well and good using a machine, but isn't it also easier to lie to a machine, so yes I might not mind telling a machine about my vices, but then I could probably lie more convincingly to it than to a human.
If I was vetting someone for high level security clearance I'd want to look them in they eye and ask "is golf really an appropriate hobby in Luton". (Apologies to Monty Python)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
