Subscribe to Public Matters RSS Feed

Public Matters

by: Whit Richardson - Wednesday, October 20, 2010

I don't pretend to be a technology expert, but I've participated in many tours, lots of demos and more than my fair share of product pitches (often unwanted and unproductive since SDN doesn't do product reviews). So I don't get wooed by technology very often, but at this year's ASIS conference I saw a few things that impressed me.

The day before ASIS started, I was invited to a dinner sponsored by FLIR (that's my disclaimer) and saw a demo of their new color night vision camera. Like I said, I've seen a lot of camera demonstrations, but this time I must say I was impressed. In case you're not familiar with FLIR, they specialize largely in thermal cameras, which alone is a pretty cool technology and definitely solves a lot of the lighting challenges that comes with traditional camera installations. But, FLIR's color night vision camera was something I'd never seen before.

To demo the system, they sent two of their people out onto a dark golf course. I couldn't see them. Of course, the thermal picked them up, but you couldn't get much information from that camera. However, the color night vision camera was a lot different. I could see the color of their shirts, I could tell they were men. The resolution was grainy and certainly not "forensic quality" but it was good. It made it look like it was dusk and I was impressed.

The next day I went to visit the Raytheon booth. I had never seen Raytheon at a security show and I've made efforts to speak with them in the past but was denied, so I was excited about this booth visit. I spoke with Drew McBryde, their product director, who told me that they had a booth last year, but it was significantly smaller. I asked him what this meant in terms of Raytheon's business strategy and he told me that the company, which specializes in military-grade technology, sees a lot of opportunity in the civil security market.

The big obstacle, he said, has been the proprietary nature of the company's products. All the technology the company developed has been proprietary, for obvious homeland-security reasons. At the show, the company released its command and control product, ClearView, that allows end users to integrate Raytheon equipment with other technology in a central operating platform. The company spent three years developing this operating tool and this is just the start, he said. The company will continue to make equipment that's less costly and geared toward general security applications.

Like FLIR (who has only been playing in this industry for about five years), Raytheon will target municipal applications, critical infrastructure and law enforcement. And, they've got a lot in their arsenal to be a big player here. They've got the technology, they've got the expertise, and don't discredit the strength of their brand.

And I think it's a smart, if not necessary, move for the company. I talked to a few folks on the show floor about Raytheon's presence and several people thought it was probably a move to counter a reduction in government contract work. I don't know much about government security, but apparently the government tries to spread around its contract work and there's just less work to be had. So why wouldn't a company that has already spent a significant amount of money developing this technology, spend a little more to make it applicable to a wider audience? That just makes good business sense, don't you think? Just ask FLIR.

Tags:
business strategy, FLIR, Flir, IQinVision, ISC Solutions, isc solutions, public private partnership, security shows, technology
by: Whit Richardson - Thursday, October 7, 2010

Every time I look at my schedule for ASIS International's Annual Seminar & Exhibits next week, I feel exhausted. Once again, my schedule is jam packed with 20-minute booth appointments, which, no matter how well I plan it, often leaves me running around the convention center like a madwoman, trying desperately not to be late ... again.

While booth appointments are an opportunity for me to catch up with company executives and see what new products and services they're offering, it's not really my thing. I mean, I like to see demos and "touch and feel" products, but really, I want to talk to the end user community. I want to learn who's using these systems. I want to know what their primary challenges are and what they're doing to solve them. Pretty simple and straightforward, really.

At ASIS this year, I'm excited to be able to talk with more end users than ever before. And the best part is, most of them have agreed to sit down with me on camera to tape segments for sdnTVnews. While the majority of SDN's articles include the end user voice, getting security practitioners on camera gives you out there an opportunity to hear their story directly from them, without my involvement. And while I think I do an excellent job of sharing their conversation with the readers of SDN, nothing beats hearing it straight from someone's mouth, with no interpretation.

And, just to wet your whistle about what to expect from upcoming sdnTVnews postings, here's a few conversations I'm particularly excited about:

- Steve Wrightson, director of security for the America’s for Christie’s auction house about securing some of the world's most valuable artwork

- Jeff Cantrell of Corrections Corp of America (they provide detention and corrections services, bet there's some cool stuff there)

- JJ Murphy from Wilkes Barre, Pa. about their approach to municipal security

- Captain Don Farrell of the Los Angeles Police Department. (Lest you forget how much you love hearing from these guys, check out the number of hits from our last interviews with them here and here)

Pretty good mix and a little something for everyone, I'd say.

And, as a reminder, if you're going to be at ASIS in Dallas on Oct. 12-14, be sure to stop by our booth (4143) and say hi. No matter how famous I become from all my star-studded sdnTVnews appearances, I'll always have time to talk with my readers. Heck, I may even convince you do to a spot with me. We'll get famous together.

Tags:
ASIS, asis, DHS headquarters, IQinVision, show floor, video interviews, end user interviews, military equipment, Raytheon
by: Whit Richardson - Wednesday, October 6, 2010

There's probably no sector of the population who embraces social networking more than college students. After all, mega-sites like Facebook were originally created as a network site for Harvard students and then expanded to other colleges. Plus, having the ability to Tweet out your every thought and observation to a drove of "followers" is right in line with the self-indulgent, the-world-revolves-around-me attitude of many college-age folks - followed closely only by high school students, I'd say.

But some school security folks have found that this surge in social networking has some serious security implications. This article found that social networks often provide too much information about a student's whereabouts and personal life.

"It used to be walking down a darkened street at night and being aware of your surroundings," said security expert Norman Bates. "Now that darkened street is in the computer. You might not be aware of who is listening figuratively or literally and gathering your information, stalking you."

(First of all, this guy is simply referred to as a generic security expert? Hmmm, questionable source at best.)

Anyway, the article points out that students often post about events or parties they plan to attend, making it easier for others to track them down.

But it's not just about students telling too many people where they are or where they're going to be, but social networking sites also makes it hard for campus security officials to know who belongs on campus and who doesn't.

"It presents more of a challenge for campus security or police officers to challenge someone who may be on the property who doesn't belong there, who may have ill designs," said Bates.

Do you think social networking poses security threats? Take our poll here to weigh in.

Tags:
budget cuts, Facebook, IQinVision, school security, School security, security conferences, security funding, social networking, Twitter, exhibits
by: Whit Richardson - Friday, October 1, 2010

Yeah, you read right. For the upcoming Commonwealth Games in India, security forces are turning to 38 trained langur monkeys to enhance security efforts. No, they won't be carrying batons or seeking out misbehaving fans, instead they'll be chasing off wild, dangerous monkeys from the throngs of people expected to attend the event, according to this article:

When the international sporting event begins next week in New Delhi, organizers will deploy 38 trained langur monkeys to patrol the grounds in an attempt to scare away smaller, stray primates that can roam the streets of Delhi.

Apparently, these stray, wild monkeys have caused some serious security concerns in recent years. According to the article, three years ago, New Delhi's deputy mayor was killed when he fell from a balcony during an attack of stray monkeys. Wow. Bet that threat wasn't considered during his risk assessment, huh?

The langur monkeys won't be on their own, either, they will be on a leash and accompanied by a trainer. I sure hope they wear matching security outfits like this monkey. That sure would be cute, wouldn't it?

Tags:
Intelligence & Analysis Department, IQinVision, ridiculousness, college students, danger
by: Whit Richardson - Thursday, September 30, 2010

I can't tell you how many times I've heard folks in the security industry bemoan television shows like CSI for giving the public an unreasonable expectation of the capabilities of biometric technology. Here's a perfect example:

“CSI is our worst enemy,” said Chad Parris, senior consultant with Security Risk Management Consultants in Columbus, Ohio. “Some of the things on CSI just kill us because half of the things you see on CSI are possible and the rest of it is in the screenwriters’ imagination.”

Obviously, there are several big companies out there whose entire business focuses on biometric development (as a matter of fact L-1 Identity Solutions Inc, one of the biggest biometric makers just got bought for $1.1 billion - that's no chump change). And while biometric technology will only get better and more sophisticated with time, there remains plenty of skepticism out there that biometrics need to be cautiously deployed.

I just read this article in USA Today about a new report that "calls for caution on widespread use of biological identification."

"While there are lots of good uses for biometric recognition, there are lots of ways to create systems that waste time, cost too much and don't work very well."

The report, "Biometric Recognition: Challenges and Opportunities" released by the National Research Council, concludes all biometric recognition technologies are "inherently fallible", according to the article.

The article also points out the amount of money that federal agencies, such as the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, are spending to research and implement biometric screening technology. However, the report cautions that the government isn't doing the necessary basic research about whether the physical characteristics involved are truly reliable or how they change with aging, disease, stress or other factors.

You never see the guys on CSI worrying about silly things like that.

Tags:
IQinVision, report, security forces, CSI, caution, extraordinary
by: Whit Richardson - Thursday, September 23, 2010

As the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge knows how the fledgling agency works and he also knows how it should work better. Now that he's a private sector man, Ridge has been outspoken and refreshingly candid about how he thinks the agency should be improved.

In a recent event hosted by The Ripon Society in Washington, Ridge discussed what he thinks the current administration, and the next Congress, should address in order to improve national security.

Ridge criticized insufficient funding for the Coast Guard, specifically, as well as the the lack of a system to develop and distribute vaccines, according to this article in Government Executive.

In his remarks, Ridge said the national response to the H1N1 virus last year showed the country does not have an adequate system for developing, storing and distributing vaccines in response to a public health emergency.

But, Ridge went so far as to say that DHS should be overhauled and regional centers should be created around the country. He said that during his tenure at DHS he proposed establishing regional directors when the Bush administration was creating the new department, but his plan was rejected.

Such directors could develop close relationships with state governors in their regions, he said. And he questioned whether the government's response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 would have been better if regional structure had been in place. He said he doubted that storm victims would have had to seek shelter in the Louisiana Superdome or that buses would have been left unused in parking lots had that structure been in place.

Also, Ridge discussed the ongoing need for better communication systems and called for the creation of a broadband public safety network that enables first responders to communicate with each other. (Remember this story about how ancient the communication networks were in Maryland so that fire and police in neighboring counties couldn't communicate with each other?)

Ridge has previously commented on a blizzard of other security issues including aviation security, which he said was inadequate, saying “we're not doing a very good job” of securing America’s airports.

In that speech, he said the Transportation Security Administration needs to change the way it approaches security:

Ridge said that during his tenure as the head of DHS, he pushed for such a program that would collect biometric information and perform voluntary background checks to identify travelers. But the idea was not accepted for reasons he doesn’t understand.

When I spoke with him (*ahem*), he discussed the need for the private security sector to be more thoroughly engaged with the government’s security efforts and why the two sectors don't currently have a stronger partnership:

“So many men and women involved in private sector security have a background in the military, law enforcement or the intelligence world and, in my judgment, can and should be trusted with certain types of information, knowing full well their sensitivity to its public dissemination,” he said. “Why the government is so reluctant to share with these individuals, is beyond me.”

Obviously, DHS has a long way to go in its national security efforts, and, frankly, it's a mission that everyone knows will never be fulfilled. But there's always room for improvement and at least somebody's talking about how to make it better.

Tags:
biometric, DHS, frustration, global, IQinVision, Washington Metro, looking forward, improvements, biometric technology
by: Whit Richardson - Wednesday, September 22, 2010

When I posted our top story yesterday on the 50 most dangerous schools in the country, I expected it would garner a lot of reads, but I didn't expect it would be off the charts. The Daily Beast, an online magazine, published its second-annual ranking of the most dangerous colleges and universities in the country (it also lists the 50 safest, but, nobody's freaking out about being included on that list. That's marketing gold, baby, put it in the brochure).

Here are the top five most dangerous schools:
1. Tufts University in Medford, Mass.
2. University of Maryland-Baltimore
3. Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.
4. Rutgers University-Newark in Newark, N.J.
5. University of Hartford in West Hartford, Conn.

(Unfortunately the list of the top 50 doesn't appear to actually be a list. To access all 50, click on the image in the middle of the story and then scroll through, one-by-one, to see all 50 schools. Clumsy, I know. Let me know if you find a better way).

Anyway, the publication used crime data from 2006-2008 from the U.S. Department of Education, the FBI and the Secret Service, in conjunction with the Clery Act. They also weighted crimes by severity: Burglary carried the lowest value, with car theft weighed twice as much, assault or robbery six times, arson 10 times, negligent manslaughter 20 times and murder 40 times. All totals were then divided by the number of enrolled students, so that midsize and large campuses could be accurately compared.

Since the publication of this list, there has been a huge debate about the legitimacy of these findings. First of all, the premise that Tufts University is the most dangerous school in the country is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Tufts obviously disagrees with the findings, too.

Washington University in St. Louis, which holds the 13th spot, isn't happy either:

We believe the analysis and methodology used by the site are flawed and are not a credible analysis of crime patterns around our campuses.

They pointed to a blurb from The Daily Beast about the methodology used:

"To be fair, even the numbers reported to the Department of Education are frequently criticized as imperfect and, indeed, schools are regularly fined for non-compliance. Surely, some schools gaming the system escaped deserved inclusion on this list, replaced by others that were steadfastly honest. Congress this fall is expected to strengthen Clery's safety regulations. And colleges themselves also note that inclusion on our list often reflects more their location than their safety precautions."

Obviously, schools aren't happy with the apparent flaws in crime reporting. There were some recent changes to the Clery Act, which came into effect on July 1, 2010 that were spurred by the shootings at Virginia Tech, but these changes didn't really impact reporting validity. Instead, these changes required official emergency plans be written; schools to conduct at yearly drill based on their emergency plans; changes to policies regarding missing students; and the way schools report hate crimes.

But, based on the outcry from some of these schools, there needs to be more consistency and fairness in the reporting structure (or perhaps greater consequences for cheating). I have calls out to folks at Security on Campus, which is more or less in charge of Clery Act stuff, for some comments about these issues. Stayed tuned.

Tags:
budget cuts, communication networks, IQinVision, preparation, school security, School security, student safety, virtual fence
by: Whit Richardson - Friday, September 17, 2010

I know I'm a little biased, but I can't help but be a little sympathetic toward the TSA. I realize there were a lot of mistakes made during the formation of this agency and probably it wasn't the best strategy to scrap so many of the practices and policies of the FAA, but their mission is enormous, unwieldy and their potential for success if fairly low. It's been said before, but let's not forget they have to be right every time, whereas terrorists only have to be right once. When the new head of the TSA, John Pistole, was confirmed, it was acknowledged that he had "an impossible job." That's sort of disheartening right from the start.

Anyway, because the TSA is always getting a lot of flack for their failures (some deserved, some not so deserved), I always like to read pieces that give them a little credit. I just read an article in Salon.com with the headline: Two ways of looking at TSA.

The piece starts by criticizing the agency's uniforms (which was done not long ago as an effort to "professionalize" its officers, although we all know it takes more than a button down. A pay raise probably would've been a lot more effective). Anyway, yes perhaps the chosen motto - integrity, team spirit, innovation - could be spiced up. And the author makes a good point:

Pardon me for taking this so seriously, but why is TSA's motto about them, and not about us, the people whose safety they are entrusted with? Should it not reflect the mission, rather than the way the agency feels, or wants to feel, about itself? I'm thinking along the lines of the old "to protect and to serve" of the LAPD.

True, true. But, the author also has a "second way" to view the TSA and this is the part I like better: In fact, there are intelligent and resourceful people at TSA who know exactly what the threats are and exactly what they are doing. This is true, as well, for the corporate security experts working at and for the major airlines, a few of whom I also spoke to recently.

Why is everyone so shocked that there are intelligent people behind these agencies? I know government has its fair share of idiots running around, but for the most part, those in charge are smart, know the mission ahead of them, and are willing to undertake it, possible or not.

Tags:
global, IQinVision, public safety, Superbowl, colleges and universities
by: Whit Richardson - Wednesday, September 15, 2010

I just couldn't help but pass this along. I'm sure most of this is just plain rubbish, but it's funny, and who couldn't use a little humor during the work day, right?

Steve Jobs (you know, the mogul of Apple products and the master of all things beginning with a lower-case 'i'), may actually be a different kind of 'Master' by night. There have been a slew of stories reporting that Jobs was unable to board a plane in Japan after it was discovered that he had Ninja throwing stars in his carry-on luggage. Of course, the Apple folks call this "pure fiction" but the premise of Steve Jobs moonlighting as a ninja, frankly, is not totally incomprehensible. The guy is intense and it's not hard to believe he would take a career in martial arts to the highest possible level.

Chances are, Jobs wasn't an aviation security threat, though. He was boarding his own private plane (duh!) and like this Bloomberg report points out: Who would hijack his or her own plane? Common sense reporting, I like it.

And while the premise of this is hilarious enough, this video really puts things in perspective:

Tags:
air marshals, IQinVision, Superbowl, school safety
by: Whit Richardson - Wednesday, September 8, 2010

I just can't get away from museum security. My interest stems largely from recent news reports of outrageous daytime thefts and valuable items being left totally unprotected.

According to the FBI, art theft is estimated to be a $6 billion illicit industry. So wouldn't you think museums and art collectors would step up security measures? Well, apparently it's not just a matter of installing video cameras and sensors and security officers to guard artwork. Nope, sometimes it's just a matter of common sense.

I just read this article about how a Manhattan man is being sued for losing a $1.35 million painting. And it's not like he was transporting Jean Baptiste Camille Corot's masterpiece, "Portrait of a Girl," in an armored truck and got robbed. Nope, instead he was just carrying the piece around and decided to stop in a hotel bar and ended up getting so wasted that he literally misplaced the painting. During his time at the hotel, surveillance footage shows him depositing the painting with the front desk (!) and then at the end of the night taking it back and stumbling out the door with it. However, apparently when he woke up from his drunken stupor, the painting was nowhere to be found.

Obviously, the owners of the painting are not exactly happy with this fool, but seriously, who would allow anyone to carry around a million dollar painting? First of all, it certainly would seem to increase the chances of damage thus comprising the painting's value, but this is also a reminder that people have no sense of security. Any Boy Scout could tell you it's always safer to use the buddy system. That way, at least there's two of you to keep track when those martinis start kicking in.

Tags:
bridge, IQinVision, ridiculousness, terrorist attack, hilarious, competence

Pages