Worked for them. The “biometrics” moniker is not accurate.
I agree, I know people who work for them and they aren’t a bio company.
How would you describe their business specialty?
They’re an IT firm.
IT consulting. They take jobs in contract. They built Healthcare.gov (poorly) on the first round.
It’s not their specialty, but it’s a field they’re a giant in. The context is clear from the article.
Asked about Accenture’s international work on biometric identification, predictive policing, and national security, Bernard, the JCOD spokesperson, said the firm was involved in many different kinds of work. “Accenture is a large, international consulting firm with many lines of business. The specific consultants assigned to this project are part of a team in Accenture dedicated to the public sector. Their team comes from a variety of backgrounds, primarily in the health and human services industry.”
It’s kind of clear at this point that no-one in this off-topic thread has read the article, or has contributed anything useful to the discussion.
I worked there for about a decade. It’s a poor description of the company. It’s like calling Microsoft a Database Giant. Yes, they make MS SQL, yes they’re known for that, but is that the best description of their work? No.
When I left, Accenture had 400k employees. My friends who work there still saw this article and had the same take I did.
So, to paraphrase someone in this comment section, “it’s kind of clear to me that some people don’t know a thing about Accenture but what the article says.”
It’s accurate to say that I don’t know a thing about Accenture but what the article says. On a site about discussing news articles and learning new things, that’s not something to be ashamed of. And Microsoft is unambiguously a database giant, even if that’s not the way a person who worked in another tentacle of the organization would describe it.
I think it’s telling that you and the people who still work there’s first reaction is to quibble with the true but unusual title rather than engage with the meat of the article, or even read it before discussing it, for that matter.
