Doyle was caught as a pervert while working at Time:
DHS Background Check Questioned
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 7, 2006; Page A04
The Department of Homeland Security official arrested Tuesday on charges of seducing a minor over the Internet faced disciplinary action at his previous workplace, Time magazine's Washington bureau, for misusing company equipment to download pornography, friends and former colleagues said.
Federal officials would not ....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601876.html
In all likelihood, Time Magazine protected him by not reporting fully and accurately to DHS on the cause of his termination of employment.
For all we know, Times protecting him from the DHS inquiry may have been in exchange for leaked information at any time in the future, should the Times request it of him, or should he come across anything that the Times would want.
Or, it is equally likely that the DHS background check was lacking in diligence, which won't come as much of a surprise if that is the case. Companies queried in background checks should be profiled for their "loyalty". The less loyal a company, the more rigorous the background checks of employees leaving such companies for Federal employment. This will work well for people who are being blackballed by their former employers, as the inquiry would uncover such, and it would severely penalize any company which withholds information relevant to a DHS security inquiry regarding an application for employment with a Federal organization.
It should be illegal for a company to not disclose all information regarding a person's employment, when that person has applied for work requiring a security clearance. Isn't part of the security clearance application a waiver for just such an inquiry? If so, then the company in question has no reason to conceal negative information.
Oh, wow. Thanks for that information.
Some were defending him on the first thread, insinuating that he might have been cleared confidential, and that his communications got spoofed. Who is calling for a top down security review? Nobody.
Amazing. I would have figured an employee at Time would be more interested in the little boys.
Seriously though, are we to expect that this agency can protect us from terrorists in this country and they employ Times employees? And of course Time could have alerted them to what they had in their employ but they liked having a mole in place there.