3 ms·

How would Booz Allen Hamilton enforce security policy that is managed by the government client by one of its consultants? Snowden was a consultant working on t

How would Booz Allen Hamilton enforce security policy that is managed by the government client by one of its consultants? Snowden was a consultant working on the client site. Booz Allen Hamilton's contract scope didn't include security policy. The only realistic way BAH could have enforced this policy is by having a manager follow each consultant around. This position would be added to the contract and increase the cost. > What capabilities do they have that the government doesn't have or can't develop? Absolutely nothing; permanent hires are deeply unpalatable by Congress, yet they encourage using contractors at higher cost to the government to perform the same work. One of the major pillars of the President's election platform was reducing the number of government employees. One of his first actions in office was to implement a hiring freeze for federal employees.

sevensor 9y ago
Good point about headcount. So the federal government hires contractors to handle classified data even though doing so makes it structurally impossible to secure classified data. And they do so over and over again because they're caught between headcount restrictions and mission requirements. And because, as noted elsewhere in the thread, Booz is a massive proposal-writing machine, they're well positioned to receive these contracts.
- munin 9y ago
  > So the federal government hires contractors to handle classified data even though doing so makes it structurally impossible to secure classified data. Why? What's the difference between a contract employee and a government employee at this level? They all sign literally the same NDA, the same laws apply to both, the same polices apply to both. They both go through the same security screening process and they both pass the same (roughly) technical competency bar to do their jobs. You probably see more contractor fuckups just because there are more contractors. There are also many government staff fuckups (sure, Snowden was a contractor but every big spy prior was a civillian or military).
- nova22033 9y ago
  >hires contractors to handle classified data even though doing so makes it structurally impossible to secure classified data. Why? Ames and Hanssen were government employees.

sevensor 9y ago

Good point about headcount. So the federal government hires contractors to handle classified data even though doing so makes it structurally impossible to secure classified data. And they do so over and over again because they're caught between headcount restrictions and mission requirements. And because, as noted elsewhere in the thread, Booz is a massive proposal-writing machine, they're well positioned to receive these contracts.

munin 9y ago
> So the federal government hires contractors to handle classified data even though doing so makes it structurally impossible to secure classified data. Why? What's the difference between a contract employee and a government employee at this level? They all sign literally the same NDA, the same laws apply to both, the same polices apply to both. They both go through the same security screening process and they both pass the same (roughly) technical competency bar to do their jobs. You probably see more contractor fuckups just because there are more contractors. There are also many government staff fuckups (sure, Snowden was a contractor but every big spy prior was a civillian or military).
nova22033 9y ago
>hires contractors to handle classified data even though doing so makes it structurally impossible to secure classified data. Why? Ames and Hanssen were government employees.