security consultants 1

Topic 2: Security Consultants

Frank Abagnale, the criminal played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the motion picture “Catch Me If You Can,” ended up in prison. After he left prison, however, he worked as a consultant to many companies on matters of fraud.

(a) Why do these companies hire the perpetrators (if caught) as consultants? Is this a good idea?

(b) You are the CEO of a company. Discuss the ethical implications of hiring Frank Abagnale as a consultant.

Just do response each posted #1 to 3 down below only

Posted 1

The phrase “what is unethical is not necessarily illegal (Rainer & Prince, 2018, Chapter 3, Section 3.1) fits in perfectly here. While it may not be illegal to hire a criminal, but it can be unethical to hire someone to guard a system that they broke laws to get into. Some people look at it as it takes a criminal to catch a criminal. What better way to get that done than hiring the person the broke into yours. If they broke in, then they know where the holes are, and can help you to find others to keep it safer and better. The unethical part of it, is that you’re are giving the keys to the vault, to the person that tried to empty it.

If I was the CEO of a company, and I knew that a person was able to bypass the security system to get into that data. I could be tempted to hire them as a consultant. If they are smarter than the security system that I have in place, then what better way to fix it than to employ the person that can get around it. This does present an ethical issue for me. I make my money by providing a service of protecting data of my customer’s they have to trust me to do so to the best of my ability. The best of my ability is to do whatever I can to protect that data at any cost. The biggest ethical issue is telling my customers of my decision to hire the person that was able to get into their data to protect their data. What if I didn’t tell them, and the idea backfired, giving the person the ability to get more of their data or all of it, and steal everything they owned? That would ruin not only myself and my business, but everyone I employ, and all of my customers.

Posted 2

This discussion topic has you thinking deep into ethics. Companies hire perpetrators, such as Frank Abagnale, as consultants as an advantage. The perpetrator has the skills, knowledge, and speed that could advance the organization and help them from being so vulnerable to active criminals, which are reasons if I were a CEO of a company, ethical implications of hiring Frank Abagnale as a consultant that I would consider. I would consider taking countermeasures, such as hiring a second person in the same position or implement additional audits, to attempt to prevent gross negligence because an advanced criminal may compromise an organization system, unnoticed. Intelligent perpetrators who have been found guilty, served their time, and have claimed that they have turned their lives around do deserve a second chance. That does not mean a company should have to trust them completely to let them work freely without taking any additional countermeasures.

To conclude, because there is a severe shortage in cybersecurity experts, that do not have a previous criminal record, I think, perpetrators should be hired. They should be employed with minimal to limited trust, and extra precautions taken if the organization can afford it. I do not think a company can put complete trust in a perpetrator because they could retract to their old ways. Companies can even consider lie detector tests every so often or adding additional security, such as other approvals or clearance logins, for certain parts of the software. Perpetrators that are not hired could go back to their roots and continue to hack into systems, maybe the company’s system that rejected them, to earn a livelihood, or perhaps not, because they do not want to suffer the consequences all over again.

Posted 3

According to PR Newswire, “ThreatAdvice, (threatadvice.com) a provider of cybersecurity education, awareness and threat intelligence has named Frank Abagnale as its new company spokesperson” (PR Newswire, 2018, Dec. 10). This is an example of a company hiring a convicted criminal to assist with their information technology matters. I think many companies look at the situations associated with the perpetrator and grant lenience based on the situation and the age at the time of the crime. There are people that commit fraud at a young age because they are savvy with technology and they do not always understand the ramifications of their actions. Depending on what a business owners’ stance is on prison reform would have a lot to do with giving criminals a second chance with a job. If you hire a convicted criminal to consult with your company, you may get someone who is not only savvy with computers and information, but they also think critically about what hackers look for when selecting a target. I don’t think you can give a blanket answer of yes or no about whether you should hire a criminal, because there are so many variables that go into each situation. I do think that hiring a convicted criminal should be the exception and not the norm.

At this point in time, I would consider hiring Frank Abagnale as a consultant for my company depending on what the nature of the company was. If I had a company that was responsible for managing finance or funds, I would not use him. There would be too much negative media extension and exposure should things not go according to plan. If I needed security for a company that just developed products, I would consider hiring him. The reason I would consider is that his crime was committed while young and he has spent most of his life since then being a productive citizen. He has established a career on helping companies and turned his life around. I would consider hiring him because other companies have already taken the risk. He is now somewhat famous due to the movie about him, so he can’t slip around anymore undetected. He has demonstrated that he has valuable knowledge to share in the corporate world.