Digital payments and fraud detection firm ThreatMetrix, which was co-founded by Australian entrepreneur David Jones, will be acquired by British analytics firm RELX for more than $1 billion.
The company’s chief financial officer Frank Teruel confirmed the deal on Monday, explaining in a blog post the company had entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which is owned by RELX, in an all-cash offer worth £580 million ($1.01 billion).
Teruel reflected he had seen the company grow from a “scrappy Silicon Valley startup” to a global player that delivers services to thousands of financial institutions and e-commerce businesses.
ThreatMetrix offers fraud detection and customer authentication products to organisations including banks and healthcare providers. It was founded by Australian David Jones and software engineer Scott Thomas in 2005, with the company expanding to the United States in 2008.
The chief executive of risk and business analytics at LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Mark Kelsey, said ThreatMetrix was an attractive purchase given the demand for “more reliable, comprehensive approach to fraud and identity risk management” across “all forms of commerce” at present.
Chief executive of ThreatMetrix Reed Taussig said in a statement the acquisition represents “a compelling market opportunity” for customers and partners.
“They have a great fraud prevention platform, and we had more products on the malware side of things,” said Egan, who continues to work for ThreatMetrix as vice president in the Asia Pacific region.
A former manager at South Australia’s Department of Premier and Cabinet has faced court this week over allegations she secured a $245,000 salaried position with a CV that fraudulently claimed she had worked with top technology companies.
The Australian reports Veronica Theriault appeared via videolink in the Adelaide Magistrate’s Court yesterday, charged with deception and dishonesty dealings.
She was hired in 2017 in a chief information officer role with the South Australian government, which The Australian reports carried a salary or more than $240,000, but was later let go following allegations that there were significant mistruths in her CV and application, as well as a suggestion she had acted as her own referee under an alias.
In September 2017, seven weeks after taking the position, the chief executive of the South Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet, Dr Don Russell, confirmed Theriault’s role had been terminated, reported CIOat the time.
“I have established an urgent inquiry into the recruitment process that resulted in the employment of Ms Theriault,” he said.
On September 22, 2017, the South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption confirmed a 44-year-old woman had been charged with deception and dishonesty relating to documents in her application for public sector employment, as well as being charged with abuse of public office.
A 40-year-old man was also charged with aiding and abetting the woman’s alleged offering. The Adelaide Advertiser reports this man is believed is Theriault’s brother, who she is accused of offering contracts to through her role.
Theriault will next appear in court in April to enter a plea, reports The Australian.
Employers tend not to check references, says expert
Private employers have also had their fair share of the spotlight when it comes to candidates securing high-paying jobs with questionable claims on their CVs. Back in 2014, the “Myer Liar” case involved a high-paid official at the department store let go from his role after it was found his references did not stack up.
The worker, Andrew Flanagan, plead guilty to deception charges and was issued a community corrections order including 400 hours of community service.
Recruitment expert Ross Clennett tells SmartCompany that while high-profile cases involving questions about workers’ credentials make headlines, it is likely Australian companies are failing to properly check the bona fides of potential talent “all the time”.
“My guess is it would be happening every day in every company, where people desperate for hiring are making decisions without any background checking,” he says.
In general terms, Clennett says it can be hard for smaller operators to find the right person within a big corporate to confirm whether a potential candidate actually held the role they say they did.
“It can be a big maze, because a lot of big companies will be reluctant to provide more than a statement of employment history,” he says.
However, he believes no matter the size of the business, employers should be able to fact check the credentials of workers even in the way they structure interview questions.
“When you put someone under the microscope to provide very specific examples of what they’ve done and the outcomes, you should start to see signs if they’re not telling the truth — particularly at the manager-level,” he says.
“If you’re digging down and you’re asking people about what they’ve done before, they should be able to come up with specifics.”
The recent release on parole of John Worboys, one of Britain’s most-prolific sex offenders, attracted controversy after his victims were not informed or consulted by the parole board. However, the law – and best practice – says they should have been.
Under the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, victims have rights, including the right to be treated with courtesy and respect and to receive assistance and information. They also have the right to have their personal views and concerns considered in justice proceedings where their personal interests are affected and it’s appropriate to do so.
In Australia, like the UK, a victim’s right to participate and be heard is enshrined in legislation.
What does this mean in practice?
Specifically, if you are a victim of crime and you meet the criteria to be registered in your jurisdiction (which varies), you have the right to be informed of upcoming parole hearings of the prisoner whose crimes are the reason you are registered.
You have the right to be given reasonable time to make a written statement to the parole board outlining your views and concerns before that prisoner is released. You have the right for the board to consider your statement.
In some jurisdictions, such as South Australia, you may also request to meet with the board in person to discuss your views.
What are the benefits of giving victims a say?
Victim involvement is particularly important for the victims themselves – and it can also inform parole board decision-making.
The opportunity for a victim to participate and be heard offers procedural justice: that is, a sense of fairness in the way agencies operate in a justice system that often sidelines victims.
Parole boards informing and consulting with victims can have a significant therapeutic impact and aid victims’ recovery from the crime.
The benefits extend beyond the direct victim to other victims of crime. When parole boards (and justice agencies generally) listen and consider victims’ views, other victims of crime are more likely to believe they too will be heard when they speak out about their experiences of violence and abuse.
Conversely, when criminal justice agencies fail in their duty to truly and respectfully engage with victims of crime – as in the Worboys case – this prevents other victims coming forward.
Victims’ input can also assist parole board decision-making in cases where victims provide detail of their experiences and expectations. Victim submissions may provide contextual information about the offending in addition to outlining victims’ wishes.
As a result, victim submissions can lead to non-contact clauses, parole conditions that aim to mitigate risk, and/or exclusion zones that restrict an offender from entering certain suburbs or regions.
What are the risks?
The biggest risk in involving victims of crime in parole board decisions is secondary victimisation. This occurs when victims are re-traumatised due to a poor systemic response. Given the justice system isn’t great at explaining victims’ rights to them, it is reasonable to assume many victims won’t understand the scope and limitations of their rights. This may lead to disappointment or even devastation when their expectations are not met.
For example, some victims of crime make written submissions to parole boards with the specific goal of preventing a prisoner’s release. Boards consider a large range of information in determining whether a prisoner presents a risk of harm to the community before deciding whether they should be released – and victims do not have an overall say as to whether a prisoner will be granted parole.
So, while it may be therapeutic – in terms of feeling heard, valued and respected – for a victim to request an offender continue to be imprisoned, if that prisoner is released into the community (and most prisoners eventually are) the victim may feel further victimised and traumatised if their expectations are mismanaged.
… it is right that the anguish of [Worboys’] victims should be heard.
But it is not just “right” – it is their legal right.
Upholding victims’ rights is not about overruling parole board decisions. It is about respectfully enabling victims’ active participation in decisions that affect their personal interests.
It’s been 52 years since the Beaumont children disappeared from Glenelg beach, Adelaide on Australia Day 1966.
In this case, excavation of a new area of interest – based on new evidence pointing to possible shallow graves – is expected to commence this week.
Sadly however, the Beaumont children are just three of around 2,000 long-term missing people in Australia. And we also have more than 500 sets of human remains believed to be archived across the country, that have not yet been identified.
It’s time Australia committed to a laboratory solely dedicated to missing persons casework. Current capability in DNA forensics could allow us to match up remains with some of these missing persons cases, and potentially give families relief.
New research shows 38,000 Australians are reported missing each year, around half of which are young people. Fortunately, most of those missing people are located alive within days of the report being made. However a small percentage of those reported missing have never been located.
But without clear evidence of life or death, it’s very hard for families to know what’s happened to their loved ones.
Last week the Hayley Dodd missing persons case was finally put to rest after 18 years, with Francis John Wark found guilty of her murder. However, until Hayley’s remains are found and identified through DNA testing, her family won’t have the answers they still long for.
Sequencing technology allows scientists to identify the order of bases (called C, G, A and T) in DNA. Click to expand photo. Jodie Ward, Author provided
A bone, tooth, nail, tissue or hair sample can commonly be used to obtain a DNA profile for a person. For recovered bodies, what is available and suitable will depend on the condition of the remains when they are found.
DNA testing may be the only way of positively identifying people in cases where:
only a single bone was located
bones from the one person have been buried in multiple locations
Of those 500 boxes of bones stored in mortuaries across Australia, the selection of an optimal bone fragment is likely to yield a DNA result in most cases. For those unidentified persons given a “destitute burial”, hopefully a sample was taken and stored for DNA testing. For other, typically older cases of “John and Jane Does” – the names commonly given to unidentified people – some remains may need to be exhumed.
Once a sample from the remains has been tested, the DNA profile can be compared to a database of DNA profiles from missing persons. The missing person’s toothbrush or hairbrush, or ideally a medical sample such as a newborn screening card, could be used for this purpose. Often these samples are not available, so family members of the missing can be used for DNA matching because they share similar and predictable patterns in their DNA profiles.
Global precendent
Using DNA matching to examine how many of Australia’s 500 sets of unknown bones match with the 2,000 missing Australians would likely be successful for at least some cases.
It can be challenging to extract useable DNA from old, degraded bones. Jodie Ward, Author provided
DNA technology is being recommended and used globally to identify large numbers of missing persons from war, genocide, terrorist attacks or mass disasters. The International Commission on Missing Persons DNA-led program has identified more than 20,000 missing persons.
We now need to focus on populating the new Australian database with DNA profiles from our stored bones and missing persons in order for identifications to be made. The establishment of a laboratory, solely dedicated to missing persons casework, would be the best way forward for such a large scale identification effort. The concentration of specialist expertise and technology under one roof would help bring families and loved ones closer to getting the answers they need.
This approach also relies on suitable family members donating DNA reference samples for those missing persons that don’t have a DNA profile already in the DNA database.
Forensic DNA phenotyping, which involves using DNA to predict the ancestry and physical appearance of an individual, should also be introduced as an intelligence tool for missing persons investigations. Applying this emerging technology to bones could help narrow down the list of possible missing persons, identify relatives that should be approached to donate a DNA reference sample, or add hair, eye and skin colour to facial reconstructions of skulls.
A national DNA identification program will be essential for identifying our unknown and missing citizens, and in the process solve some of Australia’s most baffling cold cases.
DNA is the only viable solution left for identifying most of these individuals. But the DNA will continue to degrade the longer we wait, so time is of the essence.
If remains are found at the suspected Beaumont children burial site, Australia’s bone experts will have to apply specialist DNA technologies in an attempt to recover a profile suitable for identification.
Nurses are a target for bullies more often than any other healthcare workers, and the bullying can take many forms.
My research shows that nurses are particularly vulnerable to cyberbullying by patients and their relatives, which can cross the boundary between the workplace and home. This highlights the need for employers to take cyberbullying seriously and to take active steps to protect employees from it.
Reporting of workplace cyberbullying varies dramatically because there is no consensus on how to define it. Generally, cyberbullying is more complex and insidious than traditional forms of workplace bullying.
It can be described as unwanted or aggressive behaviour(s), perpetrated through electronic media, that may harm, threaten or demoralise the recipient(s), and can occur beyond work time. Because workplace cyberbullying crosses the barrier between work and home, it can leave people feeling trapped and unable to cope.
Cyberbullying can take several forms, including harassment, cyberstalking, denigration and exclusion.
My research shows many nurses who experience cyberbullying are also confronted with other “face-to-face” forms of workplace bullying such as verbal abuse, aggressive and undermining behaviours, and even exclusion or isolation. Additionally, certain forms of cyberbullying can be more damaging than most traditional forms of bullying.
No escape
It is easy to imagine the threat people feel when they receive anonymous and unwanted texts, or the ongoing humiliation resulting from being abused on social media. In my study, nurses described the distress of not only having false allegations made about them on a public platform, but also of the potential repercussions on their reputation and career. One case of anonymous cyberbullying proved particularly difficult as there was little the organisation could do to intervene, with the abuse spanning several years.
Public forms of cyberbullying are also likely to have a much broader scope of harm – not only for the targets but also for the organisations involved. Customer or patient complaints on public forums may harm the target’s career as well as affecting the organisation’s reputation.
Cyberbullying easily circumvents common safety measures used to protect nurses, such as security offers or trespass notices. It introduces a new vulnerability for nurses and employees in public roles.
Nurses have a responsibility to care for patients, which can make if difficult for them to block communication with relatives, even when they are being bullied, directly or via electronic channels. In one example, a patient’s mother would call to ask for help for her son, but then start abusing the nurse, who could not block the calls in case it was a genuine emergency.
How to approach prevention
Over time, cyberbullying can have a severe impact on the health of victims. They can reach a point where they feel forced to leave their place of work.
Organisations have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure the health and safety of employees. There are also substantial financial costs associated with not preventing workplace cyberbullying. Australia’s Productivity Commission estimated the cost at A$6 billion to A$36 billion per year.
Many organisations aren’t well equipped to deal with workplace cyberbullying. Few have a relevant policy in place. This can often unintentionally signal to employees that cyberbullying is an issue they have to deal with on their own.
There are several actions that organisations and industry need to take. They should clearly communicate what cyberbullying might look like within the workplace. They should adopt a clear policy, along with reporting channels and processes, to indicate to employees that the organisation takes cyberbullying seriously.
Any policies should include cyberbullying from sources outside the organisation, including customers, clients, students and patients. Finally, organisations must be prepared to take all reports and complaints of cyberbullying seriously, and support employees through this process.
At a much broader level, industry and professional bodies can address workplace cyberbullying in their current policies, codes of conduct and training resources. An industry-based approach to prevention and intervention is much more likely to be effective in addressing profession-specific risk factors such as those faced by health care workers.
At a national level, it is crucial that workplace cyberbullying – and traditional bullying, for that matter – are recognised in law as risks to employee health and safety.
ThreatMetrix@ThreatMetrix
Upholding victims’ rights is not about overruling parole board decisions. It is about respectfully enabling victims’ active participation in decisions that affect their personal interests.
If remains are found at the suspected Beaumont children burial site, Australia’s bone experts will have to apply specialist DNA technologies in an attempt to recover a profile suitable for identification.
At a national level, it is crucial that workplace cyberbullying – and traditional bullying, for that matter – are recognised in law as risks to employee health and safety.
