The Curious Colleague
An intelligence analyst, 'Alex', has been working on a sensitive counter-espionage project. Over three months, Alex has repeatedly accessed files outside their need-to-know, citing 'cross-referencing' in informal chats. A colleague notices Alex stays late, often alone, and has been seen using a personal USB drive at their workstation. When questioned casually, Alex becomes defensive and claims they are just being thorough. The colleague also recalls Alex mentioning a relative who works at a foreign embassy. There is no direct evidence of espionage, but the pattern is concerning. The colleague must decide whether to report, confront, or ignore.
1. What should the colleague do, and why?
Read the worked answer
The colleague should report the concerns to the security officer or counter-espionage team immediately. Confronting Alex could tip them off and allow them to destroy evidence or accelerate any espionage activity. Ignoring is unacceptable given the potential risk. The indicators-unauthorized access, unusual hours, personal USB use, defensive behavior, and foreign embassy connection-collectively warrant investigation. The colleague should document specific observations (dates, times, file names if known) and provide them to the proper authority. This aligns with the principle of 'see something, say something' and the duty to report security concerns. The report should be factual, not accusatory.
2. What investigative steps should the security team take next?
Read the worked answer
The security team should conduct a discreet inquiry: (1) review access logs to confirm unauthorized access patterns; (2) check workstation for unauthorized devices and monitor USB usage; (3) examine whether any classified information has been removed or transmitted; (4) discreetly verify Alex's relative's employment and any contact; (5) consider interviewing Alex's supervisor and other colleagues for additional observations; (6) assess whether Alex's behavior matches known insider threat indicators. If sufficient evidence emerges, a formal investigation or referral to law enforcement may follow. The team must balance thoroughness with avoiding alerting Alex prematurely. Any interview with Alex should be planned and conducted by trained investigators.