Editor’s notes

The Washington Post this morning announced that President Obama has selected another nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration. Later today, Secretary Napolitano is expected to announce that the administration has chosen Retired Army Major Gen. Robert A. Harding to head the much embattled agency.

Here’s a little bio about him:
Harding retired from the Army in 2001 after 33 years of military service. He served as deputy to the Army’s chief of intelligence and, previously, served as director for operations in the Defense Intelligence Agency. In 2003, he founded a defense and intelligence contracting firm, Harding Security Associates, which employs more than 400 people, according to the White House. Harding currently serves on the boards of directors of the Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts and the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.

Once he is officially nominated, Harding will have to undergo a confirmation process, which obviously did not go so well for the previous nominee, Erroll Southers. There are many out there who contest that this is a job out there that few want. I have to agree. With all the difficulties and criticism the TSA has faced in recent months (I.e. the releasing of sensitive security documents, the Christmas Day bomber and the Newark/JFK security breaches) who really wants to take on all that burden? Well someone with vision, experience and good-old-fashion courage. I’m sure Harding wouldn’t have accepted the nomination if he didn’t think he possessed all three strengths. I guess only time will tell how this confirmation go-around proceeds. Best of luck, Mr. Harding - it ain’t gonna be easy.

There’s been a lot of news lately about the Supreme Court’s discussion about whether or not it will overturn Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban, making it legal for citizens to own and carry guns. Some have speculated that this will increase gun trafficking and lead to an increase in violent crime. Others argue that it will allow private citizens to legally protect themselves.

But I was curious how such a change in policy would impact the security industry? Would making guns legal mean that organizations would consider arming their security officers? Would they need to implement more technology to screen folks entering facilities to ensure they weren’t packing heat? I started a discussion on LinkedIn and was surprised by what ensued. (See I told you social media can be a great tool).

You can read the thread here (but you probably have to be a member of the ASIS International group). The consensus was basically that a change in the law wouldn’t impact security companies or those charged with securing facilities. Here are a few points I thought were interesting (I chose not to attribute quotes because I didn’t want to ask individual permission and it’s a blog, so I can get away with it):

I previously worked in a facility with over 1,000 employees and approximately 75% of the employees in the facility had concealed carry permits, yet we had never seen an incident of violent crime on site in the history of that facility. Violent crime in our state is actually well below national averages. I think this illustrates the fact that relaxed gun control laws do not necessarily mean increased risk of violent crime.

… those intent on committing major crimes are already comfortable breaking the law and they are not dissuaded by breaking one more law by having or obtaining firearms. Restrictive gun laws are no more effective at restricting access to firearms than restrictive drug laws are at restricting access to illicit drugs.

With regard to our industry and the impact there, we have not seen any real increase in armed security coverage. In fact, armed security seems to be less common in Oregon than in other states. Aside from courthouses, banks, and armored carrier services, we don’t see much armed security here. Most of our government buildings and a fair number of our schools have metal detectors installed. But really I don’t think there will be a tremendous impact on our industry. To be honest, I think the impact from such a change would be minimal not only to our industry, but to the nation as a whole.

Another question would now be could security officers carry without the consent of their companies? If it is decided that the 2nd Amendment is universal and applies to all States, can it be similar to the ‘hospital situation?’ Can a company then not allow its security officers to carry? Would it then be wrong to terminate an officer’s employment for carrying?

With the current trend in the US toward relaxing or reversing hand gun laws involving the general populations’ ability to conceal and carry, I would expect an increase for opportunities to deploy thermal, x-ray and metal detection appliances into security operations. Change always spurs new opportunity.

We all love social media right? Hmmm, not always. I’m even in the media business and I must say, keeping up with my Twitter account (why aren’t you following me?!), Facebook and multiple blogs (here and here) consumes a large portion of my working day. And that doesn’t even include the time it takes to stay up-to-the-minute by reading other people’s Twitter posts, Facebook updates and blog entries - that’s almost a job in and of itself.

Well, many public and private entities have made it a single job, creating positions such as “chief media spokesperson.” While this title sounds like it could be synonymous with public information officer, it is distinctly different. Often this person is in charge of monitoring and tracking activity on such social media sites.

Here’s a great article about how the Boynton Beach Police Department in Florida is using social media. Not only does the police department monitor what residents are saying about the city via Twitter, they also have their own Facebook fan page and library of YouTube videos. And they’re using such sites to improve the way they do their jobs. For example, the department recently posted surveillance footage of a person breaking into a local liquor store on YouTube in hopes someone from the city will recognize the suspect.

But, the best thing this department has going for them, in my opinion, is the right attitude towards social networking:

“We figured this would be a perfect way to kind of brand the police department, and to interact with our community in a fun setting, to use something that people enjoy doing to educate them.”

“It personalizes the local police department. For a lot of people, their experiences with police are not positive, so here’s a great outlet for people to have a positive interaction with their local police department.”

That’s what these social sites are good for: Personalizing your company and providing a way to reach your audience in a way you never could before. Time to warm up your Tweeting muscles, folks.

As if the whole Seattle incident didn’t give guards a black-enough eye, I just ran across this story that Wackenhut (one of the largest security guard providers) has paid the city of Miami-Dade $7.5 million to settle a five-year battle for allegedly overbilling for their services.

But despite this payout, Wackenhut gets to keep the city’s business AND they get to remove some of the very negative components of the allegations, according to this article:

Under the agreement, Wackenhut also got the county to agree to remove all references in the audit to whether Wackenhut was intentionally fraudulent, to get the county to say Wackenhut did not overbill the county on purpose, and to agree not to hold it against Wackenhut should anyone be “arrested in the future” in connection with this case, suggesting that Wackenhut believes it’s possible some of its executives could be charged criminally.

Wackenhut says they fired guards for cause. But security guards and managers told story after story of overbilling and what they felt was retaliation from Wackenhut attempting to hide the massive overbilling of taxpayers.

Based on the payout, one could assume that Wackenhut is acknowledging overbilling. Talk about bad timing for the guarding world. I would say now might be a good time for all these guard companies to ban together and start running one heck of a public-image campaign. They’ve got some serious confidence to win back.

Normally, I have a lot of sympathy for security guards. I think many times they are the unsung heroes of security - the folks who are never paid enough, but are expected to save the day. They are the guys and gals out there making sure you and I are okay and if we’re not, they know what to do. Unless, of course, their hands are tied by silly policies aimed to protect corporations or agencies from being sued. I understand liability. I talk to transit agencies regularly and one of their primary reasons for having video surveillance is to protect themselves from false claims just as much as it is to protect their patrons. Do you think forward-looking video cameras are to ensure that buses remain on the right route? No, it’s to make sure that if the bus is involved in an accident, they have evidence about who’s at fault and who has the right to sue. And while I think it’s a sad testament to the world we live in, I’m okay with that kind of proactive security.

But, what happens when agencies take that fear of liability too far? The incident in Seattle where security guards stood there as a girl got beaten up is beyond disgraceful. And, in many ways, I’m sympathetic to the guards involved. Did they want to intervene? No one knows, but my guess would be yes. Very few of us choose to stand around and watch another human get hurt, knowing we can help. But, because the transit agency had a ridiculous, “observe and report” stipulation, these guards were restricted from intervening for fear of losing their jobs. And that’s disgraceful. Disgraceful, especially, for the folks upstairs who make these policies.

But apparently that policy has been changed. Shocking, I know. According to this article: “Security guards in Seattle’s bus tunnel now have the authority to break up a fight, or physically defend themselves.” Great. I would say that’s the public’s definition of a security guard’s duties. Glad those in charge are coming up to speed on this.

Seattle City Council met with Metro Police Chief Major Dave Jutilla, King County deputies and Seattle police to talk about the new security plan. “The focus really has been de-escalation of volatile situations, responding to hostile situations and give the security guards the basic skill to defend themselves,” Jutilla said.

As part of the new security plan, the tunnel guards working for Olympic Security Services will be given additional training and can step in to stop a fight or protect a bus rider.

Wow, so they can actually provide security? Really, that’s monumental. What’s so aggravating about this incident and the response it’s garnered is that it’s so typical: Something happens, everybody freaks out, a lot of money gets spent to fix the problem, and over time, when the public memory fades, those policies and solutions start going by the wayside, security budgets get cut again and likely the exact same vulnerabilities reappear. What will it take to break this security cycle?

It’s slightly more than a month away, but I’m officially gearing up for this year’s ISC West Conference & Expo in Las Vegas on March 23-26. While I typically spend these three days sprinting from one 20-minute appointment to the next, this year I’m trying to be smarter about it and generate more content for those who can’t attend.

While I think SDN does a great job of sharing information through traditional media resources (i.e. articles), one of our most valuable offerings has become sdnTVnews. And these trade shows represent a rare opportunity to have a vast assortment of security professionals in one place at one time. Here at SDN we’ve tried to maximize on that opportunity by sitting down and talking to security professionals, one on one, and hearing straight from them about the issues they face, the solutions they use and where they see the security profession heading. It’s that simple.

And we’ve generated some of our best content at these shows. If you don’t believe me, here’s the proof:

My discussion with Sergeant Chris Kovac of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department about the city’s approach to surveillance got 5,488 views. I know. Wow.

What about my interview with Chief James Overton of Delaware State University about the challenges of campus security and the strategies he uses. That got 760 views.

Want to know more about port security? Hear it directly from security professionals at the Port of Houston or the Port of Long Beach. Combined they got nearly 1,000 hits.

But, I’m not using this opportunity to brag about how great we are here (although if my boss is reading this, I sure could use a raise for all the traffic I’ve generated). Rather, I’m making a point that security professionals want to hear from other security professionals. They want to know what the other guy thinks, what the gal on the other coast is doing to solve the problems that those in the same sector likely have in common.

So, here is my official call for sdnTVnews appointments at ISC West. If you are an end user and would like to share your perspective with me, shoot me an email: LStelter@securitydirectornews.com

If you’re a manufacturer and have some clients in town for the show, do the same. In a perfect world, I’d like to meet with everyone, but I’m prioritizing time for companies who have clients at the show.

Great. I look forward to talking with you!
~Leischen

Enhancing border security continues to be one of the biggest challenges to our national security efforts. In case you didn’t get a chance to read Sam’s blog a couple weeks ago discussing a 60 Minutes episode on the ineffectiveness of the technology along the Mexican border, now would be a good time.

The basic theme of the episode (and Sam’s blog) is that security professionals (namely Boeing, who many would not consider to be a security company) dropped the ball big time on the installation of technology along the border and basically wasted taxpayer’s money. According to the show, $1 billion dollars later and only 28 miles of the border is protected (out of 2,000) and the technology along those 28 miles only “sorta works.”

There are many people out there who argue that implementing video-analytic technology along the border just isn’t feasible (and there are reports backing them up). So, now that we’ve wasted this kind of money and effort on a fruitless project, what to do now?

I just read this article in the Dallas News that the governor of Texas (who is currently campaigning for election) is calling for the Department of Defense to bring in more Predator drones to help protect the border. I’ll be honest, I had to Wikipedia ‘Predator drone.’ According to this ever-useful online source, a Predator drone is “an unmanned aerial vehicle which the United States Air Force describes as a MALE (medium-altitude, long-endurance) UAV system.”

And Gov. Rick Perry wants more of them along the border to provide security as well as real-time data to law enforcement.

According to the Dallas News: Already, there are three Predator B, or unmanned aerial vehicles, in use at the Arizona border for remote-control surveillance of drug and migrant smuggling by U.S. customs and Border Patrol officers.

Perry said this type of technology is critical to the overall security of the border. Law enforcement officers are frequently “outgunned and understaffed and do not have resources” to do their jobs, Perry said. “The federal government has been an abject failure at sealing our international border.”

While the federal government certainly has a role in these border security failures, let’s at least put some of the blame on the companies who promised to help the federal government do a better job. From Sam’s blog:

Boeing promised the government it would have 2,000 miles of surveillance (video-analytic based, radar integrated, outdoor surveillance, no less) installed in three years? No one there has been introduced to the old “under-promise/over-deliver maxim” I’m guessing. Sure, they’re under pressure to get the bid - nobody sneezes at $1 billion in revenue - but, as Borkowski rightly says, “shame on us,” shame on the government administrators, for believing that promise.

But if a huge company like Boeing can’t get some cameras to work properly, is it really more feasible (or beneficial or cost effective) to get these unmanned planes out there? I’m skeptical, especially after reading this story that drone planes in North Dakota were just grounded following a major software glitch.

The former Director of the Homeland Security unmanned aerial vehicle program at Grand Forks air force base says a software glitch grounded the two Predator B drones used for northern border patrol.

Mike Corcoran says that during a flight in early November the remotely piloted aircraft did not respond properly after the communication link with the base center was lost.

We don’t want these things accidentally dropping bombs everywhere, now do we? That’s not exactly helping to secure our borders.

Trying to secure the Super Bowl was nothing compared to the upcoming Olympic Games. The logistics involved in coordinating all the teams and athletes along with security personnel from numerous agencies should probably be considered an Olympic event all in itself.

Canada will spend about $900 million (U.S.) to keep the Games safe (up from initial estimates of $175 million!), according to this article in USA Today, but the U.S. is not just sitting back and enjoying the games.

Vancouver’s proximity to the United States— just 30 miles from the U.S. border crossing in Blaine, Wash. — has spurred an extensive security effort on the U.S. side, much of it focused on an 80-mile stretch of the Northwest border from the Pacific Coast to the western slopes of the rugged Cascade Range.

From a post in Bellingham, Wash., the U.S. government has built a $4 million communications center that will house law enforcement, public health and military analysts, with a total of 40 agencies represented.

The article said there has been about 12 drills in preparation for the Games. These drills range from bomb threats to biological threats along with drills to intercept aircraft and threats on the coast. With all this training and preparation, it’s not just the athletes who are preparing to give their best performance, and, unfortunately, security has no choice but to win every time.

In recent months I’ve spent a lot of time reading, talking, thinking and writing about aviation security. But, there’s nothing like seeing some of these processes in real life. In case you missed my series of live blogs, I was in Florida this week attending TechSec Solutions. As usual, I flew out of the Portland Jetport in all of its 11-gate glory.

Unless you’re flying out at 6am, getting through security in Portland is a breeze. I noticed, first of all, that there seemed to be an unusually large number of TSA workers on duty. I counted six behind one of two baggage screening stations, most of whom were sitting around the back, well, chatting. On my way through security there were also two Portland police officers stationed at the end of the security line observing passengers coming through the screening process.

THEN, as I was boarding my plane, I got pulled aside for secondary bomb-detection screening. While, I was slightly excited to experience this screening measure firsthand, I still had that slight moment of panic, because, well authority can be intimidating. (I tried to get Sam, who was also on the same flight, to take a picture to share with my loyal blog readers, but he balked saying it was illegal or some weak excuse like that.)

Anyway, while I certainly understand the nature of these additional security measures, I couldn’t help but think that these various resources could perhaps be better used somewhere else? Did I mention Portland only has 11 gates? That’s right, 11. In about a 200-yard space. Here I am in JFK on my way back to Maine and, comparatively, there’s much less security. I did watch two Port Authority police officers escorting a Garda security officer restock an ATM, but other than that, security has been much less prominent. Perhaps they’re just better at being discreet here in the big city.

Apparently, I’ve been distracted lately and haven’t had ports on my radar because two fairly significant changes to port security just came to my attention (not to worry, I’ve adjusted my Google alerts appropriately).

The first is that the Obama administration has apparently just dropped this whole 100 percent cargo screening initiative that was due to take effect in 2012. Well, perhaps that’s misleading. It’s not there are no longer efforts to increase screening of cargo, but rather that it’s finally being accepted that screening 100 percent of the 11.6 million containers that enters U.S. ports every year is, well, unfeasible.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m a little chagrined that I missed what seems to be such big port security news, but after I spoke with Aaron Ellis, director of communications for the American Association of Port Authorities, apparently this fell under the radar of a lot of other folks as well. After Napolitano suggested in one of her many appearances before Congress that this wasn’t going to happen, Ellis told me that there wasn’t a lot of reaction from the port community.

“This was a bit of foregone conclusion,” Ellis said. “There was enough building up to this point that I think, at least our port members felt like: ‘Was there any other choice at this point?”

He explained that the burden of this legislation would really fall on shippers, not so much ports, UNLESS there was a demand for reciprocity by foreign ports.

“There was some concern from ports had if the U.S. required to scan all containers before loaded at foreign ports wouldn’t foreign countries want the same over here? That was the bigger concern.”

For more on that, here’s a great article by the Heritage Foundation about implementing risk-based screening, which highlights layered security measures that can do an equally good job of protecting our ports, without running the danger of crippling commerce.

The other big piece of news that I missed (but only by two days) is about the official implementation of the long-awaited “Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements” (A.K.A. The 10+2 rule) on Jan. 26. Here’s more detail from Logistical Management:

In its most basic form, 10+2 requires importers and carriers to electronically submit additional information on cargo at least 24 hours before ocean freight is loaded onto a vessel bound for the U.S.

This additional information requires importers to provide 10 data elements and vessel carriers to provide 2 data elements on containers and their cargo to Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection group. This information will add to the information available to CBP and improve its ability to identify containers that may pose a risk for terrorism for additional scrutiny like scanning or physical inspection, according to an October 2009 report by the United States Government Accountability Office on Supply Chain Security.

By collecting more information from shippers about the contents of containers, those charged with security will have a better sense of what shipments need to undergo additional screening, without having to screen ALL cargo. Nice to know there’s finally some common sense being applied to port security, isn’t it?