Guns have been everywhere in the news lately. No sooner had I posted a blog about the Supreme Court considering overturning a 28-year-old handgun ban in Chicago, than I read this article about Starbucks allowing handguns in its stores. I posted a Tweet about how permitting customers to enter its stores with handguns doesn’t seem like a very sound security program, and got at least one Tweet response basically accusing me of wanting to take away people’s second amendment rights (that Tweet has since disappeared, so you’ll just have to take my word for it).
First of all, own as many I don’t think private corporations restricting people from carrying weapons inside their facility is unconstitutional, I think it’s smart. I’m not a constitutional lawyer, obviously, but private corporations have the right to keep guns out of their facilities. Frankly, I would think this kind of change in policy would strike fear in the hearts of security practitioners. And I’m surprised more of you aren’t willing to talk about it. I’ve put out at least 12 phone calls on this issue and have only gotten one “spokesperson” to comment. (If you’d like to comment, please send me an email: LStelter@securitydirectornews.com or call me: 207.846.0600 x227)
And then this morning, one of the top stories of the day is the shooting of two Pentagon police officers. Granted, shootings happen every day, but do we really think the solution is to allow and encourage more people to carry weapons?
CFATS legislation took some movement forward today during a hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. There’s not a lot of press on it yet, but I’m expecting some good synopsis from the Chemical Facility Security News blog.
If you’d like to watch it for yourself, here’s the full video.
And now that we’re all social media wizards, I expect you would be interested in following some of the comments from the those Tweeting on the floor:
I recently posted a story about how the New Hampshire considering legislation that would effectively ban the use of biometrics. The representative who introduced the bill said he had major privacy concerns about the use of biometrics and the way personal information (i.e. your fingerprints, iris’s and other biometric elements) were stored and distributed.
Many in the security industry believe that biometrics will be one of the most critical technologies deployed and fear that such legislation could jeopardize its growth and adoption as a security tool. They argue that biometric information is highly secure and difficult (if not impossible) to reproduce.
Well, that may not be exactly true, according to this CNN article, anyway. Hackers demonstrated how they could forge the biometric information in a passport so that “Elvis Presley” (accurate photo and all) could get cleared through an automated passport scanning system being tested at Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport (the same airport the Christmas day bomber went through, mind you).
“What we did for that chip is create passport content for Elvis Presley and put it on a chip and sign it with our own key for a non-existent country. And a device that was used to read chips didn’t check the country’s signatures.”
“I think [fraud] is 100 percent possible. The passport bit is the more difficult. You would have to buy one from a professional forger or some means, but adding the chip is something we could do ourselves using off the shelf equipment using $100 investment.”
The problem, in part, is that each country has its own security signature for verifying its own biometric passports. While some share that information, many countries do not, making it easy to exploit the loopholes.
The fact that this use of biometrics has 100 percent possibility of fraud is not exactly a figure people in the security industry want to hear. I still argue that there are too many automated procedures in airports and while there’s certainly plenty of human error happening, at least there’s a chance someone can recognize such fraudulent documents? Or perhaps that’s just wishful thinking.
I’m not sure if this article is amusing or just pathetic, but apparently the agency that is charged with our national security has a hard time keeping tabs on its own weapons.
Agents and officers of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reported that 289 of their handguns, shotguns or automatic rifles had been lost or stolen between 2005 and 2008
Actually, that didn’t seem too bad to me, especially over the course of three years, but I found some of the ways that officers lost weapons to be fairly amusing. Apparently, weapons were left in places ranging from fast-food restaurant restrooms to bowling alleys to clothing stores.
I can just imagine how some of those conversations went down:
Boss: Where’s your weapon, officer?
Officer: Um, I can’t find it.
Boss: What do you mean you can’t find it?
Officer: Well, I went bowling with the kids last night and must have left my gun on the scoring table because it was really interfering with my follow through.
Boss: Well, these things happen. Go get yourself another one.
I think that’s funny (although it could be due to the cold medicine), but DHS isn’t laughing.
“Although some reported losses were beyond the officers’ control, most losses occurred because officers did not properly secure firearms,” said DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner in a 23-page report dated Jan. 25. “The Department of Homeland Security, through its components, did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms.”
But this issue apparently isn’t just relegated to DHS.
While the report was embarrassing for DHS, other unidentified federal law enforcement agencies fared worse. Skinner said the Justice Department and the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s audit arm, found similar problems among 18 agencies assessed between 2003 and 2007.
I’m guessing a lot of these folks are military or former law enforcement officers (or at least have been trained and certified to carry guns) so they should know how to keep track of their weapons, right? Perhaps it is true that those government jobs make you soft.
I am so disturbed and shocked by this article that I had to share it. KOMO News out of Seattle is reporting that a 15-year-old girl was viciously attacked in the Seattle Downtown Bus Tunnel while nearby security guards stood by and watched. According to the article, the officers said they are restricted by the transit authority’s policy that restricts them from intervening in such situations. While these officers did radio for police assistance, they allowed the attack to happen.
Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.
First of all, I’m sure these officers were following the letter of the law and I’m sure that, politically, that policy is there to protect the agency from liability. But, this scenario is incredibly damaging to the public’s confidence. It sends the message that security is worthless, they’re just bystanders and unable to offer any additional support and have no authority beyond the average citizen (except to ticket or fine you). As a matter of fact, they’re actually restricted from helping people. I bet there’s a lot of citizens out there who, if they had witnessed this situation, would’ve jumped in to stop it.
And, worse yet, this policy is actually causing a false sense of security. When I see someone in uniform, I assume that if something were to happen, they would help. That’s their job, right?
As a result of this incident, the agency is considering changing it’s policy. No kidding, huh? They’re also debating whether or not to change a similar policy restricting bus drivers from intervening. Here’s a similar crazy situation:
Two years ago, a bus driver wrestled a gunman to the ground and held him until police came. “Metro’s reaction was to threaten to suspend the driver for intervening, while at the same time the police department and the county council were putting together awards for this gentleman,” said Paul Bachtel, president of Metro Bus Driver’s Union, Local 587. “Metro quickly backed off, but did put a letter in his file advising him not to intervene in the future.”
However, I think there’s a big difference between allowing bus drivers to intervene and security officers. Bus drivers are just suppose to drive the bus and shouldn’t be charged with mitigating situations - that’s security’s job. Therefore, it’s pretty important for the transit authority to give security the power to act, don’t you think? Good grief, who’s in charge here?
Generally, I think the mainstream media is a little too critical of the TSA. I don’t know if I just have a soft spot for an overburdened organization with no official leadership trying to keep millions of people safe while not offending anyone, but now I think they’re just full of it.
I just read this story in USA Today about how the TSA is now conducting secondary bomb screening in airports.
Airport screeners for the first time will begin roving through airports taking chemical swabs from passengers and their bags to check for explosives, the Transportation Security Administration said Tuesday.
What? They’ve been doing this for at least a year now. In March of 2009, the TSA made a very similar announcement that they were beginning secondary gate screening.
And, they certainly didn’t just start this practice this week. I just blogged about how I got bomb swabbed at the Portland Jetport and I’m pretty sure that PWM is not one of the five airports where this program was being tested, despite its extensive 11-gate, single concourse status.
So, is the TSA really just making this up? I read through the article a few times, trying to see if I was missing something, but it sounds like the exact same announcement. Perhaps the “news” is about the portability of the machines, but the machine described in the article sounds very similar to what was used on me.
I guess I don’t blame the TSA for using the mainstream media to appease the public and ensure travelers that they’re putting additional security measures in place, but don’t make it sound new. It’s not.
When it comes to technological advancements, ports tend to have a lot of the latest and greatest. Many have those mega-video walls in their command and control centers that allow them to track ships as they come into the port, sophisticated land and water radar systems, video surveillance that allows them to see miles, and even robotic cameras to monitor what’s happening in the water. I’ve been fortunate enough to see some of these technologies in action (check out the video from my tour of the Port of Long Beach) and let me just tell you: It’s cool. And, I’m sure there’s even cooler stuff they don’t let us journalists (or the public) know about.
And, it just keeps getting better. Here’s an article about some of the newest technologies being deployed at the POLB and Port of LA. These new security measures include a ship that can screen cargo vessels as they come into the port, a radiation detecting helicopter and a dog that can sniff chemical and biological weapons. Cool.
Apparently, the $3-million screening ship is the first of its kind in the world:
It can scan the contents of a ship through its hull as it is being escorted into port. The security ship can transmit the data to shore-based authorities. It also has a submersible rover that can search hulls for explosives in zero visibility conditions.
And even the dog seems pretty cool:
The sheriff’s department says he has one of the most highly trained noses ever. He can sniff out chemical agents at lower concentrations than any instruments. He’s also the only dog in the sheriff’s department with his own badge.
I can almost see all you port folks just salivating over this stuff. If you’re nice, maybe the California security guys will let you walk their new, cool dog.
I got away with not writing about aviation security for two whole weeks - that feels like a record. Well, if you were starting to miss the drama, rest assured, there’s always more to be worried about when it comes to securing airports. Frankly, I’m sort of shocked this story isn’t making bigger headlines. At first, I thought I had just missed it on the mainstream news, but after consulting with some of my more prolific TV-watching colleagues, I learned that they hadn’t heard a peep about this incident either (guess everybody would rather talk about the weather).
So, it all started when a man was found dead in the landing-gear compartment of a Delta Air Lines jet that flew to Tokyo’s Narita Airport from New York on Jan. 6. First of all, this man must not have been very bright or aware of the plane’s destination because spending 20 hours, 30,000 feet above the ground in 50 degree below zero temperatures with no oxygen, is, well not worth the free ride.
Anyway, the more pressing question is: How did this man manage to get in the plane in the first place? Obviously, tarmacs are considered secure areas of the airport. However, especially at a large airport like JFK, there are a lot of remote areas that may not be easily accessible, but may not be as well monitored as inside the airport, for example. Especially after the Newark incident, where it was found that cameras were not functioning properly, it seems likely that perimeter security may also have some similar challenges.
In this article, our friend Doug Laird expressed his own worries about this incident: “If a person can gain access to get in the wheel well, a person can gain access to plant a device on the airplane,” said Douglas R. Laird, a former Northwest Airlines Corp. security chief who is now president of consultant Laird & Associates Inc. in Reno, Nevada. “It’s a major concern.”
This incident will likely trigger a review of tarmac security procedures. I’m just waiting to see how long it takes for this to be all over the mainstream news. My guess is not until the storm blows over.
This Sunday will be one of the most highly-watched sporting events of the year: The Super Bowl. I would never consider myself a die-hard sports fan (I just lost a bet with one of my male friends that the Washington Wizards were based in Washington State and now I’m down a case of beer), but I do like to watch a good game. If I’m a fan of anything, it’s basketball, but I must say football has grown on me this season. I think it’s largely a combination of one of my friends purchasing a large-screen HD television (the same friend who now has a case of Sierra Nevada on me) plus those fancy cameras they now have that makes me feel like I can reach out and touch the quarterback.
But I digress. This blog post isn’t about the actual game of football, but rather all the security measures that go in place to protect players and fans on game day. A few weeks ago I spoke with a company that provides GPS tracking capabilities to team owners and police to track team buses and other assets to ensure everything goes as planned. (For some PR
reason, the company wouldn’t allow me to use their name in print, which, frankly, is bad PR in my opinion, but that’s a whole other issue).
I just read this CBS article about some of the other security measures in place, and, as you might guess, there are a lot of agencies involved in this initiative. Sixty-four, so says the article and more than a 1,000 officers:
Across South Florida Coast Guard fast boats patrol the waterfront, while Homeland Security choppers and military fighters scan some 50 miles of coastline. On game day, they’ll enforce a 30-mile “no-fly” bubble around Sun Life stadium.
In addition to things like snipers and SWAT teams, the various agencies will also deploy canine units to sniff for explosives, which are the greatest threat to the event.
And everything will be coordinated from a central command center, where more than 100 agents review intelligence, track leads and use high tech tools “like a magic cyber wall.” What? A “magic” cyber wall? I’ve never heard anyone in the industry use the term “magic” to describe anything dealing with security and it’s my understanding that all these technological advances are, well, fairly scientific. Even though I can’t tell you exactly how anything from my watch to my cell phone actually works, I’m fairly confident that magic isn’t involved. And, if you’re going to use magic on anything, perhaps someone should put a spell on Peyton Manning to keep him from blowing the Saints out of the water (but not literally, of course).
Last session of the conference. Roundtable discussion about video analytics. Panelists are:
Erick Eaton, BRS Labs
Doug Marman, VideoIQ
David McGuinness, ObjectVideo
Carolyn Ramsey, Honeywell
Moti Shabtai, NICE Systems
John Whiteman, ioimage
Sam Pfeifle, Security Systems News (moderator)
Important in understanding video analytics is understanding customers needs.
Sam: Just motion detector with video?
Eric: Analytics describe broad array of how pixels are changing. Other approaches where object tracking and try to establish rules and rules and learning. All different and easy to slap a label on it and sometimes try to distsance ourself from video analytics not specific what trying to do.
Sam: What does algorithms mean and different approaches?
Eric: Misunderstanding what algorithms are. Algorithm is mathematical equation under the hood and built into user friendly tripwire draw on screen. What’s difference between vendors? Are different approaches of science toward computer science.
Sam: If difficult to accomplish why proliferation of company and what say to market?
Moti: Has to do difference in implementing in lab and in field. Analytics great value for customer, but to do in lab it’s quite easy.
Sam: What is meta-data and how contribute to analytics?
Carolyn: Think can consider separate and apart. Analytics trying to get video from it. Things we can predict in real time, set up a rule to look for certain things, but certain things we can’t predict, but would like to know about. So metadata is descripton of things happen in video at any point in time, whether told system or not or just want to file away for later review. Many end users don’t ahve time to look at video in real time and enabling them to sift through video and meta-data allows you to select what interesting opposed to digging.
Sam: How apply things? Seems like are sweet spots where people should expect some good results not as experimental. Where analytics work well?
Carolyn: Perimeter with designated time rules. At high level it’s about predictability, easy for analytics to definitively say this rule has been broken.
Sam: Baseline for quality of system?
David: Typically 7 frames/second, number of pixels different images.
Indoor applications and think it gets back to resolution figure out how many cameras I need for a space. Those are some considerations. Also gets back to understanding what customer wants to accomplish.
Carolyn: Think it comes down to application. How much do you need to know about what that object is doing that determines how many pixels you need.
Sam: How do you compare different vendors? What data should we have?
Eric: Already asking for lab results in control environment. How effective is technology in field. More than lab test, field test results. Needs to be done by folks in security industry to analyze.
John: If we want to compare technologies I would suggest on probability and false alarm rate. Think important and go into real world and compare side by side and what accomplish and in our world it’s vehicles or people or objects and determining what performs better.
Moti: Think way sell system. Company has policy to set expectation. Once realize what customer achieve enough experience and detection than I think set expectations right to avoid disappointment and get value from system. One thing if company is willing to do that exercise and analyze the problem, before buying the system
Carolyn: Think difficult discussion because every customer wants plain and simple. The issue is what trying to do? What’s next best alternatives.
Sam: Set up and go, zero configuration. That sounds good to integrators. Installation and configuration are questions that should be asked?
Doug: Doesn’t need configuration and learns on its own. Another benefit is if environment changes doesn’t matter.
Sam: What get with more sophistication? What’s better and value?
Eric: What get from set-up time that putting up? Learns on its own. We’re able to alert scene. Help you find things didn’t know to look for.
Sam: What about configuration?
John: Each of 40 manufacturers take a different approach. The time up front we have looked at in past automated learning. From ROI standpoint most easily measured, what rich data generating didn’t have access to before.
Sam: Hear a lot of: “I could do this.” It seems like more theory than practicality?
Carolyn: Our experience that people don’t like to be out of comfort zone. Take sales person based on cost successfully and makes quota and ask him to start talking about ROI. Think challenges as offerings become more complex and customers engaged in critical thinking about where spending dollars we have to help customers help themselves.
Sam: Do end users have communication in organizations to be able to convey to the marketing guy?
Moti: Sometimes meet champions have wider scope and open gate could be operations where ROI successful. More see fits in IT more willingness to approach others in businesses.
Doug: Perimeter detection has huge ROI so powerful, remote guarding is similar and remote doing far less expensive.
Sam: Impact on standards? And what most important to you?
Dave: First area of focus working on is events and make sure common outputs that are understandable from system to system. And we’re also PSIA has pulled in industry so integrators participate and getting from different groups.
Moti: If industry find way to measure objectively on performance. In UK, put framework on companies with different scenarios like to see something like that going forward.
Carolyn: Don’t think tests they put the product through serve 80% of customers. Absolutely critical is end user engagement saying these are the scenarios I face every day. I think if industry had that it would help end users make better, educated decisions.
Sam: How consolidate impact market?
John: Challenging question we are embarking on cooperation strategy. On some level we compete and other ways we bring added value. DVTel acquisition because there are no standards we had embarked on open partnership strategy. None embraced all abilities of technology.
Doug: Like idea of open system really big step but getting lost is dumb cameras attached but losing adding values of intelligent cameras.
Sam: Perception of analytic companies that looking for exit strategies. How deal with that?
David: Just came out of horrific economic times. Think video analytics starting to become strategic and people able to take positions today. We’re comfortable with fewer players.
Sam: People say analytics should be a feature, not business alone. Can be business.
Eric: If look at expertise - takes specialized knowledge used to analyze content of video and retaining and innovating is critically important and always capabilities to advance technology.
Sam: Future look. Make some predictions about what see coming down pipeline that don’t know now. Also, price. Perception that expensive, what pressures on pricing.
Carolyn: Price is interesting one and I think that people are always going to fight about price if no clear expectation of value. My feeling that in last two years we’ve heard fewer complaints about price. Interesting in down economy. I contribute to increasing awareness of value and help sales voice talk to specific applications and as soon case, what’s next alternative?
Eric: Value proposition is key piece. How much more effective by putting technology in place? Price point components and continue to improve algorithms. Have balancing act that price same I would say in 3 to 5 years.
Moti: More verticalized solutions solving specific customer problems. Trends in price simple and low cost installations and also customers not compromise on solutions. Cost of security system, analytics not that much part.
John: Driving factors and think: Cost effectiveness, ease of use, interoperability and plug and play, liability. Product has to meet expectations and it can’t be labwear, has to be proven.
Doug: We take approach we look at future analytics becomes free have cameras and it becomes free and it’s just there. That’s approach we take is instead as seeing as add on just trying to make smarter camera. In market has to have shake out of technologies that aren’t adequate. And consequently installing these systems and having problems and thinking reflection on analytics.
John: For us part of future revolves around work doing at SafeCity and early deployment picking up intrusion and capability of next generation of algorithm to detect crowds and tracking, etc.
