THE INSIDER THREAT: A SOCIO-TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF PREVENTING DATA BREACHES AND ESPIONAGE WITHIN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

Authors

  • Mykhailo Lishchynsky State University of Information and Communication Technologies image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54658/PS.28153324.2025.12.%25pp.

Keywords:

Data Breaches, Espionage, Insider Threat, Socio-Technical Systems

Abstract

Abstract This article presents a socio-technical analysis of the insider threat phenomenon within governmental and public sector institutions. It argues that effective mitigation requires a dynamic, integrated strategy that moves beyond siloed technical controls to holistically address the interplay between individual psychology, organizational culture, technical architecture, and policy enforcement. The analysis defines the governmental insider threat, distinguishing between malicious, unintentional, and compromised insiders, and demonstrates how this typology maps to distinct root causes within the socio-technical system. Through a detailed examination of the Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning cases, the article deconstructs the convergence of psychological, cultural, and technical vulnerabilities that precipitate catastrophic breaches. It systematically analyzes contributory factors at the individual level, using the Critical Pathway to Insider Risk (CPIR) model; the organizational level, focusing on culture, leadership, and trust; and the technical level, highlighting architectural weaknesses. The article then evaluates a multi-layered defense-in-depth framework integrating human-centric strategies (e.g., positive deterrence, robust training), technical countermeasures (e.g., Zero Trust Architecture, User and Entity Behavior Analytics), and comprehensive policy frameworks (e.g., Executive Order 13587, NITTF Maturity Framework). The inherent tension between security surveillance and employee privacy is explored, reframing privacy protection as a positive driver of organizational trust and security. The article culminates in a novel, coordinated intervention model and provides actionable policy recommendations for governmental agencies to build a more resilient and secure posture against the threat from within..

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ablon, L. (2018). Assessing the insider threat: Insights from past and present. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4226.html

Allen, J., & Harper, A. (2020). IT governance and risk management. CRC Press.

Andress, J. (2019). The basics of information security: Understanding the fundamentals of InfoSec in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Syngress.

Bada, A., Sasse, M. A., & Nurse, J. R. C. (2019). Cyber security awareness campaigns: Why do they fail to change behaviour? arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02672.

Center for Development of Security Excellence (CDSE). (2020). Insider threat training guide. https://www.cdse.edu

Center for Internet Security (CIS). (2020). Controls v8. https://www.cisecurity.org

CISA. (2021). Zero Trust Maturity Model. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. https://www.cisa.gov/zero-trust-maturity-model

DeGraaf, G., Huberts, L., & Smulders, R. (2018). Understanding the research–practice gap in integrity and anti-corruption: The case of the Netherlands. Public Integrity, 20(6), 552–566.

Devine, T. (2015). The corporate whistleblower’s survival guide: A handbook for committing the truth. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Executive Office of the President. (2021). Executive Order 14028 on Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity. Federal Register, 86(93), 26633–26647.

Federal Chief Information Officers Council. (2020). Identity, Credential, and Access Management (ICAM) policy. https://www.cio.gov

Greitzer, F. L., Kangas, L. J., Noonan, C. F., Brown, C. M., & Ferryman, T. A. (2012). Identifying at-risk employees: Modeling psychosocial precursors of potential insider threats. In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2392–2401). IEEE.

Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (2001). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959.

National Insider Threat Task Force (NITTF). (2020). Insider threat program maturity framework. https://www.dni.gov

O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).

Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). (2012). National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards. https://www.dni.gov

Pfleeger, C. P., Pfleeger, S. L., & Margulies, J. (2015). Security in computing (5th ed.). Pearson.

Reeves, M., & Whitaker, K. (2020). The zero trust security playbook. O’Reilly Media.

Relyea, H. C. (2008). The Privacy Act of 1974: A brief legislative history. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 370–376.

Shaw, E., & Sellers, L. (2015). Application of the Critical-Path Method to evaluate insider risks. Studies in Intelligence, 59(2), 1–11.

United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2018). Cybersecurity: Agencies need to improve implementation of established policies and procedures. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-105

Whitman, M. E., & Mattord, H. J. (2021). Principles of information security (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Zetter, K. (2014). Countdown to zero day: Stuxnet and the launch of the world's first digital weapon. Crown Publishing Group.

Downloads

Published

31-07-2025

Issue

Section

General

How to Cite

THE INSIDER THREAT: A SOCIO-TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF PREVENTING DATA BREACHES AND ESPIONAGE WITHIN GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. (2025). Politics & Security, 12(2), 88-103. https://doi.org/10.54658/PS.28153324.2025.12.%pp.