Access Review in light of Patraeus Scandel

Although I focus on technology risk discussions for the most part, and prefer to avoid politics in a public forum, the discussion about security clearance and access to confidential documents bring to light another aspect of risk management that I believe is highly relevant. I thought this even more so with the Jill Kelley involvement. Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley represent two civilians that These two women were evidently granted security clearance based upon access they wanted to have to environments and individuals that average individuals don't have. I don't intend to go off as a moral compass for either General Patraeus or General Scott's alleged actions. This is simply about access rights.

Let's take Paula Broadwell first.

• I can understand Broadwell's access being granted to talk to Patraeus based upon them meeting and his feeling comfortable with a potential Biographer.
  
• I can understand Broadwell's being allowed to speak with Patraeus' colleagues and staff.
  
• I can understand Broadwell being granted a basic visitor badge to public areas within the buildings and locations that Patraeus worked in. (give her to the bathroom, to the kitchen and vending machines IF she didn't have to pass through any potentially secure areas to get there)
  

Questions I have:

• Was Broadwell provided with any level of security training prior to being granted her access?
  
• Was her role defined and boundaries discussed?
  
• Was her access reviewed by an independent source with no "game"?
  

Now, Jill Kelley.

• Mrs. Kelley is a civilian who because of her social standing was given a title of "honorary consul general". I don't know about you but that title is impressive. Take away the "honorary" and I'm really impressed.
  
• The State Department and the Department of Defense stated that Mrs. Kelley was a volunteer.
  
• As a social liaison to MacDill Air Force Base, Mrs. Kelley had access to a number of individuals she otherwise would never have met but no real paid responsibilities even though she worked with South Korea
  

  
   

Questions I have:

• Any volunteer can walk into Central Command at will?
  
• Were there limitations on where Mrs. Kelley could enter?
  
• Was there any type of review as to Mrs. Kelley's credit worthiness to hold that type of clearance?
  
• Was Mrs. Kelley's access fitting for her every day role? Was it on the same level as a janitor, a cafeteria worker or the person who takes care of the plants?
  
• Why did she have any expectation of protection for her role when she called 911 or sent emails to the Mayor of Tampa?
  

It would seem from the outside that both Mrs. Broadwell and Mrs. Kelley overstepped their boundaries and were allowed to do so because of their connections to senior military and government officials. From what the media has published, it would seem that both women had extraordinary access to resources the average person could only dream of.

I recognize some of these questions may appear naïve. Patraeus was, after all, the head of the CIA. What is disconcerting though is that there are people who are above scrutiny. If our national security is important to us, then no one person and no one person's access should be considered above question or reproach. At a minimum, those with security clearance should be reviewed and approved granted based upon a specific criteria.

I'm sure a lot more will come out about the scandal but at the root of it all, people were given access to places and persons that could have endangered the national security of our country. But is it possible that it boils down to access control and review?