Banks to blacklist rogue workers in fraud fight

TalkBack 3 of 7:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Very good and VERY bad idea...

And here's why...

(NOTE: for all scenarios given here let's assume legitimate workers with legitimate reasons...)

Consider my specific situation: I just left a bank four months ago and boy were they p*ssed. I walked out of a project that I architected, why? Because they promised resources (4 contractors, to be precise) that they never delivered. The result? Over a year of 70-80 hour work weeks, and my bonuses being tied to the project deadlines they came up with based on 8 resources, rather than the actual 3. While I earned my stripes in Big5 at PWC for six years, I did not want to let things get into that kind of working pattern again. I work to live, not the other way around. After more than a year of broken promises, I resigned, giving two weeks notice. They walked me out that day. I called a few days later to request an HR exit interview... they informed me that I had been blacklisted and was ineligible to return. They said there was no appeal process, and they refused to indicate who and why the blacklisting had occurred.

Bottom line, I was professional, but whoever blacklisted me, was not.

Now let's generalize. Suppose any employee upsets their manager. What employee doesn't when they decide to walk? Most employees try to do this when it would hurt the manager the most as that is the reason most people leave organizations: bad management. That said, if this DB were in place, how would abuse be checked? Would it be regulated by the government since it is a consumer reporting agency? If I was a betting man, I'd say they're going to try and escape regulation by selling it as a non-consumer agency.

While I can see huge benefits for this being made, I think it is smoke and mirrors. What it does is allows organizations to make accusations, without proving them. The legal system of this country provides for public criminal convictions. That means, they can find out who's been convicted and who hasn't. If an organization fires someone for security breach, and then doesn't report it to authorities-- well, it never shows up publicly. This provides a cheap and easy mechanism that they control. Something this is not public. Something they can keep the press away from.

In my opinion, it is a way to bypass the legal system and protect their internal operations from public scrutiny when cases are made public in court.

I think a better approach would be to create a system that allows them to automate reporting of this type of activity to public officials and to harvest the information from public criminal convictions. This would encourage public exposure of ALL types of this criminal activity, rather than limiting it to the elite 100.

Tell me what you think, I know you guys are bright and I look forward to your feedback.

how secure the blacklisting system may be. Now consider managers with a vendetta just because you walked out and screwed them in the process wanting to get back at you, so they blacklist you-- for no reason.

Posted by: kckn4fun   Posted on: 10/27/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now