Is the United States ready yet to play the international game of airline dominance? Does America really know what it takes to survive the present condition of the major United States-based airlines? Discussions regarding the investment of foreign money into majority ownership positions of United States-based airlines continue to make headlines, but it appears that there may be a break in the age-old argument.

The European Union ("EU") and several United States airlines have been floating the idea around, and it appears that there is a high probability that it could happen in the near future, especially with the most recent flack given by the public with respect to Virgin Airlines and Sir Richard Branson’s attempt at majority ownership of an American airline. Foreign money seems to be a big piece of the puzzle in sorting out the financial difficulties of some of the largest United States-based airlines.

The EU hired the Brattle Group to perform a study on this issue. The 165 page Brattle Group report estimated that the elimination of ownership restrictions would set off a flurry of competition that would increase the number of flights and passengers. The result to consumer savings could be approximately $625 million a year on flights between the United States and Europe.

The door was slammed shut in the past because of the many questions that would come from allowing foreign money to dominate the airline industry within the United States. Foreign ownership of United States airlines has been banned since the advent of the industry. The rules were established for security reasons and to ensure that planes flying over American territory would be subject to United States regulations. Aviation security is a serious issue and must be in the forefront of any discussion related to the safety of the United States. But is bailing out United States-based airlines more important than the security issues that come with foreign investors owning United States-based airlines?

The security argument may not hold water any longer. Within the last several years, the two largest United States-based and owned physical security companies, The Wackenhut Corporation and Pinkertons were both purchased by European investment firms, and both still have some of the largest security contracts within America. These contracts are more than just your local grocery store; they protect some of the largest nuclear sites, prisons, and banking institutions in the United States, as well as provide security services directly to the United States Government to protect our borders.

It seems that when money talks, people listen no matter what the language the person with the money is speaking.

Chances are that if you spend any significant amount of time on the internet, you have come across YouTube.com. This video-sharing web site, owned by Google Inc., is the number one site for online videos in the U.S. entertainment market, reportedly serving 2.5 billion free videos to nearly 20 million unique visitors during June of 2006 (ZDNet news, 2006). YouTube's ability to broadcast to millions of people around the world has recently caught the attention of law enforcement officials who recognize that the site has the potential to be utilized as an additional tool in the investigative process.

Police departments throughout the United States and Canada have recently begun posting surveillance videos of suspects on YouTube, in the hopes that the internet-using public will be able to either identify the suspects, or will be able to provide key information pertaining to the case. Numerous agencies cite the video-sharing website as a key tool in solving cases ranging from theft to murder, but experts caution that it is too soon to determine if this novel idea will have any staying power among continually evolving technologies. Law enforcement agencies, which choose to post on YouTube, must also be prepared to manage the possibility of an increase in false or useless tips and misidentifications. Broadcasting the faces of suspected criminals across the World Wide Web, undoubtedly, also raises questions of privacy and legality.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. states that, “legally, police can post surveillance video online as long as it doesn’t somehow falsely accuse or defame someone,” further, Robert Ellis Smith, a privacy expert, suggests that agencies obtain the consent of bystanders or victims who appear in the posted videos in an effort to protect their privacy and that videos be dated and removed as soon as relevant court proceedings have ended.

The ability to broadcast surveillance videos to millions of users creates a level of exposure unmatched by the local press, but this avenue of mass exposure carries with it added concerns and legal implications which law enforcement agencies must be equipped to handle. Advances in video-sharing technology have the ability to provide law enforcement agencies with an additional tool in their investigative arsenal, though as Brian Johnson, a patrolman in Massachusetts points out, “technology will never replace the feet-on-the-street.”

Information taken in part from FoxNews.com, March 4, 2007.

Following the strange and tragic incident involving NASA Astronaut Lisa Nowak, the practices and standards of the organization have come under fire. Many are questioning how Ms. Nowak’s apparent instability could have gone unnoticed given the strict scrutiny we all believe individuals in such positions to be under. As a result, NASA has recently announced that it would consider implementing a plan for the periodic psychological evaluation of members of its astronaut program.

While such a program for any public service organization, intuitively, sounds like a good idea, it is not without its potential risks. Psychological evaluation certainly has the potential to provide valuable insight into the stability and psychological health of employees. In addition, the organization may more readily identify employees who may benefit from mental heath treatment and employee assistance. Such screening would certainly put the organization in a more proactive rather than reactive position.

However, organizations considering the implementation of periodic psychological evaluation should carefully weigh the benefits against the potential problems. The utility and legality of psychological screening in employment settings, today, is hotly debated. First and foremost, employers must consider whether their proposed program could potentially violate employee rights under the Americans with Disabilities Acts (ADA), which allows employers to require psychological evaluation (typically referred to as a fitness-for-duty evaluation) only if such an exam is job-related and can be shown to meet a business need. In addition, periodic psychological evaluation may raise concerns regarding the potential for the invasion of employee privacy. When considering the implementation of recurring psychological examination, it is wise to consult a legal expert for guidance around these specific issues.

While it is certainly permissible for employers to gather evidence internally from computers in use by current or former employees, it is almost never advisable due to the risk of spoliation of evidence. Legally, spoliation permits the inference that the omitted or destroyed materials had some relevance or importance of which the discovering party had an awareness and therefore motivation to keep out of evidence. Negligent or destructive collection of digital evidence draws the same inference, and is compounded by the implementation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (December 1, 2006) which requires companies to proactively implement archival protocols for all digital media.

The stakes are significant. When it comes to digital evidence collection, the collection of evidence almost always has the potential to alter the system in question. Utilizing the skills of a computer forensic expert increases your chances for building a successful body of evidence since their expertise allows them to weigh, and later account for, those alterations. Their documentation and expert evidence-handling can reduce the chances that a defense representative will be able to successfully challenge digital evidence. A supported claim of evidence spoliation can quickly erode the credibility of the evidence and, in many cases, adversely affect the outcome of a case.

No one wants to find themselves in court over employment issues. The unfortunate reality is that it happens every day. As an employer, it pays to be thorough from the beginning of an investigation, and preventing the spoliation of evidence from the outset is vital to successful legal defensibility.

Vendor fraud can appear in many different forms; overcharging for time or services, providing kickbacks to purchasing personnel in exchange for a fixed markup over cost, or excessive expenses or entertainment. Those are but a few examples, and vendor fraud may or may not involve inside help within the victim organization. One way to detect vendor fraud is by performing vendor audits, which often include measures such as a tour of vendor locations, a review of tax filings, expense reports, and general ledger accounts, an examination of freight invoices (if applicable), and a review of any related parties, or potential dummy companies that a vendor might use to justify marking up a transaction.

The ability to execute vendor audits typically stems from a right-to-audit clause contained in purchase orders and service agreements. Vendor audits are best carried out with a team approach, including members of the purchasing and user departments, and led by an experienced auditor, preferably a Certified Fraud Examiner.

Fraud has always been much easier to prevent than to detect. While audits can be helpful in detecting fraud, the most common way that fraud is detected is through tips from employees, customers, and vendors. Conduct regular audits of vendors, but be sure to have a reporting mechanism in place to receive tips from your employees. You just may be surprised at what you find, and wish that you had learned it earlier.