cybersecurity

On a recent business trip I sat next to a gentleman who told me he was on a government watchlist. Trying not to look nervous and in my head debating whether or not I should ask for a different seat, I asked him how he knew this. He said every time he went through security he was pulled aside and subjected to secondary screening. The man was obviously a seasoned business traveler and he said after the fourth or fifth time he started telling TSA officers that he was on the list. They immediately pulled him aside, screened him, and sent him on his way. "It's great," he told me. He hasn't waited in a security line since.

Well, few of us would have the same sentiment about being included on a government watchlist, especially the no-fly list. I just read an article on NPR that the FBI is saying the list isn't as long as people think:

"About 10,000," said Timothy Healy, director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the list. "And [the number of] U.S. citizens on the no-fly list is even much smaller, between 500 and 1,000."

But, the government won't say who is or is not on the list. Douglas Laird (also of SDN fame) told NPR that the system isn't perfect—and would-be terrorists can get around it.

"If that person is a professional, it's too easy to change an identity, so for that reason I wouldn't put a lot of faith in the system," Laird says.

I think having such a system has its place - there are certainly people we don't want on planes - but like every other system, there needs to be checks and balances. Intelligence gathering is probably the most challenging, and, also one of the most important tasks for federal agencies and it has to continue refining such systems to make sure it only hinders the bad guys. And, the government also has to expand training so personnel can spot suspicious behavior or activity and people who aren't on such watchlists are still identified and scrutinized.

With 126 days until the Olympic Games in Vancouver, B.C. a member of the International Olympic Committee has raised concerns about the "unnecessary" level of security being planned for the Vancouver 2010 Games, according to this article.

But with memories of the high security at Beijing fresh on his mind, Israeli IOC member Alex Gilady said he's worried Vancouver's security plan, with its extensive use of metal detectors, is too much.

In an article in the Vancouver Sun, the Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said that security will be “very intense,” but it won't turn Vancouver into an armed fortress.

“It's not going to be the kind of situation where tourists are going to be nervous because there are armaments on every corner,” he said. “But I can tell you the security will be very good and very intense but will be done in a way that is user-friendly.”

Security was estimated to cost between $400 million and $1 billion, despite original figures that it would cost a mere $175 million.  Day said a contributing factor for the difference is securing airspace.

“Security costs money. And when you talk about the aviation security alone monitoring the airspace, you can get an idea of the kind of dollars we are talking about,” the minister said.

The Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit and Joint Task Force is preparing for its third pre-game security exercise, scheduled for Oct. 19-23, according to this article.

"That's probably our biggest exercise internally, that's where we will have our commanders in place, there will be no actors in the chairs," said V2010 ISU chief Bud Mercer. "To do that testing there will be a lot of actual play outside on the water, in the air. It's to test the interaction and communication between the key decision makers."

Exercise Gold, the biggest of three privy council-mandated Olympic security rehearsals, is scheduled for Nov. 2-6. So, there's lots of security excitement to look forward to. And really, is there such thing as too much security?