The economy has been bad - that’s no secret. Today, I confirmed that economic factors have impacted the security industry’s largest association, ASIS International, and in late June the organization laid off some of its staff.
I spoke with Eileen Smith, vice president of marketing for ASIS, and she confirmed the layoff event in June. “There were some layoffs to rightsize the organization,” she told me. “We’re facing the same economic issues that most businesses are facing.”
When asked if this had been spurred by other factors like reduced membership or lower-than-expected show attendance, Smith said the association would not comment beyond citing economic factors. Fair enough.
A credible source told me that the association laid off somewhere between 11 and 13 employees. According to its Web site, ASIS has approximately 95 full-time employees at its headquarters in Alexandria, Va. By my math calculations, that’s about 8 percent of its total staff (assuming all layoffs were at its headquarters and were full-time employees, which have not been confirmed).
Regardless, this is just another sign that security is not immune to economic pressures and hopes for a quick turnaround from last year’s recession are probably unfounded.
As it turns out, CFATS legislation may not be “dead” after all. Today, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee unanimously voted to approve an amendment to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868).
The amendment would extend the existing Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards by three years to October 4, 2013 and give chemical facilities and the Department of Homeland Security time to more fully implement the regulation, rather than significantly altering the existing rules, according to a statement released by the the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates.
Here’s a few more highlights of this legislation:
* direct DHS to develop voluntary exercise and training programs to improve collaboration with the private sector and other stakeholders;
* establish a voluntary technical assistance program allowing DHS to provide non-binding recommendations or assistance to covered facilities at the request of the owners/operators of those facilities;
* create a chemical facility security best practices clearinghouse at DHS; and
* establish a chemical facility security advisory board to advise DHS on CFATS implementation and the voluntary technical assistance program.
All the legislation needs now is to pass a full vote in the Senate. But will it happen? Congress is scheduled to go on recess August 9 - September 12, so the amendment has seven days to pass. Obviously, it could also pass when Congressional folks return from their month-long vacation (P.S. I plan to talk to my boss about adopting a similar work schedule), but some have voiced concern that election season could interfere with the passage of this legislation.
However, at least SOCMA and other chemical security folks have a piece of legislation to support. They were none too happy with legislation introduced by Sen. Lautenberg on July 15 that “would mandate chemical facilities switch to so-called safer chemicals or processes.” This legislation, known as the Secure Chemical Facilities Act, adopts the House version of the CFATS reauthorization bill, which includes controversial language regarding the use of “inherently safer technology.” However, the legislation that passed yesterday, does not include the IST language and continues what folks are calling “common-sense performance standards.”
Back in May, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on the threats facing the nation’s cruise lines. While officials maintain there haven’t been any credible evidence threatening cruise ships, the GAO found that cruise ships remain high-prestige symbolic targets for terrorists. I had an opportunity to interview Charlie Mandigo, director of fleet security for Holland America, for an SDN article. Mandigo discussed some of the threats cruise ships face including waterside and onboard attacks, as well as some of the security measures put in place to prevent such attacks:
The cruise line also has security personnel patrolling the boat. For a cruise with 2,000 passengers and a crew of about 700, Holland America has at least 10 full-time dedicated security officers who conduct screening, patrol the ship and monitor the ship’s CCTV and access control systems.
In addition to physical screening, cruise lines submit extensive passenger and crew member manifests to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to compare against terrorist watchlists and the National Crime Information Center database, to determine their potential risk to the United States or the cruise ship.
Well, now there are new laws for cruise ship security. On July 27, President Obama signed Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act, which requires cruise lines to contact the FBI and the U.S. Coast Guard as soon as a suspicious death or assault of a passenger on a ship is reported, according to this article in USA Today.
“The President’s signature on this legislation is a significant milestone for American consumers and the traveling public,” Rep. Doris Matsui, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement. It “will improve the safety and security of all cruise ship passengers traveling in and out of U.S. waters, and provide common-sense security measures to prevent crimes from occurring – and protections and support for victims and their families if and when they do.”
Cruise Lines International Association, who represents major lines operating in U.S. waters, said that many of its membership fleets already have many of the provisions required by the legislation, such as peep holes, 42-inch railings, and video surveillance systems. The most beneficial aspect of this legislation will be that these security measures will be consistent throughout the industry.
“With the domestic issues we have in this country, both economically and financially, concerns about workplace violence far outweighs and is more prevalent than threats of terrorism,” John Dowd, senior account manager for Kratos Defense and Security Solutions, told SDN.
Well, workplace violence has once again topped the news this week after a man in Albuquerque, N.M. forced his way into a manufacturing plant where his (ex)girlfriend worked, killed two employees and then himself. Four other employees were also wounded in the attack.
The Associate Press reported that it is still unknown how the shooter got past security at Emcore Corp., but his first victim was a person who confronted him on the way into the facility.
Then he went through the building firing shots at several employees and leaving behind a gruesome scene of blood and shell casings across the company headquarters. Responding officers had to step past several victims — one dead and several wounded — as they raced into the building to stop the gunman.
This is certainly one of those events that would be difficult to protect against, regardless of how solid a company’s access control and security program. Plus, the gunman is reportedly a former employee, so it’s assumed he knew the campus and facility well.
So what are companies to do? How can you possibly protect against someone so bent on harming others?
The article also stated that the woman targeted in this attack had told co-workers she planned to report domestic violence to authorities. But that never happened and that is where the process typically breaks down, said Patrick Fiel, public safety advisor for ADT and the former executive director of the Washington, DC school system, in an interview yesterday (I’ll post a longer story for newswire next week).
Fiel said that management often does not do enough to educate employees about issues of workplace violence. While it’s likely that most company handbooks reference workplace violence, not enough organizations bother to do any type of follow-up or re-training about the procedures employees should take if they are concerned about a co-worker’s safety. Fiel also said it is important for companies to have an anonymous tipline or hotline so employees feel safe reporting suspicions to supervisors.
It’s also important for companies to do periodic background checks on all employees, something that Dowd said less than 5 percent of companies do.
And, of course, it’s important to follow procedures when employees are terminated. Based on news reports, it sounds like this man pushed his way through security, but it’s critical to ensure that terminated employees have their access cards revoked.
And while this is nothing short of a tragic incident, it certainly is a reminder to security professionals about the types of risks they should be addressing on a regular basis. Are you doing enough? I’m curious how many of you regularly conduct workplace violence awareness programs with your employees. You can vote in our Newspoll here.
There were riots in the streets of Oakland, Calif. last night following an involuntary manslaughter conviction of a white Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer for shooting a 22-year-old unarmed black man on January 1, 2009.
That sentence carries a maximum four-year sentence.
But some in Oakland expected a tougher penalty for the former police officer, and took to the streets in protest, reported CNN.
Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts said the high point of the protests there were about 800 people in the streets, which lead to the arrests of 50 people.
The shooting was captured on a bystander’s cell-phone video camera:
At his trial, the officer claimed that he intended to draw and fire his Taser rather than his gun. But I wonder: How does a legally sworn officer make that kind of mistake? I’m not an expert on guns or Tasers, but it’s my understanding that they’re held and fired quite differently. It’s apparent from the video that this situation was getting out of hand and there was a lot of chaos, so maybe the officer just lost his head? But I wonder too if this is any indication that these officers aren’t properly trained?
Especially after watching the video, it seems like inexperience and chaos likely contributed to this outcome. There’s a moment in the video, right after the shot is heard (around the 1:25 mark), when the officers seem completely stunned, especially the officer with the gun. It seems like they don’t know what to do with the body or how they should deal with the situation.
Of course, it’s still murder, regardless of whether he meant to do it or not. The officer will be sentenced August 6, and it’ll be interesting to see how many years he gets and what the public’s reaction will be.
Full-body scanners supposedly make people nervous. And that makes sense. Individuals don’t tend to like having their bodies exposed, in any form, especially to strangers. However, a new book, Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism, tackles the “real” reason the TSA hasn’t been able to deploy full-body scanners, despite the fact that the technology has been fully developed and found to effectively detect explosives and anomalies on the body.
The author, Stewart Baker, a former Homeland Security policy chief from 2005-2009, writes that civil-liberty advocates are the reason this technology still isn’t in place and why our aviation system remains vulnerable. Baker blames privacy advocates on both the Left and Right for convincing the House of Representatives to pass a resolution in June 2009 forbidding the government from using the body imagers for primary screening. Which, by the way, I didn’t know. And, apparently I’m not the only one. Baker addresses the public’s misperceptions of how the government reacted after the attacks of 9/11:
“There’s a well-established civil libertarian mythology about the nation’s response to 9/11,” Baker writes. “In the myth, a frightened U.S. government throws civil liberties out the window within weeks of the attacks, launching a seven-year attack on our privacy that a new administration is only now slowly … beginning to moderate. In real life, privacy groups mobilized within weeks of 9/11, and they won victory after victory, right from the start.”
But Baker doesn’t just discuss the issue of whole-body imaging technology, he also argues that these civil liberty groups worked to minimize the amount of information the TSA could gather in order to determine what passengers warranted additional screening. The original program was replaced with a system that only allows TSA to gather passengers name, gender and birthdate.
“If you’ve wondered why, eight years after 9/11, we’re still looking for weapons and not for terrorists, now you know. Privacy advocates turned the use of even ordinary data like travel reservations into the policy equivalent of a toxic waste site,” Baker said.
Once in a while, I go to YouTube to check out what kind of security-related videos might be making its way through the cybersphere. But with the upcoming holiday, I decided to narrow my search to see what kind of Fourth of July videos might be up there. I found several public service announcements from local police departments warning folks about firework usage. But, nothing beat these guys (who are exactly the kind of fellas police should be worried about). Their video salutes the “fallen founding fathers of the freelance fireworks hall of fame” and the “pyrotechnical heroes who risk mutilation, all for the nation.” Enjoy and have a wonderful and safe Fourth of July!
Guns issues are always a hot topic but they’re about to get even hotter. On June 28, the Supreme Court ruled that cities and states must abide by the Second Amendment and cannot restrict individuals from owning guns. In a 5-4 vote, the justices determined it’s unconstitutional for states to ban individuals from possessing firearms. This decision will likely lead to the voiding of Chicago’s 28-year ordinance banning handgun possession (although this is still speculation - the ordinance will need to be overruled by a lower appellate court based on this ruling by the Supreme Court).
But, I think it’s safe to say that this ruling will initiate a lot more gun-related cases. Yesterday, I spoke with James Pastor, president of SecureLaw and associate professor of public safety at Calumet University of St. Joseph in Chicago who was also a former Chicago police officer
for our newswire story. He said that while this ruling definitely determined that gun ownership is an individual right, it also left a fairly big gray area about what are reasonable restrictions to gun possession. Those boundaries likely be fleshed out in lower court rulings, so expect a lot more gun news to come.
I think it’ll be interesting to follow how Chicago makes this transition and how it crafts its gun policies. I also spoke with Brian Reich, who is the incoming chairman of the ASIS law enforcement liaison council and he said it was critical for law enforcement to be a strong advocate and participant in establishing regulations around gun control. Because police have a lot riding on this, right?
Well, they shouldn’t be too concerned about the change, according to Gil Cordova, corporate security manager for a transport company. Cordova is also an NRA instructor and conducts training at the local law enforcement academy in Ohio. He said that when Kentucky passed a conceal-carry law in 1996 there was a similar concern that there would be a rapid increase in gun-related violence.
“Police thought there was going to be bloodshed in the streets and lawlessness … but it did not come to fruition and if nothing else, crime has gone down,” he said. “I think you’ll find especially in Ohio that the bad guys already have the guns and they don’t care.”
But do more guns mean a greater chance for violence? “If too many people carry guns, many assume they’re not very efficient in the use of those guns and that the probability of more mishaps and/or violent events may go up because of just the probability of more guns and more potential events,” Pastor said.
Training and background checks are critical to this transition and I think that’s where law enforcement can have the greatest impact. As of now, this remains a huge TBD.
The Department of Homeland Security has reached several milestones recently. I just received a press release that DHS now checks 100 percent of passengers flying domestically and internationally against government watch lists through the Transportation Security Administration’s Secure Flight program. When I mentioned this to my colleagues, they nearly in unison expressed surprise that this wasn’t already being done.
It was only three weeks ago that DHS announced TSA was screening 100 percent of passengers flying within the U.S. against the watch list through Secure Flight. Prior to implementing Secure Flight, it was the airlines who were responsible for checking passengers against terrorist watch lists.
And, all in time for the TSA to get a new administrator (*fingers crossed*). Yesterday, Pistole was approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, according to The Washington Post. Last week, his nomination was advanced by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Now he heads to a full vote by the Senate, where he’ll hopefully be swiftly confirmed.
During Pistole’s second confirmation testimony, he reiterated the importance of the TSA being an intelligence-driven organization. Ensuring that all passengers traveling on U.S. carriers are checked against terrorist watch lists is just one more step toward that goal.
It’s looking pretty good for Pistole, I must say. The chairman of the committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman, more or less praised him for his work at the FBI and said he had the right credentials and experience to take on this leadership role.
This committee hearing felt a lot less ‘gotcha’ than the hearing with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation last week. While those senators obviously approved of his nomination as they voted unanimously for him, there was considerable discussion about collective bargaining, the use of technology and other controversial subjects that subsequently caused his predecessors to withdraw.
While at the end of the HSGA hearing, Sen. Susan Collins did bring up the collective bargaining issue, she seemed okay with the fact that Pistole really didn’t answer her questions. He once again reiterated that he would need to conduct a more thorough investigation with stakeholders on this subject before making a decision. However, he likely appeased her by reminding everyone that during his 27 years at the FBI, there was no unionization or collective bargaining rights (so is it assumed he wouldn’t put that in place at the TSA? We’ll just have to wait and see, I guess).
Pistole outlined his top priorities, were he to be confirmed. Not surprisingly, his first priority is improving the TSA’s intelligence program:
“I would ensure the TSA is a threat- and risk-based, intelligence-driven agency that’s not only able to pull information, but also that information is pushed out on a daily basis,” he said.
His second focus would be work-force development issues:
“I want to ensure work with all the employees of TSA to hear their concerns and make sure they have the tools, techniques, training and technology to do the best job possible,” Pistole said.
This hearing didn’t just focus on aviation security, but also included concerns regarding other forms of transit. Sen. Lieberman asked Pistole what about his general assessment of the threat to rail and transit systems.
“There are a number of threats,” said Pistole. “If confirmed, I would ensure a comprehensive rail and surface threat assessment was completed - there are portions of it done already. I would also ensure resources are where threats are, and we can’t be everything to all people, but make sure we’re allocating resources based on risk.”
There was also discussion about technology: “I would make sure operational testing done sufficiently to assess if it’s the best technology available today,” he said.
And information sharing: “There’s a dynamic tension between who to share information with and how much. Part of the challenges comes down to case-by-case determination, but try to find the best way forward,” he said.
All in all, the senators seemed to approve of Pistole’s answers, so it looks like he’ll be making it to the Senate floor for a full vote. You know he has a pretty good chance when Sen. Lieberman says this: “Our goal is to make sure you get confirmed before we break for the July 4 recess, so hopefully we’ll get you out of the committee sometime next week and passed on the floor as soon thereafter as possible.”
And this: “There’s an old saying that the third time’s a charm,” said Sen. Tom Carper during the hearing. “This time, I certainly hope so.”
