Strengthening Trust Through SOC 2: An IT Engineer’s Perspective in Background Screening

In the background‑screening industry, trust isn’t just a value it’s the foundation of every interaction we have with clients and applicants. As an IT engineer, I see firsthand how critical it is to safeguard the sensitive personal data entrusted to us. That’s why achieving and maintaining SOC 2 compliance has become one of the most important pillars of our security program.

SOC 2, developed by the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA), evaluates how well an organization manages customer data across five Trust Services Criteria: Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy. For a background‑screening company handling Social Security numbers, employment histories, criminal records, and other highly sensitive information, these principles aren’t abstractly directly shape how we design and operate our systems.

From an engineering standpoint, SOC 2 pushes us to build with intention. It requires strong access controls, continuous monitoring, encryption at rest and in transit, and rigorous change‑management processes. These aren’t just checkboxes; they’re practices that reduce risk and strengthen the resilience of our infrastructure. Every log we collect, every alert we tune, and every system we harden contributes to a more secure environment for our clients.

What I appreciate most about SOC 2 is that it forces alignment across the entire organization. Security isn’t just an IT responsibility; it becomes a shared commitment. HR, operations, compliance, and engineering all work together to ensure policies are followed, incidents are documented, and improvements are continuous. This cross‑functional collaboration ultimately leads to better outcomes for the people whose data we protect.

For our clients, SOC 2 provides assurance that we’re not only meeting industry expectations but exceeding them. In a market where data breaches and privacy concerns are top of mind, being able to demonstrate audited, independently verified controls sets us apart.

As threats evolve, so will our approach. SOC 2 isn’t a one‑time achievement, it’s an ongoing journey. But as an IT engineer, I’m proud to be part of a team that treats data security as a core responsibility and a competitive advantage.

ABOUT AB GLOBAL
AB Global is The Gold Standard in Background Screening®, providing compliant, global background investigations backed by a client-centered experience.
The company holds dual PBSA Accreditations (U.S. & Global) and operates 100% U.S.-based, ensuring complete data sovereignty and ethical compliance across every market it serves.
With a client-concierge service model, SHRM & HRCI-accredited Screening University, and proprietary solutions such as GoldenEye 365, AB Global continues to lead the industry with innovation, integrity, and excellence.
Picture of Professor Hootsworth

Professor Hootsworth

Professor Hootsworth guides AB Global, ensuring they remain true to their mission of delivering the Gold Standard in background screening. Whether he’s unraveling a tricky screening puzzle or delivering a lecture at Screening University, Hootsworth’s brown feathers and blue eyes have become a symbol of trust, integrity, and knowledge in the background screening world.

Subscribe To Our Blog

More Blog Posts

When conducting a background screening, one of the most critical components is identifying an applicant’s AKA, or “Also Known As” name. An AKA can include: Maiden names Nicknames Previous legal names Alternate spellings Aliases that an individual has used throughout their life.
Why is service such a challenge? It is because business leaders often try only to be as good as they think they need to be. The prevailing thought here is that being more than what they need to be is a waste.
AB Global was founded on a simple belief: background screening should be built on trust, not assumptions. For decades, the industry operated a certain way. Processes were built behind closed doors. Data moved through systems most clients never saw. Decisions were made without clear visibility into how, where, or by whom sensitive information was handled.