Nuala O'Connor Kelly

From her childhood in Belfast to her job at the Department of Homeland Security, Nuala O'Connor Kelly has seen firsthand how important a vigorous, thoughtful, and conscientious counterterrorism program is to national security.  With her drive to protect both the security and the freedom of all Americans, O'Connor Kelly is tirelessly working each day on the front lines of our national defense, keeping the United States safe for the generations to come.

From Carol A. Taber, President, Family Security Matters:
 
Since I've become involved with our nation's security, I've been impressed with the number and quality of women in very high positions serving our country in the quest of national security and homeland defense. Many of these women work at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), upon which we rely to keep our children and communities safe.
 
Consequently, Family Security Matters decided to publish a series of interviews with these extraordinary women so that you might share in our joy of knowing them. Many of us probably never imagined such women would be working in this field, and especially at such high levels of importance and authority. But they are fully there and they are inspirational, hard working, tough and committed to ensuring that American families remain safe, even while enduring the threat under which we constantly live. We invite you to meet three shining examples of them.
 
One such woman, DHS’s Chief Privacy Officer Nuala O’Connor Kelly, is a model of the kind of incredibly smart, accomplished and thoughtful person we instinctively want contributing to such an important national issue. With pictures of her adorable one-year-old baby (and adorable husband!) smiling back at her from her desktop, each day O’Connor Kelly deals with, and safeguards, one of the key issues facing our government: how can we keep our citizens safe while at the same time protect their rights to privacy, especially as privacy is itself such an integral part of America’s cherished freedoms.
 
O’Connor Kelly, born in Belfast, Ireland and thus an observer as a child of how governments deal with terrorists – both good and bad – she brings a unique and highly valuable personal experience to her role at DHS. After visiting recently with this special woman in DHS’s new offices, I can’t imagine how our country could have found a more competent candidate for this job. Meeting, and listening to, Nuala O’Connor Kelly has restored my faith in any bureaucratic government’s ability to cut to the chase and hire only the very best qualified people, not merely the next bodies in line. What a gem she is!
 
Come listen in on our revealing – and often comforting - conversation…
 -- CAT
 
 
FSM:   What attracted you to government work from a private sector where, presumably, one might be able to earn a higher salary or have better benefits?
 
Nuala: Well, that’s true, and my husband is constantly reminding me that I could be making more money in the private sector, and I did; I’ve been very lucky in my career. But I’m a New Yorker and I grew up in the New York area. That really drew me to the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11. I was here in D.C. two and a half weeks when 9/11 happened and I didn’t know too many people, but all of my friends and all of my family were back in New York so it was very difficult. I had a brother-in-law who was actually in the World Trade Center, was injured, and he had four young children at the time. My sister could have been widowed like how many thousands of women in New York are, and it really made me want to help make sure this Government gets this issue right and that we protect our citizens, and particularly now as a new mom, protect our children, but that we do it in a way that also respects our freedom and our ability to move about the country with out too much government intrusion.
 
FSM: I saw a t-shirt outside your office that says ‘Privacy is Sacred’. You know that really moved me. Was that your idea?
 
Nuala: No, it was a company that I did some work with in the private sector and it was their logo and it really stuck with me. You know people in the rest of the world think Americans don’t care about privacy because our laws are a little different, but the reality is that Americans care about it deeply and fundamentally, it’s part of our very way of life, the way so many of our forbearers came to this country to seek the kind of free and open society where they could be who they wanted to be and practice whatever religion they wanted to practice, and so I think it’s kind of in the core of our culture. We actually constrain our government a lot more than other parts of the world can constrain their government in their actions. But we have a very robust private sector that does marketing, and knows your name and address in order to send you catalogs and in the rest of world that’s actually verboten, inappropriate to contact people in that way. I think that it’s a value that is kind of inherent in our Constitution, it’s imbedded in our lives; it’s something we all take for granted.
 
FSM: Regarding privacy, many people have been thinking, “I don’t care if we look into somebody’s records; if they are innocent, then they have nothing to hide.” But that thinking may be changing.
 
Nuala: That is part of our job here at the privacy office at Homeland - it’s just to make people think about the impact DHS is having and to help this department get its job done by saying, “how do we go about making the country safer in a way that is most respectful to the individual, that is the least intrusive but still achieves the mission?” For example, we have in the airports now a technology that is called the back scanner where you can walk through it and it can see all the metal and plastic and all the things that you’ve got hiding on your body. It helps to see every part of you in really intimate detail, and so we have to make these choices about how we use technology, how we use data and information about you in a way that’s appropriate and yet meaningful to making sure that you’re safer when you get on that airplane or go to that bus station or whatever.

FSM: Is that technology definitely moving forward?
 
Nuala: Well there were different versions of that technology, some of which are really less intrusive than others, so what we can do is make good choices. First, giving people a choice is really powerful because it allows them to be more in control. The airports are a perfect example because that’s where most people meet Homeland Security. Secretary Chertoff has said he believes that choice is what is going to make people feel that they can be in control of their information, their destiny and their data. Some people have great discomfort about being patted down by a total stranger at the airport but might feel OK about going through technology that revealed whether they had plastic or metal on their bodies. So how do we give people the most options, the biggest range of choices that they can preserve their dignity and go about ordinary situations?
 
FSM: Was there anything in your working in the private sector that prepared you for the public sector, or would you say that it was the reverse, that you get better prepared in the public sector ?
 
Nuala: Oh, good question. I started out as a regular lawyer at a big law firm and that was great training, the very hard work of legal practice, the hard analysis and not cutting corners and not being lazy in my thinking. Then there was the really rigorous and disciplined training I got early in my career in the dot com world. I loved working for a high-tech company because the energy, the speed, the pace was unbelievable. The ability to get things done and make changes that affect people and educate within the organization is something that I hope we have brought here. I think this office is the first of its kind. We are really setting a precedent, which is exciting. I think that we bring an energy; I mean we really are passionate about what we do and have enthusiasm for what we do but it also very non-hierarchal. You know, everyone’s got his own project that he’s working on and every person feels a sense of ownership in his or her work so it’s truly a team environment and a very exciting environment.
 
FSM: So it sounds like you have been able to take what you learned in the private sector and apply it here without anyone saying, ‘wait a minute we don’t do things that way.’
 
Nuala: Yes, there certainly is a little bit of that from people who have been in established government organizations for a long time and are used to doing things a certain way but Homeland, in particular, fosters that environment because it is only two years old. I was here the second week that we opened our doors, so there weren’t a lot of people around saying well we have always done it that way.   So, it was a great opportunity to actually create.
 
FSM: Would you say, then, that DHS is different in that sense? I was shocked - more than surprised, shocked - at how many women seemed to be in very high positions at the DHS. Is that why?
 
Nuala: I think so. There’s a new opportunity here and we were willing to take the best and the brightest, people who are willing to work really, really hard the first couple of years. So I think yes, maybe there were some doors open to a new structure that wasn’t here before.
 
FSM: What is the structure, you said non-hierarchal? Now how does it function?
 
Nuala: I mean my office is not hierarchal. There is a clear line of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, obviously is our senior most leader, then there are cadres of under-secretaries that directly report to the Secretary. I am one, and there are a few other women at that level. There are a number of senior women who are not only lawyers but technical people, technologists and scientists.

FSM: Tell me more.
 
Nuala: We have some very, very senior women in our Science and Technology directory such as Dr. Maureen McCarthy.
 
FSM: Now why should women be interested in a career in government services? What does government service offer them?
 
Nuala: I think the tradition has been that there is more stability in government than there is the private sector, meaning it’s not likely that Homeland Security is going to go out of business tomorrow; that is very unlikely. The government, because we are one of the largest employers in the world, has the luxury of programs like daycare and flexible work schedules. The salaries may be somewhat more limited than the private sector, but the rewards are far greater in some ways, and the stability and the other benefits are actually phenomenal. I have had a very good experience having a baby while working at a senior level in government. I had great support from my team, but I was able to come back on a somewhat flexible schedule at first, so I felt like the transition was entirely manageable. So I think that there are benefits to work life balance for women in government. Almost everyone on my team works at home one day a week or takes advantage of the flexible work schedule where they work four longer days and have the fifth day off, or something like that. I know that if people are motivated they are going to get their work done.

FSM: How can our Government use and share data that has privacy guarantees and still have the data be useful?
 
Nuala: Great question. I think the answer very largely is in good technology so we want to make sure that our government is using the best technology that’s out there to make sure that when we see that you are about to board a plane, that we know that is actually you and not somebody posing as you or pretending to be you. But, also we want to make sure that that data, once it is outside the government, is safe and secure…and that costs money, so we are putting a lot of investment into what technologies are best and most cost effective for the government. You know the joke I always say about government privacy is that we used to have our privacy protected by the inefficiency of our government because the IRS didn’t talk to the INS; that way we had privacy protection.   Well, President Bush has said over and over again that we don’t want an ineffective government. We want a limited, effective government, which is exactly right. We want to make sure we limit the focus and the amount of data that is being brought into the government, but make sure that it’s used effectively and that it is shared appropriately with our Federal partners: FBI, CIA, DOD, DHS, the various intelligence agencies. We want to make sure that when they know there is a bad guy that they share that information with all the other agencies. But, that they are not willy-nilly collecting data about you just because you went and got on an airplane.
 
FSM: With the privacy laws that are in place now versus ten years ago, would a privacy question being asked today be answered differently now than it was then, by law?
 
Nuala: It’s a question of public expectation. People are growing in their concern, and they’re right to be aware and thoughtful about when they hand out their Social Security number, for instance, or to whom they give their telephone number in their ordinary course of business. I think twenty years ago, people used to have their Social Security numbers on their checks, and so we are all becoming more aware and that’s good. Identity theft is a huge problem in this country.   From Homeland’s perspective, we look at that as both potential funding for terrorists and also a great cover for people as they move about the country.
 
The way we teach our children to look both ways before they cross the street, we should also be teaching our children that you don’t answer the phone and say, “Mommy’s not home,” or “let me give you my phone number.” This is also about teaching your children the awareness of privacy. It’s not just don’t let a stranger touch you, or don’t go with that stranger, it’s also don’t let that stranger ask you questions about your mom and your dad. It’s safety and security.
 
FSM: What law or laws would you like to see passed that would enable us to identify and arrest terrorists while protecting our citizens?
 
Nuala: Well, I think that the President and the Congress have done a lot of that in Patriot 1 and Patriot 2. I would say that it’s good that every American has the right to question their government and be concerned about how our laws are used. The initial impetus for Patriot was to make equal the playing field between terrorist investigations and law enforcement investigations. The FBI and CIA could not do the same things in terms of looking to find terrorists that they could do in looking to find criminals, so it really was a leveling of the playing field. Now I think we should all be concerned when it impacts ordinary citizens in our own personal habits, like video rentals, or buying books on Amazon, or that kind of thing. I think the presumption is still very strongly in favor of the individual in this country, far more, actually, than in many parts of the world. Between the government and the individual, the presumption is that your data is your data; that your life is your life to control, and only when there is a reason of suspicion or a legal predicate does the government have the right to intrude on your life. I think that’s right and we want that now, the power just the way it is.
 
FSM: During times of war do you think that we should be on a different footing in terms of privacy?
 
Nuala: No. Very clearly, no. It’s good that we have this time, I think, of quiet after the storm of 9/11, to reflect on how we see our privacy because in times of crisis those principles are tested. But we are building privacy into Homeland Security every single day by making intelligent choices again about technology, about how we train our employees, about how much data we take in, in order to analyze it.
 
FSM: How do you enforce privacy across DHS?
 
Nuala: We’ve got at headquarters about thirty to thirty-five people who work directly for me, a terrific staff of lawyers, of technologists, of education and training people, compliance people. They work with the Privacy and Freedom Information Act staff across the department so that’s another four-hundred and fifty people. We’ve got a big team and combined with this department next year, will spend something like forty to fifty million dollars on the Privacy and Freedom Information Act, keeping your data private but also letting you see what the government is doing.
 
What that means is, we require every new program, every new idea or department, to explain to the people through plain English what they are going to do with data, or what they going to do to help make them safe. And just through writing that document, through the process of asking questions…should we be doing this? Should we be buying this technology? Should we really be taking fingerprints from everyone who comes across our border? Is this the right thing to do? I think it we’ve made the program stronger and better, and more accurate and more focused on their targeted missions.
 
You know, inside we educate and train, we help people comply with the law and outside we bring in these concerns of the advocacy community and the public and we also criticize when appropriate.
 
FSM: Now, my last question. You had this wonderful thought earlier about teaching kids the privacy issue. Do you have any other suggestions for mothers? What they can do to help their children, to keep them more safe, to help their children to keep themselves safe?
 
Nuala: We always think about physical safety, thinking about child molesters for instance, with “don’t let people touch you.” But, it’s also what are the private parts of your data, your information, your family’s information or yourself? What’s your private stuff; your name, your address, and your telephone number. Whatever your family defines as your private stuff, that’s information you don’t have to give out just because someone asks you, “so what’s your name?” You don’t necessarily have to tell them if they are a stranger, or a policeman, or your teacher. You’ve got private stuff, you have every right to it, and it needs as much protection as your own physical body. That’s my key message to other mothers like myself.