law enforcement

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.

Over recent years there has been a significant push to install video surveillance systems in municipalities to improve police presence. I spoke with Sergeant Chris Kovac from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on sdnTVnews at ASIS International last year (our most popular video, by the way, with over 5,400 views), and he discussed the installation of a wireless video mesh network throughout the city.

He said an integral part of this system was utilizing license plate recognition software to improve traffic monitoring, and the agency had experienced impressive results in their ability to identify and track stolen vehicles.

More and more cities are relying on this technology to capture traffic violations as well. Cameras mounted at traffic lights identify cars that illegally run red lights, capture license plates and automatically issue traffic citations to the registered owner of that car.

However, an article in USA Today found that such technology is causing a backlash from many communities across the country.

The cameras, billed as safety devices since their introduction in the USA nearly 20 years ago, are increasingly viewed by many motorists as unreasoning revenue generators for hard-up local governments.

According to the article, there are at least seven states (Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin) who have banned red light cameras.

Even lawmakers who were once proponents of the technology have changed their stance on the technology and say the use of the cameras needs to be limited:

"They were sold to us in a different manner than what they're being used for," says state Rep. Jack Franks, a Democrat. "The municipalities have put them in areas where they're just to make revenue." He says that since 2006, crashes have increased at half the intersections in Illinois that have cameras, stayed the same at 25% and decreased at 25%.

Frankly, I don't understand the argument here. Motorists should not be running red lights, period. This type of system is actually a great example of how technology can improve the effectiveness of police agencies. There is no way any community has enough personnel (or money) to place officers at all or even a small percentage of its traffic lights and this type of technology can actually supplement police presence. I live in a city (albeit a small one), but I see people running red lights all the time in an effort to get through intersections. It's illegal and it's dangerous and people should be held accountable for their actions. Sorry public opinion - you're wrong on this one.

I expressed surprise a few weeks ago when the FBI released an initial report that crime in most cities was down. Many security professionals I had spoken with throughout the year, said that crime was up (and some were right), which they attributed to a poor economy. Well not so fast. Apparently the economy and crime are not inversely correlated after all. An article today in the Wall Street Journal revealed that violent crimes in Los Angeles (and other big cities) are down.

Violent crime in Los Angeles hit its lowest level in more than half a century last year, one of a growing number of U.S. cities reporting its streets were remarkably safe in 2009.

So what's causing crime to drop?

The answer: Age.

Yep, you read right: Experts believe the fall in violent crime is tied to the aging U.S. population.

"The graying of America is a significant factor," said James Alan Fox, Lipman Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University in Boston. "The largest and fastest growing segment of the population is people over 50. People over 50 also happen to be the age group that is the least likely to commit crimes. As the group grows, crime rates do decline."

So, you're telling me that people are just getting too old to commit crimes? I guess they're saving enough money at those Early Bird Specials that there's no need to go around robbing people anymore. Chalk one up to the Baby Boomers.

It's a theme I heard over and over and over throughout 2009. Money is tight, people are desperate, so naturally crime is up. Right? Well, according to this preliminary report from the FBI, it just ain't so. As a matter of fact, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes appear to be down by 4.4 percent during the first six months of 2009.

And even more surprising:

The number of property crimes in the United States from January to June of 2009 decreased 6.1 percent when compared with data from the same time period in 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

The numbers that jumped out to me were in regards to motor vehicle theft. Check out this table. According to this report, car theft is down nearly 20 percent across the board. How is that possible? We were just sitting here in the SSN and SDN newsroom speculating about how this could be, especially during a time of reported hardship. (Check out Sam's blog for his take on this report.) Here's some of our brainstorming:

1. Has the worth of metal and parts fallen so much that it's no longer worth stealing cars to sell the parts?
2. Is the market for stolen cars/parts just oversaturated?
3. Have the security systems in cars gotten so sophisticated that it makes it really hard to steal a car anymore (I see a commercial for onStar and GPS tracking developing here).
4. Has border security tightened up so much that it makes shipping parts out difficult?

That's the one I'm going with, if nothing more than wishful thinking backing me up. Frankly, I really can't wrap my head around why there was such a huge reduction in auto theft (and crime in general), especially in the face of a recession. Can you come up with a better explanation?

The Department of Homeland Security announced yesterday that it has launched "Virtual USA" - an information-sharing initiative designed to help federal, state and local first responders communicate during emergencies.

“Virtual USA makes it possible for new and existing technologies to work together seamlessly during disaster response and recovery and gives the public an opportunity to contribute information in real-time to support the efforts of police officers, firefighters and other emergency management officials.”

Just like that huh? Communication issues have long plagued responders and law enforcement. I recently wrote a story about three counties in western Maryland connecting their public safety radio systems together. This network connects the radio systems of the Maryland State Highway Administration, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Maryland State Police. It will also provide access to all radios of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency operations center.

The problem, Kevin Lewis, director of emergency services in Washington County told me, was that all these different agencies had different equipment that couldn't talk to each other. As a solution, each agency had to maintain working equipment from each of the other agencies in order to communicate. So, not only did agencies need to make sure their own equipment was working properly, they had to test and maintain equipment from a handful of other agencies as well.

Sounds ridiculous, right? Well I think that's fairly standard practice in the public sector. Of course, you can read the rest of the article for all the details, but long-story-short, they developed a network that takes the raw audio from each radio system, digitizes it into a VoIP package and once it’s at a common platform, it distributes those IP packets to the corresponding radio system. And the best part: No one had to replace any equipment.

To put this in place in three counties of one state was a little tricky, imagine doing that on a national scale? The DHS press release gives zero details about how this actually works, but no worries, I have a few calls out being the investigative reporter that I am. The statement simply says: Virtual USA will link disparate tools and technologies in order to share the location and status of critical assets and information. It also says there's been pilot programs ongoing in eight states to test this program, but I can't imagine this can be that easy to implement, otherwise it would've been done a long time ago, right?

As someone who doesn't own a TV (or doesn't get any channels, rather), I've become fairly oblivious to pop culture. For example, it wasn't until I came home to Vermont for Thanksgiving and watched the AMA's that I learned who Lady Gaga was. And, as with most pop culture information, I'm certainly no better off now that I know more.

So, when the name Justin Bieber repeatedly kept showing up in my security-related google alerts, it really meant nothing to me. However, after about the fourth alert I decided to take a look and discovered a very interesting story involving mall security. So, for those of you as clueless as me, Justin Bieber is apparently quite the pop-star icon even at the tender age of 15 and even being Canadian (was that mean?). Anyway, apparently he's also a master of the social networking tool, Twitter.

Using the powers of the Internet, Bieber and his record label, Def Jam Records, managed to get more than 3,000 screaming fans to Roosevelt Field Mall in Garden City, New York where he would be signing autographs. Well, apparently, mall security and the local law enforcement were not prepared for such an onslaught of crazed pre-teen fans because they asked Bieber and his record label to send a Twitter message telling fans to go disperse and leave. When the VP of Def Jam refused to tweet, he was arrested on one felony and four misdemeanor charges.

This Website has the best account of the incident with some interesting insight into how such events typically happen and the rather preposterous nature of how this went down. Here's some info about the arrest of James Roppo, who was not actually charged with 'failure to Tweet' - exactly:

“The charges were a result of Mr. Roppo’s conduct on site in relation to the situation at hand and his failure to assist the Police to disperse a potentially threatening situation, which in fact did lead to five injuries. The Felony Assault 2nd Degree charge stems from a Police Officer that was mildly injured on his shoulder during this incident. So, even though Mr. Roppo didn’t personally commit Felony Assault on an Officer, it was his fault that it happened, so he is being charged with it. That’s the way it works.”

Similar to some of the deductions made by the author of that Website, I'm sure it became a matter of police and mall security not having the manpower and resources to handle a crowd of that size. However, the fact that someone was arrested for not complying with police demands to call off the event (and the fact that it was to be done via Twitter) is certainly a sign of the times. Hopefully my boss doesn't get wind of this and start demanding I tweet or lose my job. If that was the case, I am so fired.