profiling

Bruce Schneier makes a strong argument against the case for profiling at U.S. airports in his column for Forbes. In addition to believing profiling is a bad idea for a number of reasons—it's inaccurate, serves to alienate those "who are in the best position to discover and alert authorities about Muslim plots before the terrorists even get to the airport," and just plain wrong—he also argues that "it actually puts us all at risk."

Past events have proven that terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, sexes and skin colors—from Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the Nigerian underwear bomber, to Jose Padilla, the Hispanic-American accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack on American soil. Terrorists will find ways to avoid profiing, which is why Schneier argues that randomized secondary screening is more effective because it creates too much uncertainty and acts as a deterrent. "Focusing on a profile increases the risk that TSA agents will miss those who don’t match it," Schneier writes.

Schneier points out that what people really want when they argue for profiling are TSA agents who can apply judgement in their decisions of who to screen more carefully. And with controversial headlines about TSA agents patting down wheelchair-bound senior citizens (including, last week, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) and four-year-old girls, who doesn't think TSA agents may be a little out of touch with reality. (Though TSA agents did just last week discover weapons in a child's stuffed animals and an elderly person's walker.) Unfortunately, Schneier points out it's unlikely TSA agents will be applying good judgment any time soon. "Judgment requires better-educated, more expert, and much-higher-paid screeners." Schneier writes. "And the personal career risks to a TSA agent of being wrong when exercising judgment far outweigh any benefits from being sensible."

As usual, Schneier does a good job arguing against "security theater" and for sensible security practices that strike the right balance between managing risk and allowing people to travel without fear of molestation.

The 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver was largely a success. Well, let's say nearly a success, especially if you consider the uncooperative weather and the death of luger, Nodar Kumaritashvili of Georgia. I guess what I should say, is that on the security front, the Olympics were successful.

A few weeks ago I wrote a follow-up story about the Olympic Games and discussed the city's strategy to keep citizens and visitors safe. I spoke with Kevin Wallinger, the director of emergency management for the City of Vancouver, who was involved extensively in the planning and preparation for the Olympics.

He told me that one of the biggest challenges was developing the communication channels for various agencies. To support that effort the city renovated its emergency operations center (which is co-located with its 9/11 center) to better monitor the Games. All of this obviously costs money. And a lot of money. The EOC itself was a $1.5 million project. The city also deployed a temporary 100-camera video surveillance system that required a fairly extensive network be put in place (fiber ain't cheap folks and neither is wireless).

Overall, Vancouver officials said the cost of security was around the $900 million (Canadian) mark. That's no small sum, obviously. And that final price tag was five times what Canada estimated when it bid for the Games, according to this Reuters article. That's a huge difference and I'm guessing Canadians aren't so thrilled about it, especially now that they realize they'll actually have to pay for it.

Today, the Finance Minister is partially blaming increased security costs on the higher-than-expected pricetag of the Games:

“We did go over because of the added security costs by an additional amount that took us up to the $765-million total,” he added. “We have always been clear that there are other things that we would do to leverage the Games.”

But, in my humble opinion, Vancouver is not taking measures to leverage some of those security components. For example, those 100 cameras that the city installed in its entertainment district, well, those cameras are sitting in a warehouse now, totally unused.

Although, to be fair, the city has made some effort to make back some of that investment. As reported by SSN, the city is selling off some of the equipment in an auction. Recently, it opened up the sale of a 1,000-plus camera system to be sold piece-by-piece because it couldn't find buyers to take the entire load. But, is that really getting the most out of its investment? Obviously not. It seems to me the city would be better served by actually using some of this technology. I bet most cities and municipalities would die to have access to this kind of equipment and the infrastructure to boot. But, because Canada has so many restrictions on privacy (they even have a "Privacy Commissioner"), they're unable to maintain those systems in the city.

So, I don't buy it Mr. Finance Minister. Don't blame security for your sticker shock.

Perhaps we're all experiencing a little Olympic withdrawal, because our article on Honeywell auctioning off the security equipment used to protect the Olympic games was a hot story on our newswire this week. It's a cool story, I'll admit, especially when you see the numbers:

Honeywell Building Solutions is beginning the final stage of its $30 million security contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police here: the removal of all the equipment that’s been installed to protect the 18 Olympic venues. But what to do with the roughly 1,300 Panasonic IP cameras, Computar lenses, 4,000 Xtralis PIRs, etc.

Although, $30 million is a minor expenditure compared to the $1 billion overall security tab that the Olympics racked up. But according to this article in the Vancouver Sun, Canadians are mixed about the departure of this equipment. Here's the lead graph (which in good journalism would be the basis of the rest of the article, but apparently not at the Vancouver Sun):

With the end of the Olympics, 1,000 or so Games-related surveillance cameras are being removed from Vancouver streets, sparking calls to keep them.

That's the only mention in this article that anyone would ever want more security cameras because, after all, it's just Big Brother "recording our every unconscious nose-pick or bum-scratch." (That's in there, for real.)

Actually, you would think Canadians were rioting in the streets trying to have the equipment removed based on the headline:

Good riddance to Olympic security cameras
Living in a democracy is about being able to feel free, not watched, whenever you leave your home and walk down the street

Um, pretty sure there's no expectation of privacy on public streets and as the article itself points out there are already 2,000 private cameras monitoring the downtown area. I don't get it. If there are already all these cameras monitoring public streets, why would this article so blatantly say having additional cameras is an effort to take away the freedom of its citizens?

And, the article continues, it's not like cameras actually make us any safer:

there doesn't seem to be any significant effect on crime rates from these cameras and the cost-benefit analysis numbers are very dodgy.

If surveillance cameras eliminated crime there would be no bank robberies, convenience store stickups or jewelry store heists.

I think the biggest point this article misses is that there were no major security incidents at the Olympics. Sure, there wasn't enough snow and some broken Zambonis, but there were no huge security issues. Other than some demonstrating that turned into rioting, it was pretty quiet, security-wise (well, that the public knows about anyway). But, no terrorist attacks and no real violence. Well, that means security was a success and was worth every penny, right? If you're in the security industry you know the mainstream media would never, ever, ever come out and say that. After all, it's only the bad stuff, the where-was-security stories that make the news.

Again, this really just confirms the security industry's biggest issue: You can't necessarily prove that having cameras and high-levels of security in place stopped any incidents from happening.

Oh, and just for your reading enjoyment, no article like this would ever be complete without a 1984 reference, right?

George Orwell's fictional world in 1984 is a perfect example and I can think of no more eloquent argument against the indiscriminate use of surveillance.

That is what is wrong with the push to add more cameras downtown.

Trying to secure the Super Bowl was nothing compared to the upcoming Olympic Games. The logistics involved in coordinating all the teams and athletes along with security personnel from numerous agencies should probably be considered an Olympic event all in itself.

Canada will spend about $900 million (U.S.) to keep the Games safe (up from initial estimates of $175 million!), according to this article in USA Today, but the U.S. is not just sitting back and enjoying the games.

Vancouver's proximity to the United States— just 30 miles from the U.S. border crossing in Blaine, Wash. — has spurred an extensive security effort on the U.S. side, much of it focused on an 80-mile stretch of the Northwest border from the Pacific Coast to the western slopes of the rugged Cascade Range.

From a post in Bellingham, Wash., the U.S. government has built a $4 million communications center that will house law enforcement, public health and military analysts, with a total of 40 agencies represented.

The article said there has been about 12 drills in preparation for the Games. These drills range from bomb threats to biological threats along with drills to intercept aircraft and threats on the coast. With all this training and preparation, it's not just the athletes who are preparing to give their best performance, and, unfortunately, security has no choice but to win every time.