America's personnel chief is resisting bipartisan calls to resign after it emerged hackers stole the personal information of 21.5 million people on her watch.
Katherine Archuleta, director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), insists she has no plans to step down and is committed to resolving the extraordinary oversight.
Her capability was called into question this week when it emerged social security numbers, health histories and even finger prints were downloaded from the OPM database in May. It was just a month after another massive breach affecting 4.2 million federal employees.
House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Whip Steve Scalise have appealed to President Obama to fire Archuleta and 'take a strong stand against incompetence'.
Katherine Archuleta, who was appointed head of OPM in 2013, 'has no plans to resign' after the breach
!!!Click on the post title to Read more!!!
The White House said there are no plans the remove Archuleta from her position, which she has held since 2013, after waiting a month to share news of the hack with the public.
However, Michael Daniel, cyber security coordinator for the National Security Council, cryptically told reporters: 'Just because we're not doing public attribution does not mean that we're not taking steps to deal with the matter.'
In a statement released on Thursday, Boehner said: 'After today's announcement, I have no confidence that the current leadership at OPM is able to take on the enormous task of repairing our national security.
McCarthy calls the latest news 'absolutely inexplicable.'
The files, accessed in May, included those of 19.7 million individuals who had applied for security clearances to qualify for a job with the government. Another 1.8 million belonged to non-applicants, such as applicants' spouses or partners.
At least 1.1 million of the stolen records included fingerprints, the OPM said in a news release.
Michael Daniel, who is also a special assistant to the president, said he was 'not really prepared to comment' on whether China was responsible for the hack.
The incident comes after a 'separate, but related' incident in April, when files of 4.2 million current and former federal workers were stolen.
According to OPM, both breaches were discovered as the agency conducted a forensics investigation into the way federal data is managed.
The government will now be forced to provide three years of support from a private firm specializing in data breaches for all 21.5 million victims to monitor their children, credit files and identity.
Stolen records include identification details such as Social Security Numbers; residency and educational history; employment history; information about immediate family and other personal and business acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and more.
Some records also include findings from interviews conducted by background investigators and fingerprints.
Usernames and passwords that background investigation applicants used to fill out their background investigation forms were also stolen.
There is significant overlap between the two groups, according to the OPM news release.
Human vices, such as infidelity, compulsive gambling, problems with alcohol or drugs, as well as emotional and behavioral issues, raise red flags for officials who gather so-called 'adjudication information' - information that government investigators gather during the vetting process of potential hires and current employees seeking a higher level of clearance.
The U.S. government has attributed sophisticated attacks - including the original large-scale data theft last month - to increasingly advanced state-affiliated teams from China.
China has denied any connection with the OPM attack and little is known about the identities of those involved in it.
Asked during a conference call with reporters whether China was responsible, Michael Daniel said that 'at this point the investigation into the attribution of this event is still ongoing and we are exploring all of the different options that we have.'
He added that 'we're not really prepared to comment at this time on the attribution behind this event.'
0 comments:
Post a Comment