Friday, January 01, 2010

What a bunch of Bull

I was shocked to learn that Obama's pick to head the TSA had been caught violating the use of databases for a private matter. Not only was he caught , he apparently lied to congress when questioned about it.

Security databases are only to be used on an as need to know basis in conjunction with your work. The abuse of these data bases to snoop in a private matter should have at minimum ended his upward climb up the ladder. This matter is handled in basic orientation and is known to everyone on the job.

There are very strict rules and procedures about what information can be viewed. These procedures are there to protect the public.

8 comments:

FJ said...

Had I been him, I might have done the same thing. Imagine an ex-con becoming YOUR children's step-parent.

beakerkin said...

FJ

I understand the situation, but there is never ever an excuse for this. The rules state these searches are only to be done in conjunction with our jobs.

Just to explain how serious this is taken. When I was in VT I did a search that was from the same zip code of my parents and was not on my register. I had to explain how the search was related to a file and that over 100,000 people live in that zip code.

Doing those searches is a serious job that requires looking only when
you have a need to know.

What disgusts me is law makers have
no idea how serious this error is and are defending this behavior. People have been fired for far less
than what this man did.

I understand the emotions, but one
must never abuse their authority.
Had this person been wanted it would have led to the mother of all
lawsuits.

Always On Watch said...

Not only was he caught , he apparently lied to congress when questioned about it.

On the front of today's WaPo: "Lawmakers knew of TSA pick's error."

Corrupt government, huh?

beakerkin said...

AOW

I agree with you. I am starting to wonder what considerations allowed him to advance his career after something that has ended scores of careers.

FJ said...

The rules state these searches are only to be done in conjunction with our jobs.

Parents don't have jobs? Their duties to their children are far more important than any "job" they may perform in the service of the US government. And if they can't perform those responsibilities, we don't NEED a US government.

beakerkin said...

FJ

There is a concept of privacy in these matters. I may not work on cases of anyone I know. I may use these checks only in conjunction with my official duties.

This person should have hired an investigator and not violated the rules of his work place. I understand that romance and children are tough subjects. However, this is a violation of a public trust.

The criteria officers use to check these data bases have strict guidelines. The key is on an as need to know within your official
capacity. Checking an estranged wife's boyfriend is not within official duties. Even should it fall there the official must recuse
himself.

FJ said...

You are asking people to refrain from being human. And I'm afraid that in doing so, you may disqualify and turn criminal far too many honest souls, leaving naught but scumbags to fill the vacant posts that mandate impersonality.

Tragedy101 said...

FJ,
It's breaking the rules.

The people who break the rules to protect family are the same people who break the rules because they know what's best for you.

When you sign on to work for the government, they tell you the rules. If you break them you suffer the consequences, "no ifs, ands, or buts."

If it's ok to snoop in private information because you're concerned about the safety of a loved one; is it ok to shoot your fellow citizen because you're concerned about the safety of a loved one? Or arrest and hold without charging, indefinitely, for the safety of a love one?

Where should the government beauraucracy draw the line?

For government more than private citizens breaking the rules need swift, decisive, and harsh consequences to prevent "scumbags filling vacant posts".