Many people probably think that identity theft occurs most often as a result of hackers gaining unauthorized access to our computers. However, this is not the case.
I attended a Web 2.0 round table discussion yesterday (called "The New New Internet"). I was quite surprised to hear Mike Bradshaw, a self-described Google Department Head, tell us that the # 1 security concern was not hacking but having your laptop stolen. When you think about it, it really does make sense.
When you think about how many laptops get taken on business trips, into cafes and restaurants and anywhere else that users can get a WIFI signal, it's no wonder that so many are stolen. Not to mention the fact that the average laptop costs in excess of $1000.00 and is easy to pick up and carry away.
Mr. Bradshaw's statement reminded me that I had read some time ago about latop thefts reported by Government employees and taken from Government offices and vehicles. The news often covers stories about laptops being misplaced and stolen and having thousands of personnel files being compromised as a result.
Signing-in on my laptop is done through Biometrics. My password is my finger print which is captured when I swipe my finger across the log-in portal. It's probably only a matter of time before they can have some kind of built-in biometric sensor that would know the difference between a thief and the real owner. If I had my way, I think I would like to have it give off a nice little electrical shock when someone tried to steal it.
However, the icing on the cake would be then if the machine could exclaim in a very loud voice to the thief: "I tasered you, bro".
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Do you know how identity theft happens most of the time?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why your company may need a mystery shopper
Do you really know how your employees are treating your customers? You might be surprised to find out what is really happening.
I went to one of the big office supply stores yesterday to look at purchasing a printer for the office. I had been impressed with a recent episode of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice that featured a well known brand that was attempting to re-invent itself with a line of printers whose ink cost 50% less than that of their competitors.
When I entered the store there was a clerk type of person and another guy who appeared to be a manager. They were both standing with their backs to the customer service counter and had their arms folded across their chest. Without moving, or unfolding his arms, the clerk asked if I needed any help. I said I was looking for a printer that I believed was etiher made by Kodak or Xerox and it used a cheaper ink. They thought for a while and the manager shook his head and said they didn't sell anything by either maker. Arms were never unfolded.
I figured that they would guide me to the printers and show me an alternative in order to try and make a sale, afterall, I was in the market for a printer. Neither one attempted to move. All I could think about as I walked out was how unprofessional they appeared and their total lack of interest in their job.
If I was the owner of the store, or the general manager and my yearly bonus depended on sales, I would really like to know that my sales people were doing everything possible to sell merchandise. What better way to test them than to send in an undercover investigator to document their actions?
They could do well to take a page from Starbucks' book. From the very start, Starbucks made no bones about letting customers know that they were there to SERVE them. The result? Loyal customers willing to stand in long lines at 6am to get their caffinated "fix". Starbucks made coffee fun.
I have been drinking coffee for many years and I never thought of it as fun. Then comes along Starbucks with a strange language and deserts in cups masquerading as coffee. Customers bought in to the experience to such an extent that they even bring their little children in and buy them coffee. "No Tiffany, you can not have a Venti, you are only eight years old. Next year."
How interested in client satisfaction are they? So much so that they closed down their stores from 5:30pm to 8:30pm yesterday evening in order to train their staff enmasse how to make their clients even happier. I did not even know that the country could carry on for three hours sans Starbucks.
It should have been commemorated by inventing a new drink especially for the occassion - the "Happycino".
Monday, February 25, 2008
Do not dismiss the dangers of being stalked
Q: My friend told me that she is being stalked. I am very worried for her safety. Are stalkers dangerous or just a nuisance?
A: You are right to be concerned for your friend’s safety. Stalkers are people with serious mental disorders. The ones we tend to hear about most often are the cases involving celebrities. We all know what happened when John Lennon’s stalker followed him home and the ex-Beatle did not have any security around him. I have dealt with many cases and most people would be horrified to discover the thoughts that go through a stalker’s mind.
For instance, we were protecting a television personality some time ago who was being stalked by a person from out of State. The stalker “knew” our client from having seen her on television. However, in his mind, they were involved in a “relationship”. He would write to her work telling her that other television presenters were talking “in code” about our client and he on the air.
Our client became so frightened that she was afraid to go outside of her door. The stalker became more and more irrational and added to her state of fear when he declared that he knew she was sending him special messages by the color of clothes she wore when she appeared on television.
In that particular case, the stalker’s identity was known and the fact that he had previous convictions in his own State for a similar offence. It took several months, but eventually he was picked up by the Police on a warrant. The only way that the victim could go about her life was to have bodyguards protecting her 24 hours a day. Without that protection, she would have been looking over her shoulder everywhere she went and not only would it have made her job as a reporter extremely difficult, it would have hindered her ability to enjoy life.
I often advise clients to have the stalker’s handwriting examined and evaluated by a hand writing expert. On another case, the stalker had sent one of my clients several letters that had been computer generated but he had handwritten her address on the envelopes. I took the envelopes to a highly regarded hand writing expert for subsequent examination.
The expert’s evaluation was quite alarming. The stalker knew where our client lived, since he probably followed her on many occasions as he also knew her work address. Apparently he knew she was married and that is where it became very disturbing. The expert was able to tell that the stalker became angry when he wrote about our client’s husband in the letter.
When he mentioned her husband and even when he wrote her surname (which was her husband’s name and became her married name) on the envelope, he applied more pressure to the pen as the ink was darker. That was a tell tale sign of his anger. When I asked the expert if his handwriting gave away any clues to the stalker’s ability to harm our client or her husband, I was told that he was capable of inflicting physical harm, especially against the husband. The hand writing expert believed that if he did become physical that his preferred method of attack would be up close, most likely with a knife.
The Police will usually get involved and assist as much as possible to find a stalker and arrest them, albeit temporarily. Unfortunately, stalking is only a misdemeanor offence so even if a victim is successful in having a stalker arrested, they will most likely be out on bail in a short time. The best result will be if the authorities can have the person medically examined to determine if they are a real threat.
Those victims who can have their own security will obviously be in the safest position since the Police do not have the manpower to sit outside of a victim’s home at night and accompany them through out the routine of their daily life. For those who can not have their own private security, they should become extra observant as they go about their business and vary their routine.
They should pay attention to their rear-view mirror for anyone following behind their vehicle, make notes of vehicle tag numbers and description of suspicious persons. Dead bolts and an alarm system should be installed in the home. You should consider the use of discreet surveillance cameras.
Above all else, do not take chances. You will not know this person and therefore, you do not know what they are capable of doing. If at all possible, avoid traveling alone and always let people know your times of departure and estimated time of arrival. Listen to your inner feelings. If you feel something is not right, there is a good chance that it is not.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
How to protect your company and employees from workplace violence
Q: We have an employee who has made a series of threats to co-workers. He boasts about having a gun. We are considering terminating his employment. What should we do?
A: Employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace for their employees. While you seem to have reasonable grounds to suspend or terminate this person, you must at the same time ensure that nobody is harmed if he becomes violent. Workplace violence is a serious concern for companies of all sizes. Workplace violence is defined as: any conduct in the workplace which causes an individual to fear for their personal safety, the safety of their co-workers, family, friends and/or property.
According to the Dept. of Justice, 516 cases of homicide occurred in the workplace in 2006. However, the number of assaults, not resulting in death, amounted to 1,700,000 during the same period. This extremely high number, 1.7 million, highlights the prevalence of employees being victims of workplace violence. Many employers realize the importance of having a security presence in place before terminating someone who may have even the slightest chance of reacting violently.
It is extremely important to choose a security company whose personal protection specialists have proven experience in this area. A professional security firm will provide experienced agents who will be able to blend into the surroundings without alerting anyone to their real purpose. If they are to be armed, they will be carrying concealed weapons that will not be noticed by anyone at the place of employment.
In many instances, the person being terminated may focus on one person such as a HR manager and hold them responsible. In these days of easy access to personal information, it may be necessary to have a personal protection specialist placed at the manager’s residence for a few days. We have handled cases where we have had to place four or five agents at several managers’ residences on a 24 hour basis for several days.
When it comes to hiring personal protection specialists in order to safeguard one’s employees against workplace violence, the rule of thumb is to hire them from three to four days. This period is commonly known as the “cooling off” period. If a terminated employee is feeling resentful and angry, it is very likely that these feelings can worsen as they “stew” over their misfortune. They can make the situation even worse if they abuse drugs and/or alcohol.
Employers/HR Managers should keep in mind that the three - four day “cooling off’ period is a guideline, NOT a rule. We have worked many serious cases where our agents were required to remain at the workplace and/or “shadow” a threatened manager for several weeks. Each case should be carefully examined by the company and security consultant working in close harmony. A proper threat assessment needs to be conducted on a case by case basis.
The following are important points to consider:
• Most incidents of workplace violence start as a small confrontation.
• If left unchecked, minor conflicts will likely escalate
• Conflicts often lead to threats
• Threats need to be taken very seriously as Violence includes threats
When companies declare that they have a zero tolerance policy toward work place violence, they must mean this and not just pay “lip service” to it. The policy needs to apply to all employees, regardless of rank, status or seniority. Reported incidents need to be investigated and followed-up immediately. If the firm is not equipped to conduct an in-house investigation, it should be immediately outsourced.
If an employee is suspected of having committed a work place violence incident or to have engaged in conduct that caused an individual to fear for their personal safety, or the safety of their co-workers, depending upon the results of the preliminary finding, that employee may have to be placed on administrative leave pending a full investigation.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What should done about employees stealing in the workplace?
Q: I think that an employee may be stealing from my company. I called the Police but they said they needed more proof before they could get involved. They suggested that I contact a private investigation company. How can I find out what's going on when I am not there to watch?
A: Even though a case may be criminal in nature – such as in the case of an employee stealing, with all of the known and pressing problems that the Police have to handle on a daily basis, they usually do not have the manpower to act on a “hunch” or suspicion.
If it was a case of suspected drug trafficking or gang activity, they probably would be able to dispatch some undercover units since there would be a very real risk of personal injury and/or serious felonies being committed.
When it comes to the private sector, clients really need to take the matter into their own hands in the majority of cases. By “their own hands”, I don’t mean they need to investigate it themselves, but they need to hire a professional investigator with the training, skills, experience and license to deal with the matter.
A carefully chosen private security firm will be able to sit down and advise them on their options. After the initial meeting they should have a good idea of: 1) the costs involved, 2) the time it will take to resolve the matter and 3) how best to deal with their findings – termination of employee, filing criminal charges, initiating a civil suit.
Some time ago we were approached with an identical problem facing a local business owner. He believed one of his senior managers to be stealing materials from the warehouse and selling it to other individuals. The owner had heard stories circulating about the manager’s dishonesty but chose to disregard it for many years. We advised him that we would use different investigators and vehicles to follow the manager around and video tape him where he went and document the addresses.
From day one, our investigators had discovered that the manager would load up his truck with building materials from the warehouse and head out without telling anyone where he was going. Once he arrived at a location, our investigator would call the client and tell him the address while another investigator video taped the transaction at the site. Nearly all of the time - at least 90% of the time, the manager would go to a site that was not one of the employer’s sites. He was taped handing over stolen materials on several occassions. Other times he would have unauthorized persons in his company truck. If they had been hurt in an accident, they most likley would have sued the business owner for having been allowed to be carried in the vehicle.
After two weeks, we had compiled enough information on the manager to show that he was involved in a company on the side with members of his family that were known to the employer upon viewing the video. Just on one transaction alone, we discovered that the employee had managed to steal a $45,000.00 dollar contract that should have been handled by his employer’s company. A conservative estimate of the employee's thieving over the years amounted to in excess of $1,000,000.00.
Even though our client’s main goal at the beginning of the investigation was to fire the manager if he turned out to be a thief, he was so disturbed by what he discovered that he asked us to work with the authorities to prosecute him. Our investigators took the final report with their findings along with the video to the prosecutor and in a couple of short weeks the Police had obtained warrants for grand larceny and had brought the manager to trial as a defendant. Based on the evidence obtained by our investigators, he plead guilty and received a jail sentence.
Not all clients will want to go to that extent and many have no intentions of prosecuting an employee. It is still a good idea to pursue a dishonest employee and gather evidence that they are stealing or conducting illegal activities on the company property. The benefits of such an investigation are many. If an employee is conducting an illegal activity such as using or trafficking in drugs, they may be directly responsible for an accident in the work place that could not only injure themselves but an innocent co-worker.
Since the employer has a duty to provide a safe work place for his/her employees, looking the other way or hoping that nothing happens could lead to a devastating law suit that might put the owner out of business and lead to the loss of jobs for every one there. If the situation persists and the local police get to hear about the problem, then they will take the matter into their own hands.
Screeching car loads of Police officers jumping out in front of your building with blue lights flashing and sirens blazing will not leave a good impression on your clients. Nor will seeing staff being led out in handcuffs make them feel confident about doing business with you in the future.
It would be far better to have the matter dealt with by a private company who could send in an undercover investigator to gather evidence and if it turned out that there was such illegal activity going on, those involved could be given the option of resigning or having the matter turned over to the police. It has been our experience that they prefer the option of walking away from their job rather than being driven away in the back of a Police cruiser.
One should also consider some of the other benefits involving the uncovering of employee problems and dealing with them in a firm manner. In the case of the thieving manager, we found out from talking with and interviewing other staff members that he had actually boasted about some of the things that he was doing. He became so conceited that others were beginning to fear him or worse still, admire him for his actions.
When it finally became known that the owner had hired investigators to find out the truth and then had personal protection specialists escort the disgraced manager off of the property, the other employees realized that the owner meant business. There was little chance that anyone there would be imitating the convicted felon any time soon. The owner could finally concentrate on making the company profitable and making sure that his employees had a stable future.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Terrible animal abuse caught on video at Westland/Hallmark meat company
It would have been difficult for anyone to have watched the CNN video yesterday morning regarding animal abuse at the Westland/Hallmark meat processing plant and to not have felt outraged.
The video, which was covertly recorded by a factory employee, showed cows being pushed, dragged and prodded in order to get them into the slaughter house. As was obvious from the video, some of these animals were so sick that they could not stand up on their own and were "scooped" up by fork lifts and dropped into the killing area.
The reporter commented how these animals' symptoms were similar to that of the fatal "mad cow" disease. However, that did not stop the meat company from including them with the others that were being butchered and sold to fast food restaurants and to schools to feed the nation's children.
Yesterday, two fast food chains: "Jack in the box' and "In-out burgers", stated that they were no longer purchasing beef products from Westalnd/Hallmark. Today, 150 school districts dropped the meat company as their vendor.
What is difficult to understand is how the company President, Steve Mendell, could come out with a statement assuring the public that they "have met the highest standards for harvesting and processing meat". Either he is of the belief that the general public are about as sharp as bowling balls or the industry must have some really low standards overall.
Another difficult thing to understand is the fact that Westland/Hallmark claimed to have a full time USDA veterinary medical officer on site IN ADDITION to a full time officer from USDA's Grading Service. "Full time" should mean that they are always there durng work hours, should it not? It seems that the USDA has a lot of questions to answer.
It is ironic that last week we saw so much in the press about the Congressional hearing into Roger Clemens and the allegations that he took steroids. If he did, he shouldn't have, but is it right to devote so much attention and resources to an athelete when hundreds of thousands - possibly millions, of peoples lives and health are jeopardized by unscrupulous business practices that should have been detected by the very Govt. Agency assigned to over see such abuse?
I for one, will be reading labels in the supermarket more closely in the future. I would suggest that all of you do the same.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Nice one, Dick!
I was delighted to hear the latest news on WTOP radio tonight on gun control in the District of Columbia.
Apparently, Vice President Cheney is calling the District's ban on gun possession "unconstitutional". This is the first time the V.P. has gone against the Administration. The V.P. joins 300 senators and representatives who declare that the ban on guns goes against the second ammendment.
Owners of licensed security companies are sure to be singing Dick's praises tonight. Washington D.C. is known worldwide for it's lawlessness and drive-by shootings. One wonders if there is a criminal anywhere in the District who does NOT own an illegal gun. Yet, law-abiding citizens and business owners whose very livelyhood depends on their having access to concealed weapons, are prohibited and restricted from properly carrying out their trade.
Who in their right minds would think that the same highly trained and experienced gun owners (many of whom have law enforcement and military experience) who carry their weapon in nearby Maryland and Virginia are not capable of doing the same in the District of Columbia?
Hopefully this discriminatory law is about to be changed. When it does, maybe then guns will not be outlawed and not only the outlaws will have guns.
Inspector General claims the Park Police are plagued by low morale
According to a report from the Interior Department's inspector general, the U.S. Park Police may not be properly protecting the Nation's monuments. Even the Fraternal order of Police have appealed for management changes and describe the agency as a "mess".
A Union survey found that only 2.2% of respondents had confidence in the Chief, Dwight E. Pettiford. When Chief Pettiford was asked about the failure of his officers to properly protect the monuments he replied: "They're still standing".
Apparently, his comment referred to the monuments, not the photograph of a supposedly sleeping officer on post.
