On Jan. 10, I published Security Director News‘ 20 Under 40 list for 2012. I interviewed and wrote a small profile of each honoree, including details about their background, how they got started in the security profession, what they find rewarding about the profession, etc.
I want to do two things in this blog post: The first is to address some of the comments I’ve heard about the list, including questions about the selection process, it being age insensitive and its lacking diversity. The second is look at this group of successful, young individuals and see what conclusions we are able to draw about the security profession.
About the selection process: It wasn’t scientific. The process began easily enough by culling the more than 100 nominations of the candidates who were clearly not eligible, either because they were an integrator, or a sales person, or a consultant, or only worked in the cyber security realm. Security Director News is looking for individuals who have physical security responsibilities. As we generated a short list of candidates, the vetting began. I spoke with the nominators, did some of my own Internet sleuthing, and in some cases reached out to co-workers to ask why this individual stands out. To trim the short list to 20 individuals I took into account the strength of the nomination, a candidate’s dedication to the profession as evidenced by their involvement in professional organizations and associations, and any notable accomplishments the candidate had made. I believe the list includes some of the most noteworthy young security practitioners in the business today.
The age question can be touchy, but if our goal is to highlight the up-and-coming security professionals who have chosen security as their life’s career and are being noticed by colleagues, we need to draw a line somewhere. Would it be less age sensitive if our list was 20 Under 50? How do you recognize the next generation of security leaders without excluding the current generation? I believe our process succeeds at meeting our previously stated goal.
As some of you noticed, there are only two women on the list and no African Americans. My only response to this is that the makeup of the 20 Under 40 list is a direct reflection of the nominations I received. If you’d like SDN’s 20 Under 40 list for 2013 to better reflect the security profession you’d like to see, it’s not too early to nominate someone. Here’s the link.
Now the data.
The average age of the individuals included on this year’s list is 33.8.
3 are former police officers
6 are former military
1 worked for the FBI
3 have consulting backgrounds
5 have previous experience with an integrator or security service provider
7 have only end-user experience
10 have been involved in some aspect of security, whether integrator or end user, since college
6 are from the corporate sector
4 are loss prevention professionals
2 are from the higher education sector
2 are responsible for critical infrastructure facilities
2 work for municipal security departments
1 is from the pharmaceutical industry
1 is from the hospitality/entertainment industry
1 is from the financial sector
1 is from the government sector
One thing that struck me was the high number of people who came up through the ranks of the security profession, from early starts as part-time loss prevention associates in college to security guard jobs to make some extra money. There’s a good mix of former law enforcement and military personnel, as well as those with integrator and consultant backgrounds. What do you see in the results? Please share your conclusions with me and I can include them in future blog posts.
This having been my first year compiling SDN’s 20 Under 40 list, I now realize there is plenty of other raw data I could have mined from these individuals during the selection process that could be of interest to security professionals. For example, how many report to a CSO or similar position? If not to a C-suite security position, who do they report to? Legal? A COO? How many come from organizations that have combined physical and IT security into one department? How many have information security functions folded into their physical security responsibilities? This is all data I’ll seek to compile next year.
Please feel free to get in touch with me with any questions or comments. I can be reached at wrichardson@securitydirectornews.com or 207-846-0600, ext. 227.
-Whit
Whit Richardson
Managing Editor
Security Director News
A new survey from Thomson Reuters and NPR reveals that roughly one quarter of respondents would refuse to pass through the full-body scanners that are now deployed at more than 100 U.S. airports. In addition, 14.9 percent of respondents said the full-body scanners had them concerned for their health.
That last part will rile the TSA, which has tried hard to educate the public about the health concerns of the scanners. The TSA, of course, denies the scanners, known as Advanced Imaging Technology machines, pose any health risks. “Advanced imaging technology screening is safe for all passengers, including children, pregnant women, and individuals with medical implants,” the TSA says on its website.
Raymond Fabius, M.D., the chief medical officer at the healthcare business of Thomson Reuters, agrees with the TSA. “While I applaud the survey participants’ concern with radiation exposure, these scanners are safe. Based on the amount of radiation these machines produce, a traveler would have to take 2,000 plane rides before being subjected to the equivalence of a single chest x-ray,” Fabius said in a press release. “The much more serious health concerns associated with flying are exposure to communicable illnesses and blood clots during long air excursions.”
Back to the Reuters-NPR survey. Respondents said the main reasons for resistance to new scanners are exposure to radiation (22.6 percent), personal privacy violations (17.1 percent) and concerns the scanners violated their 4th Amendment rights (13.3 percent). Forty-seven percent of respondents expressed no concern with the technology.
I think the TSA will always face airline passengers who raise health or privacy concerns when it comes to the full-body scanners. It comes with the job.
How cool is this article from New Scientist about the first hacker revealing security holes in wireless communication technology in 1903? Nevil Maskelyne was first in a long line of hackers who have exposed and exploited security flaws in communication technology—from Morse code to the Internet.
The ASIS Foundation recently launched Lines of Hope, an annual campaign to raise funds to purchase calling cards for wounded U.S. soldiers. Each December, calling cards will be purchased and distributed to wounded veterans at Walter Reed National Military Center. December is almost over, but donations are accepted year round. What better way to celebrate the holidays and new year than support this worthy cause? Again, here’s the link.
Officer Deriek Crouse was shot and killed on Dec. 8, 2011, during a routine traffic stop
Virginia Tech has identified the campus police officer that was shot and killed yesterday as Deriek Crouse, a five-year veteran of the campus police department.
Our thoughts go out to Deriek Crouse’s family, friends and the entire VT community.
Here’s the full statement:
“Virginia Tech Police have identified the officer murdered today during a traffic stop on campus as Deriek W. Crouse, 39, of Christiansburg. He joined the Virginia Tech Police Department on Oct. 27, 2007, and served in the patrol division. He is survived by his wife, five children and step-children, and his mother and brother.
He received his law enforcement certification on Feb. 12, 2008, from the Cardinal Criminal Justice Academy. Officer Crouse was trained as a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) officer, General Instructor, Firearms Instructor, Defensive Tactics instructor and most recently completed training for Advance Law Enforcement Rapid Response and Mechanical and Ballistic Instructor.
Officer Crouse was a member of the Virginia Tech Police Emergency Response Team since February 2011. He received an award in 2008 for his commitment to the department’s Driving Under the Influence efforts.
He formerly worked at the New River Valley Jail, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, and was a U.S. Army veteran.
Funeral arrangements will be announced at later date.”
Update 4:48 p.m.: At 4:30, Virginia Tech issued this statement:
“Virginia Tech Police, in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies, have determined that there is no longer an active threat or a need to secure in place. Resume normal activities.”
“Numerous reports have been made recently of sounds identified as gunshots and suspicious activity on campus. These recent reports have been investigated and are unfounded. The suspect’s status remains unknown. Several law enforcement agencies are on scene to assist. Please stay where you are and secure your surroundings.”
“Shortly after 12 p.m. today, a Virginia Tech Police officer stopped a vehicle on campus during a routine traffic stop in the Coliseum parking lot near McComas Hall.
During the traffic stop. the officer was shot and killed. There were witnesses to this shooting.
Witnesses reported to police the shooter fled on foot heading toward the Cage, a parking lot near Duck Pond Drive. At that parking lot, a second person was found. That person is also deceased.
Several law enforcement agencies have responded to assist. Virginia State police has been requested to take lead in the investigation
Status of the shooter is unknown. The campus community should continue to shelter in place and visitors should not come to campus.”
2:05 p.m.: Virginia Tech announced on its website this morning that a shooting has occurred on its campus and is warning all students to stay indoors. At 1:12 p.m. the school posted this message on its website: “Suspect remains at large. A police officer has been shot. A potential second victim is reported at the Cage lot. Stay indoors. Secure in place.”
I listened to an interesting interview yesterday. Brian Lehrer spoke with Kamran Loghman on his WNYC radio show. Loghman helped the FBI develop pepper spray into weapons-grade material in the 1980s. He spoke about the history of the weapon, the misconceptions that exist about it and its intended use by law enforcement officers. (Here’s the link to the segment on pepper spray. If you want to skip right to Loghman’s interview, it begins at 20:00.)
Noteworthy is the fact Loghman is appalled by how a campus police officer at UC Davis on Nov. 18 used pepper spray on a group of docile student protesters, an event that was videotaped and went viral on YouTube. Last month, Loghman told The New York Times: “I have never seen such an inappropriate and improper use of chemical agents.” Read the rest of this entry »
Interesting news from Los Angeles, which I’m only reading today. It seems the LAPD sent around a dozen undercover cops into the Occupy LA encampment before last week’s eviction raid. The local City News Service broke the news, crediting the information to an anonymous source. A commander from the LAPD declined to comment on the information, but did say it was very important for the police to have information about the crowd before the raid. While gathering intelligence before sending officers into the camp seems like a no-brainer to me, one protester called the use of undercover cops “tantamount to 1950s McCarthyism.”
According to the announcement by the Department of Homeland Security, “Throughout this month, the Department will reach out to our partners and the public to raise awareness of what we can all do to protect and improve the resiliency of the nation’s vast array of critical assets and systems. It will take all of us working together to ensure these resources remain strong for the next generation.”
Do you think this has anything to do with the recent Russians-are-attacking-our-water-utilities-wait-a-second-no-they’re-not brouhaha?
On Nov. 22, I wrote a story about a suburban water utility in Illinois that suffered a burned-out water pump. Pretty mundane event. Water pumps burn out. But what made this one newsworthy is the fact that the Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, one of the so-called fusion centers, issued a report that claimed a cyber attack from Russia was responsible.
Newspapers and websites around the country ran with the story. After all, if true this would be the first foreign cyber attack on a piece of this country’s vital infrastructure. Utility security experts I spoke with at the time said it was a worrying development. “This is the first documented instance in the United States of a SCADA [Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition] system of a critical infrastructure being compromised,” Allan Wick, security manager for the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and chairman of the ASIS Utilities Security Council, told me.
