In 2018, a SCOTUS decision (Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association) enabled states to govern sports gambling for themselves. Many opted in. This, combined with the ubiquity of smartphones, is the one-two punch that has made sports betting exponentially more accessible to the average American.

For security clearance holders and applicants, however, online sports betting may raise red flags that other legal forms of gambling, like lottery tickets or casino visits, may not.

The Significance of Guideline M – Use of Information Technology

Guideline M covers use and misuse of information technology (IT). Concerns under Guideline M are not restricted to classified information or even to information as such; it also includes information technology. IT is a wide category, encompassing computers, websites, data, programs, devices, media, apps and more. Accessing any of these without authorization, or using these in an unauthorized way qualifies as misuse of IT.

Find This Article and More at ClearedJobs.Net

Online and Mobile Sports Betting as IT Security Risk

Compromising a secure area or device is an obvious security concern. Failing to comply with IT regulations at a nonclassified workplace is still a red flag. If you cannot be trusted to comply with rules regulating IT use and access, your trustworthiness in a classified context becomes questionable.  IT misuse need not be intentional to raise security concerns. While good intentions may count favorably in some cases, negligence without malintent is still a liability.

Even legal sports betting can trigger a host of security issues. Potential security concerns under Guideline M may include:

Sports Betting Activity at Work

Accessing apps or websites to check for updates on wagers, research odds, track stats, place bets, or other sports-betting-related activities while at work raises a security concern. If you have been reprimanded for using a work-issued computer for sportsbook-related activity, or for using a personal device during work hours, this could qualify as IT misuse.

Full candor during the security clearance process is crucial. For example, the PVQ asks:

“In the last seven (7) years have you introduced, removed, or used hardware, software, or media in connection with any information technology system without authorization, when specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines, or regulations or attempted any of the above?”

If you have received such reprimands at work or school within the given timeframe, disclosing that information is key to mitigating Guideline M concerns. Otherwise, you may find yourself with Guideline E: Personal Conduct concerns on top of alleged IT misuse.

Using Questionable Sportsbooks Apps and Websites

As our everyday devices become more sophisticated and ubiquitous, so do points of security vulnerability. Legalized mobile sports betting has turned everyone’s smartphone into a pocket casino. And each of those casinos is a potential avenue to compromise national security. Cleared personnel may run into trouble under Guideline M when:

• Using any unauthorized, unmanaged app on a government-issued device;
• Conducting government business on a mobile device on which such an app is installed.

The security concern posed by apps is very real. It has been reported that the location of U.S. Secret Service—and thus their protectees—could be tracked via personal fitness app. Now, the DCSA’s Center for Development of Security Excellence uses this example to raise awareness of the potential security threat posed by seemingly innocuous apps.

If the apps or websites you use are owned and controlled overseas, your information could come under the eye of a foreign government. Should you fall into significant debt, that intel might be very valuable to America’s adversaries. Conversely, should you win large amounts of money, you may find yourself flagging concerns under Guideline L: Outside Activities.

Mitigating Sports Betting Security Concerns Under Guideline M

What is worse than compromising a classified IT system is this: compromising a classified IT system and trying to hide it.

Granting security clearance eligibility does not necessarily mean entrusting the cleared individual to never, ever make a mistake. It does mean, however, expecting they will act responsibly in the event they do make—or suspect they or someone else might have made—a mistake that could compromise security. The trustworthy individual will not prioritize protecting their career, reputation, or pride. Instead, their priority is protecting the integrity of any information and technology with which they have been entrusted.

Review your smartphone’s permissions, privacy and security settings. When you agreed to the Terms of Service of your sports betting app, did you actually read it? What functions can your sportsbook apps access? Third-parties may be tracking your:

• Contacts
• Keystrokes
• Geolocation
• Camera
• Microphone

Such points of vulnerability are compounded when using a Government device to access sportsbooks, or using a non-Government-approved mobile device to check on a parlay in a classified area.

Could Legal Sports Betting Cost You Your Security Clearance Eligibility?

Sports betting, even when legal, can present a security concern in certain circumstances. A reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Thus, a history of troubling behavior suggests more troubling behavior to come. This fact underlies many security clearance eligibility determinations, tilting the scales from eligibility granted to eligibility denied. By the same token, however, one might indicate future trustworthiness by establishing a pattern of trustworthiness in the present.

Derogatory information weighs on the eligibility denied side of the scales. But how the government learns of that derogatory information can make all the difference in some cases. Be mindful of self-reporting requirements. It is almost always preferable to report potentially derogatory information oneself than to wait for the government to present that information, demanding explanation.

Take proactive measures to identify and correct potential points of security vulnerability. Security clearance holders and applicants alike should demonstrate that they both (1) understand why a particular issue raises a security concern, and (2) are willing to proactively and consistently act to resolve the issue. Otherwise, they may be assumed liable to repeat the same mistake.

Find This Article and More at ClearedJobs.Net

Dan Meyer, Esq. is a Partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC’s Washington, D.C. office and has dedicated more than 25 years of service to the field of Federal Employment and National Security law as both a practicing attorney and federal investigator and senior executive. He is a lead in advocating for service members, Federal civilian employees, and contractors as they fight to retain their credentialing, suitability and security clearances.

Tully Rinckey attorneys understand that issues involving security clearances and financial strain can be challenging, and they will handle your matter with the attention and tact it deserves. If you have additional questions, our team of dedicated security clearance attorneys is available to assist you today. Please call 8885294543, or schedule a consultation online.