Public Matters

This morning, authorities had to shut down the subway station at the Pentagon and divert hundreds of passengers in order to investigate a suspicious blinking object found in a garbage can, according to this story on Salon.com.

"Someone spotted some lights that were blinking in a trash can," Layman said. "We took it seriously, it was called a 'suspicious object and they came and x-rayed and inspected the item."

Well, as it turns out, the object ended up being a battery-operated Christmas ornament. While this is slightly humorous, it's also a huge success story. It demonstrates that people are remaining vigilant and doing their part to report suspicious objects to authorities. And that's exactly what the Department of Homeland Security is aiming for with its "See Something, Say Something" campaign.

And while I did enjoy the seasonal component of this story, quite frankly, I'm hoping for an uneventful holiday this year. My Christmas vacation was quite ruined last year thanks to the Christmas Day underwear bomber and I'd rather spend the holiday stuffing my face than desperately trying to reach sources for comment the day after Christmas. There was no joyful noise heard from me last year.

In less than two weeks, Amtrak will start allowing passengers to check unloaded firearms inside their bags, lifting a ban that was in put in place after Sept. 11, 2001.

All rifles, shotguns, handguns and pistols aboard must be locked in a hard-sided container and travelers must have a reservation for the weapon at least 24 hours before a departure, according to this article. The option to check bags does not exist at all stations and firearms can only be carried on to trains that offer it. The ban of firearms on trains was lifted last December and goes in to affect December 15th.

I wrote an article about an amendment that would permit passengers to check firearms back in September 2009 and in that piece one of the major concerns was that Amtrak didn't have the infrastructure in place to comply with such legislation:

“Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak has no system in place for a uniform system of screening for weapons or exact regulations regarding firearms,” wrote Thomas Carper, chairman of the board for Amtrak. “At Amtrak, baggage cars may be more easily accessed by a passenger or third party at any stop along the train route. Amtrak trains have no separate and secure cargo as airplanes do and our baggage cars are not alarmed.”

Well, apparently Amtrak has the systems it needs now:
"We believe we have taken the necessary steps-revised reservation system, modified baggage cars and stations to secure the firearms, and trained employees- to ensure firearms can safely and securely travel in checked baggage," said Amtrak Spokesman, Steve Kulm.

In a recent USA Today article, Kulm said that the company spent $2 million on staff training, modifying the reservation system and installing secure storage in 142 baggage cars to accommodate the guns.

As you might recall, the Department of Homeland Security has made a big push to boost security measures in the nation's public transit arena because it considers public transportation to be highly vulnerable to terrorism.

While there are certainly concerns about having adequate measures in place to secure these firearms, it does seem reasonable that people should be able to transport firearms on trains just like on airplanes. What do you think? Does this new rule pose a security threat to passengers?

The Department of Homeland Security is recommending that the Homeland Security Threat Advisory System - known as the "color code" - be scrapped in favor of warnings that would be more specific, according to senior administration officials and reported in ABC News.

As it turns out, Secretary Napolitano was never a fan of the color-coded system. Check out this video of an interview with her on the Colbert Report. If you don't feel like watching the whole thing, just skip to 5:17:

And if you don't feel like watching even that section, here's what the Secretary had to say about the system:

"I don't like doing the colors. We're actually looking at the color-code system. Why? Because it doesn't communicate information. Our job is to communicate information so people know what to do businesses, families, communities know what to do. Information is power. If you know what's going on you're not as afraid."

However, the decision won't be final for a few weeks and is currently undergoing an interagency review and consultation with the White House, but I'd say if the Secretary isn't in favor of it, the color-code system is probably on its way out.

The system, initially set up in 2002, has been adjusted 16 times. The system, which spans the spectrum of colors from green - or low - risk of terrorist attack, to red - or severe - risk, has never gone below yellow - or elevated - risk.

I'm guessing there will be some sort of system that replaces the colors and is more specific to the threats, but I think most security folks are fine seeing the color system gone. Right?

During my tour of Boston Logan International Airport yesterday, I talked extensively with Bill Hall, manager of access control systems at Massport about the different access control systems in place. Basically, every door that leads from a public space to a restricted area requires three pieces of personal information. All employees must scan their badges, enter a PIN code and submit their fingerprint to gain access. Plus, all doors are monitored by video surveillance. Hall and I discussed the importance of biometrics as a verification tool and he expects biometrics to be a growing security technology.

Well, apparently not everyone sees biometrics the same way. I just received a press release from the Security Industry Association challenging a recent report from the National Research Council that criticized biometrics. The NRC report, Biometric Recognition: Challenges and Opportunities, that biometric technology is “inherently fallible” and that “The scientific basis of biometrics … needs strengthening.”

Basically, SIA refuted the organization's findings and stated that NRC relied on old data. SIA acknowledged that “Every nascent technology has limitations,” but cautioned against interpreting the NRC report as a refutation of biometrics.

The SIA statement also noted the advancement of biometrics: "Open standards are available and are constantly being enhanced to further develop this technology and provide a more unified approach to verifying an individual’s identity. Biometrics provide an effective countermeasure against fraud and identity theft in applications as diverse as personal access to buildings and computers, banking security, business-to-business transactions and e-commerce.”

Like most security professionals I've spoken with, SIA stated biometric technology has a lot of potential in the industry: “Automatic biometric systems are here to stay because of their ability to tie an undisputable physical attribute to an individual.”

What do you think? Are biometrics here to stay? Take our poll here.