-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
One midsummer night in 1977, the power went out in New York City. "Thousands of people took to the streets and smashed store windows looking for TVs, furniture, or clothing... The police made 3,776 arrests, although...many thousands escaped before being caught. 1,037 fires burned throughout the City..." (Blackout History Project)
The troublemakers weren't faceless terrorists but local youth and ultimately, mainstream moms and dads. The most notable shift in the demographic of the looters occurred between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and midnight when stable, normally law-abiding citizens began to participate in the scavenging and mayhem.
The massive extent of the looting, especially compared with the few disruptions that occurred during the 1965 blackout, was partly due to the economic downturn. By 1977 the unemployment amongst young blacks in New York City had reached 40%, compared to roughly 20% in 1965. Many people were out of work and the standard of living had decreased; however, television and media constantly reminded people of the material goods which they could not possess. (Time, 1977)
It's no wonder that in the current economic downturn, companies are starting to worry more about the "insider threat" and white-collar looting. "Information security experts are bracing for the law of unintended consequences to swing into action in 2009 as layoffs, downsizing and low morale bring the worst out of trusted insiders looking to profit off of proprietary intellectual property, customer contact lists, trade secrets and any other sensitive information. ...[L]ast December the majority of participants in a survey reported that if they were fired tomorrow they would definitely take company data with them to their next employer." (Lumension, 2009)
Today, as downsizing becomes rampant, there are increasing numbers of disgruntled former employees, who sometimes have deep knowledge of an organization's IT infrastructure. There are also more disgruntled current employees, as downsizing places greater burden and stresses on staff that remain. As scholar Ho Yanxi quoted, "The one who treats me well is my leader, the one who treats me cruelly is my enemy.'" (Cleary, Art of War).
Exacerbating the situation, fewer staff means less people to monitor and maintain already out-of-control networks. This increases the risk of security vulnerabilities and lowers the risk that a theft will be noticed, proportionally increasing the likelihood of exploitation. Cutting already overworked IT staff leads to a downward spiral of network disrepair, security incidents and stressed IT workers.
The risk-vs-reward calculations are illustrated in this interview with one of the first blackout looters:
Interviewer: “What kind of money would you need to stop you from [looting]?”
J: Oh, it wouldn’t just have to be money. It would have to be my position in life. Like if I was to go to law school, and have a nice paying job, and be established in a firm or something... I wouldn’t take the risk of getting busted and havin to go to jail and blowin’ my schooling. It’s not worth the risk. (Blackout Looting!, p.176)
As white-collar workers feel increasingly disenfranchised, the risk of insider data theft proportionally rises.
Even on a tight budget, organizations can still foster worker loyalty. As demonstrated during World War II, it is possible to maintain-- and even grow-- a dedicated workforce during tough times. The WWII propaganda effort was implemented as a massive postering campaign on an unprecedented scale. During a period where civilians re-used scraps of paper because supplies were so limited, the US Office of War Information sought to "[ poster ] America every night," and treated posters "as real war ammunition." (Design for Victory, p. 11-12) The investment paid for itself hundredfold.
Without resources for appropriate staffing and equipment, a high-return security investment for many companies might be a simple PR campaign, designed to motivate employee loyalty. Similarly, even organizations that lack the resources to install and maintain proper monitoring capabilities can still at least create the perception of oversight, which can dramatically reduce incidents. Physical security professionals have long utilized this tactic, for example by installing $30 dummy cameras and warning signs which advertise that the premises is actively monitored.
I often say that "humans are unreliable components," but that's not really true. Humans are unreliable when placed in unstable situations and given conflicting incentives. Much like transistors in a circuit, humans within organizations tend to act predictably based on perceived incentives and risk.
In today's downward economy, companies are dramatically reducing incentives for workers and expanding the ratio of IT contractors to employees, even while IT oversight and monitoring capabilities are already very limited. As with New York's 1977 blackout and the Iraqi occupation, workers find themselves with conflicted incentives, and some will invariably decide to serve their own well-being rather than the larger organization. How can organizations lower the risk of "white-collar looting"? Advertise incentives for workers to support the organization, and instill at least the perception (and better, the actuality) of oversight and monitoring.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.4)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmaTfYACgkQSAUOoW73R4yRPgCfdifDeqXNTWxxKUtL8S/Gvf6u
R7sAn2I6KJwPWosSCKT1UiVIWxMmOp90
=JnAi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----